1973-07-10

MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26, I ask leave to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, Sir, the unprecedented increase in the cost of living.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has filed with the Chair the notice required under Standing Order 26. He has also left with me additional written submissions in support of the motion, which material has been considered carefully. The hon. member proposes that the House set aside the government business intended for consideration later today, to provide an opportunity to debate the "unprecedented increase", to use his words, in the cost of living announced by Statistics Canada. Obviously, this is a matter of the first importance and concern to the House, and I should think that many members would hope that such a debate would take place soon.
The Standing Order imposes on the Chair the duty to consider as a primary factor whether there will be an opportunity for debate within a reasonable period of time. The information I have indicates that the special committee on the trends in food prices will be reporting to the House soon, probably within the next week. It is assumed that a motion to concur in the report will be placed on the order paper by the chairman, or perhaps by some other member of the committee, and debated. It seems to me that hon. members would prefer to debate this important and urgent issue in this way rather than under an adjournment motion.
My suggestion is, of course, predicated on the assumption that the committee will report very soon so that a motion to concur in that report can be debated. If such a report were not forthcoming, the circumstances would become materially altered and the advisability of a debate under the terms of Standing Order 26, as suggested by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, or by another procedure, could then be reviewed. For the moment, in view of the fact there is this probable opportunity for debate within a reasonable time, I would think the Chair should not allow the motion to be put, at least for today.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister arising from the increase of almost one per cent in the consumer price index for the month of June, and something over 8 per cent on a year to year basis. Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether in light of this he is going to order a review of the government's present economic policy, and whether he is going to reorder the present legislative priorities of the government?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: In respect of the matter of review, Mr. Speaker, we do have very frequent discussions about economic matters in cabinet, and I am sure we will continue to do so. On the matter of priorities, the answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether we can expect any change at all in the government's "wait and see policy" either by way of direct action in relation to prices and other factors, or emergency action for those on fixed incomes? Can we expect any action in those directions, either by way of controls or assistance to those on fixed incomes before the government attempts to recess the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is asking me if I am prepared to make a statement today or on some other day. The answer today is that we are making no such statements, and whether statements will be made on these matters before the House recesses is something I cannot say today.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that as recently as last May the Prime Minister refused to tell the House what level inflation must reach before the government would decide it was necessary to take direct action, has the government now reached a definite policy on this matter and does the Prime Minister not consider that the figures announced today by Statistics Canada warrant immediate and direct action to control the spiralling inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will remember that when I was answering this line of ques-

July 10, 1973
Oral Questions
tioning I said that rate would be determined, but in respect of whether or not we would be successful in attempting to help those on fixed incomes the member will realize we have taken budgetary and other measures to ensure that there will be full escalation for people suffering from inflation and not in a position to defend themselves against it.


George Harris Hees: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Then, is it the view of the government that the time has still not arrived to take any direct action to control the rapidly rising inflation in this country? Is that a fact or not? Obviously, the government considers that the time has not arrived and will take no action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South, and then the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham on a supplementary.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the very serious increases in food costs could the minister inform the House what the Food Prices Review Board is doing, whether it has begun any inquiry, whether it has any plans to make inquiries in the near future and when we may expect to have its first report and recommendations as a result of these inquiries?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the complete information available to deal with all the matters contained in the question, but I understand from an inquiry of the board that it has begun its work and expects to have its first quarterly report available in the fall. As to whether it will be able to make a report before then, I will inform myself and bring the information to the attention of the House.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the Prime Minister. In view of the inactivity of the Food Prices Review Board as indicated by the answer of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in view of the forecast of continuing increases in food prices and also in view of the fact that the review board as established by his government has no power to do anything about the increases, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to introduce legislation giving the board power to halt or roll back unjustified price increases which may occur at any point in the distribution chain?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
David Lewis: May I ask a supplementary of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the obvious fact that the increasing food and shelter prices fall most heavily on the low income groups, particularly welfare recipients and those receiving the old age pension supplement, will the minister inform the House whether he has any program to supplement the income of these low income groups to meet the very heavy burden of the rising living costs?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first point concerning the elderly, the House approved, as the hon. member is aware, a substantial increase several months ago. As for people on welfare, the provinces are responsible for setting the amount of allowances, while the federal government pays 50 per cent. As for the last point I hope to bring before the House the bill respecting family allowance increases early next week and I hope that it will be passed by the House as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Compton wish to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Latulippe:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Compton, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham and then the hon. member for St. John's East.
.
f Translation]


EFFECT OF DEVALUATION OF DOLLAR ON COST OF LIVING-GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO CONTROL
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the hon. Minister of Finance.
In view of the growing economic imbalance caused by the devaluation of the dollar and the unprecedented rise in the price of metals, can he tell the House whether he is considering other solutions to re-establish a balance between the rise in the cost of living brought about by the devaluation of the dollar and the reduction in the prices of American goods which will now begin to affect Canadian goods?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the government is not considering any change in its policy of allowing the Canadian dollar to float.


INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CONTROL
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister, and I will try to make it as simple as possible.
July 10,1973

How high does Canada's cost of living have to go before the government will do something to halt it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: This is known as Liberal dynamism.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING-POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION OF SELECTIVE EXPORT CONTROLS OR OTHER ACTION TO CONTROL
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the alarming 2 per cent increase this month in the cost of food, representing a 7 per cent increase for the year thus far, and in view of the impact of world demand for Canadian food on the domestic price of food, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government proposes to bring in some form of selective export controls in Canada? If not, what specific measures will the government bring in to relieve Canadians of this unfair burden?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the House knows that we have brought in some selective export controls in recent days and weeks in certain areas where action was necessary. The government will continue to take action where it is called for.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the Prime Minister if the government has reviewed the figures released today by Statistics Canada, and based on a review of these figures will the government now announce a policy decision in order to relieve Canadians of this unfair burden of inflation based on the inactivity of this government?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would suggest to the hon. member that he refer to the answer I gave to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition and he will see that I covered that.


POSSIBLE ACTION TO CONTROL COST OF ITEMS ENTERING INTO COST OF LIVING
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister, despite what I might call his insufferable complacency with regard to the-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -position of people on fixed incomes. Is it still the position of the government that the problem is confined substantially to food prices, or is it the intention of the government to at least broaden its concerns beyond food and establish some machinery to try to cope with the increase in the price of shelter and the general increase in the cost of various items which enter into the cost of living?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman referred to the statistics to
Oral Questions
which reference was made he would see that it is a fact that the increase is mainly caused by food.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Have you tried to buy a house lately?


George Harris Hees: Have you tried to buy a suit lately?


Mr. Bell:: How about toothpaste?


INCREASE IN COST OF FOOD-POSSIBLE PROGRAMS TO SUPPLY FOOD TO THOSE ON LOW INCOMES
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct-


An hon. Member:: He doesn't buy these things.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order please? The conversations or dialogues across the floor make it difficult for the hon. member who has the floor to ask a question. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway has been recognized.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government has been doing everything it could for over a year to help big corporations get big tax cuts, and in view of the fact that millions of Canadians cannot afford food to keep them in good health and that prices are still going up, can the Prime Minister say why the government has taken no action to implement the recommendation it accepted in the report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, namely, that the government, in co-operation with the provinces, should provide programs to get proper food for those on low incomes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. lady that she is being a bit selective herself in her question. There have, indeed, been corporate tax cuts that were supported by this House, but there have also been very substantial personal tax cuts, something which the hon. member seems to forget.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has dodged the answer to my question as to why the government has not accepted that recommendation. I want to ask him quite seriously, will it take food riots to get action from the government?


INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING-POSSIBLE MEETING WITH PROVINCES TO DISCUSS MEASURES TO HALT INFLATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In light of the figures that indicate that prices are up 8.1 per cent for general items, 17.7 per cent for food, 6.7 per cent for housing and 5.2 per cent for clothing, is the government now going to canvass the provinces on the subject of holding an emergency meeting specifically to deal with halting inflation? Is there that possibility right now?

July 10, 1973
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now? No, Mr. Speaker.


INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON IMPOSITION OF PRICE AND WAGE CONTROLS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As a supplementary question, in light of the fact that the Minister of Labour indicated in a recent news letter that the government has a form of wage and price controls on the deck, can the Prime Minister advise me whether in fact he has consulted with the provinces on this aspect of the matter and, if not, does he intend to do so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on at least two occasions following the federal-provincial conference held in May I told the House that we did raise the general subject, not in detail, and not the particular technical aspects of the controls, but we did raise the question of price and wage control. I had occasion to report that mainly the provinces, and particularly the Conservative provinces, were opposed to price control.
[ Translation]


SUGGESTED ADOPTION OF GUARANTEED ANNUAL
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the lack of control over the increasing cost of living, the problems of people living on a fixed income, the growth of automation and, consequently, of the unemployment rate, has the minister studied or is he in the process of studying the possibility of implementing a guaranteed annual income plan financed by new Bank of Canada credits, so that every Canadian citizen, regardless of his problems, might enjoy some measure of security and freedom in his own country?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we are not studying the matter in conjunction with the amounts of money at the disposal of the Bank of Canada, but the hon. member is surely aware of the document tabled in this House on the position of the government with regard to the principle of a guaranteed income, and its social policy in general.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I would like to ask the minister how he could state at Drummondville that the guaranteed annual income plan of the Creditistes is ridiculous, if he has not even studied it?


INCREASE IN COST OF CLOTHING-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CONTROL
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that clothing prices have already increased almost 5 per cent in

the past year and are expected to escalate at an explosive rate this fall, does the government have any plan or has it prepared any measures to avert such increases in the months ahead?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, any new policy announcements will be made to the House in the usual manner.


INCREASE IN COST OF PERSONAL AND HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that next to food and housing, the cost of personal and health care products is increasing at a steady rate, and that a good portion of family spending goes on personal and health care, will the minister investigate the prices of these commodities to ensure that the increases are warranted?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to have the matter looked into within the department's jurisdiction which is provided under the Combines Investigation Act.


ALLEGED SIMILARITY OF FORMULA OF HAIR SPRAY AND COSMETICS SELLING AT DIFFERENT PRICES-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF FORMULAE
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the food and drug directorate confirmed through a test of two hair sprays, one selling for 79 cents and the other for $3, that the two products were similar in general composition, would the minister table the formulas of hair sprays and other cosmetics sold in Canada, and thus help to determine the reason for the variance in prices of many like products?


Marc Lalonde: I do not need them very much myself, Mr. Speaker, but I shall certainly look into this matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and deals with the $1 million loan given to Zambia as announced yesterday. I should like to ask the minister if it was given to Zambia with his full knowledge and his approval?
July 10,1973


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would think that the answer to that question is yes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Well, well!


George Harris Hees: Tell us what you know.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it would be in accordance with our general policy to extend such loans.


KILLING OF TWO CANADIAN GIRLS WHILE VISITING VICTORIA FALLS-APPROVAL OF LOAN TO ZAMBIA BEFORE EXPLANATION RECEIVED-WITHHOLDING OF FUTURE LOANS
Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question. In view of the statement made by the right hon. the Prime Minister which may be found in Hansard of July 4 as follows:
. . . there are certain aspects of this whole tragedy the explanations for which do not satisfy us . . .
I should like to ask if the minister can advise the House and the Canadian taxpayers why this gift was given to Zambia before parliament has received a full and comprehensive report of the cold-blooded killing of these two innocent Canadian girls?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before and I repeat now, we have not been satisfied with the official explanation that was given about the circumstances surrounding the killing of these two Canadian girls."We are still not satisfied. I doubt very much, however, whether we should penalize the poverty-stricken people of Zambia because of this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Dryden Hales: One short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister if he could assure the House that any future loans or gifts to Zambia will be withheld until a report is received by parliament?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, and I doubt very much whether that would be in the interests either of the people of Canada or the people of Zambia.


An hon. Member:: It would be in the interests of justice.


Mitchell William Sharp: The loan we give is not to the government of Zambia, it is to the people of Zambia and I think we should continue those policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has a supplementary to the previous question, but the Chair will recognize first the
Oral Questions
hon. member for Don Valley and then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Joliette.


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a previous question to the Minister of Finance. In the budget that was brought down this spring it was suggested that one of the major ways the government was going to check the problem of the high cost of living was to remove tariffs and the government was going to monitor the results of that policy. Can the minister now tell the House, in view of the great increase we have had in inflation, what the result of that policy has been and whether any of those expected price savings have been passed on to the consumer?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that bill will be coming before the House very shortly and that will be an appropriate time to get into the question in detail.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister saying now that no monitoring has been done on this particular proposal at this particular time?


George Harris Hees: That is what he is saying.


John Napier Turner: No, that is not what I am saying.


Thomas Miller Bell: Explain!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that is supplementary to those that have been asked with reference to the rising cost of living and I address it to the Prime Minister because it relates to a matter which comes under the administrative responsibility of at least six different cabinet ministers. In view of the fact that a 2 per cent ceiling on the annual escalation of any pension is out of date, and in view of the rapidity with which the cost of living is rising, will the Prime Minister arrange for the government to consider as a matter of high priority the removing of that 2 per cent ceiling from the annual escalation of all pensions to which it still applies.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, since the government took the very worthwhile and bold action of tying down many pensions to the increase in the cost of living, I am sure the hon. member

July 10, 1973
Oral Questions
will realize that we are considering this total matter. However, the matter of availability of funds to deal with all categories of people at the same time is the one which the government must also keep in mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps the Prime Minister could be here some night at ten o'clock for this discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize, as I indicated a moment ago, the hon. member for Joliette and then the hon. member for Calgary North.
[Translation1


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the general increases in the cost of living which are so much discussed, could the Prime Minister tell the House if he contemplates bringing in legislation or advocating the increase of minimum wages?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must be aware that the government has already intervened several times in order to increase the minimum wages at the federal level. When we consider that it is time to take other measures we will do
so.


HOUSING
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who is responsible for housing. When did he direct this internal secret investigation? Was he aware, at the time he directed the investigation, that there was a strong suggestion, now confirmed by sworn testimony in a court case, that tender bids for the college co-operative projects were cooked, and invoices were falsified so that labour and supplies charged to the projects in question were used in some cases for private homes and at least for one farm.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part is, February 22. To answer the second part, I was not aware of any such evidence but, in asking for an inquiry within CMHC, was curious as to how these five projects had been put together and had misled, it appears, so many innocent students, administrators and former ministers.


An hon. Member:: Not to mention the public.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the minister aware that there is now a suggestion, according to sworn testimony in a court case that I have referred to, that there was an alleged conspiracy between

the contractors and architects to split profits and use material and labour for personal benefit rather than the projects in question?


An hon. Member:: Ask Hellyer.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but because of noise in the House I did not hear the first words of the question and wonder if the hon. member would mind repeating them. I would also find it helpful if he would identify the lawsuit to which he is referring.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to do that, although I have not the number. I have the affidavit, if he would like to look at it. If he is not aware of it, may I now suggest, since I have called it to his attention, that he now order a judicial inquiry so that witnesses can be subpoenaed and the whole thing aired before the public, in order to see what kind of cover-up the department and the minister are endeavouring to make.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the hon. member would give me that affidavit, because I have been trying to locate it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Smile when you say that, Ron.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Secondly-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Hon. members opposite do not seem to be too interested in information.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: With reference to the second part of the question, I would think that the best kind of judicial inquiry, if there is any evidence substantiating a criminal charge, would be to refer this matter to the police authorities, which certainly is my intention.


STUDENT CO-OPERATIVE PROJECTS-INVESTIGATION BY CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION-REQUEST FOR TABLING TERMS OF REFERENCE
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct that the minister said that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was doing the investigation that he referred to yesterday? If so, what are the terms of reference of the investigation, and would he be prepared to table the document and instructions to the corporation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I asked for a complete report from the president of the corporation on what had been the relationship of the various people involved in these five questions.
July 10, 1973


STUDENT CO-OPERATIVE PROJECTS-SUGGESTED WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS FROM TREFANN HOMES CORPORATION UNTIL RESULTS OF INQUIRY AND YORKE MEMORANDUM MADE PUBLIC
Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be good enough tomorrow to table a copy of this instruction setting out the terms of reference of the inquiry, and would he assure the House in the meantime that in no circumstances will a loan be approved or federal funds advanced to Trefann Homes Corporation until the results of that inquiry are in his hands and have been made public and also the Yorke memorandum has been made public, so that the people of Canada will be assured that federal moneys are properly protected.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will see whether that should be tabled or not tomorrow. In answer to the second part, there has been, following a request from the Trefann citizens' group, the Mayor of Toronto and the government of the province of Ontario, a commitment in principle from CMHC to the Trefann court residents' association. No moneys have been advanced, however, because no buildings have been commenced, and there is no project as such. I understand, only from press reports, that they are conducting their own inquiry regarding some of the consultants they may have hired. The general commitment that has been made to the citizens' organization, however, is such that they would have to comply entirely with the law, the National Housing Act, and administrative procedures of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in order to assure proper security of any mortgage loan.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a final supplementary, and then recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, for my final supplementary I would ask an assurance from the minister that, notwithstanding the representations that were made in this case and notwithstanding this commitment, if he has reason to believe as he now does on the basis of this evidence that some of the principals involved in this application are not competent to administer federal funds effectively, he will withdraw his agreement to go ahead with that loan and make no advance until he is absolutely satisfied, and the Canadian people are satisfied, that public funds are being well and truly protected.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that is how I have acted since I have been the minister responsible, and I am sure that has been the attitude of my predecessors, including the hon. member. No money would be advanced in this case until the corporation and the minister are assured that public money, or public loans, are being properly administered and secured.
Oral Questions ENERGY


INCREASE IN PRICE OF GASOLINE-SUGGESTED ADOPTION OF TWO PRICE SYSTEM-REASON FOR INCREASE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the action of British Petroleum and Imperial Oil Company in raising the price of gasoline. This is the fourth increase since last November. As the area west of the Ottawa Valley is a captive market to Canadian-producing oil companies, is the minister now prepared to give favourable consideration to establishing a two-price system for petroleum products, so as to make sure that the Canadian people will not have to pay excessively high prices for Canadian-produced oil.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the hon. gentleman before, a decision of that kind, which would involve a major restructuring of the Canadian oil market and, indeed, the prospects for Canadian oil development in the future, would, of course, have to be preceded by very substantial consultation and agreement on the part of the provinces. Although the consultation is proceeding at the moment, the agreement does not exist.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he and his department have made any investigation as to the reasons for these four increases in the price of crude oil and petroleum products, and can he tell the House whether or not these increases are due to an increase in the cost of production or whether the companies are merely taking advantage of the high price in the United States to make Canadians pay more for the privilege of consuming their own oil.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should remind the hon. gentleman that the price increases in the main have been the result of the increase in international prices. So long as we seek to sell the Canadian product abroad, I think we should get the best price for that commodity, and until we have a two-price system I think it is inevitable that increases in international prices will be reflected in Canada.
Some hori. Members: Oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I understand the minister is telling the House that because the oil companies can get a higher price in the United States, the Canadian people should be gouged for the privilege of using their own oil?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I must say the hon. member is a great demagogue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!

July 10, 1973
Oral Questions


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY OIL PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF INFORMATION RELATING TO UNITED STATES INQUIRIES AS TO GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On Friday last I directed a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources related to United States inquiries concerning the position of the government with regard to gas and oil policy in the Mackenzie region. In view of the minister's decision to release this important information to the press over the weekend rather than in the House, can the right hon. gentleman advise us whether the government intends to continue this practice of hiding these important matters from the House and the country until smoked out by questioning?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether the question as asked is in order. The hon. member might ask a question phrased in other terms so that it would be acceptable procedurally.


John Allen Fraser: I respect your comments, Mr. Speaker, but in the circumstances I think it is fair to ask the Prime Minister whether he would prevail upon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to table immediately the answer to which I am referring and to ensure that this does not happen again.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is referring to an incident which apparently happened on Friday in the House. I must say I was only returning at that time from Alberta, where I had the pleasure of seeing the Queen depart after a long and successful visit to Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: You have suddenly discovered the Queen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see that hon. members opposite do not consider the Queen's visit is worth a word of admiration.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Stop talking to the Hansard reporter and talk to the Speaker.


