1974-11-29

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the rights of all parliamentarians. I served written notice of it on Mr. Speaker this morning.
Before I go into my question of privilege, I think that as the first speaker in the House today I would like to congratulate Mr. and Mrs. Jerome on the arrival of the new nine-pound baby girl who will be the new Speaker in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Baldwin:: Probably a loudspeaker before then.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question of privilege arises from the procedure now being followed in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. In a few moments I will submit that we have been denied our rights to carry out our proper function as members of the opposition which is to prod the government into action when that is necessary, to criticize the government constructively, and to offer positive suggestions.
The rules as set out assign a ten minute period to each member to question a particular minister in reference to the estimates of his department. Last night members were questioning the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) on the estimates of his department. Each member has an equal time of only ten minutes. Before the rules were changed removing the estimates from the House, the committee of the whole used to consider estimates. Then, they were transferred under the new rules to the standing committee. When the committee of the whole used to consider estimates, if we did not get the answers, we told the minister in no uncertain terms that unless we got answers to our questions, the estimates would not be approved.
Under the new rules, members are allotted two hours to consider the estimates of each department. If each member is allotted 10 minutes, it means also that the official spokesmen of the opposition parties are allowed 10 minutes each and the time can be taken up by the majority made up of government members so that the opposition members are never able to prod the government into action or to seek information. Therefore, the whole committee system becomes a farce.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When we considered estimates in committee of the whole House, spokesmen for the official opposition had equal time with government members and were thus able to prod the government into action or to question ministers. Speaking of the functions of the official opposition and other opposition members, a former prime minister and former leader of the opposition, the late Lester B. Pearson once quoted another parliamentarian who said:
If parliament is to be preserved as a living institution, His Majesty's loyal opposition must fearlessly perform its functions. When it properly discharges them the preservation of our freedom is assured. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends. It upholds and maintains the rights of minorities against majorities. It must be vigilant against oppression and unjust invasions by the cabinet of the rights of the people. It should supervise all expenditures and prevent over-expenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful expenditures or worse. It finds fault; it suggests amendments; it asks questions and elicits information; it arouses, educates and molds public opinion by voice and vote. It must scrutinize every action by the government and in doing so prevents the short-cuts through democratic procedure that governments like to make.
In the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said there would be reform. If this is the reform, the result is that parliament cannot control government expenditure.
What is the main function of parliament, Mr. Speaker? Is it to control expenditures? If we lose control of the purse strings any government can ride slipshod over parliament and the people of Canada. This system is a sham. I do not know who made the rule that each member of parliament has ten minutes to speak but that is how it works in practice. One member from the opposition gets his ten minutes, then it is the turn of a majority of members from the government who have a love-in with the government-naturally they have a love-in-and it is in their interest to maintain the government.
How can we prod the government into action? How can we elicit information if we are only given ten minutes to study and consider millions of dollars worth of estimates, $1,750 million worth. Mr. Speaker, the committee system is a farce under this government.
Mr. Speaker, I consider this matter affects the right of members of parliament to do their duty and accept responsibility for Canadians. Last night I was denied the right, as were other members of the opposition, to elicit information from the Secretary of State. We asked one question and he was very .courteous and made a beautiful speech but gave us no information. It was a sham and a waste of time.
If Your Honour finds that I have made a prima facie case for the rights of members of parliament, I am prepared to make a motion to refer what happened last night to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I have a motion prepared.

November 29, 1974
Privilege-Mr. Woolliams


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, from the remarks of the hon. member, I think it is quite clear that what he is complaining about is the rules which the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates have adopted to control their own procedure.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Huh!


John Mercer Reid: It is my understanding that those rules were adopted in the previous parliament. They were adopted at a time when the government did not have a majority on that committee and they were adopted by all members of that committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: They are not binding on this parliament.


John Mercer Reid: The second point that should be made is that the use of the time available to a party in the House of Commons or its committee is a decision to be taken by that political party. If the political party of my hon. friend does not see fit to give him the opportunity to speak at a given time and prefers to put forward other people, that is the privilege of that party. The decision rests not with the House of Commons but with his own colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what the rules are, I submit to Your Honour and the House that it was never the intention to have the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee consider, within the narrow time frame prescribed by the rules, estimates to the extent of $1,750 million. I submit it was never intended, when the new rules were brought in, that the time which parliament had for considering the important business of supply should be so narrowed down. I submit what we are talking about is the management of House business. The other important standing committees of the House are not working at present and the government House leader could have broken down these estimates and referred them to the various standing committees of the House. This would have given all members a better opportunity to discharge their important responsibilities in examining estimates of the House and to conduct in a sensible way the business of supply.
We are not saying that the rules have been infringed; we are saying the rules have been abused. The business of the House has been mismanaged, as shown by the fact that the miscellaneous estimates committee was given the responsibility of considering, within a narrow time frame, estimates to the extent of $1,750 million. That sort of thing was never intended when the rules were changed.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I join with my hon. friends opposite in expressing dissatisfaction with the present rules of the House. I hope they will join with us in making them more suitable, both for the government and for the opposition. I quite agree that one of the main functions of parliament is that of approving supply. That is how the opposition can exam-

ine the government and demand answers and I, myself, am dissatisfied with present procedures. I hope that the suggested amendment, and many others of equal importance, will receive the careful consideration of the committee.


Mr. McKinley:: And I hope we are given better answers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If there are no further comments, the Chair must decide whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. I might say that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) gave the Chair notice of his intention to raise this important question. I feel that the work of the committees is important, especially when it concerns examination of estimates, which is the fundamental business of parliament. I understand the concern of the hon. member for Calgary North and of others who have contributed to this short procedural debate. On the other hand, I must make up my mind and base my decision on the rules of the House. That is what makes my task difficult. The hon. member said that if I should find that he has a prima facie case, that there is a legitimate question of privilege, he will be prepared to move a motion. I do not think I can allow him to do so at this time.
I must refer the hon. member to our Standing Orders, in accordance with which the Chair must rule. The hon. member may have a grievance in connection with the operations of the committee, but that does not prevent the Chair from abiding by the Standing Orders which govern the operations of the House. Standing Order 65(11) reads:
The chairman of a standing or special committee shall maintain order in the committees; deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the committee; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House, on receiving a report thereof.
May I also refer the hon. member to citation 324 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, found at page 251. It reads:
(1)	Until the report and evidence have been laid upon the Table, it is irregular to refer to them in debate, or to put questions in reference to
the proceedings of the committee.
(2)	When the evidence is before the House it may be debated at length, but members will not be permitted to discuss the conduct or language of members of the committee, except so far as it appears on the record.
That is to say, the hon. member may have a valid grievance, but the Standing Order prevents my considering his grievance at this time. I call it a grievance, and not even a question of privilege in connection with which the Chair must find a prima facie case in order to allow the hon. member to move his motion.
I refer the hon. member to previous rulings. One was made on Wednesday of this past week, when the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) raised a similar, alleged question of privilege concerning the operations of the committee. I would also refer the hon. member to another case. On December 4, 1973, when the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) raised a question of privilege with regard to the operations of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, alleging that the chairman of that committee prevented him from raising points of order in the committee. The decision of the Speaker in both cases was very clear, that it is a well established practice that committee proceedings cannot be brought into the consideration of the House of Commons, except by way of a report from a committee.
November 29, 1974

At the same time, I am sure hon. members appreciate the intervention today and last Wednesday by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) when he more or less indicated the goodwill of the government to improve the proceedings and rules followed in committee operations. Having said that, I must with regret reject the question of privilege of the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, there is a small point arising out of the comments of the parliamentary secretary to the House leader. At no time did 1 approve the 10 minute rule and at no time did I approve moving all the estimates out of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want that on the record.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now entering into debate. This is not the time to do that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter which most nearly touches the heart and spirit of this House, a matter which we share with parliamentary institutions everywhere in the free world. Tomorrow, November 30, is the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of the Right Hon. Sir Winston Churchill.
There are times in the life of every institution, as in the life of every man, when the spirit flags and almost fails. Then, that institution is fortunate if there comes a man, who can by the indomitable vigor of his own heart and spirit breathe new life into that institution and give it a new hope.
At such a time in the life of these Houses of Parliament came Sir Winston Churchill to speak in this chamber on December 30, 1941 to the members of this House and of the Senate. He was introduced by the then Prime Minister, the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King, who told this House and all Canada that "in the gravest crisis in the history of the world Canada was honoured by the presence in her halls of Parliament of the man who, by his clear vision, undaunted courage, inspired utterance, and heroic spirit has given such incomparable leadership to the hosts of freedom." Then, this chamber heard that retort to the contemptuous threat that "in three weeks, England will have her neck wrung like a chicken", that retort which from the walls of this chamber echoed round the world, "Some chicken; some neck".
It was a battle cry from a House of Commons man, delivered in this House of Commons, which gave new heart, new spirit and new hope to the institutions of parliamentary democracy throughout the free world and
Oral Questions
to the forces of freedom fighting in the dark of the underground behind the Iron Curtain. In these days of a less heroic and less dramatic crisis, let us take heart from the remembrance of that occasion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That this House pays tribute to the memory of a House of Commons man, the Right Hon. Sir Winston Churchill, on the occasion of the one hundredth anniversary of his birth and requests Mr. Speaker to convey the text of this resolution to his widow, the Lady Clementine Churchill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the motion proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43. This motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This motion should have been made on motions, so the House will revert to the presentation of reports from standing and special committees.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions.
November 27, 1974-The President of the Privy Council:
That the green paper entitled "Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest" tabled on November 27, 1974, be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and
That, after the committee has concluded its deliberations and submitted its report on the aforementioned matter, it be authorized to consider and make recommendations upon the subject matter of ministers and conflict of interest and public servants and conflict of interest.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section (2) of Standing Order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to, and ordered for, consideration under Government Orders at the next sitting of the House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that information released by Statistics Canada today shows that for the third quarter in a row there has been no economic growth, thus indicating that this country is indeed officially, as in fact, in a recession, information that was obviously in the possession of the Prime Minister last Wednesday when he made his great statement that "Canadians have contributed to the impressive perform-