John Allen Fraser: This is an important matter. The statement in question should have been made here to members of the House and to the nation, and the Prime Minister should be allowed to complete his answer to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not disagreeing with the hon. member, but he will appreciate that I was not the one who was interrupting the Prime Minister. Perhaps there might be order, silence and peace in the House for just a moment so as to allow the Prime Minister to complete the reply which I gather he was about to make to the hon. member's supplementary question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hope the record will confirm that it was the opposition member's own colleagues who prevented me from continuing my answer. I was about to say that since I was not in the House for the reason given I will look into the matter, read Hansard, and discuss, if necessary, with the minister concerned, what transpired on Friday last.

[ Translation]


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Has he or some members of the cabinet communicated with the Quebec Department of Justice to find out whether during the investigation on organized crime in Quebec, some telephone lines of members, federal ministers or the RCMP have been wiretapped?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the question not as asked but as I understood it, however, it seems to me that the answer has already been given by the Solicitor General. The RCMP does not wiretap the telephone lines of members.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Does the Prime Minister or the Solicitor General intend to take legal procedures against certain Liberal organizers of Quebec who have taken part in the sale of heroin, as revealed in the investigation on organized crime?


HOUSING
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that the average price of homes in British Columbia is up 13 per cent this year, more than twice the national average, will the minister advise the House whether he is taking steps in consultation with the Minister of Finance to roll back ever-increasing mortgage interest rates to a level more acceptable to the average citizen?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In the first place, of course, what would be extremely helpful would be the passage of Bill C-135-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: -which spokesmen for the Conservative party enthusiastically supported. That would be of great help in bringing an increase of funds into the residential mortgage business with a consequent depressing effect on interest rates. In addition, however, I have been taking part in discussions and meeting with the minister responsible for housing in the Province of British Columbia to ensure that the provisions of the newly passed National Housing Act, including the land assembly provisions, are used in that province as in other provinces as quickly as possible.


John Douglas Reynolds: I should like to remind the minister that our party does support Bill C-135, and that it is the
July 10, 1973

government which is holding it up. Would the minister advise the House whether he is contemplating a course of action similar to that which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources followed when commodities under his jurisdiction ran rampant in the price field? Will he take action with regard to housing similar to the action taken by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in the energy field?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On July 3, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said he was still consulting with his colleagues concerning the idea of setting up a special investigation under the Inquiries Act into rising production costs as they affect farmers. Since this process of consultation was begun on May 29, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he could tell the House whether the inquiry will, indeed, be set up, and whether the idea has been presented to cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, not at this time.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last I directed a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. I asked him whether he would launch an inquiry into the use of a certified document by the Cape Breton Development Corporation, a document which has since been denied by the president of that Corporation. Has the hon. gentleman launched such an inquiry into the use of that document?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I lost my temporary job shortly after the question was asked.


Donald MacInnis: I would think that the President of the Privy Council, in the interest of the Cape Breton miners, would bear in mind that this is an inquiry which should be launched, inasmuch as the Minister of Justice himself has taken a view opposed to that of the judge who held the trial, and when documents presented to a court by a Crown corporation are later denied by the president of that corporation it is time the Justice Department got busy.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


SUGGESTION INCREASED PRODUCTION COSTS CAUSING ABANDONMENT OF FARMS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question, directed to the Minister of Agriculture, concerns the increased costs faced by farmers, particular by eastern farmers. In view of the fact that eastern farm leaders have recently informed the hon. Minister of Agriculture that many farmers, because of price increases, are literally abandoning eastern farms, has he transmitted this information to the Prime Minister and what immediate action can we expect?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have talked to people from Quebec farm organizations and I must say that their language was not similar to that used by the hon. member in relation to the numbers involved. Their main concern was with regard to the high cost of protein and some other supplies they have to purchase. We are working with them on this problem. As I have stated, I think we have to recognize that this is a world problem and there is not all that much that any politician of any party, no matter who he may be, can do about it.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY OIL PIPELINE-SUGGESTED STUDY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA RAIL PROPOSAL AS ALTERNATIVE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and is somewhat similar to questions asked last week by the hon. member for Vancouver South. In view of the position taken by the government in respect of the Mackenzie line, that if the west coast tanker route goes ahead the government is not going to be too interested in that line, would the minister advise this House what position his government takes to the British Columbia rail proposal which is an alternative to the west coast tanker route?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the possibility of a rail route, both by way of the Mackenzie valley and by way of Premier Barrett's proposal, is a matter now under examination. I should point out that Premier Barrett's proposal would really require substantial construction in the Yukon and Alaska, and, in respect of Alaska specifically, none of the responsible officials there have shown any interest at all in the construction of such a line. I think it would have to be said in terms of priority that the Barrett proposal is not being given high priority by the United States government.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, has the minister had any opportunity to press this as an alternative with United States authorities, or is he continuing to take this same

July 10, 1973
Oral Questions
pessimistic attitude in negotiations with United States authorities?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, officials of my department went out to examine the documentation behind Premier Barrett's proposal and found that fundamentally no additional work had been done but that this was a collation of existing documents. We are in the process of carrying out an evaluation of the rail routes, and we are prepared to include the Yukon possibility in that evaluation, although we realize that this route really would not reach Canadian hydrocarbon resources as would the Mackenzie route.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that southern Alberta is rapidly becoming the largest livestock feeding and processing area in Canada, exporting breeding cattle to France and dressed beef to the Pacific rim countries, would the minister give immediate consideration to the Laborde Simat report which recommends that runway 05-23 at the Lethbridge airport be lengthened to 13,000 feet immediately in order to accommodate these large air transports?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This appears to be a representation and perhaps the matter might be considered at the time of adjournment. The hon. member's representation may be considered by the minister and commented on briefly.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will look into this very important matter.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Can he tell the House whether negotiations are still being held with the Quebec government concerning the program of small farms development and does he expect to be able to make a statement on this to the House before the summer recess?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly from the information being given to me by my officials, there is only one small part of the agreement being negotiated, and if we can come to a conclusion before the end of this month I will certainly announce it.


HARBOURS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of several major industrial developments in central and northern British Columbia, and in light of an acute lack of facilities at the port of Prince Rupert to handle any cargo destined to foreign lands, can the minister inform the House whether the National Harbours Board has invited tenders for the construction of a general cargo dock in Prince Rupert, and whether a decision has been reached to award a contract?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are about to conclude an agreement with the government of British Columbia, and as soon as that takes place tenders will be called.


FINANCE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta concerning frequent increases in mortgage interest rates in recent weeks, and I direct it to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact these frequent increases in mortgage interest rates not only make housing more inaccessible to Canadians but also contribute to inflation in this country, can the minister indicate whether he proposes any action in the future to roll back these interest rates for these two reasons?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Nine and three-quarters per cent.


John Napier Turner: No, Sir, not in terms of a rollback.


LEVEL OF CANADIAN DOLLAR-POSSIBLE USE OF RESERVE FUNDS TO SUPPORT UNITED STATES DOLLAR
Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and is based on the lack of government policy which is allowing the Canadian dollar to plunge as rapidly in value as the United States dollar, adding to our inflationary spiral. Is the minister doing anything to use the reserve funds of the central bank to bolster the American dollar as is being done by other industrialized countries?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dollar is responding to market forces and one has to evaluate the position of the Canadian dollar in relation to the fact that 70 per cent of our trade is done with the United States. One also has to weigh the export potential available in respect of the stability of the Canadian dollar against the level of imported inflation, and that is a subject that is always a matter of opinion.
July 10, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary question, but as we are reaching the end of the question period we might try to have two or three quick questions before calling orders of the day. I have recognized the hon. member for St. Catharines on a supplementary question.


J. Trevor Morgan: I wonder if the Minister of Finance could tell us how much the Canadian government has lost, de facto, in its reserve funds due to the devaluation of the American dollar which has allowed our dollar to devaluate to the same extent?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question seeks the kind of statistical information which normally ought to be sought by way of questions on the order paper.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON POSITION OF INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that Canada is to meet with other members of the committee of 20 on July 30 and 31, will the minister finally break down and make a statement to the House as to the exact position of the International Monetary Fund some time next week before, as is reported, this House is to rise for the summer?


John Napier Turner: I will take that into very serious consideration, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that certain areas in the province of Saskatchewan with a heavy infestation of grasshoppers have found that the new chemicals are not an effective means of control, and in view of the fact that the crops in these areas have suffered severe damage with a consequent loss of income, will the minister give immediate consideration to releasing the chemical Dieldrin for use on a controlled basis in these specific areas?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, my latest report on grasshopper control in those parts of Saskatchewan would indicate that Dimethoate is doing the job. We know it is more costly but we still think that Dieldrin is too dangerous to be released for this use.


INDUSTRIAL MILK-REASON FOR FAILURE OF SHIPPERS TO RECEIVE SUBSIDY CHEQUES
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and relates to a problem which has nothing to do with world market situations. It has regard to the fact that industrial milk shippers have not received their main subsidy cheques due
Oral Questions
some three weeks ago. Will the minister advise us of the reason for the delay, and further advise when these cheques will be received by the producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave me notice that he would ask this question. I have made an inquiry but I do not have the answer at this time. I can say, however, that the world situation does affect even the costs of an industrial milk producer.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and relates to increases in landing fees proposed by the ministry, which I understand have been suspended until September. Is the minister using the time interval now available to him to discuss with representatives of the tourist industry and provincial ministers of tourism the potential effect of these rate increases upon the industry?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the increase has been suspended not to the first of September but to the first of October. In the meantime, I am receiving all kinds of representations which we shall look into. The aspect of tourism is one we will consider seriously.


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


AGRICULTURE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. About a month ago I asked whether the minister was making inquiries into the situation in northeastern Saskatchewan where flooding has prohibited many farmers planting crops. Has his department completed the investigation there, and has the province of Saskatchewan asked that this be declared a disaster area in order that compensation may be afforded to the farmers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the preliminary reports by my departmental officials are in. I met the minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan in Winnipeg on Saturday: he had just returned from the area. The reports are not finalized.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.

July 10, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
f English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, July 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-208, to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, the subject we are debating under this bill has been a parliamentary issue since the eighteenth century when the pattern of population changed in Great Britain. Industrial towns and cities were created which had few representatives in the British parliament; large rural areas with few people in them had many members in parliament. This issue which was debated in the British House almost two centuries ago resulted in reform which recognized the principle to which I was referring at the time of adjournment last night, namely, representation by population.
It was recognized in reforming the centuries-old composition of the British House that fundamentally a democratic legislature had to give priority to representation by population and that new representation opportunities had to be accorded the cities and the towns which the industrial revolution had created.
What happened in the eighteenth century in Great Britain has been reflected in the parliamentary history of our own country. The issue with which we are concerned in this debate is older than confederation. Indeed, the phrase "representation by population", or its abbreviation "rep by pop", goes back to the time of the United Province of Canada when the growth of the western part of the province exceeded that of the east. This brought about a desire for change in the composition of the Parliament of Canada which gave equal membership to both parts of the province. It was then recognized that some consideration had to be given to population changes and that increased representation had to be provided when there was a major increase in population.
This issue that was before the people of Canada before confederation was fundamental in drawing up the terms of union that were expressed in the British North America Act. We see in that act, which is to such a large degree the constitution of our country, the way in which the membership of the Parliament of Canada recognizes two fundamental factors. One is that to which I have referred, namely, representation by population. It is given priority but it is balanced to some degree by a consideration of region. It is recognized that in a country the size of Canada, made up of diverse communities and traditions, it is necessary there be adequate representation from all regions in the Parliament of Canada.
So we find that the membership of this House is based upon two factors, one population and the other region. It seems to me that the bill before us now is upsetting that balance. It threatens to give priority to region without adequate consideration to population. According to the British North America Act and according to the tradition

of this country, however, we have given priority to population change and population growth. It is for that reason the British North America Act contains a requirement that there will be redistribution following the census taken every ten years.
I can recognize the merits of the bill before us and appreciate the need for us to give proper consideration to some provinces and some regions of this country which, because of population decline, may be deprived of the representation to which they are entitled and which they need in order to voice adequately the aspirations of those areas. I certainly support that aspect of the bill. I suggest, however, it is incumbent upon this parliament to give adequate consideration and, indeed, priority to the population factor so that increased membership in this House of Commons is given to those areas where there has been such major population growth in the last ten years.
For example, we have, according to the membership of this House and the population of Canada, a situation by which the average population per riding is, I believe, in the neighbourhood of 83,000 people. Given the tolerance the legislation requires, by which an urban riding may be approximately 25 per cent above that, and a rural riding similarly below it, we should be having ridings which vary between a minimum of 60,000 and 100,000. We find, according to the 1971 census, there are 54 ridings in this country with a population of more than 100,000 people, 18 of which are in three metropolitan centres. Indeed, in the municipality to which I belong, the borough of Scarborough, there are two such ridings, one with a population of 193,156 and another, my own, with a population of 149,514.
On the other side, there are 43 constituencies each with a population of fewer than 60,000 people. Of these, eight have fewer than 50,000 people. Admittedly, some of these are required by certain constitutional requirements, but nevertheless there are others with fewer than 50,000 people in them. So we have a serious situation here which demands suitable correction as soon as possible to give adequate representation to these metropolitan areas where hundreds of thousands of people have congregated in the last decade. While wanting as far as possible to protect the interests and needs of those parts of Canada where population is declining, we must do justice to the areas where the majority of Canadians are living and working.
This is not a situation that is unique to Canada. We find that in the United States, where in the lower House membership to a large degree is based upon representation by population, similar changes are being made in the composition of the House of Representatives. According to population changes reported in the 1970 census, New York and Pennsylvania will lose two seats in the house, and Alabama, Iowa, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin will lose one seat each. On the other hand, California will gain five seats, the state of Florida will gain three, and the states of Arizona, Texas and Colorado will each gain one.
We are therefore asking that more consideration be given to the large metropolitan areas of Canada where millions of people are now making their homes and contributing to the well-being of this country. We ask that
July 10, 1973

adequate representation be accorded these centres and that the membership of the House be adjusted accordingly. I hope this can be done in such a way that justice will be accorded to the massive population centres, and at the same time give just recognition to provinces and regions wherein the population rate has been declining but where there is also a need for adequate representation. Reference has been made to that need, certainly by the government House leader in his opening remarks in this debate. But I suggest that if we adopt the program that he outlined, we will not really come to grips with the situation. If we adopt uncritically the proposal in this bill, assuming that the next election is called some time before the end of 1974 it will be fought according to the old election map and the composition of the next parliament will be based on the population distribution of an out of date census. That means that if the parliament elected in 1974 were in office until 1978 or even 1979, we would come almost to the eve of the next census before there would be adequate reform in this area.
Therefore, I find quite inadequate the assurance of the government House leader in suggesting that he wants simply to stop the clock from ticking. It seems to me that he wants to turn back the clock and he wants the legislation to serve the Canada of yesterday rather than the Canadian people of today and tomorrow. I hope, therefore, that this bill, after passing second reading-as I think it is practical to assume it will-will be scrutinized carefully in committee. I hope we will then have the opportunity to introduce amendments that would give immediate recognition to the fair, just and necessary requirements of the major metropolitan centres of this country and, in particular, those provinces which according to the Electoral Boundaries Commission are due to receive increased representation.
I hope we can do that in such a way as not to deprive any province or region of that which it may need at this time in order to adequately represent in the House of Commons the needs and aspirations of its people and at the same time do justice to the people to whom I have referred.
[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to participate in the debate on Bill C-208, An Act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
It was evident that the legislation suspending the operations of electoral boundaries commissions was absolutely necessary. Under that bill, the activities of those commissions are suspended until December 31, 1974.
Practically the only criterion selected by the commissions is population. They established a quota above or below in order that all ridings-rural or urban-have an equal number of voters regardless of the size of the riding.
On that basis, Quebec representation will decrease from 74 to 72 members in the House of Commons. This is unacceptable when we consider the principles and experiences which have been followed for more than 100 years for the establishment of electoral constituencies in Canada.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, that principle does not take into account the size of the riding when comparing the population of urban and rural constituencies.
On behalf of my constituents of Lotbiniere whom 1 am proud to represent in this House, I prepared and submitted myself a brief when the commission held a hearing in Trois-Rivieres. From the beginning-and I stated it clearly in my riding and in the House-I said that I would object strongly to the proposal of the commission which redistributes constituencies as it sees fit without taking basic factors into account.
I will try to deal briefly with some of those factors. First, the duty of a representative is in his riding. Mr. Speaker, the member of the electoral boundaries commission started with the principle that rural and urban constituencies have similar basic needs, which is false. They started from the principle that there is no real difference between a member for a rural riding and a member for an urban riding or a semi-rural, semi-urban riding, which is also false.
Mr. Speaker, when you select 83,000 voters, plus or minus 25 per cent, without taking account of the size of the constituency or its distance from the capital, you are infringing on the rights to fair representation of the people in that constituency.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there is another fundamental principle which the members of the commission have not considered, namely the right of the people to obtain fair and effective service from their member of Parliament. And on this point I will say only this for now, that the standards for the role of the member of Parliament do not seem to have changed in over 100 years.
There was a time when sessions lasted for one, two or three months a year; the rest of the time the member of parliament spent in his constituency. That was tens of years ago. But today, in 1973, the member's time is divided between the work of the House, which has become increasingly burdensome, increasingly important, and the work in his own constituency, which must also not be neglected, for it is the basis of democracy, it is where the member of parliament draws his strength, gets his ideas, in short, it is what provides him with the whole meaning and value of his work.
Mr. Speaker, when any electoral boundaries commission sets constituency boundaries proportionately to the population, using demographic criteria and without considering the essential representational and organizational role which the member of parliament plays in his riding, then the boundaries which the commission in its ivory tower, may dream up, not only bear no relation to our daily lives, they also deprive the people of fair representation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, still in this connection, I wish to say that the services to the population entrusted to the member-I mean the secretaries, telephone lines, staff, equipment, etc.-should be allotted according to the size of the riding, its distance from the capital and specially its population.
Mr. Speaker, some considerations prompt me to oppose the work of the commission vigorously. In fact, on the