November 29, 1974
Oral Questions
ance of the national economy and I should like to draw particular attention to the singularly effective contribution of my colleague the Minister of Finance"-a statement which, in light of the facts of today, is in singularly questionable taste-will the Prime Minister at this time cease this senseless confrontation with the provinces, which is obviously a diversion, and try to come to the bargaining table; and would he instruct the Minister of Finance to put before the country some program of anti-recession?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we have no confrontation, and are seeking no confrontation, with the provinces. We may have a confrontation with the opposition because of its lack of ability to take any position. We hope that if there is such a confrontation with the opposition it will force the Conservative party in particular to line up with Canada or to line up against it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, as usual, has evaded the main question which was asked. Is he able or does he want to answer the question I asked? Is the Prime Minister going to stop this confrontation, and in particular is he going to instruct the Minister of Finance to bring in a suitable program of anti-recession which this country so badly needs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member wants to continue the budget debate. Certainly, there is puzzlement in my mind as to why he wants to ask the Minister of Finance to change a budgetary policy which we think is good for the country and will continue to be good for the country. I repeat I am puzzled why the hon. member wants to reopen the budget debate at this time. He had ample opportunity to make his points during the six days of that debate.
As far as growth is concerned, the hon. member should realize that on a year over year basis the real growth in the GNP has been 3.2 per cent.


ALLEGATION GROWTH OF IMPORTS EXCEEDS EXPORTS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the decline in the GNP for the last quarter is due largely to deterioration in our trade balance, with the growth of imports exceeding that of exports, may I ask the minister whose responsibility this is, what steps he has taken to improve this balance?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is running a favourable merchandise trade surplus. I expect that by the end of the year it will be higher than it is at the present time.


STATISTICS CANADA
James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister who is responsible and reports to the House for Statistics Canada whether he issued any instructions to Statistics Canada to withhold release of information on the GNP which was due to be released on Wednesday in order that the Prime Minister might be able to make the speech that he made in the House last Wednesday. Was there interference with the release of this information?
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Commerce): That is an outrageous suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the minister says that is an outrageous suggestion. I should like to quote from a Canadian Press despatch to the effect that Statistics Canada had originally reported that the third quarter GNP figures were due for release on Wednesday but that they were withheld because the Prime Minister was due to speak on that day. I ask the minister whether he can assure this House that there was in fact no interference with the release of this information by Statistics Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. On the point of order, the hon. member will admit that the point he is raising has nothing to do with the workings and functioning of this House. The Chair can only go by the rules and make decisions on the functioning of the House.


URANIUM-ALLEGATION ONE AND A HALF MILLION POUNDS OF CONCENTRATE UNACCOUNTED FOR
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. According to the report of the Auditor General, it appears that 1 Vi million pounds of uranium concentrate has been unaccounted for. In view of the stringent export safeguards on uranium, may I ask the Prime Minister how it is possible for the Atomic Energy Control Board to have handled this matter in such a slipshod and haphazard manner?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by department officials that certain sales contracts of uranium concentrates to which Uranium Canada was party were sent to a United States plant for conversion to uranium hexafloride before going on to the ultimate purchaser. The board of directors of Uranium Canada decided to make an on the spot inspection of these inventories. The inspection was carried out on September 23 and 24 of this year by representatives of Uranium Canada, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and at the invitation of the Uranium Canada, officials from the Auditor General's department. These representa-
[Mr Baldwin ]
November 29, 1974

tives carried out their inspection and were satisfied with the results of that inspection.


URANIUM-SHIPMENTS TO SPAIN-ASSURANCE OF PROPER SAFEGUARDS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I will direct to the Prime Minister. In view of the interest that I know he has in this matter and the widespread concern of the Canadian people regarding the precarious international situation and the danger of exporting uranium that could be used for warlike purposes, and since this shipment to which the Auditor General refers was only part of the shipment of 5.6 million pounds of uranium which was stockpiled and committed to Spain, may I ask the right hon. gentleman whether we are shipping uranium to Spain?
If that is so, does the Canadian government have any agreement with Spain to ensure that this uranium will not be used for other than peaceful purposes, and particularly to ensure that none of the by-products such as plutonium will be trans-shipped to another country, especially in the Middle East where there is such a dangerous situation today?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of this question and bring it to the attention of the minister so that he may respond to the hon. member.


POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF ENRICHED URANIUM PLANT IN QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister will give us some assurance that these safeguards are being used effectively. We have been told about the safeguards but so far we have not seen the new regulations. Let me ask the Prime Minister something he might be willing to answer. Have any representatives of his government, the government of the province of Quebec and a French company been carrying on discussions with regard to the establishment in Canada of a uranium enrichment plant and if so, at what stage are these discussions at the present time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct in saying that the government is very concerned with the problems in respect of exporting fissionable materials. We do apply our safeguards with utmost care. I am sure that applies in the case of exports to Spain but, as the parliamentary secretary has said, I will check further into the matter to see if there is any particular aspect of it which should be made known to the House.
In so far as the more particular question about enriched uranium in Quebec is concerned, I replied the other day in this House that the subject had been raised between the French authorities and myself at the time of our visit, and it had been followed up by a visit to France by the
Oral Questions
Canadian part of the team that was going to look into the whole problem of energy as it interests France and Canada. I also talked to the premier of Quebec. I am repeating what I said the other day, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps the hon. member did not hear this. In so far as we are concerned, we are not negotiating any such agreement with France. The only stage we have reached is one of explaining our policies which are, as I have just explained, with regard to safeguards and other matters.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MEASURES TO ACHIEVE NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Has he received any indications that some agitators, like the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, who preaches separatism in the province of Alberta, will finally understand the importance of national unity and the future of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, to my mind, I believe that, fundamentally, the leader of the Social Credit will find that I agree fully with him on the basic question, but as for the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, I gave up any hope in his future a long time ago.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Following his speech the day before yesterday, has the Prime Minister spoken to the Alberta premier, and if so, is there any hope for better understanding than that we have witnessed in the last few days?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken to the Alberta premier. It may be that he has become acquainted with certain elements of my speech. But I must add that he wrote to me earlier in the week. I intend to answer his letter, naturally, and in that reply I shall repeat some of the arguments I put to the House.


HOUSING
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the report by Statistics Canada for the third quarter shows a gross national product growth of zero, and that the weakness stemmed from the housing component which was down 4.9 per cent in current dollars and 10.6 per cent in real terms, with housing starts down 15 per cent, and with a decline in housing starts in the third quarter of 22.9 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Question.

November 29, 1974
Oral Questions


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would put this question to the minister of state responsible for housing along the lines of one I put to the minister last night, and I might say that I am not dealing with AHOP, I am dealing with that large segment which provides loans for the financing of most homes in Canada. Has the government any plans to solve the housing crisis in light of these figures which are applicable not only to the major cities but throughout Canada? Perhaps I should also mention that there is a vacancy rate in Canada of only 2 per cent in rental accommodation, combined with the fact that housing starts are down, and a prediction by the Conference Board of Canada that housing starts may be as low as 175,000. What real plans has the government got?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, certainly we have a number of plans, not excluding AHOP, which will alleviate the housing problem so that it does not become a crisis in this country.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is already a crisis.