July 10, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
basis of the principles expressed a while ago, quite a distinction should be made between a rural and an urban riding, and a semi-urban riding, which distinction should be a factor of prime influence in redistribution.
Indeed, from a geographic point of view, the member does not have the same territory to cover, depending on the type of riding he represents. His work is very different, in terms of distances, if he represents an urban riding, Montreal, for instance, instead of a rural riding. As a result, equitable representation-and that is precisely what I will fight for most, for all the people, regardless of where they live in Canada-must not be based on the same national quota but on the geographic entity, cultural or other, of a riding.
Mr. Speaker, representing 83,000 people in an urban riding, and 83,000 people in a rural riding are two entirely different things. There is no need to dwell at great lengths on this subject. A study of the electoral map suggested by the commissioners will suffice to show the vast dimensions of rural ridings compared to those of the island of Montreal, for instance.
At this rate, if we continue to apply the same principle, in 20 years there will be more than twice the number of members for Montreal as for the rest of Quebec. The rural population already underrepresented, and this will only grow worse with the implementation of the false principle of the same quota indiscriminately across Canada.
I shall give an example which fits in well with the constituency I represent and those of Quebec as a whole. Let us first recall that the provincial quota proposed by the commission for Quebec is 83,719, which is completely ridiculous. It proves that the commissioners-and I shall say it plainly-have failed miserably to understand the member's role, the operation of the House of Commons or the basis of the distinction between constituencies, particularly between those of Quebec and those of the remaining parts of Canada. They have been, as we know it, dominating factors over the years.
Consequently, with this 83,719 quota, we find that Quebec has 26 constituencies which already exceed the quota in the new proposed redistribution. The commissioners propose a quota, a new electoral map and they already cheat on the quota in 26 constituencies. Out of these, seven extremely vast rural constituencies already top the proposed provincial quota. They are Temis-camingue, Roberval, Chicoutimi, Lapointe, Levis, Sherbrooke and Shefford. In this regard, Lotbinibre ranks 31st with 82,406 people.
What is most serious is that while wishing to set up a standard provincial quota, we already exceed it. In a territory of 50 by 60 miles in the Montreal metropolitan area, we have 2,782,738 people in 32 constituencies and a quota of 86,960. Note that out of 32 constituencies in this region 18 are already over the proposed quota before it is even adopted. Mr. Speaker, this shows that the passage of Bill C-208 would not represent a loss for us but rather a gain.
Now, if you consider, for comparison purposes, the region named in the table relating to Beauce and the Eastern Townships, that is to say ten constituencies, you will see that there are 815,891 people for ten ridings, and a

quota of 81,589. Therefore, you can see, Mr. Speaker, that the commissioners have not made any mental effort in establishing an equal quota, both for urban and rural constituencies.
Now, if you compare the size-which is extremely important from the view point of the member's work value-of this region to that of the preceding one, the region of Montreal, you may find right away that it is impossible for any hon. member to secure equitable representation for these people, on account of distances.
Mr. Speaker, these examples show that we must absolutely review the principle of equal quotas for rural and urban constituencies if we want fair representation in the House of Commons.
In order to comply with a pre-established quota, we must sometimes come to somewhat illogical divisions. And here are a few conclusions that we would have to come to if we relied on commissioners' genius, and we will find out that this does not make any sense. I will take as an example the constituency that I have the honour to represent, Lotbiniere.
If we followed the map pre-established by the commissioners, Lotbiniere would find itself divided into four regions with an entirely different mentality, in a kind of melting pot: Arthabaska and its region, Lotbiniere and its region, Nicolet and its region and finally, Megantic and its region. There, of course, the quota is exceeded. Conversely, Drummond would fall short. As the commissioners are mathematics experts, they decide to cut out Arthabaska which, however, is a natural entity. In order to comply with the quota, like in the urban constituencies of West-mount-because for them, there is no difference between an urban riding and a rural one-the commissioners remove Warwick, Saint-Albert and Daveluyville although those towns are quite close to Victoriaville. Thus, they break a cultural, economic, social and geographical entity in order to comply with a quota. The people of Warwick, Saint-Albert and Daveluyville live quite far from Drum-mondville compared to Victoriaville. Naturally, those people do business in Victoriaville. They very seldom have anything to do in Drummondville, except to visit friends or relatives.
Moreover, still in order to comply with this false principle of an equal quota for rural and urban ridings, two ridings are taken from Quebec, thus reducing its representation in Ottawa. The whole riding of Frontenac-in the neighbourhood of Lotbiniere-is being removed and half of it is incorporated in the new riding of Richmond and the other half, in Lotbiniere. It was already difficult to ensure a fair representation of those older ridings and now half of another is added to them. In the same manner 23 municipalities in the riding of Megantic are included in Lotbiniere.
The riding as proposed would cover an area of approximately 4900 square miles. For an area of roughly the same size, there are 32 ridings in Montreal and seven in Quebec City. Lotbiniere would also comprise over 57 municipalities.
In order to both guarantee a sound and equitable representation and ensure the preservation of a regional
July 10, 1973

identity-les Bois-Francs-I would on the other hand be pleased to have Plessisville included in this constituency, together with its sister towns; however, for the same reason, I humbly submit to the House that I am against this redistribution because it cuts off towns which have always had business relations with Victoriaville.
These are very local reasons; however, Mr. Speaker, if I am involved in politics, it is for the sake of Creditist principles. It is also because I could no longer agree with the concept of a member of parliament, as previously defined and as it appeared to apply in our constituencies at home: people, once elected, would disappear into thin air for the next four years, then show up again, come election time, to advise us that theirs was the best party and that we simply had to vote for them. Mr. Speaker, your people as well as ours are not dupe. In 1973, they want service from their member of parliament. They want a member who is able to meet them often, if necessary. They want a member who is available, they want to get in touch with him easily. That is why I work desperately to get the services that should be available to members of parliament in their respective ridings; that is why I object to this electoral map and, in particular, to the size of the ridings, the electoral quota, and the demographic and geographic factors that do not take into account cultural entities or the definition of the member's role.
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to redistribute the seats in Quebec and in the rest of Canada to arrive at a given number of electoral districts, but when it is done overlooking the needs of the people, we rag them and, in this way, we merely help alienate them from parliament, from the member's role and from the member.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say this, regarding, this legislation, with Bill C-208 which we will adopt and for which I will certainly vote, the commission's work will be suspended till December 31, 1974. I sincerely hope that by that time the members of all parties will have agreed to accept a new electoral map, if necessary, but only after having thought over the services made available to the members.
Mr. Speaker, suggesting a new electoral map without thinking over the services needed would be absolutely ridiculous, illogical and contradictory. For example, let us say that the ridings would change a little, and that new principles would tend to respect the standards I have enumerated.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Sainte-Croix-de-Lotbiniere, located 70 miles from Victoriaville, will still have difficulty contacting their representative. In addition those people pay taxes as do the people of Victoriaville. They need to meet with their member of parliament and I as a member, must meet with them in order to perform properly. But as long as this House act foolishly, as long as members of parliament are deprived of services in their ridings, briefly, as long as they are refused the necessary equipment to get closer to the people and the electoral map ignores them, the people will simply be divided and this once more will work towards keeping them apart from their representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I know that in the province of Quebec, the Lotbiniere riding has three provincial ridings. Each provincial member has two secretaries and one office in his
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension riding to serve part of the population. At the federal level Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me that he has strayed considerably from the principle of the present bill. I must say that even when the hon. member was considering the electoral map in details, in as much as it affected his own electoral riding, he was then already out of order. The principle of the bill before us is very clear and I do not think that hon. members taking part in this debate should take advantage of the discussion on this bill to review the electoral map that has been submitted by various commissions.
The Standing Orders of this House and the legislation allow for debate to be held in due course on the electoral boundaries readjustment, but I think that hon. members are anticipating debate by using the bill under study to examine the electoral map in detail to the extent that it affects their own situation.
The hon. member is going even further beyond the framework of the debate when he invites this House to consider at the same times as this bill the services to be offered to members. It is clear to me that the hon. member is straying far from the principle of this bill, which is the only matter under study at the stage of the second reading.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I agree humbly and respectfully with your comments. However, I do not have to excuse myself for having considered the importance of the member's role while studying this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to continue my remarks but while I apologize to the Chair for departing from the Standing Orders, I wished to make those comments, though overtaxing your patience; but for me and many of my colleagues, this matter is extremely important.
I shall conclude by saying that a federal member represents three times more constituents than a provincial member and that he finds himself in an impossible position.
Those are the reasons why I am strongly opposed to the proposals of the Electoral Boundaries Commission and why I support this Bill C-208, hoping that from now on the commissioners wil draw their inspiration from more modern concepts that will be more realistic and that will meet the needs of the population, better than demographic criteria.
That is why, on behalf of my fellow citizens of Lotbiniere, Mr. Speaker, I wish to support this bill to suspend indefinitely the work of the commission and give the commissioners a well-deserved holiday as they made a big effort to draw an electoral map that will not hold water.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I have read some of the speeches made in this debate and have listened to many others. Much has been said, but little of it has dealt with the problem before the House. Bill C-208 would halt redistribution as proposed by the legislation and refer the whole matter to a committee for further study. It certainly warrants further study, Mr. Speaker. Much argument has been made by members from some of
5464

July 10, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension the metropolitan areas that we must have "rep by pop". There is not a democracy, to my knowledge, functioning in a world that actually follows to the letter representation by population.
It is interesting to note that in his speech the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) referred at length to the American system and how they were having redistribution in the House of Representatives. Everybody in Canada knows that the powerful legislative body in American system is the Senate. He did not tell us how "rep by pop" really affected the American Senate. It does not affect it at all. The state of Alaska has two members, as has the state of New York; and there is a vast difference in their population. One wonders about the reason for this. The hon. member then referred to Great Britain and said that 200 years ago they came upon this problem and had to redistribute the seats in their country. He did not tell us what happened before 1832. They had representative government in Great Britain from 1264 to 1832. Not once in those 600 years did they have redistribution, so one can readily assume that in 1832 they needed redistribution.
Nobody in this House is opposed to the concept of redistribution. The question is, how often we should be subject to it and is it the proper time to proceed with it? That is the real question for the House. The hon. member for Scarborough East failed to deal with the problem as it affects Great Britain. He cited the arguments used in Great Britain which would substantiate his case, but he did not cite the whole case: they went from 1832 to 1918 with the only change being the one that was made in 1867. In the 1900s they had a redistribution committee and decided there should be redistribution not less than every three years and not more than every five years, but they found that was too difficult for the politicians and for the people to know their representative. Consequently it was amended to have redistribution not before ten years and not later than 15 years. They have gone the full limit of 15 years.
What has really taken place in that country? I think the significant thing is that even with that small, neat country in comparison to the vast region of Canada, they make special provisions for certain areas. The number of constituencies in Scotland and Wales must not be less than 71 and 35 respectively, and in Great Britain not substantially greater than 613. The book from which I quote, "Election in Britain", by R. L. Leonard, reads at the top of page 21:
This allocation gives more than their proportionate share of seats to Scotland and Wales, presumably as a sop to their national susceptibilities; conversely, Northern Ireland has less than its proportionate share, because its domestic affairs are dealt with by the Northern Ireland Parliament at Stormont.
Why do they give more than their proportion of representation to Scotland and Wales? Because they want Scotland and Wales to stay within that country; they want them to be governed by the parliament at Westminster.
Do we have a problem of national unity in this country? It has been mentioned from time to time in this House of Commons. A democracy must allow every region within the country an effective voice in parliament. A democracy must allow every segment within its society an effective voice in parliament. By segment I mean every industry whether it be agriculture, oil or any other. Every segment

of society must have an effective voice, or they will not be happy. Otherwise you merely breed discontent and alienation, and sometimes alienation precedes separation. What happened to Bangladesh? The people felt they did not have an effective voice in Pakistan and decided to separate from it. That is why in a democracy the people of various regions must be given an effective voice in parliament.
This country is composed of five main geographic regions. We must take care to allow each of those regions to have an effective voice. If any region feels that its voice is not effective, problems can arise-and there are problems in this country. That is why the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is meeting with the four western premiers. As Prime Minister of this country, he is aware of feelings of alienation in the west. There are some in this country who want to proceed with a redistribution bill that would further distort or destroy the partially effective voice that some regions now have. The number of seats in Newfoundland will be reduced from seven to six, and in Nova Scotia they are to be reduced to the bare minimum. Newfoundland is the newest part of Canada, having joined the country in 1949. Many people in Newfoundland still feel that was not a wise choice. If we continue to mute the effective voice which the province has had for the past 24 years, many in Newfoundland may experience growing feelings of alienation.
The same is true of the agricultural segment of our society. Some say that agriculture in this country is dying. Many in this House suggest that we should become a secondary manufacturing power. They think we may become an industrial nation second to none. There are some proponents of that philosophy in this country. They know that agriculture served this country in days gone by but think it will not hold an important place in Canada's future. I say to them, through you, Mr. Speaker, that agriculture will continue to play a prominent part in the livelihood of Canadians in the years ahead. Its part will be far more prominent than many in this House realize. The agricultural industry must maintain an effective voice in this House, otherwise it will feel alienated and will perhaps do something about that alienation. I do not think the agricultural regions should be depleted of members to represent them in this House.
The same holds true for other areas of endeavour in this country. Let us look at energy. There is an energy crisis in the world and the energy areas of Canada must be represented effectively in this House. Energy will be an increasingly important subject in the years ahead. One could list a whole host of such segments in our society. If we are to maintain our democracy as we now know it, we must make certain that those segments are given an effective voice in this House. Look back at what happened between 1911 and 1917 when western Canada was gypped, was beaten out of 22 seats: we were short of 22 seats for six years because of the influx of settlers from other parts of the country. Even if there is a redistribution of seats every ten years, the representation of certain areas will become distorted. The variations will be greater than 25 per cent; I do not deny that.
July 10, 1973

Consider Vancouver, for example. If it were not for the different products moving through that port, Vancouver would be much smaller than it now is. If it were not for the grains, oil, gas, coal, copper, iron ore, timber and other products moving from the interior of the country through that port, I suggest Vancouver would not be as big as it is today and not so many there would find employment. We talk about allocating representation. Let me say that Vancouver depends on the resource industries, although those industries do not make up that city. Certainly, some attention must be paid to those industries and to the other segments of our population which help to maintain our large metropolitan areas.
Under our constitution, the cities are the children of the provinces. Nevertheless, the resource industries are controlled and regulated by the Parliament of Canada. The wheat I sell and the price at which I sell it is controlled by this House. The amount of timber sold by this country is determined by this House, by this parliament. Incidentally, some have suggested that we should put an embargo on the sale of timber. Some suggest that we should have a two-price system for gas and oil. Those are decisions that are made in this House, not in any provincial house. Such decisions are the responsibility of this parliament and not the responsibility of any provincial, municipal or metropolitan government.
Consider, also, metropolitan Toronto. Members representing Toronto ridings complain that urban constituencies are growing too large. Let me say that Toronto is being maintained because of the purchasing power of certain areas outside Toronto. For instance, the farmers of western Canada buy much of their farm machinery in Toronto. They purchase over 50 per cent of their agricultural machinery there. Nearly all our conveyor belts come from the city of Toronto. As I say, many .of the large farm machines and many of the things farmers buy come from that city. Therefore, farmers help to maintain Toronto. At the same time, the way we sell our products and make our living is controlled by the policies of this government, not municipal or provincial governments. Therefore, I suggest that the agricultural industry and other segments of our society which make up this country should be given an effective voice in this House.
Look at the redistribution formula with respect to Alberta, as designed by the Electoral Boundaries Commission. No attention was paid to the 25 per cent formula. It is interesting to note that in a recent provincial redistribution, the commission involved gave Calgary and Edmonton about 37 per cent of the seats, although Calgary and Edmonton contain about 51 per cent of the population of Alberta. That commission paid a great deal of attention to the resource industries of the rural parts of the province.
In the matter we are now considering, Calgary and Edmonton were given over 57 per cent of the seats, and insufficient attention was paid to the rural areas of Alberta which greatly influence the prosperity of the province. Consider cattle. Whether cattle are to be sold and at what price they are to be sold are matters that are determined or influenced by this House. The same can be said of the sale of our coal, oil or gas. These sales are determined or influenced by members who sit in this House. I suggest that the Electoral Boundaries Commission has made an
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension error in Alberta. Of course, any action by this House in reviewing and examining effectively the concept behind the present legislation may be worth supporting. At the same time I ask, why should a rural riding have a population of approximately 96,000 while Calgary North has a population of 77,000? That just does not make sense.
A representative of the people in this House has two roles, two obligations to fulfil. He must act as ombudsman for his constituents and he must try to influence the action which the government will take so that it will be beneficial to his constituency and, hopefully, beneficial to the whole country. The member must become acquainted with his constituency. If he represents a large rural constituency which is sparsely populated, he will find it difficult to get around and meet all his constituents or even to make himself accessible to them. His task is far more difficult than that which faces members from a city riding whose population is contained within a certain number of blocks. To my mind there is no comparison between the difficulties which face them.
Regard should always be paid to the permitted variation of 25 per cent. I note that the hon. member for Scarborough East said he went along with this principle. He said some constituencies should contain a minimum population of perhaps 60,000 and the larger ones 100,000 or more. I go along with that. But the Electoral Boundaries Commission in Alberta in no way upheld that concept. There was only one constituency in which any variance was allowed, and that was Peace River where the commission allowed a variance of 12 per cent. From a cursory examination of other boundary commission reports across the country it appears a similar procedure was followed in other provinces. Indeed, the procedure is so similar one is bound to suspect that the whole system which was set up in 1964 has failed. At that time much thought was given in the debate here as to the way in which an independent body could be set up to decide these matters. One of the commission members was to be a judge, another was to be appointed by Your Honour. Another was to be the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of the province in which the boundary commission was to be set up.
It should be borne in mind, too, that the Chief Electoral Officer of the day was to serve on each and every one of those commissions. Now, because of the similarity in the commission reports which becomes apparent upon studying them, one can only suspect that the main influence here was the former Chief Electoral Officer because in each province we find roughly the same type of approach to the 25 per cent variance principle. Hon. members who were here in 1964 will remember the lengthy discussion about whether there should be a 20 per cent variance or a 30 per cent variance. Parliament settled for a 25 per cent variance. The Electoral boundaries Commissions did not act in accordance with this intention, and we should therefore have no hesitation about setting aside the whole of these proposals and studying the matter again, in the hope of fashioning a system which will allow each area of Canada an effective voice in parliament and provide for a more satisfactory method of bringing about redistribution every ten years.
26446-55;

July 10, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
At the present time, members are faced with a good deal of uncertainty. They are not sure when the next election is likely to be because of the situation in which parliament finds itself, with a minority government. This surely warrants a ruling being made which would clear the air and avoid the possibility of members trying to represent, in effect, two constituencies; and this is what is likely to happen unless we clear the air for a certain period of time. The bill before us will establish some certainty until December 31, 1974, and I believe this would allow us enough time to deal with the whole question in the interval.
I would certainly recommend a new method of approaching the issue. In my opinion, the present one has failed in practical terms. The principle, the idea was good but not the practical operation. For example, the judge appointed to the commission in the province of Alberta was a retired judge, 80 years old. I appeared before him and said I felt he had not done his duty; that he was, in effect, derelict in his duty because he had accepted a map drawn up in Ottawa. He never really denied that charge. He was 80 years old and he was tired, as well as being retired. He was the wrong appointee. There have been several bad appointments to the commission in Alberta. One, back in 1965, created a monstrosity.


An hon. Member:: Who appointed him?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Liberal government of the day.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No; the Chief Justice of the province.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The effective appointment was made by the Liberal government of the day.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is not what the law says. The law says the appointment is made by the Chief Justice.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In any case, the redistribution of 1965 created a number of anomalies within the province. We are anxious to see a better system of redistribution, one which pays attention to community of interest within a province, one which pays attention to the possibility of giving better representation to areas where development is taking place.
We must always bear in mind that though representation by population is a good concept, and we should try to approach its realization as nearly as possible, it cannot be brought about completely in a country as diversified or as vast as Canada without considerable risk. It would lead to disunity and disharmony, and any democracy which suffers from lack of harmony cannot possibly function very well. With these thoughts I urge all hon. members to accept the bill as proposed by the government.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have grown accustomed to following the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) in debate, but never did I find myself so nervous, on the same side of the fence, as I am today. I have never heard such a speech in justification of the support of a bill since the days of the debate on the reform bill of 1832 in Great Britain which I read about in my history classes and I assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I did not attend.


An hon. Member:: He did.


William George Knight: He might have. Mr. Speaker, when we deal with this subject as members of parliament we are dancing upon eggshells in terms of the fundamental principle of representation by population. The kind of argument advanced in support of this measure by the hon. member for Crowfoot would mean if followed to its logical conclusion, that six members of parliament would be sent to Ottawa by MacMillan Bloedel of the lumber industry and 17 MPs from Alberta would be sent by the Alberta oil companies. That is the kind of logic involved in the argument of the hon. member for Crowfoot. I wish to deal with the subject in a somewhat different vein.
The hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse), in his argument, was very sanctimonious-maybe something he picked up in his previous profession-in insisting we must stick by the rule of representation by population to the bitter end. He ignored the fact that by the terms of the British North America Act and the manner in which redistribution is handled at the present time, we do not in fact stick by the principle of representation by population, inasmuch as the representation of certain provinces is not allowed to fall below a number prescribed according to the number of senators they have. That provision is put there to give some protection to the different regions of Canada.
My reasons for supporting this measure differ from those put forward by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) and the hon. member for Scarborough East. I feel time is necessary in which to consider the whole question of redistribution more broadly, including the total number of parliamentary seats which might have to be provided under redistribution, and the problem of provinces such as Saskatchewan which are faced with loss of representation. However, we ought not to allow members of parliament to become involved in any way with attempts to set aside decisions made by electoral commissions.
The over-all problem lies in the fact that the commissioners in the province of Saskatchewan, the province of Newfoundland and the province of Nova Scotia have been given the task of dividing constituencies on the basis of a reduced number, and every time they have to do this they must eliminate perhaps one constituency and extend the size of the others. So you have a situation in which a constituency such as mine before redistribution involved a land mass at least one-third or half the size of the country of Hungary, but following redistribution it will represent an area equal to the size of that country. That is the kind of situation that develops.
In three days travelling in my constituency from one community to another one can put 900 to 1,000 miles on his car. That is a tremendous amount of driving. There are tremendous problems of communication particularly as they relate to community of interest. To divide the area in this way we would have a new constituency of Moose Jaw-Assiniboia which would run from Davidson, Saskatchewan, down to the United States border. A constituency of that magnitude, represented by one member, is so large it would be impossible to give the service required of
July 10,1973

the member. He must represent the views of the people in terms of those who live in the cities and those who live in the rural areas.
Most of us in Saskatchewan are adaptable and we are prepared to tackle this kind of problem, but if we continue along these lines the province of Saskatchewan could have its membership reduced to six. That is why there should be a review, rather than for the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Crowfoot, even though I am inclined to agree with some of them. We in Saskatchewan face the very definite possibility of having the number of representatives reduced to six.