Barnett Jerome Danson: These plans include one of the most successful programs in the history of this government in housing, AHOP. More specifically, we are addressing ourselves to the most serious aspect of the housing shortage in this country which is rental accommodation for the coming year, with the limited dividend rental housing and the expanded limited dividend rental housing which I referred to in my address in the House on the budget on Monday, which I would commend to the hon. member for reading.
I might say that this shows real progress in the housing field generally, as well as in other fields, including rural and native housing, rehabilitation of houses, senior citizen housing, non-profit housing, co-operative housing and a long list of programs which I am sure I could not cover in a short time during question period but which I would be delighted to review with the hon. member if he has two or three hours he would like to spend for that purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


SUGGESTION PRIVATE LENDING INSTITUTIONS MAKE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister in that I have really found out now what his program is; it is a program of words but no action.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should now like to-


An hon. Member:: Question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Hold on, my good friend, and you will get the question. I should like to know whether the minister would consider getting together with the Minister of Finance and the two of them suggesting that the lending institutions in this country put a large portion, or some

portion at least, of their lending capital into housing at a reasonable rate of interest, perhaps 8 per cent instead of the 11V4 per cent we have heard about in relation to AHOP, so builders can increase the supply of houses for the 70 per cent of Canadians who cannot afford to purchase homes at the present time?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, that great number of words relates to over a billion dollars worth of Canadian housing. If the hon. member had been listening to my answers in the committee last night and my speech last Monday, he would know that the effective interest rates under AHOP are down to 8 per cent and well below that in the case of special needs; down to 6 per cent and even 4 per cent in some cases, depending on the family size and the location. In addition to that, I hope to be introducing to the House my new housing programs, alluded to on Monday, within the next two weeks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Those are the peanut programs.


Barnett Jerome Danson: These will deal with the interest rates in so far as the private sector is concerned, directing a large amount of mortgage money from the private sector at a minimum cost to the taxpayer.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that Mrs. Jane Dobell is running for re-election to the Ottawa school board, which is heavily subsidized by the federal government, and as Mrs. Dobell has now been appointed by the Secretary of State as director general of the language training program, does the Prime Minister not consider this to involve a conflict of interest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I had no
knowledge of these facts, Mr. Speaker, but I will look into them. I must say, however, at first glance, that I cannot see the conflict of interest that the hon. member seems to
see.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Since the federal government gives considerable funds to the Ottawa School Board for language training and as Mrs. Dobell will be director of the language training program, this would be a conflict. She is running for the School Board-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is arguing his case, not asking a question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I understand the question correctly, there might be something there to be decided by the people who have the right to cast a vote or by the people in the School Board. However, I hope the hon. member is not
\
November 29, 1974

suggesting that we should cease to make these grants for French language training.


An hon. Member:: That's nonsense.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why would we have the conflict?


Gerald William Baldwin: There are so few areas where you do not have conflicts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: The hon. member is not wearing a tie.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Hon. members are drawing my attention to the fact that the hon. member is not properly dressed according to the customs of the House. Unless he adheres to that custom, I cannot recognize him. I would therefore ask him to retire temporarily and return wearing a tie, otherwise I will not be able to recognize him.


Roch La Salle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have understood the Chair, but I would like to point out that I am wearing a much wider tie than any other member in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Go and dress up!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member cannot ask the Chair to alter the customs of the House. We usually ask male members to wear a tie. It is practically part of our institution. I think it would be easy for the hon. member to get a tie at his office and come back. I will then be prepared to recognize him immediately.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair does not intend to discuss the matter nor to recognize the member as long as he does not comply with my decision. I therefore recognize the hon, member-

Order, please. The hon. member for South Shore.



CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Supply and Services, but in his absence I will direct it to the President of the Treasury Board. Considering that the Auditor General has maintained in three successive reports that the Canadian Commercial Corporation has been improperly retaining public
Oral Questions
funds, does the minister plan to give any direction at all to officials to remedy this serious flaw in public administration?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am still reading the report. As soon as I am aware of its content, I shall see what I can do to comply with the terms the Auditor General is demanding about management within the government, and I shall see what recommendations, if any, I may have to make.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the fact that nothing has been done about this improper procedure for three years, would the minister tell the House whether it is the policy of the government to ignore the recommendations of the Auditor General, and does the minister believe that the Canadian Commercial Corporation should retain funds which should have been properly credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we intend to comply as much as possible with the Auditor General's recommendations. I do not know about this case, I am studying it, and I shall report to the committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member as soon as I can come to a decision.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the terms of reference for Judge Estey in the steel profits inquiry limited him in question No. 1 to examine only price increases after May 15, 1974, and therefore the judge did not examine 12 price increases from January to May, can the minister explain why the terms of reference were so restrictive?


Alastair William Gillespie: On the contrary, I think that the terms of reference are broad. There were three particular questions to which Judge Estey addressed himself, and he set out his reasons in some considerable depth.


Reginald Cyril Symes: The minister seems to be confusing specific price increases with general profit increases. In view of the fact that even though Judge Estey could not examine the problem of price leadership and comparative profit margins on individual products, he has concluded that the steel companies are at such a high level of profit taking that further price increases not related to cost would be profiteering, will the minister now initiate a full and ongoing inquiry into steel pricing?


Alastair William Gillespie: Quite clearly, the report of Judge Estey dealt with a very wide review of the pricing practices of the industry over a very long period of time and thus has covered the situation. I would recommend it as reading

November 29, 1974
Oral Questions
matter to members who are interested in pursuing this question.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence may I direct it to the President of the Privy Council who is the acting minister. In view of the fact that the oil exporting nations of Nigeria, Indonesia and Algeria are receiving more than $84 million under Canadian foreign aid programs and have been experiencing large increases in revenues for oil exports for more than a year now, will the minister explain to the House why the fact was recognized only recently and why an investigation had not begun several months earlier?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, when the present oil situation developed and prices went up, and when supplies of oil were found in some of the underdeveloped countries of the world, this question was examined very carefully in the CIDA administration, and the decisions that were made were made with the full knowledge of the facts and for reasons that I am quite sure my colleague or the president of CIDA would be happy to explain at a suitable time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In view of the fact that this particular review to which the minister refers in his answer is under way, will he inform the House whether or not aid has been temporarily suspended pending the investigation's outcome and, if not, why not?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would not attempt to answer that question in detail, but I would like to make this general comment, that there were certain programs under way that were very useful in the development of those countries which, while they have new revenues and oil which they did not have before, are still by our standards or by standards prevailing in the world very much underdeveloped. I am quite sure that Canadians would wish to continue these programs that are already under way. Moreover, one of the purposes of the programs that are under way is to bring these countries to a position of being no longer dependent upon aid. Then, we will have fulfilled our purpose.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture relating
[Mr. Gillespie.)
to the world food conference where the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated the reallocation of $50 million for development assistance and subsequently, in reply to a question in the House on emergency food relief indicated that it was $50 million available for emergency food relief, could the Minister of Agriculture tell the House whether there are two amounts of $50 million, one for emergency food relief and the other for development assistance, or is it one single $50 million sum for reallocation to CIDA?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member put that question to the minister in charge of the fund, the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question to the same minister. In light of the minister's statement in, I believe, Belleville earlier this week to the effect that we are helping people in developing countries learn how to feed themselves and that is the reason behind the additional $50 million grant Canada is giving, may I ask if the $50 million the minister referred to in Belleville is the same $50 million to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs alluded in Rome? If so, is it the minister's position that the entire $50 million should go to assist developing countries in their food production or is it his position that part of it should go to emergency food relief?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to notes I used for a speech at Belleville. If he was not there to hear it in total I am sure I can give him the tape and he can listen to it.


An hon. Member:: We get enough of that.


Eugene Whelan: He knows what the $50 million fund is. I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs could be more specific, but this is being redirected to helping people feed themselves. I am sure the hon. member is also aware that we have been doing this to a greater extent on a bilateral basis than many other nations of the world and we will continue to do it. The government is searching for more funds to provide relief in a better fashion than we have in the past.



CONFLICT OF INTEREST


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to the subject of conflict of interest and the guidelines currently in force. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether an audit has been conducted on the statements made by cabinet ministers with respect to their holdings, to ensure that their statements are accurate and complete?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what type of audit the hon. member has in mind. Certainly, it would be fair to say
November 29, 1974

that the whole basis of the conflict of interest guidelines that we have proposed, not only for ministers but for members of parliament and civil servants, is based on the honour system rather than on the audit system. I certainly think this is the proper procedure and I repeat what I said earlier: If the House of Commons wants to take a different approach to this and depart from the honour system toward an investigative system, obviously as members of parliament and ministers we will have to adopt that system. This is not the government's inclination but if it is the Tory inclination, I hope they will say so and act in consequence.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Although under the conflict of interest guidelines there is no explicit provision for the need to deal with the potential conflict of spouses and other members of a family, has the Prime Minister privately assured himself that no member of cabinet has an interim conflict of interest through a member of his family?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the position we take on spouses and members of the family is the one that I enunciated in this House and outside the House on several occasions.