Mr.   Homer@Crowfoot: If you continue to have a socialist government there, you will.


William George Knight: This is a definite possibility, while at the same time the province of New Brunswick will be allowed to maintain its number of representatives at ten regardless of size of population. That is an extremely serious problem in terms of representation as enunciated by the British North America Act, and that is why I believe this review ought to take place. In addition, I believe the review ought to take place in a minority parliament rather than a parliament of majorities where one political party can hold the club in respect of the whole matter.
There have been arguments put forward by one of my colleagues from Saskatchewan. He said he was completely satisfied with the redistribution boundaries in the province of Saskatchewan. That is his right and prerogative. But during his argument he stated we were casting aside the work of the boundaries commissions across the country. To my mind that is an improper argument on this issue. We are not casting this work aside; we are suspending it for 18 months during which time we hope to reconcile our differences and develop a policy that is acceptable. Perhaps this will increase the number of members to something similar to the limitations in respect of the number of senators from each province. If we cannot answer these fundamental questions, then redistribution does in fact take place, regardless of what has been suggested by my colleague. He and I have had this debate in the corridor already, but I thought I should enunciate my feelings again.
I was amazed at the logic of some of the arguments of the hon. member for Peel South. He happens to be a Tory sitting close to me, but in terms of ideology he sits far away. After what I thought was an attack on the rural areas in relation to some mischievous plot that it taking place, pitting rural members against urban members, he went on to explain that Prince Edward Island should have six seats and that his urban area should have two representatives instead of one as at the present time. He then went on to say that with the recent growth rate, assuming this country would continue to grow at the same rate and that we would have the same number of constituencies, 264, based on the 1981 census Peel South would be entitled to four representatives.
The hon. member failed to point out that should the province of Prince Edward Island continue to lose population at the present rate-and I hope that does not happen-and fall below what is required for four constituencies, it would continue to have this number of members
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension regardless of population. He strenuously defended that position. Even if there was a loss in population, Prince Edward Island would be guaranteed that representation by the British North America Act. In this event, the people of Prince Edward Island would still have as much or greater representation than the increased representation the hon. member was suggesting for Peel South. The hon. member did not see in that situation a case for parliament reviewing the question of redistribution of representation by population, and for that reason I do not know why he opposes this measure.
Under this legislation we would in fact re-examine this very fundamental question in 18 months. We would not be re-examining the question of having independent boundaries commissions, which I think is a principle from which we should not wander. We would be re-examining the number of representatives in this House of Commons along with the ingredients that go into this whole matter of redistribution. We could examine the possibility of increasing the number of members in this House to avoid loss of representation in the provinces. We could go into many other matters at the same time. I think we should set ourselves that kind of job.
There is tremendous psychological reaction in many areas of this country which is difficult to explain to a member coming from a large urban area. There is psychological reaction in a rural area which has seen over the decades loss of population and loss of membership in this House of Commons. You can imagine the tremendous psychological effect of seeing 21 seats cut to 17, 17 to 13, 13 to 12 and then, as suggested to 11, 10, 9 or something of that order. I understand it would stop at ten in the province of Saskatchewan.
People would not react as strongly if they understood that even with the population growth there would be a limit on the increase in the number of members and they would stay at a certain level. But that does not take place under this legislation because we stay at a fixed number. If we stayed within the 25 per cent up or down adjustment rate, I think this would be a liberal approach to redistribution.
If we could redistribute in terms of considering the number of people it would be practical for an hon. member to properly represent, whether it be in an urban or a rural area, assuming that Canada's population continues growing, then consideration could be given not only to the rural members but to the urban members. If we keep the number of members at 264, assuming Canada's population continues to grow, then we must ask ourselves in respect of urban and rural centres how many people an hon. member should try to represent. I believe that a member, whether he lives in Peel South or Assiniboia, should not be asked to represent more than 30,000 or 35,000 voters. That would bring about an increase in the number of representatives.
What causes me concern is that after we drew up the British North America Act there were two systems of representation within parliament. One body was elected and the other was appointed. "The other," if I may remind members of the House, is the Senate. We do not hear very

July 10, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension much of the Senate, and I would be inclined to retire all the senators. But they tried at that time to bring in regional representation related to the United States system to which the hon. member for Crowfoot referred. They said there would be so many members from the prairie region, from the Maritimes, from Quebec, from Ontario, and so on. The other place has never lived up to the responsibility of giving regional representation, which supposedly was its task. It has been a most useless institution. It contains the greatest welfare cases we have ever had in this country from the time of drawing up the British North America Act.
I do not know exactly what the solution is to that problem. I suspect we could abolish the Senate and have more space for members of parliament. We could have representation by population so that there would be no need to do away with a constituency in Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan or Newfoundland. We would be able to increase the number of representatives those provinces have now, increase the number of members of parliament so they would be able to represent the people by election and not by appointment as a pay-off for duty well done to a government in Ottawa.
Therefore, I will support this bill on the basis of reviewing the general, over-all constitutional questions involved, but not in any way, shape or form in terms of any interference with the operation of the independent boundaries commissions which I believe are good and essential in principle.


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my views on Bill C-208 to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. I support this legislation. I might add that I have represented the constituency of Marquette since 1968, which was the first election under the boundaries that exist for this riding. In the redistribution of 1966 the land area of Marquette almost doubled in size. On January 22, 1973, the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Manitoba announced its new proposals for Manitoba. Since that time I have received many letters from constituents in Marquette and other people in Manitoba expressing dissatisfaction with the proposals. I have also attended six meetings on redistribution in the riding since January 22.
Any Electoral Boundaries Commission dealing with redistribution has a very difficult task; it is impossible to please all areas of the country. However, I believe common sense has to be used. I have tried to obtain the reaction of the people of Marquette to the boundaries proposed and I say most emphatically that the present proposals are totally unacceptable to my constituents.
I feel it is most important that section 51 of the British North America Act be repealed and replaced by a new section in order to give recognition to area and regional representation of those provinces not protected by the senatorial floor to the extent that they should be. We believe it is most important that any committee set up to look into redistribution review this aspect completely. As an example, the province of Manitoba in 1941, with a population of just over 700,000, had 17 seats in the House of Commons. Under the proposals put forward this year by the Electoral Boundaries Commission, Manitoba which has a population of one million is to be reduced to 12 seats.
[Mr. Knight.)
In other words, in the last 30 years we have had an increase in population in Manitoba of well over a quarter of a million people, yet our representation in the House of Commons has been cut from 17 to 12 seats.
I want to list some of Manitoba's main concern regarding the present proposals. In the proposals, although the province loses one seat the commission has eliminated two rural ridings despite the fact that close to half our population still lives in rural Manitoba. I can see no reason for the rural areas losing two ridings. The redistribution act states that when you establish the population quota for a riding in a province you take the total population of the province and divide it by the designated number of seats in the province. In Manitoba's case, you divide 12 into the total population and the quota for a riding is approximately 82,000 people. The act states that because a metropolitan riding has a greater concentration of people it is allowed a tolerance of 25 per cent above this quota of 82,000. Because of the land area covered by most rural ridings they are allowed a tolerance of 25 per cent below the 82,000 quota.
The commission has completely disregarded the part of the act which provides that none of the rural ridings has to be above 65,000 population. The tolerance allowance was put into the act to protect the rural areas. The commission also seem to be assuming there will be the same depopulation of rural areas in the next ten years as there was in the last ten years. Most people feel there will be a levelling off and this trend will not continue to the same extent. In the proposals, only three ridings, Brandon-Souris, Churchill and Dauphin, do not touch greater Winnipeg. Of the other nine ridings, six are completely within the boundaries of greater Winnipeg and the remaining three border upon and enter the greater Winnipeg area. This means nine of our 12 ridings are connected to greater Winnipeg. This also means it is possible to have nine of the 12 members from Manitoba living in the greater Winnipeg area.
Another point I should like to make is that where possible we believe the commission should use natural barriers as boundaries. As an example, the northwest corner of the riding of Marquette has nothing in common with the riding of Dauphin. A large majority of the people in Marquette do not go to Dauphin once in ten years. In the case of Marquette, the majority of traffic moves in an east-west direction on the Trans-Canada Highway and No. 4 Highway. Between the cities of Brandon and Portage la Prairie there is very little traffic across the Assiniboine River. The proposals disregard completely natural travel patterns, trading areas and communities of interest.
We should also point out that Riding Mountain national park has over 1,200 square miles of wilderness. There is only one road across this park, No. 10 Highway, and it is controlled by the park authorities. There is presently talk that this highway may be turned into a scenic drive with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour, thereby eliminating all normal traffic.
In the proposed ridings of Dauphin and Portage, because of the way the population is evenly spread out it would be impossible for a member to give effective representation to these two new ridings because of them land area. Again, I mention the tolerance factor that is in the act to protect large rural ridings. At the time the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was debated in the House of Commons,
July 10, 1973

it was clearly stated that full tolerance would be allowed to ensure that rural areas were fairly and properly represented. This is not the case under the present proposals. In the proposals for Manitoba the name of the federal constituency of Marquette disappears. Marquette has been the name of a Manitoba riding since confederation. In the early days Marquette was represented by Sir John A. Macdonald, our first Prime Minister. We feel that an historical name such as Marquette should be retained. This question should be taken into consideration whenever redistribution is discussed.
I want to make a very important point regarding the present commission. There are no representatives from the rural areas of Manitoba on the boundaries commission, and we feel strongly that all future commissions should include representatives from rural areas. Parliament, and the role of a member of parliament, have changed drastically in the last ten years. At one time the House of Commons was in session for only six months of the year and a member could spend six months in his riding communicating with and learning his constituents' problems. Today, the House is usually in session nine to ten months a year and being a federal member is definitely a full-time job. Citizens like to see their member of parliament and know the man who represents them. With the rural ridings being so large, this is impossible. As an example, in the 1971 summer recess I put 15,000 miles on my car in a two-month period touring the riding of Marquette, and even then I did not reach all parts of the riding. This is a ridiculous situation, yet under the proposals the rural ridings will increase again in size by half.
When the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson was prime minister he tried to bring Ottawa closer to the people. He made it possible for a member to take one air trip a week to his riding when the House was in session. Previously, only Ontario and Quebec members returned to their ridings regularly. One trip a week for all members meant that all areas of Canada were treated equally. However, for this system to work effectively rural ridings must follow natural travel patterns. In the new ridings of Dauphin and Portage, because of the area they cover and natural barriers it is virtually impossible to cover them effectively.
I should like to return to the reason the electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act provides that a rural riding can be 25 per cent below the normal quotient for a constituency in any given province, it is well known that a rural riding has many issues to contend with which come under federal jurisdiction and do not affect urban ridings to the same extent. I believe that the constituency of Marquette is a typical rural riding. Let us look at marquette and the areas of concern that face many rural ridings.
First, we have the Riding Mountain national park which creates many problems that face only rural areas. Second, in Marquette we have four Indian reservations. Admittedly, our native people face many problems in the cities, but there are no reservations in the urban areas. Third, in Marquette we have Camp Shilo. Usually, military training bases are located in rural areas because of the high cost of real estate and the large land area required. Fourth, transportation presents problems. In Marquette we have the Trans-Canada Highway and the Yellowhead route, two
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension transcontinental rail lines plus numerous branch lines which seriously affect the future movement of grain to world markets.
Fifth, although we border Lake Manitoba, commercial fishing does not affect Marquette as much as it does some rural ridings. However, in Marquette experiments have been conducted. Farmers' sloughs were stocked in the spring with fingerling trout and marketable fish were recovered from the sloughs in the fall. This has been called fish farming and we expect great development and advancement in this industry.
My last and main point concerns agriculture. Agriculture is still this nation's second largest industry. Because it is the nation's second largest industry and the fact that it takes huge areas of our country for this industry to function, it is imperative that farmers be given complete regional representation in Ottawa. As an example, urban areas are not concerned about the Canadian Wheat Board, PFRA, community pastures or the many other facets of agriculture. We must have representatives from the rural areas who understand these problems and can speak out for the farmer.
There are other points that I could make, but these are six reasons why the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act must protect the rural areas and give them fair representation in parliament. There is no reason under the act why any Manitoba rural riding must have a population of over 65,000. When the new proposals were announced for the province of Manitoba last January, because of the concern expressed by many people we felt that in order to keep the briefs non-political they should be presented to the hearings of the Manitoba Electoral Boundaries Commission by an elected representative at the municipal level of government. All mayors and reeves were contacted and meetings were held. This involved 41 councils which represented all the towns and rural municipalities in the constituency of Marquette.
It is a clear fact that by resolution or by presenting a brief at the commission hearings in either Portage la Prairie or Brandon, all 41 councils opposed the proposed boundary changes. It must be a unique situation in Canada when all municipal councils in one constituency oppose boundary changes. At the time of the Manitoba commission hearings in Brandon I asked that the present proposals be scrapped and protection be given to the rural areas of the province. It is only fair that we protect the rural way of life, a way of life that is cherished by many. As pointed out by many other speakers, most countries give recognition to area and regional representation. I feel that Canada must do this, and I support this bill.


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my participation in this debate marks the fourth or fifth time that I have taken part in debates in the House of Commons since the House began its sittings in January. Other members have spoken much more than me. I have deliberately remained in my seat during several of the debates because I believe that, as a new member, one of the most important things I can do here in Ottawa is to learn more about the issues which affect our country so that any contribution I make to our deliberations can be reasoned and coherent. However, from time to time issues arise that require a member of

July 10, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension parliament to make himself heard and for us to be silent would be a breach of faith with our constituents. This bill to postpone the proposed new redistribution is one of those issues. Over the past few days we have heard several speakers from all parties putting forward major arguments both for and against postponing redistribution and I have followed the debate with interest. I would like to add my voice to those members who have spoken against immediate redistribution of electoral boundaries.
As a rural member of parliament, the validity of the case against redistribution is apparent to me. Many of the arguments used in defence of our position are well known. I used them myself in my presentation to the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission earlier this year. The demands upon rural and urban members are different, and communications within an urban riding are often much easier than within a rural constituency stretching over several hundred square miles. It takes time for a rural member to win the recognition and trust of his constituents on a person to person basis, which is important if he is to serve them properly. The minorities-the young, the old, the poor, and the ethnic groups-can all be brought into full participation in our democracy, but it takes time and stability for this to be done.
Regular redistribution merely serves to destroy much of the work that a conscientious member of parliament does between elections. Areas without any community of interest are regularly placed together in a new constituency, and by the time they begin to work together as a unit they are again torn apart. Redistribution often means that a rural area which was once represented by a rural member of parliament finds itself submerged by the much greater numbers in an urban area to which it is joined in redistribution. This particular phenomenon will take place in my home town if redistribution goes through as planned.
All these arguments are valid and in themselves afford ample justification for the postponement of redistribution. But today I would like to address my remarks to the contention of some urban members that those of us who oppose redistribution are somehow undemocratic. In any debate of this kind we hear the proponents of redistribution say that rural areas are already vastly over-represented, that on the basis of representation by population it is apparent that rural constituencies have been getting more than their share of power in government. It is this claim that we have been getting too much representation that I would like to discuss.
I do not think anyone here today would try to deny the fact that the number of voters in a rural constituency in this country is often much smaller than in urban constituencies. Certainly, I would not. It would appear from a superficial analysis of representation in Canada that rural Canadians like myself have a great deal more say than our numbers entitle us to have. But the people who are satisfied with these assertions refuse to look beyond the most superficial level. If we want to see which group really dominates government in Canada, we should not be looking at those of us who sit in the back benches but, rather, at those who sit in the front rows: members of the cabinet, the shadow cabinet, and the leaders of our national parties. The vast preponderance of this group is urban. They represent urban constituencies. They had urban jobs
[Mr. Beatty (Wellington-Grt?y-Dufferin-Waterloo).j
before they were elected, and they were given an urban education. Their way of viewing the problems of Canada is urban, and their priorities are urban priorities.
About all that rural Canadians can be assured of being able to claim on the front benches is the Department of Agriculture and the chairmanship of the various agricultural committees of party caucuses. And it was not very long ago that even the Minister of Agriculture represented an urban seat. The power within the House of Commons is already in the hands of urban members. But what about the other aspects of government, the political parties and the civil service? The answer to that question is just as simple. Our political parties are run from the cities by people who live in the cities, who take advice from urban advisers, who received urban educations, who collect money from urban businesses and urban unions and who contract for work to be done by urban suppliers. They often wear blinders in respect of the needs of rural party members.
Our bureaucracy in Canada is centred in Ottawa and in the other large cities. The people who dominate the Treasury Board, who design our economic strategy and who run the various departments and agencies of government are not rural Canadians. They come from the cities. They often have an urban contempt for rural people and their problems. Yet we hear that rural Canadians dominate our governments and they must be further stripped of whatever influence remains to them in government.
Unquestionably, some of the members of this House are dubious about the ill effects that can be caused for rural Canadians by having decisions made in the cities. Anyone who doubts the implications of urban control of government need only look at programs such as Opportunities for Youth, LIP and those under the Canada Council to discover that the lives of rural Canadians are being shaped, not by their local councils which are responsive to their needs and their desires, not by their members of the federal or provincial parliaments but by bureaucrats in Ottawa or in the other cities who systematically bypass local governments and determine for themselves what is in the best interests of rural Canadians. And as the cost of the government and the scope of its activities grow, the power of rural Canadians to live their own lives in freedom and to develop in their own way grows less and less.
Perhaps the creeping impotence of that part of Canada beyond the borders of our great cities is best symbolized by the federal task force on agriculture that was composed, not of farmers-because farmers would not be capable of planning for the future of agriculture-but by four academics and one chartered accountant. In their recommendations they constructed a 1990s model of agriculture that would drive even more family farmers from business and encourage even further rural depopulation. That report, commissioned by the federal government, would be the death sentence of rural Canada if it were implemented.
The argument that rural Canadians are being undemocratic in opposing an even greater shift of political power to the cities might make more sense if all that we had to consider was the structure of government. But if we are
July 10, 1973

serious about examining the structure of power in Canada we have to look beyond government to the other institutions that condition and shape our lives. Industry and commerce are centred in the cities. With them remain the wealth and opportunities to be found within business. Our great labour unions are urban institutions. Education, in the form of post-secondary schooling and in the regulation of our schooling systems, is centred in the cities.
The media and communications are located in the cities. Even what goes into our daily newspaper is reported by people from the cities on the basis of their urban news judgment. And because the major markets are in the cities, items of interest to rural Canadians are often ignored. Transportation facilities are located in the cities. In my area of Ontario we do not even have passenger train service.
Cultural facilities and artists are to be found in the cities. The recognition of the role which artists play in determining our national heritage is based upon urban criteria. How many Canada Council grants have gone to rural organizations? When was the last time that a country music singer was asked to dine at 24 Sussex Drive? They are excluded because of a sense of cultural elitism on the part of the people who decide what constitutes culture, despite the fact that for millions of Canadians country music is part of their lifestyle. As our society has become centralized and bureaucratized, rural Canadians have become forgotten Canadians. Many of my friends in politics are from the cities, and they tell me that they want to participate in the cities because the great problems of the next few decades will be urban problems which will require urban solutions. How myopic can they be?
We have set in motion a chain of events which will serve to destroy rural Canada and which can only worsen the problems of the cities unless it is stopped. Almost every three hours another rural Ontarian leaves the farm because the economic cards are so badly stacked against the family farmer. And as the rural townships depopulate, the community school and church are closed and the general store is forced to close its door. Because the rich people from the cities, who buy up the farms for use as weekend retreats, do their shopping in the city and refuse to make improvements on their land or to township roads, the small stores in the rural communities are closed and township councils are unable to provide the level of services that are necessary to keep their areas viable.
As the rural people leave the farms in search of new opportunities, they migrate to the cities where they only add to the problems of unemployment, of welfare, of housing, of transportation, of pollution and of policing. How much cheaper would it have been for our society to keep the rural areas vital and healthy than to have to deal with the results of their neglect when they are felt in the cities? And what are the social costs of uprooting rural Canadians from their lifestyle of decades and forcing them to adapt to the way of life in the collection of expressways and neuroses that we call cities? Joni Mitchell, the Canadian folksinger, described the situation well when she said:
And on and on we seem to go
That you don't know what you've got till it's gone
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot.
The time has come in Canada to start to decentralize power in Canada, to return it to the small communities and to the people of this country. The time has come for a rebirth of democracy in this country.
True democracy does not lend itself to neat formulas based upon the domination by a large and powerful group over a smaller and powerless one. It means the right and ability of all people, regardless of wealth, family background or geography, to freedom and dignity, the right to live their own lives in peace. I turned my back on a career in the city that might have been easier and more prosperous and returned home to run for political office because I believe it is about time somebody started to speak out for small towns and rural Canada. I think it is about time that rural Canadians were again given a chance for a decent life. It is about time a major political party in this country repudiated the policies of successive administrations that have centralized power in our society and disenfranchised the average Canadian, whether he lives in the cities or in the country.
The issue is not one of an antiquated way of life passing into history. It is one part of the struggle to maintain and restore those elements of humanity that still remain in a technological culture that is so often coldly brutal and inhumane. It is the struggle for the right to be ourselves. Rural Canadians love this country and we believe in its future. We want our children to have a part in Canada's future. That is what this whole debate is really about.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I will not be speaking very long on this subject, but I would like to say to the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Duff-erin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) that his ode to rural Canada was very moving. I felt that he put it extremely well. It needed to be said again this year. At other times my colleague from Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) and I have discussed the decline and the erosion of rural Canada and the consequent problems for our future, as a matter of fact to the extent that I personally feel it would be almost worth while subsidizing people to remain and make the rural communities much more viable. This would be less costly in the long run than the costs of social programs, housing, police and other costs of the megalopolises which now seem to be part of our future.
Redistribution in a country such as Canada is not going to be easy. The demographic trends make it extremely difficult. Regional disparities in our country make it extremely difficult. No one is going to suggest that whatever formula we come up with will meet 100 per cent approval.
I think that in my province of British Columbia, within the parameters of the act under which it must function, the redistribution committee did a pretty good job. Certainly the members of the commission did not please everyone, but any representations that were made to them, at least when it was present, including ones I made myself, were listened to thoughtfully and I think resulted in changes along the lines of the suggestions made. Certainly that could not be done in all cases because some of the suggestions were contradictory, but in the main they
5472