An hon. Member:: No position.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is a position that the evolving standards in Canada are such that we could expect that a spouse will have a right to an independent career and activities.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This position is not universally shared and certainly it is not the position of the Tory Party. Probably that is why they elected so few women members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: We have quality, not quantity.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board regarding a very critical situation. I know the matter of the grain inspectors' strike has been brought up before but the only action we see is the wringing of hands by officials of the minister's department. If the strike is not soon settled there will be no wheat in eastern Canada to make flour of grain for feeding livestock. Can the minister give the House an up to date report on this matter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tom O'Connor was appointed yesterday to act as mediator in this conflict. He conferred with the parties all day yesterday; he is meeting with them again today, and I hope he will make progress. This is the only
Oral Questions
report I can make to the House at this time. I am quite concerned too about this situation, but we must recognize that the workers involved have the right to strike, a right which was given to them by the Parliament of Canada.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, we do not argue with the right of these people to strike, but we would like to impress upon the minister the seriousness of the situation and request that he ask his negotiator to proceed in all haste and earnestness.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Even supplementar-ies have to be questions and not statements. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister provide the House with further information regarding the meeting on Wednesday between Canadian and United States officials regarding the beef situation? Can the minister say whether he is prepared to meet with the United States Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz and, if so, what specific proposals will he take to that meeting?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, our officials did meet with the United States officials to discuss our quota programs and the programs they have. Until the discussions are finalized there is not much more I can say. Discussions are continuing.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the outcome of this situation may take some time to emerge, can the minister tell the House what specific proposals he had in mind to help beef and particularly hog producers who find themselves in a very difficult situation?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we are trying to work out programs to make sure that this industry does not suffer unduly but such plans have not been finalized. We do not foresee any great difficulty for the pork industry in Canada, however. I might say that we have found a home through foreign aid for some of the beef and we are still exploring other foreign aid programs and sale programs in other countries for beef.



EGGS-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO DEAL WITH ANTICIPATED SURPLUS

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. In view of the 90 million egg surplus anticipated by the Canadian egg marketing agency for the coming year, may I ask the minister if he is taking steps to ensure that some of that surplus production goes into foreign aid and not into inadequate storage to be allowed to rot again?
1798

Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think anyone who has anything to do with food production does not like to see it rot and will do their darndest to make sure that does not happen. I can say this about egg production, however, I am optimistic. According to inquiries not only for foreign aid but for foreign trade we will be in a better position than we have been for many months.
* *



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and arises out of published reports that a DC-3 aircraft piloted by a veteran Vietnam pilot accustomed to dodging radar has been making clandestine pre-dawn flights into Hamilton civil airport as part of a sophisticated narcotics smuggling racket. Is the minister in a position to advise the House whether the RCMP is aware of this situation and what action, if any, is planned?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no report on that particular situation. I will get some information and report to the House.



HOUSING


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact it now appears that the government's efforts to improve the housing situation in Canada are doomed to failure because of persistently high mortgage interest rates and accelerating property costs, and because recent surveys have indicated that as many as 70 per cent of Canadian families cannot afford to purchase homes despite the fact that 23 per cent of these families have incomes of $15,000 or more, will the minister inform the House of the measures he intends to take to rectify this situation and to ensure that all Canadians are properly housed?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not acknowledge that our efforts are doomed to failure. I enumerated certain measures in committee last night, when the hon. member was present, and I mentioned some of them to the hon. member for Calgary North. There are a number of programs in this area, including the continuation of the Assisted Home Ownership Program, and the Limited Dividend Rental Program. The extension of these programs will bring more private sector money into mortgages and investments. Then, one must remember the budgetary measures, which include the writing off of capital cost
[Mr. McGrath.)
allowances against other income, to allow more investment by those in the private sector in multiple rental dwellings, the savings features in the budget, which will enable people to buy more homes, the senior citizens housing program, which has high priority, rural and native housing, co-operative housing programs, which are moving along reasonably well, non-profit housing and land assembly programs, sewage programs, servicing programs-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Stan Darling: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister consider the implementation of a special program which will either lower or subsidize interest rates for builders in the conventional mortgage market, in an effort to spur housing construction and accelerate supply to a level which will induce lower mortgage interest rates for Canadians in general.


Barnett Jerome Danson: 

VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Knowlea (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As the government House leader, when answering my question yesterday, described as bad news the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs was studying a proposal made by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for an increase in the pensions of Hong Kong veterans, ckn the minister say if this means that he has rejected the proposal made unanimously by that committee, or whether it is still under favourable consideration.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration. I have been looking at this question. It all takes time. My department is considering this matter, and if something is decided at a later date I will be glad to inform the House.
November 29, 1974



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his absence, may I address it to the acting minister. In view of reports that a big proportion of Canadian wheat sent to feed the starving people of Bangladesh is being smuggled for high profits across the border to India or stolen by black marketeers, will the minister describe the precautions which are being taken to ensure that Canadian food aid reaches those in Bangladesh who most need it.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice. I know that my colleague in the administration is doing everything possible to see that the wheat is delivered to those most in need. I am sure that the hon. member will agree, however, that one must always work through the authorities in other countries. That is the kind of courtesy for which we would ask and it is one that we accord to those whom we are trying to help.


Alexander Bell Patterson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Apparently the Red Cross insists on accompanying all shipments of aid to their destination, to ensure proper delivery. Will the government consider taking similar precautions in order that Canadian aid made available through government sources shall reach those for whom it is destined.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer must be that this can only be done with the agreement of the country concerned.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the railway freight rate freeze and the fact that the current estimates provide for a payment of $118 million to the railway companies to make up for losses they suffered as a result of the freeze, in addition to the $41 million provided for in the previous supplementary estimates. Is the Minister of Transport considering the provision of similar benefits to the trucking industry, as that industry, too, has been affected by the railway freight freeze, and faced by escalating costs of operation.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have received no complaints from the trucking industry. The agreement alluded to was made by the railways, through letters sent to me. I do not know if the truckers have increased their rates, but I do not see why I should offer anything to the truckers who have not asked for anything.
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister's answer was amusing, because it shows either that he does not know what is going on within his department or that he has suffered from a lapse i of memory. If he checks he will find that as far back as February, 1973 and December, 1973 ongoing discussions were taking place on the subject. Is the minister not going to treat the trucking industry in the same way he is treating the railway industry?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, one reason for lifting the rate freeze was that such action would place the trucking industry in a position to compete with the railways.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister not respond to the request made by trucking companies to him, personally, and to members of his department?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, the question period must be nearly over. My question is for the Minister of State responsible for fisheries. About ten days ago he said that if I would wait a couple of days he would inform me of the results of the ICNAF conference, and particularly of the decision on quotas. Will he now say if any decision has been reached on methods to prevent violations of the ICNAF agreement? I have in mind what happened last year, when the Soviet fishing fleet overfished herring off the Grand Banks.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's efforts to be recognized were recognized on my side, too. I had hoped to convey my information to him earlier. The quotas-I think he is interested particularly in the herring quotas pertaining to the Georges Bank-were discussed recently at ICNAF meetings in Miami. It was agreed that the quotas in 1975 should remain unchanged from those agreed to in 1974. However, for other stocks, some extension of prohibited areas and the extension of the time when fishing may not take place were agreed to. Consultations with fishermen of the area who fish off southwest Nova Scotia convinced us that we will avoid some discarding of haddock, as we had to do under the regulations, and to diminish this waste of food, which we do not want to tolerate in any way.
As to the other point, the regulations will come up for consideration at the next meeting in Bergen, Norway, and also at tne Edinburgh meeting in June. We are not satisfied that all regulations are properly observed and we will be making more representations in this area.
28543-45)4

November 29, 1974
Oral Questions


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On the basis of the agreement reached by all nations, will the minister say what action the Canadian government will take, in addition to boarding foreign vessels, inspecting their catch and determining by what extent they have exceeded quotas, in cases when foreign vessels have taken more than their quota and have over-fished.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, under present ICNAF regulations, any country which violates the regulations can be called to task at the ICNAF meeting itself. At the moment there is no other recourse. We hope, eventually, that management zones off our own coast, under the Law of the Sea will give us much more clout.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. At the Western Economic Opportunities Conference some 18 months ago, the minister unveiled what was known as the 70/30 plan by which 70 per cent of the officers of his staff would be located in the field and 30 per cent in Ottawa, the reverse of the present proportion. What steps have been taken to effect that policy and how far has it progressed?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to advise the hon. member and the House that the policy has, in fact been almost totally implemented, We have turned it around from 70 per cent in Ottawa to close to 70 per cent in the field. I do not have the precise percentage at the moment. At this time I want to pay tribute to the members of the public service in my department for their co-operative approach to this effort. All regional and provincial officers are co-operating. I am getting good reports back from the field that they are being effective.



HOUSING


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. May I ask the honourable and congenial gentleman to advise the House what progress is being made by the Social Housing Association of Cape Breton and CMHC with regard to provision of ongoing administrative and developmental funds.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the immediate up-to-date information on that. I will get it and report to the hon. member.