July 10, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension did a very good job. What concerns me about all this is that I am well aware, along with other hon. members, that we are never going to get "rep by pop" in its ideal form.
We have a set of ridings now in this bill and I anticipate that we will have the same ridings for perhaps three or four years while we study this question based on the census figures of 1961. We can hardly fail to recognize that there have been vast changes in where we live, whatever the motivating factors may be. The point is there have been changes, and they are not reflected in our electoral boundaries. The answer may be to have a review, or it may entail increasing the number of seats in this House. I am not sure that I could support that. For our population I think Canadians are supporting enough members of parliament and 264 of us can do an adequate job. I do not think we need 300. But that may be so.
How are we going to get around the constitutional problem? The province of Prince Edward Island is a classic case. With fewer electors than my riding of Fraser Valley West, because of a constitutional commitment it sends four members to Ottawa while my riding sends one. This means that the people of Prince Edward Island-some of whom are my relatives; very fine people-have four times the voting clout of the people in my riding. The other extreme is my colleague from the Northwest Territories who represents, geographically, one-third of Canada. Within these two widely separated extremes we can see that on the basis of any kind of idea of "rep by pop" we have a long way to go before it is achieved.
There are approximately 130,000 people in my riding. By the time we get around to changing this in terms of redistribution, if we support this bill there will perhaps be
160,000	or 170,000. I think it is unfair to expect one person, in his role of ombudsman, to represent 160,000 people or, in Scarborough East, 190,000 people. I realize that distances or sparse population all have their implications, but rhetorically I should like to ask why we cannot accept the boundaries as articulated by the redistribution commissions across Canada after suitable debate, and conduct our constitutional review at the same time? I do not see why one has to be held up to accomplish the other.
We may need a different basis for fixing boundaries. I do not see why my province of British Columbia-and this is true of the province of Ontario and one other province- has to be denied seats during the period this review is taking place. That is my basic concern and I think it is a basic concern of those whose provinces are gaining population. Certainly I can recognize the concern of Saskatchewan. Because of the senatorial floor, Saskatchewan could well end up with the same number of seats as New Brunswick and yet have twice the population.
There are anomalies in the whole thing, Mr. Speaker, but I still have not heard an answer to my own satisfaction. That is why I will not support this bill. I still have not had the basic question answered as to why, in order to accomplish this review, we cannot let the redistribution go ahead. Does it mean that the work of the commission or the study of this whole question in our country has suddenly to be put in limbo? If that question can be answered

satisfactorily, I might change my mind; but I do not see that these two things are necessarily tied together.
I said I was not going to speak very long, Mr. Speaker. These are my basic remarks and the reasons why I, as a British Columbian and one who represents an urban riding, am not content to have this matter delayed. The people I represent have to vote in a riding which was fundamentally drawn on the basis of what the population was 15 years ago, and I think it is unfair.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few observations. I brought this matter before the House on January 11 in a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when I said:
It has to do with the redistribution that is now being considered by committees which I understand are meeting in the various provinces. In view of the fact that several provinces-Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan-will be losing membership unless there is an amendment to the British North American Act, has consideration been given by the government to bringing in an address to the end that membership in these various provinces will not fall below the present level and to achieve that either by a directive or by increasing the size of the membership in the House as I believe was done in the forties?
The answer given by the Prime Minister was:
Mr. Speaker, some thought has been given within the government to such a matter. I would be prepared to pursue that thought. I feel that unless the legislation or the amendment were retroactive it would probably be impossible to do anything about the electoral reform action which is now in process. But I will look into that aspect of the matter too. I do know that this is an important problem for many provinces in Canada. It does involve an amendment to the British North America Act and that is no easy undertaking.
On January 24, I again brought the matter up and the Prime Minister at that time stated:
Mr. Speaker, I think the view which would prevail would probably be that under section 91(1) of the BNA Act it could be done by statute of parliament... but I do realize, Mr. Speaker, that the other view could be held by people who believe it to be in provincial interests.
I will just quote a portion of my next question which was:
Does the Prime Minister suggest that a change can be made in the membership of the House, in view of the provisions in the British North America Act as well as all amendments to that act that have taken place, by the simple act of a statute passed by this parliament? Does he say that the law officers of the Crown have that view? If he does, it is the end of the constitution.
Apparently the government has worked out a plan which I think meets the needs of the moment. Certainly the situation is becoming worse and worse when provinces are losing their membership because of the tremendous migration from the country to the city. I think the summary made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) was exceptionally well reasoned and indicated the situation in his province and generally, I think, across the country.
What we are doing, in effect, is not facing up to this matter at all but simply postponing consideration so that the whole question can be dealt with after more mature thought than can be given to it at this time. What we are in fact doing is preparing for the next election, which is not very far away if the information I have had within the last few days is correct, that in the various urban seats
July 10,1973

returning officers have been asked to get in touch with the parties that ran one and two in those constituencies to the end that enumerators can be named. That is most indicative of the degree to which this House is going to be kept in session in order to pass various bills that are apparently going to be brought in, and it would lead one to believe, coupled with the directions being given to the returning officers, that an election is close at hand.
I see the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEac-hen) smiling with the smile that indicates that probably what I am stating is well based. When the President of the Privy Council smiles, he brings us all together in agreement. That has been the secret of his success as the singular member of the government charged with the responsibility of making the House work.
So we face an election. We also face, as has been pointed out over and over again, a serious falling away of the population of certain provinces and areas in our country. Although this is not the time or place to do so in detail, let me mention what has happened in Saskatchewan. I took it upon myself to look into that matter. According to my information, the population of Saskatchewan, if migrations proceed at their present rate, by 1981 will be approximately 2,100 more than it was in 1961. In other words, what is happening in those provinces-in this connection Saskatchewan is one example and Manitoba is another, although the degree of diminution of population in that province is not as great as the degree of diminution in Saskatchewan-is an indication that more and more we are becoming an urbanized country.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) and with many of the things he expressed I am in agreement. However, I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not agree with his idea that the committee for Saskatchewan which looked at electoral boundaries of constituencies did a good job. In point of fact, it is difficult to understand the tinkering that was done by the commission headed by the hon. Mr. Justice Brownridge. I am going to mention my own constituency as an example. For a while it looked, in view of the degree to which Prince Albert now extends 18 miles south of Saskatoon, as if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and I might be opposing candidates in the next election. Now, with what has been done by this bill, that possibility has been eliminated. But it would have been a wonderful battle. I was rather looking forward to it. I see the President of the Privy Council smiling. Yes, I was really looking forward to that battle.
As far as the province of Saskatchewan is concerned, it is obvious that in drafting certain of the boundaries the commission under Mr. Justice Brownridge had political considerations in mind. Indeed, in order to add to the population of one constituency he found it necessary to deduct therefrom about 18,000, and then to run that constituency south many, many miles to a point far removed from the centre of the constituency. It was a political job. It was a gerrymander. And I can recognize a gerrymander, Sir, because I experienced that twice in Lake Centre. The third time that part of the constituency was wiped out by being divided five ways. I always bow when I hear the name of the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner. But for him I
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension would have never become prime minister because I did not intend to run in the election of 1952. But when they took my constituency and wiped it out finally, having tried twice previously to jimmymander it, I decided that I would run in Prince Albert where for many, many years only a Liberal had been elected, with the exception of one socialist.
The day of the gerrymander is over, at least officially. The action of the provincial commission in Saskatchewan leads me to believe that the chairman of that commission had some ambition for a higher judicial appointment. Having given him a most generous reference, let me say that I think that what is being done here is a step forward. Of course, I cannot visualize the House of Commons without the President of the Privy Council and I cannot imagine his constituency being wiped out. To me, that was ground enough for the assurance that there would be action on the part of the government in bringing forward legislation which would remove the possibility of a catastrophe such as the minister's not being a candidate in the. constituency that he has represented for so long.
As far as the bill is concerned, I give it my support, because if it had been brought in any other way I would have found it necessary to raise strong objections to its constitutionality. There is nothing, as I see it, that would make this parliament postpone the facing of this issue, and that is what we are doing. In so far as it affects the western provinces, this bill is one of the first steps along the road to reform. The need for reform has suddenly stricken the heart of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in preparation for his meeting the representatives of western Canada. No doubt this is the first step toward the economic conference that will begin in Calgary within the next couple of weeks. Before I sit down, let me direct these remarks to the acting prime minister of the moment. He should warn the Minister of Justice from now on not to make attacks on provincial premiers of western Canada, because what he has done in recent days in that connection would almost lead one to believe that he decided to torpedo the conference in advance.
What is being done now is just a step for the purpose of bringing about equity within this country. "Rep by pop" is a fine phrase. I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) reviewing history. I read all the debates that took place between 1841 and 1867. However, representation by population cannot be preserved within this country if confederation is to be maintained. We and other areas outside of the cities would be wiped out and our people would be virtually without that representation to which they have a right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.
5474

July 10, 1973
Election Expenses



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
f English]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before proceeding further let me say that 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 Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell)-Fisheries- Salmon fishing ban in Atlantic provinces-Settlement of fishermen's claims; the hon. member for Vancouver Kings-way (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Urban Affairs-Jericho defence land, Vancouver-Request for transfer to city; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Fisheries- Losses suffered by Atlantic area fishermen from storm- Government assistance.
It is the understanding of the Chair that the public bill to be discussed at this time, is that standing in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). Is the Chair correct in that assumption?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Private members' public bills-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of Bill C-28, an act to regulate election expenses-Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands)
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid I cannot permit the motion to be moved at this time without at least dealing with a point of order, of which initial notice was given in January by Mr. Speaker when he mentioned that several bills which would be presented for second reading would need to be examined by the Chair and by the House and in connection with which points of order would be raised.
One of the bills with regard to which this caveat was given was the bill introduced by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I can tell the hon. member that what concerns the Chair, and what concerned Mr. Speaker at that time, are clauses 6, 7 and 9 which appear to constitute some form of charge upon the public revenue and which would, if this were so, clearly fall within the prohibition set out in Standing Orders 62 and 63.
I now invite the hon. member or any other hon. member who wishes to make presentations on this point to assist

the Chair, to do so. Otherwise it is my disposition to rule that the bill cannot be presented at this time.


Mr. Reid:: If there is no disposition to argue the procedural point, and if Your Honour is about to rule the bill out of order, may I say I believe there is agreement that we return to the business we were discussing before five o'clock, namely, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If that is agreeable, I will not even make a ruling. I have indicated the difficulty which is before the Chair. There may be cures for it in other directions. I do not wish to take the results of the hon. member's hard work and deal with them peremptorily here.
If it is agreed that the House resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock, it is so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-208, to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I shall not speak for very long this afternoon because everyone to whom I have listened has presented different arguments and they all seem very good. There are one or two things on which I should like to comment. First, the system of redistribution. I think it is a good system. I remember that when the first maps came out many people in my province were not too happy about them. I presented my submission to the commission at its public hearings, as did others, and most of those submissions were acted upon. So I think I would prefer to see responsibility for future redistribution left in the hands of independent commissions rather than the hands of the House of Commons, because we would spend months talking about it, to judge from what we have heard already in this debate. One thing we need is a permanent voters' list. This might meet some of the difficulties which arise because of the time situation.
My main purpose in rising today is to support the interests of the people of British Columbia, who are the ones really affected, and affected adversely by the postponement of redistribution. In 1961, British Columbia, with a population of 1,600,000, was awarded 23 seats. If the bill before us passes, it might be 1975 or 1976 before redistribution takes place and by that time the population of British Columbia will have doubled. I agree that strict representation by population is not always the answer because there are some regions whose interests might be unfairly affected. Nevertheless, I cannot see why the
July 10,1973

representation of a province which doubles its population should stand still at 23 seats between 1961 and 1975.


An hon. Member:: It is slowing down.


John Douglas Reynolds: British Columbia will never slow down, no matter what the government happens to be. This bill will get my support now on second reading, but it will not receive my support on third reading unless a formula is worked out between the whips or the House leaders by which British Columbia will receive its three seats before the next election. If the rest of the provinces wish to review the situation so that they do not lose seats, that is fine with us, but I cannot see British Columbia going right through until 1975 and missing those three seats.
People to whom I have spoken in British Columbia will be very happy to see redistribution take place and there is no reason why it cannot take place right away, even if we are the only province affected, in which case we would not be short of those seats. I shall propose such an arrangement in committee and make this point later during third reading. That is all I wish to say. I could say a good deal more about the maps, and so on, but I think we ought to get on with this business.


Mr. Harry Kuntz (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to enter this debate and go on record as being fully in support of Bill C-208. Why do I support the bill? Because, along with many other members in the House, I believe the time has come for a complete review of every aspect of the guidelines and laws which have governed the setting of the federal electoral boundaries across Canada in the past. What better time could we pick than the 18 months which this bill will provide?
I firmly believe that although the rules governing redistribution in the past were adequate, they have now become obsolete and outdated. There is an old saying which goes like this: You are not making progress unless you are willing to give up a good idea in favour of a better one. In the case of electoral boundaries, there has to be a solution which is acceptable to all regions of Canada. The only way to find the solution is to have the subject turned over to a committee for in-depth study. The committee must be formed of people who have complete comprehension of all the problems involved.
Mr. Speaker, most hon. members can quote numerous examples of committees being composed of people who were not familiar with the subjects being dealt with. Of course, the results were appalling. A prime example was the Electoral Boundaries Commission of the province of Alberta. In that province the agricultural industry is the backbone of our economy, yet not one member of the commission was remotely associated with the agricultural industry. This must not happen if and when a committee is established to study the issue of electoral boundaries. The people named to such a committee must have complete comprehension of the subject as it affects all regions.
There are, no doubt, members in this House who feel that the proposed electoral boundaries are just fine and should be implemented as suggested. I do not agree. One has only to consider the situation in one region, the Northwest Territories. This vast area, with all the potential resources it holds, is destined to become increasingly
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension important to every citizen of Canada. To ask, or as far as I am concerned to allow one member to represent this vast and vitally important region is not acceptable. In my view, the same considerations apply to the Yukon.
Alberta is basically an agriculture-related area. In other words, we produce food. I need not tell hon. members about the world food shortage we already face. However, I should like to bring to their attention the shortage we shall be facing in the future. The present world population of 3.74 billion will increase to more than six billion in the next 27 years. Imagine the world food shortage we shall be confronted with then! I predict that in the not-too-distant future agriculture will become the most important industry in the world.
People can get by without a lot of other commodities and make do one way or another, but food is vital. Yet in the new proposed electoral boundaries for Alberta the commission has completely wiped out three rural constituencies and placed them in the two largest cities, Edmonton and Calgary, thereby reducing the voice of agriculture in this House by another three members. To me this is completely ignoring the agricultural industry and the vital role it will be required to play in the future. This role is a fact that none of us can ignore, and those who choose to ignore agriculture-I direct this remark mostly to the younger members-will pay a very heavy price in the future. It is of the utmost importance that the rural and, therefore, agricultural areas have a strong voice in this House as every citizen of Canada has a stake in agriculture.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-208 be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The suggestion is that the Chair call it six o'clock. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being approximately six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At 5.13 p.m. the House took recess.

July 10, 1973
Election Expenses


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill we are now considering embodies many of the provisions suggested in its predecessor bill during the last Parliament and represents probably the most comprehensive attempt at the reform of electoral expenditures undertaken so far in Canada.
Among its chief provisions are strict limits on the amount of money which can be spent during an election campaign by political parties and candidates, the public disclosure of names of donors who contribute more than $100 to a party or candidate, a shortening of the time period during which political advertising would be permitted, the removal of restrictions on broadcast commentary during the final hours of election campaigns, and finally the reimbursement to candidates for election expenses up to a prescribed maximum.
The bill contains many provisions similar to those in the election expenses bill introduced in the House of Commons last year by the government. That bill, as hon. members know, was not passed before Parliament was dissolved. Among the major changes incorporated in the new bill are the requirement for full disclosure and the imposition of a ceiling on campaign spending by political parties.
There are several reasons for the significant changes between the old and the present bill. The discussion of election spending which took place during the last Parliament produced worthwhile suggestions from all parties which the government accepted in drafting the new bill. In addition, public demand for greater disclosure of the financial affairs of political parties has increased since the original bill was introduced.
Bill C-203, if passed by Parliament, will give Canada one of the most democratic and open electoral systems in the world. These reform proposals will remove much of the secrecy from the financial affairs of political parties, and will also encourage more Canadians of average means to contribute to the party of their choice and become more actively involved in the political process. The bill requires that every political party register with the Chief Electoral Officer the name of its chief agent, who would be responsible for submitting audited financial statements to the Chief Electoral Officer after an election campaign and at the end of each fiscal year.
These financial statements will be made available to the public. Each candidate will be required to appoint an official agent who will submit an audited financial statement to the constituency returning officer. The statement

will be a full and complete accounting of all campaign contributions and expenditures. The party's statements will have to include a complete list of all gifts and contributions received at any time, not only during an election period. Parties and candidates will also forward the name of every donor whose total contribution exceeds $100, together with the amount of the total contribution. This requirement will apply regardless of whether the donor is an individual, corporation, trade union, unincorporated organization or association.
In addition to the financial statements filed by parties and candidates after an election, political parties, as I have stated, will also be required to file an annual audit and financial statement which will include, in addition to contributions, an accounting of operating expenses and travel costs of the party leader and other party officials.
The question of disclosure of campaign contributions, or, for that matter, political contributions in general, is a key issue in the process of electoral reform. In the present bill, for the first time, there is a provision for virtually full and detailed disclosure by parties and candidates of the sources of revenues and objects of expenditures. In this regard, the bill goes further than the recommendations of either the Barbeau select committee or the special committee of the House of Commons which examined the question in the last Parliament. However, there is a widely held view that an individual person who contributes a nominal amount should not have to reveal the party to which he contributes. Many people believe that political affiliation, like voting preference, should be treated as a private matter. We have gone a certain distance in respecting that opinion, and therefore propose that individual contributors will not be identified unless their contribution exceeds $100. Thus they will not be in the position of having their political affiliation or preference revealed.
Anyone whose contribution to a candidate or party reaches a total above $100 can count on the fact that this contribution will be listed and will be available for public examination. That looks after the general question of disclosure and will contain for the first time in the history of this country an obligation on political parties to disclose the sources of their revenue. It will also obligate them for the first time to disclose the object of their expenditures following an election. So that is a major change in the treatment that will be accorded to national political parties under this bill if it becomes the law of Canada.
We are also proposing in this bill to impose a definite limit on party campaign expenditures. That is a significant difference from the bill introduced in the House of Commons in the last Parliament. The limit on national parties is the amount of 30 cents multiplied by the number of electors in ridings where the party has entered a candidate. This provision will undoubtedly have a significant effect in controlling the amounts to be spent by political parties in future campaigns in this country. The penalty for overspending will be a fine of up to $25,000 for the political party. The chief agent of the party will also be held accountable, and naturally a political party that overspends the limits proposed in this bill will probably be subjected to a good deal of public criticism and public scrutiny.
July 10, 1973

In addition to the provision for limits on the total amounts to be expended by national political parties, we are also proposing that ceilings be placed on the amounts that can be spent by individual candidates. Individual candidates will be permitted to spend for all campaign purposes an amount no greater than the equivalent of $1 for each of the first 15,000 eligible voters in their constituencies, 50 cents for each of the next 10,000 voters and 25 cents for each elector over 25,000. In a constituency with, say, 40,000 voters, a candidate would be permitted to spend up to $23,750. Overspending by a candidate could result upon conviction in a fine of up to $1,000.
This provision, with the proposed limits, is in accordance with the proposals of the special committee appointed in the last Parliament and is in accordance with the provisions of the bill which was introduced in the last Parliament and examined by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. This provision seemed to be generally acceptable and therefore it appears in almost unchanged form.
In referring to the limits on the expenses to be incurred by candidates it should be noted that groups acting on behalf of candidates with the knowledge and consent of party managers will be regarded as part of the candidates' organization. Expenses incurred by such groups, for example, will be regarded as part of the candidates' allowable expenses. So that an organization which might support the candidacy of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) as a separate organization would not be immune from attracting the limits that are normally attached to any candidate.
Of course, an exception is provided for in the bill in the case of recognized opinion groups; an exception will be made for opinion groups organized over a period of time to promote a particular cause. If their cause is similar to that espoused by a candidate then, of course, their expenses would not become part of the candidate's ceiling. This is a rather delicate aspect of the protection of the rights of individual groups to exercise their ability to influence public opinion. The committee will want to examine the provisions in the bill that are calculated to respect the ceiling but at the same time make it possible for groups in the community to operate during a campaign as well.
We have also responded to a suggestion that was made frequently in the debate on second reading in the last Parliament in regard to restricting paid political advertising during federal campaigns to the 29 days preceding election day. That provision was not contained in the original bill that was introduced in the House of Commons, but as a result of representations made in the House amendments were proposed to the bill. There is one exception to this provision, which will be to permit parties to advertise the time and place of meetings held for the nomination of candidates. Candidates will be free to advertise as usual in the 29 days which I have mentioned, and the committee may want to consider developing certain other exceptions in addition to the advertising of the time and place of meetings for the nomination of candidates. There are a number of exceptions that can be contemplated, and the standing committee could easily address itself to that problem. Of course, no advertising
Election Expenses
could be permitted on election day or on the day preceding the election.
Another important feature of this bill is the provision that political contributions will be deductible from the total tax to be paid by the taxpayer. The formula which is employed in this bill is different from that employed in the last bill. The same principle which was in the last bill is contained in the present bill, but we have weighted the tax credit available in favour of the small contributor. For example, if I recollect the formula in the bill, there will be a tax credit of up to 75 per cent of the first $100 contributed up to a total tax credit of $500. The purpose of doing it this way is to encourage the small contributor and to assist the candidate in attracting contributions from as wide a number of the electorate as possible.
It is evident that the disclosure provisions in the bill will probably reduce in the early stages the interest of certain contributors in making contributions to parties and candidates. We believe that we have compensated to some extent whatever shortfall may occur by making it possible for candidates and political organizations to solicit contributions from the smaller contributor with the assurance that the smaller contributor will receive a very significant tax credit.
I should mention at this point that the definition of election expenses in the bill includes the commercial value of donated goods and services and the commercial value of purchased goods and services, regardless of the amount actually paid for them. We have tried in the provisions of this bill not to include as part of the over-all expense limitation the voluntary contribution of the citizen who wishes to go out and work for a candidate. That is not expected to be counted in the over-all election expenses of the candidate. But we have attempted to include persons who may be full time professionals in one occupation and who would totally move their operations into a political campaign. We would hope that assimilation of such expense in an election campaign would be counted in the candidate's permissible ceiling. We believe that is a fair approach unless we are to strike an unfavourable balance against a certain candidate who is unable to acquire significant sources of support of that kind.
The bill will make it an offence to contribute to a political party or candidate except through a registered agent, and also an offence for election expenses to be paid through anyone except a registered agent. That is pretty much in accordance with the provisions of the present election law, which obliges a candidate to appoint an official agent, and obliges the official agent to be recipient of campaign contributions and also to be the person who pays the bills for the campaign.
We have also put into the bill another provision which will appeal to many candidates, and that is that the amount which advertising media can charge for political advertising during a campaign will be limited to the lowest amount charged for equivalent advertising purchased by non-political clients during the election period. We have all had the experience that during a campaign we have had to pay higher rates to the media than we normally would pay, and this is looked after in the bill.

July 10, 1973
Election Expenses
Radio and television stations will be required to provide six and one half hours of prime time during a campaign, apportioned equitably among the parties. The bill provides that, where there is any disagreement as to the apportionment of such time, the final arbiter will be the CRTC. I do not foresee any difficulty in the application of this principle, because, in the past, parties have been able to work out their apportionment of such time. Parties will be reimbursed from the public treasury for 50 per cent of the costs of purchasing allocated time. This is one part of the bill which contributes to the expenses of the national political parties.
In addition, local television stations whose coverage area lies entirely within one electoral district will be required to provide officially nominated candidates who are endorsed by registered parties with at least five minutes of prime broadcasting time, and radio stations at least 20 minutes. Officially nominated candidates who are not endorsed by registered parties will be provided with an amount of broadcasting time calculated on the basis of the number of non-endorsed candidates in the electoral district.
When the coverage area of a broadcasting station includes more than one electoral district the amount of prime time required to be provided to each candidate will be calculated on the basis of the number of candidates campaigning within the station's coverage area. In any event each candidate will be allotted a minimum of 30 seconds of television time and two minutes of radio time. This is really a provision to ensure that candidates have some exposure in the media, but they will be permitted, within their own limitations, to purchase additional time above the guaranteed minimum.
No broadcasting outlet will be permitted to sell advertising time to any party in excess of the allotted time; nor will it be permitted to offer free time to any party or candidate unless it offers an equivalent amount of free time to all other parties and candidates.
The bill provides for reimbursement from public funds of a portion of the campaign expenses incurred by candidates who obtain 20 per cent or more of the votes cast in their ridings. Such candidates will receive reimbursement to the extent of 16 cents for each of the first 25,000 voters in their ridings, and 14 cents for each additional voter, plus $250.
As a rough rule of thumb, that in the case of a candidate who has a permissible ceiling of $23,000 or so, provided he gets 20 per cent of the vote reimbursement of his total expenses would be in the order of 25 per cent. So the candidate is not entirely dependent. He first must attract a significant support in the constituency in order to qualify for support from the public treasury. In qualifying for that support he is reducing his dependence upon contributions received from other sources. At the same time, the limit that is imposed upon the candidate makes it rather easier for him to conduct a campaign with the knowledge that he can, with the assistance of the treasury and with the contributions that can be attracted through the tax credit, run his campaign more effectively. Of course, the provisions of the bill will not apply to the conduct of provincial or municipal elections.

This bill really exemplifies an integrated approach to electoral reform in four major areas, and in a sense these are mutually supporting areas or proposals. Each of these major proposals works in accordance with the other three. The first is the limit on the expenditures by candidates and parties. Second is the limitation on the duration of the campaign. Third is full and complete disclosure of revenues and expenditures of political parties and candidates; and finally, there is government assistance in meeting the cost of election campaigns.
I have attempted to deal with the major provisions of the bill, Mr. Speaker. I will repeat what I said when I introduced a similar bill in the last Parliament, that I will be ready, and certainly the government will be ready, to listen to constructive suggestions made by hon. members. Everybody who runs an election campaign feels he knows as much as anyone else, and those of us who have run in a number of elections feel we are really qualified to judge a bill of this kind. Therefore, I acknowledge my readiness to listen to suggestions in committee, where it is possible to accept improvements to the bill. However, I do want to say, in concluding, that even though it has taken a good deal of time, and has travelled a long road of committee work, the present bill does involve a very big step forward in the area of electoral reform in Canada.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to commend the government House leader (Mr. MacEachen) for his open-minded approach to a bill which finds essentially, I think, a very primary and basic welcome among all members of this House. I mention that because it is important that we approach something of such historical significance as this with an open mind. Notwithstanding the government House leader's bit of humour about all of us being the greatest experts in Canada with respect to election procedures, I hope that his assurance to us tonight that there are areas for discussion will manifest itself in the attention that this chamber and the standing committee, to which I understand the bill will be referred, will be able to give to it.
We welcome a bill that limits election expenses and provides for disclosure of donations to the various parties. The bill is long overdue, a point the minister touched on. The committee on election expenses which reported in 1966 recommended legislation providing for the limitation of expenses of candidates and parties, disclosure of incomes of candidates and parties as well as the expenditures made in both those categories, and also subsidies, to candidates and tax concessions to those who contribute to the political process in Canada and give their welcomed support to particular parties. We welcome these proposals, let there be no misunderstanding about that whatsoever.
In 1968 Canadians were promised electoral reform. On April 1, 1969 the then government House leader, now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), announced a comprehensive study of the election act, including proposals somewhat in the form of those now in front of us with respect to expenses. However, nothing was done by the present government until May 16, 1972 when an election expenses bill was given first read-
July 10, 1973

ing. The bill died on the order paper when that particular Parliament was dissolved in July of that year.
The step we are taking today, as the minister has said, is of great historical and, indeed, I suspect social importance. We are about to change 100 years of practice and, I hope, rid our political system of a 100 year old myth-that is, fear of the way in which Canadians support their political parties.
We on this side of the House have always supported legislation dealing with the limitation of election expenses. On May 24, 1972 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), speaking in Regina, discussed at some length the present government's record in this matter and described it, justifiably, I think, as a bit of a sham. If I may quote him very briefly, he said:
And speaking about pretence, what shall we say about the Trudeau government's sudden interest in legislation about election expenses?
Last February-
He is speaking of February, 1972, a year and a half ago. -the Prime Minister assured us in Parliament that there was no practical possibility of taking effective action on election expenses before the next campaign, even if that campaign were to be in the summer of 1973.
Later on in an appearance on the program "Question Period" on October 15, 1972, the Leader of the Opposition indicated very clearly to the Canadian people that he was in favour of disclosure. If I may quote him very briefly again, he said:
I am very much in favour of a contribution toward the expenses of parties and candidates from the public treasury. I think this would be very constructive and certainly, too, I want to see a ceiling on the expenditures of parties in Canada.
But for a technical reason we might very well have had a forceful dissertation on this subject during private members' hour today by the distinguished hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, this party has absolutely no intention of delaying passage of this bill through its stages, as we deal with it now in principle and in committee. Our party is quite prepared to bring this debate to an end not later than Thursday night, or earlier if it is the will of this chamber. This matter is one of significance and importance. I mention that because of the derisive comments that have been made by some of my colleagues to my left with respect to what they seem to feel is their own particular and private preserve.


Mr. Benjamin:: Right on!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker:: Their heads are going to blow up and cover us all with sawdust.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am sure of that. We want during this limited period, certainly not more than three days and hopefully a little quicker than that if our colleagues to the left can contain themselves and restrain their sometimes verbal affliction, to thoroughly discuss the bill. But we will not consent, Mr. Speaker, to too rapid passage. We
Election Expenses
believe very firmly that members of the standing committee are entitled and are required to consider the views of the members of this chamber on the principles embedded in this somewhat historic document. Members of the committee must have the benefit of our views. These views are necessary in the context of what the minister has indicated is a somewhat complex bill although the basic principles may remain easily identifiable. We have some questions and may have some reservations. We will require a tremendous amount of interpretation, not to delay the bill but rather to ensure that the Canadian people can go into the next general election and successive ones more confident than they are today or have been in the past in the electoral procedure that is the foundation of this chamber and our country.
In this connection, for example, we want from the government, and will ask for it both on the debate on second reading and in committee, a firm commitment with respect to the date when this act will become operative. Clause 24(1) provides that it will come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation. This quite effectively removes any control that Parliament could have over the act and puts it entirely at the government's disposal. The government could proclaim this act whenever it wishes to do so. That being the case, we argue that we should debate this bill so that we know when it will come into force or when the government intends to proclaim it.
There must be time to debate this bill. Again I argue that there is not much sense in rushing through the debate, as was suggested to our House leader a few days ago. We should not simply, at this stage, not put up speakers and refer the bill to committee, where it would be given the traditional examination, and then bring it back to the house the next day and approve it. There would not be much point in doing that if there is a danger of this bill sitting on the shelf and gathering dust and not being proclaimed at the earliest opportunity.
There are precedents showing that bills have not been proclaimed as early as they might be. For example, the consumer packaging and labelling bill which this House passed in June, 1971, has still not been proclaimed some two years and a few weeks after being approved. That is bad. We are afraid that the government could react in this way, and when I speak of "the government", I mean not only this government but any government. The Fish Inspection Act was passed by this House in 1949, but was not proclaimed until November 1, 1967, 18 years later. That is an exaggerated example, and sometimes we do exaggerate to make a point. But we must be prompt in proclaiming this legislation. The government should give an effective explanation as to what it intends to do with respect to proclamation.
Further, even if the bill were passed and the legislation proclaimed tomorrow, it still would not have full effect. The explanation of this is to be found in section 24(2), which provides that the records of party agents with respect to contributions and expenses are to be tied to "taxation years commencing after the coming into force of this act." Also, a person cannot get a receipt until that point, because the agent is not able to give receipts.

July 10, 1973
Election Expenses
For those who are interested, section 20 can give rise to concern, because even if the act were proclaimed during 1973, the existing procedures in law would still have effect. In my opinion, the legislation cannot become fully operational until January 1, 1974. Therefore, we wish to hear some explanation from the government as to what it intends to do with respect to some of these areas which, rightly, give rise to concern.
Section 13.4 of the act, which provides for the disclosure of donations aggregating $100 and more, is also open to abuse. For example, a corporation wishing to make a major donation to a political party could easily evade the disclosure provision by acting at arm's length and making lesser donations to a number af people. If you want to take the argument to the extreme, the corporation could make a donation to every member of this House of slightly under $100 and not be required to disclose a contribution of $264,000.


An hon. Member:: Should it not be $26,400?


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, $26,400, or to whatever figure it works out. If you are as poor at mathematics as I am you will not see much difference between $264,000 and $26,-400-I say that as an aside. Nevertheless, we are concerned about this provision being evaded. Such contributions could be funnelled through employees, through subsidiaries of the company or through national associations. Indeed, there are a number of ways in which the disclosure provisions could be evaded.
Let me make something perfectly clear to hon. members opposite, to the government House leader and to those who will deal with this bill in committee. My party intends to make sure that, to the fullest extent possible, the loopholes in the law are closed, are not workable and are not surmountable. We shall not be relying on the self-policing of parties and the policing of one candidate by another. We intend to make sure that there is in law all the protection that is required in order to make this act effective; that is what the Canadian people demand of a measure like this.
Although there are other areas of concern on which I shall touch, the loopholes must be closed if this bill is to be operative and enjoy public confidence and if what we do in the electoral process is to retain credibility. There must be provision for stopping use of government funds for electoral purposes. In the last campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) sat in his office and sent out under his own letterhead literature urging people to vote against opposition candidates and to support candidates of his persuasion.


An hon. Member:: He did not write to women.


J. Michael Forrestall: The hon. member says he did not write to women. He had just got married. Of course, there are many less blatant and less obvious ways in which abuses can be perpetrated, or in which the existing provisions of the act can be circumvented. The party in power can use and traditionally has used government aircraft and government employees as well as other facilities to advance and promote the cause of the government party in a political sense. That statement is true not only of the

present government but is true also, I suspect to some degree, of my party as well.


Walter David Baker: It certainly is true of the NDP in Saskatchewan.


J. Michael Forrestall: What happened in the past must not happen again. Such practices must end. The practices of the last election campaign must come to an end, otherwise what we are doing will be a farce and a sham. Indeed, there is an onus on the government not to bring about abuse through an inordinate or extraordinary use of departmental advertising for the purpose of promoting, shortly before or even during election campaigns, departmental or public policies such as those having to do with family income security, old age pensions, LIP programs, or what have you.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Or waterfront parks.