Robert Muir: Is the minister aware that the frustration tolerance level of the association is rapidly approaching the exploding point and if a positive decision cannot be reached by December 10, the association will have no other alternative that to go out of existence?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize the degree of the temperature in the area. As the hon. member knows, we have just allocated $2 million for rental accommodation in Sydney which will help the situation. That, of course, is just the first measure. Others will come. However, I will look into the situation. I appreciate the hon. member bringing this to my attention.
[DOT] * *



IMPORT PERMITS FOR BEEF FROM UNITED STATES-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS OF TRADING IN PERMITS

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Because of rumours circulating in western Canada, will the minister immediately investigate whether there are trade-offs of import permits for beef from the United States taking place between importers?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I have heard of any such suggestion. I will be pleased to look into it and inform the hon. member.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you for trying to look after all members in the House today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the continuing and growing concern relating to regional pay rates that work in conflict with the government's objectives of eliminating regional economic disparity wherever it exists in the nation, coupled with the fact there should be equal pay for equal work, will the minister consider referring the subject matter to either an appropriate standing committee of the House or a special committee to determine if a more equitable policy can be established?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that hon. members have many opportunities to discuss this problem, when I must appear before various committees of the House. Moreover, at this time, a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate is looking into the Finkelman report. I
November 29, 1974

suggest that interventions could be made to this committee.


Robert Carman Coates: In view of the especially devastating effect regional pay rates have on building up rather than eliminating regional economic disparity in the Atlantic provinces, will the minister again consider whether this could be submitted to a special committee of members of parliament so that they might determine whether we can secure greater equity for people who live in that part of Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure we should refer that matter to a special committee. I just said that there are several forums where it can be discussed. Moreover, it is a problem whose solution the government is negotiating with the unions representing the various groups of federal public servants. Certainly, public servants themselves are facing problems, for as it happens the cost of living is much higher in some area of Canada . than in others, and the national rates have disastrous effects on some employees. You will recall the situation when the Vancouver airport firefighters insisted on getting parity with the City of Vancouver's firefighters. That could not be given to them because the union wanted to maintain a national rate.



HOUSING


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Average incomes in Ontario are only slightly higher than the national average, about 5 per cent. Home prices in certain areas are substantially higher than the national average, up to 30 per cent higher, certainly in many parts of Ontario. Is the minister considering giving additional assistance to would-be home buyers in high home cost areas by, for example, increasing the $500 grant for home buyers subjected to above average house costs? To be equitable, if $500 is fair with respect to a house purchase in Montreal where homes average $35,000 in price, should not the grant be $800 in Toronto where homes average $55,000?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to achieve equity. I think the other side of the coin is that we want to give encouragement to those people who live in other parts of the country where home prices are not as high. This might be an additional incentive to them. The hon. member will realize the reduction of the sales tax on building materials to 5 per cent is an extra bonus, if you wish to call it that, or decrease in penalty for living in a high cost area because these people receive greater benefit from that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the fact the average price of houses has risen dramatically, for example 61 per cent in
Oral Questions
the last two years in Ontario, a figure well above the national average compared, for example, with 26 per cent in Quebec, does the minister have any new measures that he intends to institute in order to ensure that people living in Ontario, where they now need one third more income than if they lived in Quebec, will be put in a similar position with regard to home purchases?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the effect of the expanded program under assisted home ownership and also limited dividend. It takes into consideration assistance at the much higher price level in the Toronto region of $44,915. I am also working with the provincial ministry on co-operative programs which give special impetus in that area of high cost.
* *



ACUPUNCTURE-POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE FOR INCLUSION IN MEDICARE

Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is related to the growing interest in acupuncture. Has the minister received representation from the provinces, either from professional or other organizations, regarding the present role of acupuncture? In order to avoid asking a supplementary question, perhaps the minister might also indicate if this matter is considered to be a high priority in terms of future federal-provincial conferences. Will he give some indication whether it will be a top priority in future federal-provincial conferences on health.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the question of acupuncture has been raised by myself and my colleagues at previous federal-provincial conferences. Indeed, the government has taken the lead in attempting to clarify the position of acupuncture as a potentially useful health service in the Canadian context. We have sponsored missions to China and likewise visits by Chinese acupuncturists to Canada. Acupuncture, like any other personal health service, comes under provincial, rather than federal law.
At the last federal-provincial meeting of ministers of health, we issued a statement in this regard setting out quite clearly that, in our opinion, acupuncture should only be provided on the advice of a qualified physician and, for the time being, it should not be considered as a shared medical act under the Medical Care Act. Thirdly, while there was some evidence that acupuncture could be useful for the relief of pain, our opinion at the present time is that it should not be used for other purposes.

Federal Business Development Bank Act



MONTREAL OLYMPICS, 1976-REASON FOR DELAY IN TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM SALE OF COINS TO OLYMPICS CORPORATION

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General, who I hope is in Toronto trying to salvage the mail destroyed by fire and water, I will direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board who is also partially responsible for the Olympics bill. According to the first report of the finance minister for the Olympics coin program, no payment had been made to the Olympics corporation, even though funds were available. In the second report we find that only during the month of October, 1974 was agreement reached between the federal government and the Olympics Corporation on the transfer of these funds.
Would the minister advise the House what problems exist between the government and the corporation to cause such a lengthy delay; and because these Olympics funds were raised as the result of a federal program, as outlined in the Olympics 1976 act, would the minister advise this House what safeguards have been designed for the proper management of these funds, as there are no public tenders-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should put a question, not make a speech.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a detailed answer to the first part of the question because the arrangements have been made directly between the Minister of Finance and COJO authorities. However, I shall report to the hon. member when I get a precise answer. As regards the second part of the question, it has been clearly established that the federal government would not participate in the deficit of the Olympic Games and that the management of those games is under the responsibility of the City of Montreal, of COJO and of the government of Quebec. As we did not want to assume responsibility for the deficit, we cannot dictate administrative procedures.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. We have gone very much beyond the time allotted to the question period. I think we should now go to orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, November 28, consideration of Bill C-14, to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank, as reported (with amendments) from 
the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and motion No. 1 (Mr. Dick).
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we managed to deal with the procedural question, and since motion No. 1 now appears on page 6 of the order paper under government order No. 14 we can now deal with the substance of the amendment. By amending clause 4(1) of the bill the definitions clause is in no way changed from its original conception. The Federal Business Development Bank is really an expansion of the Industrial Development Bank, not simply a retreaded version. The IDB can now lend up to $950 million. The proposed Federal Business Development Bank will be able to lend up to $2.2 billion, so hon. members can see the new bank as proposed will be almost twice as large.
This amendment proposes to restrict the new bank in a very minor way, though nevertheless it is a restriction. The new bank would be restricted to lending money or giving guarantees only to Canadian citizens, landed immigrants of a certain category-and the definition I have used for landed immigrants is taken from clause 9(2) (c) in the "directors" section of the bill-and the third category is British subjects who have been resident here since June 25, 1967, which is the cut-off date of the special status of British subjects pursuant to other legislation. In other words, the intention of the amendment is to restrict the lending of money by the bank to people who are Canadian citizens or will obviously become Canadian citizens.
Some people may consider this, as it is in fact, an amendment endorsing the principle of Canadian economic nationalism, which I suggest is something that we in this country must face up to. It is not an amendment penalizing foreign firms, but one that will try to bring under Canadian ownership the future economic expansion of this country. At the same time, we are trying to reserve the funds of this one bank for the advancement of Canadian ownership. Chartered banks can lend money to foreigners, and other bodies such as DREE, the ODC in the province of Ontario, PAIT under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and other government programs can be used by foreigners or foreign-owned firms as well as by Canadians. However, in the case of small business, which employs over 50 per cent of the Canadian work force and pays 50 per cent of the taxes in this country, we are reserving for their encouragement-which is the very aim of the Federal Business Development Bank as it was of the Industrial Development Bank-a pool of funds.
As I have said, I am not trying to penalize or prejudice foreign ownership. We know that Canada needs more investment. I am much happier when people from outside the country want to establish industry here and bring in their own funds. That is foreign investment in its most meaningful form. But in the case under discussion we want investment on the part of Canadians, instead of lending foreigners money to help buy us out. The Federal Business Development Bank will be owned by the Government of Canada; it is a public service that is paid for by taxes raised in this country, so surely a bank that is set up by the people of Canada should look to the development of Canada by Canadians. I think this would be a wise use of our funds and this is what the amendment is proposing.
November 29, 1974