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes. If hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money is used by the government to promote the party in power, and if this measure does not become one that will benefit all Canadians, it will be nothing more than a farce, a sham, a pretence, a sop by the government to my friends to my left, and will not be the meaningful measure that we all hope it will be.
As I say, this matter must be policed. For example, if a member of cabinet uses a government aircraft to attend a meeting with officials during an election campaign, if he is on legitimate government business he should not be permitted the next day or even one hour after he has completed that business to waltz into a major political rally and support openly a political candidate of his own party. If he wished to attend political meetings, he should attend at his own expense or at the expense of his party; he should not travel at public expense. He should act that way, not because great amounts of money are involved, but because his actions should not cause Canadians to question the legitimate things that we are attempting to do under this bill.
This bill must be capable of effective enforcement. It must be firmly administered. Loopholes must be blocked and the public must be confident that it is, indeed, being enforced. It is important that the Canadian people should understand that Parliament is serious about what we are doing today. I cannot overstress this point. The apparatus of control should be effective, though not overburdensome. I suspect that the standing committee will find that the bill in its present form is not capable of effective enforcement, and I hope the committee will be able in short order to recommend amendments to this end which I consider to be essential.
One suggestion has been advanced by the research director for the committee on election expenses. He recommended the appointment of a registrar of election finances whose functions would be somewhat similar to those of the Auditor General: he would police election financing. This is an area in which we intend to put forward serious thought, and we hope this effort will receive equally serious consideration on the part of the government.
July 10, 1973

The principles as set out by the minister are acceptable. The time has come when we should shrug off the darkness, the fear, the myth, the half-truths about the influence exerted on those who use contributions from the corporate structure, from individuals, from unions, which are returned in terms of goodwill, or favours, or special consideration. This might have happened in Canada but it happened long before my birth some 40 years ago. I have not seen it. It does not happen. At least, I hope it does not happen. But the fact that it does not happen, or does not appear to happen, in Canada does not dispel widespread belief that in fact it does happen-that people who make contributions do expect special favours in return or else exert some kind of control when it comes to the dispensing of patronage. I do not think it happens, but it must not seem to happen. We must remove from the minds of the Canadian public any remnant of doubt about the way in which members of parliament conduct themselves in public life and public business.
We have a good many questions to ask concerning the sections dealing with the media. Out of politeness, we did not ask the minister whether he fully understood what he was talking about earlier. If he did, he is something of a genius. The sections dealing with the media are, to say the least, vague and unclear. For example, what is included in the six and a half hours? How are they divided, for example, as to language, English or French, as to the hours of broadcasting in the second language in Quebec and other provinces? How are they divided in terms of radio as against television, or cable television as against normal television, or cable television as against normal television and radio? Are hotline shows, debates and interviews areas which might be described by the terminology "programming" to be counted in those six and a half hours? Who in fact will decide the division of the time as between radio and television? How is the time to be divided as to the length of "spots"? Will it all be in the first part, or in the middle, or jammed into one week of the 29 days, or will it be so spread over as to be ineffective?
How do these provisions apply to organizations such as the CIC which buy time prior to or during an election period for the purpose of supporting or opposing particular political parties as a matter of policy? What is the apportionment of time as between AM radio, FM radio, television and cable television? Again, what is "prime time" with respect to each of these elements of broadcasting? Is it, in fact, the same, as the words set out appear to suggest? Then again, what will be the position of departmental announcements? If such announcements are made, then perhaps equal time should be provided for other parties to respond, as is done in this chamber when statements are made by ministers on motions.
The bill is quite clear in describing a broadcaster. A broadcaster is defined as a person licensed by the Commission to carry on a broadcasting undertaking. We suggest this definition must be considered together with the definition of "a person" under section 28 of the Interpretation Act, where a person is defined as "a person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, and includes a corporation." This may sound confusing and, indeed, it is until one thinks about it for a minute or two. Legislation concerning election expenses is incomplete in the absence of a full recognition of this interpretation in the Interpre-
Election Expenses
tation Act. What I am driving at is this. Mr. Bassett, for example, owns many radio stations. Is he the broadcaster, or is each individual station the broadcaster?
There are many such areas in the bill which require reflection and considered thought on the part of the standing committee. I have mentioned only a few of the questions which come immediately to mind within the media section.
With the disappearance of certain of the existing provisions in law, does the government mean to advise this House, the broadcasting industry and Canadians generally that the CBC will for the first time provide political advertising? If this is to be the case, the meaningfulness of a 50 per cent grant from the state to offset broadcasting costs will be entirely altered, since at the present time the CBC does not charge for either programmed or commercial spots. That is to say, the CBC will not engage in charging people for what is described as programming or commercial spots. Before any meaningful disposition of this bill can be made, these are questions that must be met and answered.
We believe as well that a final clause of this bill now before us relating to election expenses would remain somewhat incomplete without what we feel is an accompanying piece of legislation dealing with that often promised bill in recent weeks relating to conflict of interest. This bill has been promised, but has not been introduced in spite of opposition requests that this be done as rapidly as possible.
It is only logical that if activities after elections are to be regulated, the Canadian public is entitled to the knowledge that such activities are regulated by legislation. Section 111 of the Canada Elections Act would suspend application of any amendment we might make to the existing act with respect to an election for which a writ is issued within six months following the passage of that amendment, unless the Chief Electoral Officer has cause to have the amendment printed in the Canada Gazette. This would relate to the original method by which an administrative arrangement could be made to apply to the operative sections of the amendment.
I repeat this point I raised earlier in my remarks, because it is important in terms of timing that the government be absolutely clear in respect of the capability of the Chief Electoral Officer to bring into operative and functional application the amendment we are now being asked to consider and which embodies the principle we welcome. It is important that we know this so we might the better judge the amount of time we are able to spend in the committee to assure that the measure brought before us by the government House leader this evening, when it becomes law, does the things I know the minister and all hon. members of this Chamber want to see accomplished. That is, we must remove the mythical fears of the first hundred years of our political process and move into a somewhat enlightened area which, as the minister has said, has advanced our procedure to the forefront of modern political democracies.
We welcome this bill and we do not want it prolonged in this Chamber. We want the committee to have the benefit

July 10, 1973
Election Expenses
of the views that are expressed in the next two or three days, certainly not later than Thursday of this week, barring the intervention of other government business. We want the bill to be referred to the committee so the committee can give it the reflective consideration it merits, and in order that the country might be better off as a result of this long overdue and very warmly welcomed piece of legislation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this could be called an historic day in terms of new legislation and a new departure from Canadian political practices. I want to begin by saying something I have always felt, at least for many years, and something that has been felt by most members of this House and most of the people of Canada.
In spite of some of the things we hear said about politics and people involved in politics, I consider politics the most honourable and worth-while occupation in which a citizen in a democracy can engage. Of all the professions and occupations in our society, it seems this one is the most honourable of all. Whether we like it or not, politics affects every man, woman and child in this country 24 hours a day, every day of their lives. In fact, politics affects people before they are born and after they are dead.
We have laws which prescribe what will happen to women when they are pregnant, and what will happen to infants prior to, and immediately after, they are born. We have laws that lay down certain rules and conditions in respect of what happens to us after we are dead. So politics has an effect on us all our lives. Given that kind of a premise, which I think most people will subscribe to, what we are doing tonight is a departure from the normal practice in the Canadian political system developed since 1867 and before.
I know that my good friends and colleagues to my right and across the floor will say: Here come those puritanical, holier than thou NDP members again. I cannot resist making this suggestion, and I know my hon. friends will forgive me. There has been a 180 degree turn in respect of some of these items in this bill since a little over a year ago. Far be it for me to say "I told you so" to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) or to my good friend the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), but some of the things I tried to persuade them of a year and two years ago were not too acceptable then. I am proud to be counted among them tonight in supporting some of the provisions of this bill that were not acceptable a year ago.
Another thing I say with some reluctance is that the tragedy of this legislation is that it is not the result of practices and activities of politicians here, but rather something that is presently going on in another country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Baloney.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have remarked, as have others, during the past several months about the strange and sudden interest there is in supporting full and open politics and the financing thereof by people in very strange places. Only since Watergate have some people in this country finally realized that the people will no longer stand for the

kind of thing that has taken place in Canadian politics over the past 100 or more years. I submit that the tragedy is that it took something that happened in another country to bring this to a head in Canada.


An hon. Member:: It would have happened here with the NDP.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Last year in May and June we were dealing with government Bill C-211, I believe, in which there was no provision for a limit on how much parties could spend, in spite of pleas by myself as a member of the special committee, and many others in the government party and the official opposition, all of whom refused to consider anything in the legislation that would place a financial limitation on parties.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That's not true.


Mr. Crouse:: You are talking about yourselves; you are supporting the governing party.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I welcome the fact that they are now supporting that kind of provision.
In respect of the limitation on parties, as I recall discussions in the special committee of 1970-71 and 1972 I and a few others proposed a limitation of 20 cents per elector. Some of my colleagues on that committee from other parties proposed a 40-cent or a 50-cent limitation per elector. The committee recommended an amount of 30 cents per elector. That was something of a compromise reached in the special committee.
At this point I want to pay tribute to that special committee of the House of Commons under the chairmanship of the former member I believe for Peel, Mr. Hyliard Chappell. We arrived at a consensus, even though some of us disagreed with some parts of the recommendation. I want to repeat now, however, the representations I made and the caveats I entered at that time in respect of the proposed 30 cents per elector being too high. Given 15 million electors in the next federal election this would mean a limit of $414 million on a national party.
I hope the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) will reconsider this provision in this bill and on his own volition at the committee stage bring in an amendment that would lower the limitation on parties to 20 cents per elector. If he wants to wrestle with me or whoever else happens to be on the committee, we may end up with 25 cents, but 30 cents is too high.
The other loophole in the bill last year was that there was no provision for full disclosure by parties. The disclosure provision remained as it was in the previous election act, which all of us knew was a farce. The 180 degree turn applies in this area as well. While I have some prejudices and some opinions about full disclosure, based on my experience in my party, with relation to the activities of other parties in the past ten years-and I shall not throw out some of those examples now because I think I should be statesmanlike and friendly tonight-for some reason or other for generations in our country, and I suppose in a number of other countries, there has been something bad
July 10, 1973

about having a bias, a political belief, and making known your support and financial contribution.
There is nothing wrong with having a bias or a belief. There is nothing wrong in letting the world know what you believe in and that you are prepared to put your action and your money where your mouth is. But for some reason or other the person who is known to have a political belief and is known to support a political party is frowned on if it is known in a public way that he has made a contribution to a political party.
It seems to me that financial support for a political belief is as valid and as justified as financial support for a religious belief, a charitable organization, a fraternal society or a trade union. So in spite of some criticisms and complaints, which I submit may be justifiable, in respect of the activities of old-line parties and disclosure of contributions, that is not the main reason the New Democratic Party has asked, and the CCF before it since 1933, for full disclosure of political contributions.
The reason is that there is nothing to be ashamed of. If that contribution is made in support of a person's belief, and if there are no strings attached by the person who gives the contribution, why should not the world know about it and why not recognize the public's right to know? It has been suggested that some people may try to circumvent this bill giving $100 rather than $105, or by giving $99.99 cents in order to evade full disclosure. Well, I am a follower of Nye Bevan. I am not prepared to go to the length my hon. friend from Dartmouth-Halifax has in relating all the possibilities people have of evading the law, or all the possibilities there may be of people deliberately going out of their way to circumvent the provisions of this bill. I think the overwelming majority of the people of this country are worthy people, as Nye Bevan said, and that if you want the best behaviour frorq, people the first thing you do is to give them a chance to behave.
Except for the few who would pervert the democratic and political process, the rest of the population of this country, including most of its politicians, will behave and will not try to circumvent this law. Those who do will face the wrath of the members and supporters of their own political party or their own constituents. I may sound naive when I say that, but I would rather err on the side of trusting people. Because most of them will be worthy of that trust.
Another area that has been the cause of some controversy for a number of years is whether or not the public purse should reimburse politicians and political parties for some portion of the cost of elections. There are some who do not like this, and I include some of my colleagues. They do not like the idea of the treasury reimbursing parties and candidates for some part of the costs of an election. If the principle is to be applied in some sensible and fair manner without at the same time spending taxpayers' money on so-called nuisance candidates, then I submit that the floor in the bill which makes candidates eligible for reimbursement is too severe.
Again in the special committee I and others like me urged the committee and then the government that the eligibility for reimbursement should be set at the rate of 5 per cent, or 10 per cent at the most, of the popular vote. Others in the committee held out for 25 per cent, 30 per
Election Expenses
cent or 35 per cent of the public vote. The committee recommended 20 per cent, and again this was something of a compromise.
I submit on behalf of the New Democratic Party that it is still too severe and adds weight to the argument of those who are opposed to public reimbursement of expenditures of candidates and political parties. If the floor is left at 20 per cent, this makes reimbursement the private preserve of established candidates and established political parties. I will be quite frank about it: it discriminates against people who might vote for the NDP, the Social Credit party or an independent candidate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or a Liberal in the west.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Or Conservatives in Quebec. If the floor is to be that high, then you eliminate candidates and possibly political parties from receiving a share of the reimbursement from the public treasury. If you have done that, then you have reinforced the arguments of those who are opposed to this in principle.
In a constituency where there is a four or five way fight and there are four or five hard working, fighting candidates, any one of them who gets 8 per cent or 10 per cent of the popular vote is a serious candidate. I agree that you need a floor in the legislation for the reimbursement of political expenditures, but surely the floor should only apply to the idiot who runs as a rhinoceros candidate and who gets 300 votes out of the 63,300 that are cast. Certainly the floor should eliminate that kind of candidate.
However, my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) pointed out the other day that a candidate in his constituency could under the provisions of this bill have received 8,000 or 9,000 votes and not be eligible for five cents reimbursement. It seems to me that any candidate, whether he is running for a political party or as an independent, who can get that sizeable a vote from a constituency is not a nuisance candidate. However, the other part of the provision is that the 8,000 or 9,000 people who chose to support that candidate will be asked to reimburse through their taxation the candidates against whom they have voted. That is why I submit that the 20 per cent floor is too high. I would like to see a provision under which any candidate receiving less than 5 per cent of the popular vote will not be eligible for reimbursement. The floor should at least be lowered to 10 per cent.
I am happy to see a provision in the bill, which may seem minor to the general public but which is serious to candidates and to political parties, under which from now on it will be illegal for all candidates and parties to send out to every voter a new voter card, half of which are wrong and as a result voters flood committee rooms with telephone calls. Now the onus is on returning officers to do that job. This will cut down on the expenses of candidates and their parties.
It has been suggested that the bill should make provision for a registrar to receive the financial reports of parties and candidates, rather than to saddle the Chief Electoral Officer with that task. I confess that I was one of

July 10, 1973
Election Expenses
those in the special committee who thought that the Chief Electoral Officer should have total charge of this. People in my party and in other parties, I suppose, have succeeded in persuading the government that it is proper to burden the Chief Electoral Officer with this task-he is like Caesar's wife-and to place upon him the responsibility of making the expenditures public and possibly laying charges where necessary.
I think that this is something that the committee should consider. I hope the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) will consider an amendment which will make provision for the appointment of a registrar, who could work under the Chief Electoral Officer and would have authority in that respect. When he is not satisfied with the contents of a financial report or has reason to believe there was some hanky-panky in the financial reports submitted by candidates or political parties, he would have authority to investigate those reports and to report publicly on them through parliament. Then it would be up to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang)-although not the present one-and up to any citizen, political party or candidate, to follow that up by laying charges.
With regard to the media, I want to suggest again for the umpteenth time-I will not get agreement from my friends in the Liberal and Conservative parties but I know I will get it from my friends in the Social Credit party- that in the allocation of the six and a half hours of broadcast time during the period of an election campaign, that time should be divided evenly among the candidates of recognized political parties.
An election campaign is like any other race in the sense that all the candidates and parties start from the same place. They may not end in the same place, but everyone starts off even. We recognize that, in between elections, broadcast time provided free by the media and particularly by the CBC should be divided in proportion to the representation that political parties have in legislatures; but during the 28 days of an election campaign the six and a half hours of broadcast time should be divided evenly amongst the parties. There are some parts of the country where the Liberal party has trouble getting the time of day, let alone a vote, and there are other parts of the country where the Conservative party is almost extinct. Similarly, there are a number of parts of the country where the NDP and similarly the Social Credit party cannot get the time of day. But in the national context the six and a half hours broadcast time that is allocated during the election campaign should be divided equally among parties and candidates.
Some people, including one or two of my colleagues, have raised the matter of no limit on candidates in terms of the purchasing of broadcast time. I am not too hung up on that one. I am not sure that there should be a limit. I think the state should intervene to the extent of limiting expenses and requiring disclosure of the sources of contribution. The state has a right to intervene because the public has the right to know, but how the candidate spends that money and on what he spends it surely should be his business and the business of his constituents and party organization. If he has a limit of $25,000 and the damn fool chooses to spend it all on television time, surely that is his business, and I suspect the voters will catch up

with him anyway. But I do not think that the state can intervene to the extent of knowing what the money is spent on.
The President of the Privy Council, in discussing full disclosure, spoke about anonymity and the preservation of the anonymity of people who make contributions of $100 or less. I want to tell him that in my opinion, if this bill were to follow through on the policy of the NDP, and the CCF before it, there would be full and total disclosure of all contributions.
I do not say that lightly, Mr. Speaker, because I have a terrible fear that if that provision were contained in this legislation it would hurt my party more than any other party in this country. As I said at the outset of my speech, this reluctance on the part of the public, because of what is said about politics and politicians, to let it be known that they contribute to the party of their political belief- and I have a fear that this is what the full disclosure provisions as limited as they are will do-will cause some people to at least hesitate if not refuse to continue to contribute to the support of their political beliefs. But we have to start some place, and while this provision is not as far reaching as we would like it to be, it is at least a beginning.
There are a number of businessmen in my constituency, most of whom do not vote for me or my party but a few of whom make a contribution to it, and the ones whom I know who made a contribution in support of my campaign in Regina-Lake Centre have done so on the basis of a contribution by their business to the democratic process. In no way, at no time, under no circumstances, were there any strings attached to it, and there was no subsequent request for some special favour or treatment. Any businessman who makes a contribution to a political party on that basis should never hesitate to make his contribution public. I believe the same thing should apply to a trade union or any other organization. Individual citizens should be proud to say whom they support with contributions.
For years members of this party have talked about allowing income tax deductions for political contributions. I welcome what is in the bill in the form of a tax credit. In fact, it has caused my colleagues and I to giggle about it. When we talked about the Carter Commission report on taxation, and of using tax credits as a way of providing exemptions to people on low and middle incomes, we were always told that it could not be done. But when it comes to the matter of contributions to political parties, all of a sudden the government and the official opposition welcome tax credits. I will not complain about that. I look upon it as the thin end of the wedge. We have begun with tax credits in of all crazy places a bill to limit election expenses.
I am glad to see the changes that the President of the Privy Council has announced from the bill that was introduced a year ago. The present bill will be much more fair and useful to the smaller contributors to political parties. I just hope that if a tax credit for contributions to a political party is valid, this means a substantial change in heart on the part of the official opposition and the governing party
July 10, 1973

with respect to the whole area of tax reform in Canada. There are many other areas, particularly affecting the individual taxpayer, where tax credits could be just as valid or more valid than they are in this legislation.
I would like to say to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) that his version of speedy passage of this bill is not quite what I would have liked to have heard him say. This is where I must cast some doubts-I cannot say motives because that is unparliamentary-on how the governing party and the official opposition feel about this legislation in terms of its actually being in force for the next federal election.
If those who have already spoken on this bill are dead serious about it, we will complete second reading of the bill by five o'clock tomorrow afternoon, complete the committee hearings by the end of next week, and finish third reading on about Tuesday of the following week, so that the bill will be the law of the land before July 31. On behalf of the NDP I wish to say that we will put up only two speakers on second reading of the bill, and we will speed up proceedings on the committee stage like you wouldn't believe.
In committee we will have some amendments to propose and we will put them to the vote; we won't bother making speeches. If the amendments are not acceptable to the committee we will propose them again at report stage, but again will not bother making speeches. I hope the same thing will apply to the other parties in this House so as to supply tangible evidence in support of what the spokesman for the official opposition said a few minutes ago.
If that is done, this bill can soon be the law of the land. It will pass this House by July 23 or 25, can be passed by the other place by the end of July, so that it can be in effective operation in time for the next general election, even if that occurred this coming October or November. If that were to happen, then I will believe what the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East said tonight. But I will not believe his party's position unless that does happen. Neither will I believe the Liberal party's position on this unless that happens, although I believe what the President of the Privy Council had to say on the matter.
After at least 40 years of procrastination and delay, after a government commission under Mr. Barbeau, after two special parliamentary committees, after all the humming and hawing by hon. members opposite and to my right, and after 40 years of asking, pleading and demanding by people in this party, we have finally got some legislation that looks pretty good. Some of it may not work out. After experiencing one or two elections we may find that changes need to be made to it. But we in the NDP are prepared to support, vote for and pass this legislation with haste, not because of what is happening in some other country, but because of what has happened previously in our own country. And, even more important, because of what the people of this country are entitled to know and of what we expect them to do when they become involved in our national politics and in the activities and work of political parties and politicians.
Election Expenses


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, if we stop to analyse the aim of a bill such as the one before us this evening, we see it is to make elections more democratic.
In short, a bill of this kind should give us assurance that all voters can express their wishes more easily. With this aim in mind, we can criticize the bill in a positive or a negative manner but, I say once again, bearing in mind the desired goal, which is, first of all, to allow all Canadian voters to express themselves freely and secondly to give them the opportunity to learn about the ideologies espoused by the various political parties and candidates. That, in my view, is what we must aim for, when legislating on election expenses.
Mr. Speaker, if we ask ourselves whether the bill is adequate, with the aim I have just stated, at first glance I would be inclined to say that it still seems unnecessarily complicated.
We wonder why all these calculations, all this beating around the bush in order to have election expenses reimbursed at a certain time. In my view that complicates the matter tremendously, just to obtain a result which could have been obtained differently.
We are clearly in agreement on the first aim the bill, which is to limit election expenditures, but if there is one party that has had to suffer because of election funds, which has had to suffer the consequences of the expenditure of enormous sums of money by its oponents, it is ours, Mr. Speaker.
There was, therefore, an urgent need to incorporate measures in the bill so as to limit election expenditures. After some elections, we have been wondering whether the results were not a direct steam-rolling effect of the electoral fund rather than the explicit will of the electors.
This is why when dealing with restricted electoral expenses, we have an opportunity to provide the people with a more extensive democracy thus more freedom of choice. This procedure of providing the House with a representation exclusively dependent upon electoral funds must obviously be abolished. But if indeed undue propaganda or the influence of money should enable a candidate to get enough votes to win, this is not, in my opinion, a democracy nor freedom, but it is to mislead grossly the people.
The purpose of this bill is to restrict election expenses, and it appears perfect to me. Since 1962, my party has given evidence that it is possible to have elections while incurring a minimum of expenses. Elections have to be held and this is what we should aim at when considering such a bill; elections have to be held first and foremost according to an ideology and not according to the number of advertisements on TV, on radio or in newspapers. People have to decide which candidate or party they want to vote for, only after they have been acquainted with the political parties realistic proposals through the candidates of these various parties.
Therefore, we must consider first of all this principle that the vote must be given according to an ideology and, also according to the people's will. We must promote every