I should like to point out one fact of which we should all be aware. In the spring of 1974, Gallup conducted a poll asking the following question: "Would you favour or oppose legislation which would significantly restrict and control further foreign investment in Canada?" That question goes much further than what is suggested in this amendment, but in reply to the question the national consensus was that 69 per cent of Canadians were in favour of such legislation whereas only 18 per cent were opposed.
Every region of Canada favoured such restrictive legislation. In the Atlantic region, 69 per cent favoured such restrictive legislation and 20 per cent were opposed to it. In Quebec, 59 per cent were in favour of restrictive legislation and 21 per cent were against. In Ontario, 72 per cent were in favour of such restrictive legislation and 17 per cent were against. On the prairies, 71 per cent were in favour, as opposed to 19 per cent against. In British Columbia-this was the highest figure-it was 77 per cent in favour of such restrictive legislation, with 16 per cent opposed. It is obvious that the Canadian people are saying something not only as a result of this poll but because of many other things: they want more Canadian ownership.
This amendment is designed to promote and encourage more Canadian ownership by reserving this large pool of funds for Canadian small businesses to expand. It has been suggested that the amendment is not really that important. I do not hesitate in saying that I am not going as far in this amendment as the poll would indicate people want restrictive legislation to go, but this is only one small measure or funding mechanism that we have in this country.
It was suggested in committee that only 1 per cent or 2 per cent of present IDB funds go to enterprises which are foreign owned. This is the evidence from the mouth of the general manager, Mr. Clark, who said he thought it was less than 1 per cent. However, he indicated that there had been a study which indicated it was, at most, 2 per cent; but when I asked for more information about this study it became evident that the figure was really a guesstimate rather than firm evidence. The information was that they reviewed the applications for a period of three or four months during the year 1972, or at least that is what he thought. Surely that is not a very valid statistic.
He believes it was the year 1972 and that is all that is indicated in the minutes. He thought it was for a period of three or four months but perhaps the applications reviewed were for the four-month period following, rather than during, that period. We do not know for sure. This is just not a very believable statistic. If that estimate is reasonably accurate, I hope the government will endorse this amendment because, obviously, we are not going to make great waves in the capital market.
According to the evidence given before the committee, the bank does not even keep statistics as to whether loans are made to enterprises that are foreign owned. The only review the bank has had is the one in respect of the four-month period. I think we must ask ourselves why such a small percentage is involved. We had evidence by the general manager of the Industrial Development Bank
Federal Business Development Bank Act
to the effect that there is an internal bank directive to managers, instructing them not to lend funds to foreigners for the purpose of buying out or taking over Canadian-owned enterprises. That being the case, why do we not make this the law?


Alastair William Gillespie: We did, and it is called the Foreign Investment Review Act.


Paul Wyatt Dick: We will get to that in a few moments. What concerns me is that the bank has a directive which can be changed tomorrow making it possible for the bank to make 25 per cent, 35 per cent or 40 per cent of its loans to foreign-owned enterprises. Even the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell)-now back in the House after the election this year-inquired quite forcefully whether the general manager would put out a second directive to ensure that the bank would not lend to foreign-owned enterprises, allowing them to expand into unrelated fields. While this is not in the minutes, because the general manager of the bank did not make any verbal commitment, I remember that he smiled and nodded his head in an affirmative way, indicating that he understood the question and was sympathetic to it. Perhaps he will introduce such a directive. Even if he does, it means that the bank is making law by directive rather than this House making it the law of the land.
When this matter was referred to in the committee, the minister said that such provision would be restrictive and would perhaps hurt some small or depressed areas where a foreign enterprise might like to establish with the assistance of an IDB loan or an FBDB loan. I suggest that we are being restrictive if we go along with the general manager and his directive, at least to the extent of 1 per cent or 2 per cent. The chances are, with business being as flexible as it is, these enterprises could borrow money through DREE, PAIT or GAAP, or perhaps the Ontario Development Corporation, the British Columbia Development Corporation or even through some other mechanism. If the enterprise was a good one, I am sure it could find Canadian entrepreneurs who would be willing to participate in a joint venture in order to meet the 51 per cent ownership requirement of this amendment. It is restrictive, but I do not think it will lessen Canadian development in any meaningful way.
The minister said that for a number of technical reasons he thought the amendment was not good. I asked him to tell us what the technical reasons were and the only one he gave was that he thought the amendment would not include co-operatives. To overcome that objection I redrafted the amendment to include co-operatives. I appreciate the fact that the minister pointed out that objection, but if he had more he should have indicated them to the committee at the time we were examining the question. If he was not frank and open at that time, I suggest it is a little late to come up with more objections now. I tried to draft the amendment to incorporate his view. The minister indicated that the Foreign Investment Review Act would really do the same thing as this amendment. He said that act was now the law of the land and provided an adequate mechanism.
I am thankful it is the law of the land, but it represents a very small step in the direction of Canadian economic

November 29, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank Act ownership, nationalism or whatever you want to call it. In any event, I think we should have more than one scheme or method to assist us in achieving this goal. Surely that would not be wrong. The fact of reserving this one pool of capital for Canadians and landed immigrants is, I think, a positive act. Rather than saying that we are restricting foreigners, I am adopting a positive point of view. Also, the experience so far with the Foreign Investment Review Act is not that foreigners have been restricted in any outlandish way-in fact, they have been encouraged-but rather than use a Canadian-owned bank to buy us out, I would much rather bring them into Canada.
The Foreign Investment Review Act is geared mainly in that direction. It does not give protection to the Canadian-owned bank which is owned by the taxpayers, with funds coming from the taxpayers of this country, as the minister says, by way of contributions for which we ask each year. I think we in this country should be trying, not to buy back ownership that we have already given away, but to buy the future. Let us look forward. My amendment is directed toward encouraging Canadians to own new ventures and expand them in the next 10, 20 or 30 years. If we, as Canadians, have control of the expansion of new ventures in this country 30 years from now we will own our economy, rather than finding ourselves in the present situation where the oil and gas industry is 95 per cent foreign-owned, where the resource industry is over 80 per cent foreign-owned and the manufacturing industry is over 60 per cent foreign-owned.
I do not hesitate to say that this amendment contains some Canadian economic nationalism, and I am proud of that. I would like to see that principle enshrined in more of our laws in the future. I think a great many members of this party and other members of the House believe in that principle; but rather than just paying lip service to it, let us do something about it. When it comes to election time, all political parties say that it is a great thing to do; let us wave the flag more; let us have Canadian economic nationalism and Canadian ownership-but nothing is done.
The Foreign Investment Review Act was a step in the right direction. I believe that this is a complementary step dealing with a federally-owned bank. It is a step toward Canadian economic nationalism. I believe it is progressive, and it is a privilege to have been allowed to move this motion. I sincerely hope that the government will support this amendment rather than staying bound to the old, Liberal continental view of C. D. Howe and his successors.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member who proposed this amendment. As he mentioned, we discussed essentially this amendment in the committee and at that time I put on the record, in considerable detail, my opposition to it and the reasons for it. I will not repeat all those reasons now, but let me just make a few general remarks.
First, I would like to make it quite clear that we on this side of the House are very interested in assisting small, Canadian-controlled industries to grow and we are interested in assisting the Canadian aspect of the small,

Canadian-controlled corporation to flourish. For that reason this government introduced some years ago-not many years ago, but a few years ago-a special taxation measure which provided significant advantage for the small, Canadian-controlled corporation. It consists of exactly one-half the corporate tax rate that a small, foreign-controlled company in Canada would have to pay. I suggest that that is of significant advantage to the Canadian-controlled firm and, further, that it is the kind of measure most likely to assist in the growth of Canadian, as distinct from foreign-controlled, small business in Canada. However, that is not the only measure: the record of the committee's proceedings contain an indication of other measures that we have taken to assist small business in Canada.
One can sympathise with the objective of the hon. member, but it is important to point out that he has gone about it the wrong way. He talks about two kinds of situation; first, the situation where the funds of the bank would be used to facilitate the takeover of a Canadian firm by a foreign interest. He mentioned in his remarks that the Foreign Investment Review Act has been put in place by the government. Indeed it has, and for that very reason there is no longer need for the kind of measure which established the former Industrial Development Bank as a matter of policy. Parliament decided it was important that a significant benefit to Canada should be assured in the case of a takeover. Parliament never decided that there should be no takeover or no foreign investment. Indeed, I think it has been made quite clear by the hon. member himself that Canada continues to welcome foreign investment-but on our terms; that is, when it is of significant benefit to Canada.
There is very good reason for this. Canada is a large country with many differing economic interests in different regions. It would seem to me that the hon. member would deny the opportunity to some regions of the country which may be underdeveloped in relation to other parts of benefiting from foreign investment, if we were to adopt the principle that the hon. member wants to put into the Federal Business Development Bank Act.
The second situation with which he dealt concerned assistance to a foreign-controlled firm already operating in Canada. Here, again, it would seem to me that his amendment would deny to a perfectly legitimate Canadian business enterprise-that is to say, chartered in Canada, paying Canadian taxes, employing Canadians and purchasing Canadian materials; and all who worked for it, as well as the community which depended upon it-the advantages of the Federal Business Development Bank which will be set up to assist small businesses in Canada. This advantage would be denied a firm which got into difficulties and could not raise funds from the regular banking system on reasonable terms and conditions.
I think that this amendment is far too blunt. The hon. member's objectives may be perfectly legitimate, and I can identify with a number of them, but the way he would go about it would be entirely counterproductive. For that reason I recommend the rejection of the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
November 29, 1974