July 10, 1973
Election Expenses
means that will enable to people to express themselves more freely, in order that we may find in this House the true expression of the people's will.
If third parties including ours are not more represented in this House, Mr. Speaker, that cannot be attributed only to questions of limits on expenses, questions of money. That is why we must examine and scrutinize this bill with the idea of reaching a genuine objective favouring the expression of freedom for all Canadian voters. So there is I think an ideal to be reached, and we have the possibility of reaching it, but I wonder to what extent the provisions of this bill will reach it.
I think the ideal we should propose in order to have that complete freedom for voters would be to have volontary co-operation during elections everywhere so that the result of elections would represent exclusively the influence of ideas, the influence of principles and the genuine expression of the wishes of the voters.
In that respect, we would have to consider total equality for all recognized parties. And as the hon. member who spoke just before me said, there is room for improvement in several cases, particularly during elections; all recognized political parties in Canada should be considered on an equal basis notwithstanding the number of members previously elected to this House.
Equality for all recognized parties simply means allowing once again voters across Canada to make a more adequate and freer choice.
As to equality at the riding level for all candidates within the restriction relating to parties, of course all candidates should once again be given equal chances. And if we are to reach that ideal, Mr. Speaker, election funds will have to be eliminated. As a matter of fact, if they could be eliminated entirely we would have succeeded in giving back Canadians the freedom when they need it most, that is when they exercise their freedom, because is it not during elections that the citizens of this country are called upon in the most tangible way to exercise their democratic right to freedom? So, the elimination of election funds would enable us to be fair to all people.
I realize that this may be hard, that tradition and present practices lead us to believe that it is impossible to get rid of election funds.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that this is not only a matter of good will, because all of us, no matter what party we represent, should enjoy the same opportunities which could be obtained through means other than election funds. Here, I should like to seize this opportunity in order to list some of these ways.
Mr. Speaker, if, for instance, in polls we put the agents of a candidate on an equal basis with any other election officer, this would be an expenditure that political parties could avoid. Why should the representatives of a candidate in the poll not be paid as the clerk or the president of the poll? Why not simply pay the officials of a recognized party? Then election funds would not be required to reimburse, at the constituency level, $5,000, $6,000 or $10,000. And yet at $30, as it seems to have been the amount required during the last election to pay a poll official, if there are 250 polls, that amounts to $7,500 for those officials alone. Let us eliminate this election fund payment to

the political parties and simply entrust it to an elections branch. Thus, a lesser amount of election funds would be required.
I would suggest to the minister that he introduce amendments himself, as was done in the Quebec legislature and we should simply agree that poll officials be reimbursed as the other election officers.
Moreover, if we want our fellow citizens to be truly free, we should consider eliminating the practice of polls in private homes. Generally, the party in office simply gives to the chief election officer of the constituency involved a list of the people in whose homes the polls may be installed. It is still another way of indirectly influencing the voters.
My party has had to deal with officials or election officers who, unfortunately, had not been appointed objectively. From the outset, where there are 250 polls, it must come face to face with 250 returning officers liable to belong to a political party and, therefore, should they influence at least three members of their own family, they end up with over 700 persons. If to this we add the clerk, that means 750 others. And if polling stations are also added up-besides this was the case in my constituency- which for most were still in private homes, this results in quite another large group of citizens, so that at the start
5,000	to 6,000 people are likely to be influenced by such a situation.
This should be clarified once and for all. The elections branch should be given the chance of being entirely and completely objective at the level of enumerators, returning officers and clerks, and independant as well from political parties. That would be one way of democratizing things further, and by adding the representatives of the candidates, we would no longer have to think of that fraction of the expenditures caused by the representation at the polls.
Mr. Speaker, something else could help us reduce the influence of election funds and, consequently, help all parties in their work, whatever they might be. When we speak of expenses and limits on television, radio and newspapers expenses, we agree fully. But we forget to mention that those expenses must be the same for all recognized parties. We would agree on the number of candidates. As for the number of candidates for each party, once again, that matter could be settled without election funds.
Why could we not pass a law to specify that the state radio, for instance, would have to give so much time to each political party during an election campaign, according to the allotment we ourselves could choose? Then no more money would have to be given to pay for television. The same control could take place and the CRTC could order all private television and radio stations to provide the same service during an election campaign. It would be the easiest thing in the world. All radio and television stations, private or not, should know during election time that they must provide for all political parties so much time allotted according to a legislation that could be drafted.
July 10,1973

Thus we would eliminate most of the election expenses. Therefore we would not need election funds anymore and as a consequence, the people would be provided with greater democracy and more freedom. I suggest that is very simple and I hope that the minister will take those suggestions into serious consideration, not only as regards television and radio, but also with respect to newspapers.
During an election campaign, it would be normal for all newspapers to be able to provide so much space to political parties. It is a normal service that they should provide. I wonder why they should be paid for that, if they should be reimbursed for something.
Whenever reporters report exciting news, whenever they run after scoops as we say in order to get news-and there are fine ones-most of the time they are not paid. One does not pay to have news published. During an election campaign, it would be quite normal for newspapers to give their readers information on all candidates, on all political parties. One does not have to pay for that; one only has to order it through a law. Again, we would eliminate much of the expenses, so much, Mr. Speaker, that if the elections branch paid the representatives in the polls, if the CRTC told all radio and television stations that so much time should be justly allotted among political parties, we would not need to have that done anymore through election funds.
If we did the same thing for the written press, there would be very little left and then we would not need to ask Canadian taxpayers to reimburse these funds. As for the expenses still outstanding, their payment could be left to the discretion of each candidate, within certain limits. We could limit them; only $2,000 or $3,000 would be left which should be refunded at the polls' level because, Mr. Speaker, and I want to underline this now, it would be much more logical and fair, particularly if we make a distinction between a rural and an urban riding, to reimburse expenses on the basis of the number of pools and not the number of constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I would have other remarks to make and in order that I may continue to do so tomorrow, I would like to declare that it is now 10 o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, hopefully for the last time I am raising the matter of compensation for salmon fishermen who lost their livelihood as a result of government action over one year ago. I must say that I am more than pleased to see the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) in his seat. Despite all the criticisms we have levelled at him and at his activities in the fisheries branch of his department, I give him credit, truthfully, regardless of the answer he may make tonight, for being diligent in attending the late show on every occasion when I have raised this matter. That is a good lesson that some of his colleagues ought to heed.
The matter I am raising tonight was prompted by a question that I asked on June 13 in which reference was made to the number of claims that had been made. I want to be brief and will not go into the matter except to say that this is the fourth occasion on which I have raised it, and I know that other members from New Brunswick have raised this question as well.
Since I know a brief speech is necessary, it was decided, in accordance with the wisdom of the fisheries branch of the minister's department, that salmon stocks were being depleted in Atlantic Canada and that drastic action needed to be taken. Salmon fishing was therefore banned for five years on the big salmon return rivers, mainly in New Brunswick.
Salmon fishermen, I know, were not guilty of any wrong doing. They were not overfishing. They certainly were not responsible for the pollution of the rivers. But they suffered. They were promised, in statements by the minister and others, that they would be treated generously as compensation for their loss of income.
The period since then has been one of trial and tribulation, misstatements and misunderstanding. I hope the minister has learned a lesson not to trust some of the advice he gets from his civil servants. I am not quarrelling with him tonight. I want to try to be statesmanlike and to make a last ditch appeal to him for generous treatment of the remaining claims. Perhaps this plea will strengthen the case he may have to make when he goes to Treasury Board for the necessary money.
The minister appointed Mr. Neil Lewis, formerly of the fisheries research board, a maritimer with a great understanding of these matters, to look into the situation. He went down there. He even suffered a heart attack in endeavours to interview the fishermen on the Miramichi and Saint John rivers. He has now made his recommendation as to the final claims. It was a straightforward effort on his part. I know he dealt for at least an hour with the individual fishermen who came to see him and I feel certain that whatever he put forward is in the best interests of the fishermen and the department.
The minister has shown an interest in this situation. I shall not refer to the other problems he has encountered in the Maritimes; I merely make this last ditch appeal to him. I am not trying to jump the gun. I know the payments are probably in the offing, and I hope they will be generous

July 10, 1973
Adjournment Debate
for these fishermen who as I say certainly have not committed any sin. Their livelihood was taken away from them, for reasons justifiable or not, and they certainly deserve a break. I hope the minister will take my words tonight to those who are responsible for obtaining the wherewithal for the final payment.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, all the fishermen who received compensation payments in 1972 will by now have received their cheques for 1973. A number of them will receive supplementary payments which will increase the total amount they receive this year and consequently for the remaining three years. They will be compensated, also, for any shortfall in 1972.
There are, in addition, some 79 salmon fishermen who were interviewed by Mr. Neil Lewis when he was in the Maritimes. They will be receiving compensation, a number of them for the first time. Payments will be made up to them for 1972 and they will receive compensation for the remaining period of five years.
In all, about 1,000 salmon fishermen on the Atlantic coast, in Newfoundland around the Port aux Basques area, and in the Restigouche, Miramichi, Saint John and the big salmon rivers in New Brunswick, were affected. There were also several hundred fishermen affected in Quebec. They all had the choice either to sell out and move out of the fisheries in return for a lump sum, or to stay in the fishery but be paid the equivalent of their average income in recent years in lieu of fishing..
This has been a unique program. Hopefully the salmon runs will return to their former size in the next three or four years. Indications were excellent last year and again this year. Salmon are appearing in upper reaches of rivers which have not seen salmon for a decade or more. So during the late 1970's we hope to see a revived salmon fishery on a much larger scale. The alternative would have been to establish quotas progressively reducing catches, as a result reducing the income of fishermen to a mere subsistence level. We chose to take the course of compensating fishermen for their loss of earnings while the salmon runs recover.


URBAN AFFAIRS-JERICHO DEFENCE LAND, VANCOUVER-REQUEST FOR TRANSFER TO CITY
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, for years the people of Vancouver have been trying to create a series of parks and beaches along the western waterfront known as Marine Drive. We want and need such a chain of beautiful and health-giving recreational facilities, not only for ourselves but also for the thousands of visitors from across Canada and overseas who flock to our west coast cities in increasing numbers every year.
Last evening the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) told the story of how, during World War II, the Department of National Defence leased 172 acres of land used by the city of Vancouver for recreational purposes. Following the war the department bought the land at a very low price.
Some years later the government promised to return the land to Vancouver and by 1969 had transferred some of it
[Mr. Bell.)
back to the city. But there remained in National Defence control 38 acres known as the Jericho defence lands, which are essential for the full development of Vancouver's seafront parks. For some reason the defence department will not let this land go. They claim that its value must cover the costs of moving the defence establishment elsewhere.
The hon. member for Vancouver South pointed out that this property belongs to the people of Canada and should be used to their best advantage. True, there have been negotiations going on between the Department of National Defence and the city of Vancouver, endlessly and apparently with no concrete result in sight.
The people of Vancouver are beginning to get impatient and worried, and not only the people of Vancouver. In June the Lower Mainland Parks Advisory Association, representing 20 municipalities surrounding Vancouver, called upon the federal government to return to Vancouver for a nominal sum the 38 acres of Jericho. They noted that Ottawa was prepared to provide $33 million for a waterfront park for the city of Toronto. No Vancouverite or British Columbian can fail to note that most favoured treatment by the federal government of the city of Toronto.
In spite of the efforts of a number of organizations and individuals, including the hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), the defence department is still saying no. A few days ago I asked the minister if he would consider leasing the Jericho lands to Vancouver for a 99-year term for the sum of $1. He was evasive in his reply and equally evasive when I asked him whether, before the House rose for the recess, he could make a statement regarding the progress of his negotiations with Vancouver.
I said that the people of Vancouver are beginning to get worried about what is really going on, and so am I. I may say that the no amount of land that the federal government has generously given the city of Vancouver will wipe out this concern.
On July 7 a report in the Vancouver Sun stated that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) had said Ottawa was willing to discuss the possibility of a federal-provincial housing complex on the 38 acres of Jericho land. Mayor Art Phillips quickly replied that the city wanted the 38 acres for a park, not for housing.
I am quite sure that the minister for urban affairs knows perfectly well that the city wants a park on these acres. Why, then, does he lend his support to Ottawa's continuing refusal to return the land to Vancouver for park purposes? Why can Toronto get help but not Vancouver? The citizens of Vancouver are fed up with these endless, fruitless discussions, after which they may end up having something foisted on them that would benefit only a few people, losing a park that would give lasting satisfaction to thousands. The people of Vancouver want the Jericho defence lands for a park; let us make no mistake about that. They want these endless discussions with the city of Vancouver to come to an end through some kind of agreement with the federal government.
It is up to the federal government to say what kind of a deal it will accept from the city of Vancouver, and it is up
July 10, 1973

to us to get the thing settled. There are far too many land sharks and land speculators prowling around Vancouver these days for us to rest easily until this land is brought under the control of the city of Vancouver and made into the park that is needed there.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer given last night was very complete. The interest of the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) in this matter is well understood. However, as this very subject was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) on the adjournment debate last night I would refer the hon. member to Hansard, page 5445, for July 9 for a detailed outline of the current Department of National Defence position on this subject.
I would like to add for the information of the hon. lady that just this morning the city council extended an invitation to the department for a departmental official to meet with it, next Tuesday in Vancouver. It is understood that the city will be presenting a proposal on the Jericho Beach 38-acre property.
I think the matter should be clarified. If I may quote from my speech of last night:
On March 25, 1969, the Department of National Defence signed an agreement with the city of Vancouver governing the usage of approximately 140 acres of what is commonly known as the Jericho Beach property. The terms of this agreement provided for the turning over to the city of, for the sum of one dollar, 73 acres of waterfront property to be used as parkland.
Certainly the government has been criticized in respect of some of these $1 items.
As part of this agreement, the remaining 38 acres was rezoned as CD1-that is a "comprehensive development district". The zoning classification was selected by the city and permits the construction of garden homes and town houses. The opinion expressed at the time was that this zoning would enhance rather than detract from the surrounding community.
Valuable properties at Kitsilano Beach were turned over to the city.
For the sum of $1.
Other smaller properties have also been made available for the city's use.
The hon. member for Vancouver South last night raised the issue of federal support for the city of Toronto, as did the hon. lady tonight, in respect of the acquisition of parkland. This was not DND land and is not related in any way to DND policy, and we should not generalize in terms of DND policy. What is at issue is the Department of National Defence policy for the disposal of property, in this case in the city of Vancouver. These other matters should not be related and should not be confused.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my short reply, the city of Vancouver has extended an invitation to the Department of National Defence to meet with it on Tuesday.


FISHERIES-LOSSES SUFFERED BY ATLANTIC AREA FISHERMEN FROM STORM-GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) I have a cause to plead tonight involving compensation for
Adjournment Debate
fishermen; and like the hon. member I should like to thank the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) in charge of fisheries for being here tonight to listen to me.
Approximately two weeks ago, as a result of a very severe and devastating storm which had disastrous effects on fishermen in certain areas, I asked the Minister of the Environment in charge of fisheries a question about the discussions which were going on between the federal and provincial administrations concerning what would be done to provide some compensation to inshore fishermen. The minister answered by saying that discussions have been going on within the department here and with the provincial departments of fisheries, and that he had decided, for example, to make the gear collected last year from salmon fishermen available to these fishermen. Other measures would be announced in due course. I hope that the minister will have some good news for fishermen in Atlantic Canada tonight because, may I say with all deference, used salmon nets are not much good to lobster fishermen.
I hope that the minister will decide to make an announcement tonight because soon a month will have elapsed since the storm on June 17 and there are still no concrete assurances as to what fishermen may expect in the way of assistance.
Unlike the government, many major buyers in the area have taken quick action to make an accurate survey of the individual losses. One firm in particular, National Sea Products, sent out to all fishermen in areas 5, 6B and 7B a very good questionnaire which I will be pleased to make available to the minister. I hope that other firms in the area have followed suit; I believe they have.
I trust that the fisheries officers of the department have also been making a survey, as I requested that the minister have them do, so that they can benefit from data collected by packers such as F. Russell Sea Foods Limited, Wichersons, Melonsons, and other reputable firms in the area which are interested in the welfare of their industry and which presumably have a lot of data which will be of some benefit to the minister in assessing needs.
A Canadian press story from Halifax recently indicated that the acting minister of fisheries, Mr. Mooney, of the province of Nova Scotia, has made requests to his federal counterpart. The press report indicates that he estimates the damage to the inshore fishing industry as being about $2.5 million. I have been given the information that in fact the damage is really much more than that and that in the entire Atlantic region it may amount to as much as $10 million when all factors are taken into account.
The Department of Agriculture has been quick to offer aid to the strawberry farmers and tobacco farmers who have been hit by adversity. This storm has affected fishermen in my constituency and in other areas of Atlantic Canada. It has been almost unprecedented in severity and effects. Emergency measures legislation has been used on many occasions by federal and provincial authorities to deal with disasters such as this, and I urge the minister to encourage the province of Nova Scotia to take the initiative and perhaps consider this avenue of compensation.
If I may be parochial for a moment, may I say that there are places in my constituency, such as Pictou Island,

July 10, 1973
Adjournmen t Deba te
Cariboo and Lismore and areas such as these, where there has been terrible damage and many fishermen have lost practically everything they have. Salmon nets can be very expensive, as much as $4,000. Lobster traps these days also are very expensive, probably as much as $10 to $12. As the acting minister of fisheries of Nova Scotia pointed out:
... without equipment, the fishermen have no means of support and no means by which to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits next winter.
Again, in the Lismore area the storm had another deleterious effect. It worsened an already intolerable situation by driving in kelp and silting up access wharves and harbours adjacent to very busy fish processing factories. Well over 100 people have been affected by this. This is just one example where help is very obviously needed. Surely when there is such a need we can expect, and have a right to expect, quick action. Admittedly there are areas of policy in international negotiations on offshore fisheries and in research and development where the minister can justifiably say that he needs time and must proceed carefully; but in an instance such as this the inshore fishermen of Atlantic Canada are entitled to quick answers. Again I call on the minister to do something appropriate and to do it soon.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) said, considerable loss has been suffered by fishermen in the Maritime provinces and in Newfoundland as the result of a prolonged storm in June. The federal fisheries service, in co-operation with various provincial fisheries services, has been attempting to assess the extent and nature of this damage.
I have some information here which indicates in a general way the nature of loss to the lobster fishery. Looking at area 7B, which covers Prince Edward Island, Cape
Breton, and mainland Nova Scotia-at least, parts of each of them-the ratio of loss is one trap per four set. In other words, the typical fisherman lost 25 per cent of his gear. In areas 6A, 6B, 7A and 7B, covering Cape Breton, mainland Nova Scotia, and District 5, the eastern shore, the ratio was one in three, or a 33'A per cent loss. Area 7C, interestingly enough, did not suffer any loss.
Some small lobster boats were damaged and certain fish traps were lost. There is some difficulty in coming up with final figures, because it is taking the fishermen themselves time to find out exactly what their losses are and to price these losses. So we do not have final figures in dollar terms.
We certainly have not settled on a formula for paying the losses or meeting the expense as between levels of government. The federal government does insure fishing vessels. In respect to losses, automatically the fishing vessel insurance program looks after losses of this kind.
When it comes to the matter of gear, up until a few years ago the federal government did have a gear insurance program. It failed largely because many fishermen refused to pay the premiums. Of course, all benefited whenever there was a severe storm and the government had to get into the act and pay for lost gear. But the scheme was self-defeating and it ceased to exist in 1971.
The hon. member mentioned the Emergency Measures Organization. There is a general formula whereby, if losses run to many millions of dollars in any sector of the economy, the provinces involved can appeal to the federal government and, over a certain threshhold, the federal government pays an increasing proportion of the expense. In any case we have now got most of the data, and we expect to have all the necessary cost information within the next week or so. We still have to resolve the question of which level of government pays the compensation and in what amount.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Wednesday, July 11, 1973