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
["Order, please. It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills."]
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I intend to speak to motion No. 1, and hope the House will support it because I believe it deals with an important question of principle. The Industrial Development Bank functioned effectively as a direct subsidiary of the Bank of Canada. I note that in the 12-month period ending November 27, 1974, the assets of the Industrial Development Bank rose to $952.7 million, the increase being $247.4 million, in the 12 month reviewed in the Bank of Canada weekly statistics publication.
I mention this because when we consider motion No. 1 we must also bear in mind that the Industrial Development Bank plays a much more important role in the financing of small businesses in this country than it used to. I think this is good. We must remember that the Federal Business Development Bank, which is really a reconstituted Industrial Development Bank, will come under the direction of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The majority of the directors of the new bank will come from the private sector. If we contemplate increasing the money supply of the new bank from $1 billion to $2.2 billion, we should also consider the manner in which the newly constituted bank will expand its operations.
In committee Mr. Clark, the general manager of IDB, made it clear that he anticipated the new bank would increase its lending by about $250 million per annum. That is the extent to which small businesses in Canada will be helped. I mention that for this reason: most of us acknowledge that foreign ownership in this country has grown more than it should. I believe that the foreign investment review legislation was good so far as it went. It was a first, hesitant step. For example, it did not cover small businesses with assets of less than $.25 million or sales of less than $3 million. We must make sure that money made available to the proposed Federal Business Development Bank will not be diverted to support foreign-owned businesses in this country, as such businesses will be unrestricted in their efforts to take over small businesses with assets under $.25 million and sales under $3 million per annum. That is to say, small businesses will be subject to takeover without any limitation or screening on the part of the government.
The Federal Business Development Bank will be empowered to lend foreign-owned companies money with which to buy up Canadian businesses. If such foreign-owned companies are already doing business in this country, they may apply to the new bank for funds with which to expand in Canada. Sometimes we choose to ignore the extent of foreign investment in this country. For example, the international economic report of the President of the United States, transmitted to Congress in February, 1974, shows that in 1972 American firms owned $44.1 billion of assets in this country. This represents by far the largest investment that United States firms have made in any country outside their own.
Federal Business Development Bank Act
What is the impact on Canada of this type of investment? First, it is difficult to identify it, but we know that dividends going to residents outside Canada have increased sharply. We know that retained earnings of corporations controlled in this country by foreigners are soaring. The firm of Loewen, Ondaatje, McCutcheon & Company Limited in an interesting review of this matter explained the situation in this way: they speak of dividend trends in Canada and the United States and then say:
What is more difficult to explain is the exceptionally strong growth performance of Canadian dividends paid to foreigners since 1969. One possible explanation might be that profits of foreign subsidiaries based in Canada have been growing substantially faster than profits of primarily Canadian-owned businesses, thereby permitting a faster growth in dividends paid to non-residents.
Imagine, here is a highly regarded investment research house saying something which politicians ought to say, namely, that foreign-owned businesses in Canada are prospering more than Canadian-owned businesses. They point out that in the period 1956 to 1969 there was an average real growth in dividends paid to Canadians of 4.87 per cent. Yet dividends paid to Canadians in the period 1969 to 1973-years when the Trudeau government was in power-tell, in real terms, by 2.07 per cent. And consider what happened to foreign dividends: dividends paid to non-residents in the period 1956 to 1969 went up at an average rate of 2.51 per cent per year.


Mr. Drury:: In real terms?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In real terms. I am pleased that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) is listening. In the five-year period 1969-1973, dividends paid to non-residents went up, in real terms, at an average rate of 4.61 per cent. On the other hand, in the last five years dividends paid to Canadians went down at the rate of 2.07 per cent, in real terms. Madam Speaker, I mention these facts because in considering motion No. 1 we must do so in the context of what is happening in Canada today.
One of the reasons we are barely balancing our trade figures at the present time is that we have an increasing outgo of dividends, interest payments, royalties and other charges to foreigners who hold interests in this country. With that background, surely motion No. 1 is worthy of consideration. It simply says that when dealing with an institution which will be subsidized by the people of Canada and is designed to help small business in this country-namely, the Federal Business Development Bank-let us make sure that the funds within the bank are not diverted in order to help foreign interests still further.
I do not believe in artificial barriers to keep out foreign investment. On the other hand, I am a strong proponent of giving incentives, and every break possible, to Canadian businesses to help them compete against foreign-con-trolled interests. The least the government could have done was to indicate in the bill that preferential treatment should be given to concerns owned, certainly majority-wise, by Canadians. Why is there no suggestion in the bill that Canadian concerns should get an interest advantage or special funds at substantially lower rates than would ordinarily be charged to non-Canadian concerns?
1806

November 29, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank Act
I listened very closely to the remarks of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie). I believe it was not consistent for him to say that he felt the idea, in principle, had merit and then criticize it in substance and in form. Surely the minister would be the first to agree that he could have proposed an amendment to his legislation to cover this point. Knowing that this corporation will go into a new phase of life and will put out over $1 billion in the next four years, he should have written into the legislation a provision to make sure that the ten private interest directors who will be running this corporation will have the guidance of the legislation and this parliament in ensuring preferential treatment for Canadian interests. That is certainly the intent of motion No. 1 and that is why I support it.


Mr. Blais:: Madam Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question at this time?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Will the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) allow a question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How could I refuse?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) cited a figure of $44 billion in United States assets. Does he have any figures to indicate what percentage of that amount represents ownership by United States companies or concerns which come within the scope of this legislation?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the relevance?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Unfortunately, the United States publication does not break down the figures as precisely as that. However, the point I was making is that the Americans seem to know more about the amount of their investment in Canada than the Government of Canada. If the hon. member is interested in such figures, it is high time he approached the responsible ministers and others and asked them to produce the figures so we know how much small, medium and large business in this country is owned by foreign interests.


Mr. Joyal:: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. member for York-Simcoe.
Can he tell us whether he was attending the committee meeting when the president of the bank stated specifically how many American undertakings had applied for loans from the Industrial Development Bank?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I missed the first part of the hon. member's question. If I understood it correctly, the general manager of the bank indicated that a relatively small number of foreign concerns have applied to the bank. I am glad this question was raised, because this is my fear. Up to the present time, the Industrial Development Bank, under the Bank of Canada, has been run as an efficient and very responsible organization. It is true they have loaned less than 3 per cent of their total funds to foreign concerns. However, I am apprehensive, now that this bank is coming under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce,

that we will not find in the bank the responsible management and direction we have had in the past.
I believe I have cause to be concerned, because we must bear in mind that the Export Development Corporation is now, and has been, directly answerable to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. That corporation has given financing to the extent of $1.5 billion to 51 concerns in Canada, and the majority of these concerns are foreign-controlled. If we look at the list, we see that the seven largest benefactors of export development financing-I emphasize that this is under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce-have taken $100 million in benefits each from the corporation. The majority of the 51 companies that have benefited under the $1.5 billion that has been laid out by the corporation are foreign-controlled.
Surely we should be concerned. Here is a bank intended to help small businesses. It comes under the same management which produced the type of result that has been so beneficial to interests controlled by the United States. I would point out that the largest foreign-owned benefactor under export development is none other than M.L. Worthington, which responded to a decree from its head office in the United States that was extremely embarrassing to certain members on the government side of the House.
As we have stated before, we believe in the Industrial Development Bank type of approach. We hope the Federal Business Development Bank will carry on in the same fashion as the Industrial Development Bank. However, we were very startled in committee to find that it is now generally accepted by the government that no longer is this bank to be a lender of last resort. In short, it is a very active, state-run, state-owned bank that is invading the private sector. This is another piece of evidence which illustrates that those on the government benches are becoming more and more state-oriented, leading us into a state type of country, perhaps without the proper comprehension of many members of this House.
This was pointed out by certain private interests who appeared as witnesses before the committee. They, in effect, said they could not compete with the subsidized Industrial Development Bank. They were being undercut in their rates. They stated that if the bank was not run in a way more conducive to ensuring that private sector lenders would not be run out of business, they in fact would be run out of business. I mention this because I believe it would be unfortunate to have a state-owned banking system in this country. I am fearful this may be the opening entry of this lusty government into the ownership of our banking institutions.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now for the
lusty reply.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: This will be a very quiet and subdued speech, because that is the way I usually am. Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) take the usual Tory stance and come down firm on both sides of the issue. In one breath he said there is $44 billion of United States investment or ownership in this
November 29, 1974

country; in another breath he said he is in favour of a little more open trade between the two countries. One begins to wonder just where his party stands.
The minister of revenue for the province of Ontario has indicated that he does not oppose investment of foreign capital in his province. The NDP Premier of Manitoba has indicated that that province is quite prepared to accept funds in the interest of developing the province. One gets the impression, from listening to the remarks of the hon. member for York-Simcoe, that all foreign investment is bad, at least when you listen to the beginning of his argument. Then when you get down the road a bit you are not so sure he thinks it is so bad after all. So he seems to come down on both sides of the issue, which makes it very easy when you have to talk to two different types of audience.
Since I opposed the hon. member's amendment in committee and I intend to oppose it here, I should reiterate my reasons for so doing. On the surface, the amendment seems to warrant commendation. Unhappily, the hon. member has not looked down the road to the impact that it would have. I suggest that it would have an impact in two areas, one of which he had the tendency to slough off, namely, its impact on large corporations in small communities. The second area is the impact it may have on the development of feeder companies or corporations that depend upon a large corporation for their markets.
I can think of a situation where a large corporation might make application through the normal channels to the banks and be unable to secure a loan, so they go to the Industrial Development Bank-or to this particular bank, once it is established-on the understanding that funds will be made available for expansion purposes. This will enable them to create more jobs for Canadians in Canada and buy more supplies from Canadian corporations and small businesses, which I think the hon. member is particularly endeavouring to assist. However, I think that in the way he has worded his motion it would have the opposite effect. The hon. member says that the fact that a large, foreign corporation may not be able to get a loan will not be too significant in some areas.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would indicate what words he would like to have changed. He said that the wording did not seem to be quite right to him. Perhaps he would suggest how the wording could be improved.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The wording could be improved by leaving it out altogether.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The hon. member just does not know what he is talking about.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I know exactly what I am talking about. The hon. member is indicating that foreign-controlled corporations should not have access to the Industrial Development Bank.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is not what the amendment says at all. It refers to foreign ownership. There is a difference between
Federal Business Development Bank Act
ownership and control; at least, if you know anything about the subject.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Whether it is foreign ownership or control, the hon. member is completely shutting the door to small Canadian corporations who may depend upon large corporations to find a market for their goods, or to find jobs for Canadians as a result of expansion from increased capitalization in the form of a loan. I am personally aware of a large corporation in a small community that pays anywhere from one-third to one-half of the municipal tax load through both real estate and business tax. This has a significant impact on that community. Recently the corporation made application for a loan and I am happy to say it was able to secure one. As a result, this corporation not only consolidated the jobs it had already created but expanded its operations and thus created more jobs. If, as the hon. member suggests, we remove this flexibility from the bill, that consolidation would not have taken place, that expansion would not have taken place and extra jobs would not have been created.
I think the hon. member's idea is a commendable one, but the witnesses who appeared before the committee indicated quite clearly that the number of corporations that are not Canadian or run by Canadians and are taking advantage of these funds is insignificant, something under 1 per cent according to the checks they had made. It was so insignificant that one of the people working for the IDB for many years did not see any substantial amount of these funds going to foreign corporations or, as my friend would say, these foreign-owned corporations. I think that in removing this flexibility because there may be down-the-road benefits, the hon. member is doing a disservice to the people whom I think he is honestly trying to help but whom his motion does not, in fact, help. For these reasons I shall vote against the amendment.


David Réal Caouette: Madam Speaker, Bill C-14, to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank, whose prime object is to replace the Industrial Development Bank, has given rise to the debate in progress.
Some hon. members fear that the new bank will serve, as did in some cases the Industrial Development Bank, to finance foreign companies.
Now, the Federal Business Development Bank should of necessity be accessible first of all to our small industries. Recently, a citizen of my riding asked the Industrial Development Bank for credit amounting to about $275,000. The minister answered that the bank does not loan more than $200,000.
Now, if the bank has limited powers, industries requiring $200,000, $400,000 or half a million dollars, which are not exorbitant amounts, will go to the Federal Business Development Bank which will be able to help them by taking the precautions required to avoid, as mentioned yesterday, conflicts of interest.
Some hon. members or people close to the minister could borrow. The purpose of the bill before the House is to help Canadian industry.
28543-46V4

November 29, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank Act
Madam Speaker, yesterday I believe, the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont), speaking to the amendment, said that the money came from the deposits of the public at large. That is not entirely true, some of it is also made up of public funds.
That bank will be empowered to extend credit through the Bank of Canada because the latter will still remain the central bank, the master bank. Madam Speaker, will that bank have the same powers as chartered banks, except that chartered banks operate for their private organization, for their directors, their shareholders, or will it operate for the whole people of this country? That is rather important because we all know: Not everybody!
Recently, I talked to 1,000 chartered accountants in Toronto, and most of them did not know that a federal government bond purchased by the Bank of Canada allowed Canadian chartered banks to multiply the government bond by 16. In other words, $16 million worth of credit can be created for a $1 million issue-$16 million worth of credit in figures out of the ink bottle, out of the pockets of nobody. The banks have that power. Will the Federal Business Development Bank have a similar power to mint the possibilities-not the impossibilities-but the real possibilities that exist in the country?
Madam Speaker, the Federal Business Development Bank could be tremendously useful not only for maintaining any prosperity but for the economic stability of this country if the government, the board or the directors of the bank want to assume their responsibilities to develop Canada to its maximum, and not develop foreign companies. What is important is to help our own companies, our own small industries. There are thousands asking for government assistance, and they cannot get anything.
Madam Speaker, I think that might be what the government is considering in introducing Bill C-14 to help small industry. It will not be harmful to big industry in any way; that is not the purpose of the bill. It is to develop to the maximum what we can develop at home, and as I have been repeating for several years, as long as that financial institution, whether you call it the Federal Business Development Bank or the Bank of Canada, is not put at the service of the whole of the Canadian people, no matter who the directors of these agencies are, I am convinced that no government board will be able to protect Canadian contractors or industrialists against those who are bent on abusing legislation such as Bill C-14.
Madam Speaker, I hope wholeheartedly that this new bank will serve not only one sector of the public, but the public as a whole. If it does, there will be fewer conflicts in Canada than there are at present. No longer will we see people leaving Ottawa to go and preach separatism in Alberta, or people from Alberta going to Quebec to preach separatism, always with the same accusation: "It is because of Ottawa that such and such project cannot be developed in Quebec; it is because of Ottawa that such and such area in western Canada or the Maritimes cannot be protected".
It is possible to satisfy everybody. But this will require all Canadians, whether of French, English, Ukrainian, Japanese or Chinese ancestry, to strive for the common good, and not for the good of this one particular group at the expense of another. Only then we will understand

better the meaning of national unity and the true destiny of the Canadian people.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I have been here for somewhat over two years, during which I have always found it instructive to be in the House when the leader of the Creditiste party is speaking. I was amazed that he was today able to speak at considerable length-covering the whole waterfront, including everything from Alberta and Quebec separatism to Social Credit monetary theory-without once dealing with question at issue, namely, the motion proposed by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). Let me add my unequivocal support to motion No. 1 standing in that hon. member's name.
We are not trying, by this motion, to resolve once and for all the question of economic nationalism, any more than we were trying to resolve once and for all, by the motion of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), problems in respect of the openness of the government or conflict of interest. What we are concerned with here is setting a precedent and encouraging the government to take at least one, albeit hesitant, tentative and faltering, step in the direction of economic nationalism. I am surprised to observe the sort of resistance with which this effort is being met by hon. members on the government side.
It is interesting to note that the minister and members on the government side waxed eloquent about the problems of the Canadian small businessman as opposed to foreign control of our economy. When I think of this, I am reminded of the fact that this minister, at the same time as he talked about strong measures to deal with problems in respect of foreign domination of our economy, resisted a measure which would stop this federally-controlled bank lending moneys to foreign-controlled companies-which would increase foreign penetration into our economy.
I was reminded, as well, of the statement of the late Adlai Stevenson when talking about one of his political opponents. He said he was the sort of man who would cut down a redwood tree and mount the stump to make a speech on conversation. I suggest that is the attitude of this government. Its members wax eloquent about the issue of small business, and at the same time wax eloquent about the issue of foreign domination and Canadian control of our economy, yet they do everything possible to undermine the national interest. The ultimate principle involved here is whether Canadians are willing to have their tax money used to finance greater foreign takeover of our economy and increased foreign intrusion into our domestic affairs. This is something we should resist.
The parliamentary secretary in his remarks a short time ago spoke on both sides of this issue. He suggested at one time that it was very good for the small businessmen of this country and the economies of many communities that the government be allowed to lend money to foreigners. Then a minute later he said the figure is so insignificant that it hardly warrants consideration. If the figure is insignificant, the government should not have any hesita-
November 29, 1974

tion in taking this very faltering step in the direction of economic nationalism.
When we look at the money involved, we find that the Federal Business Development Bank will have $2.2 billion to lend, as is now the case with the Industrial Development Bank, and if only 1 per cent of that amount is loaned to foreigners it will amount to $22 million. That is, $22 million would be loaned by our federal government to encourage the takeover of our economy by foreigners. The actual figure is more likely to be 2 per cent, or $44 million; that would amount to $2 for every man, woman and child in Canada being used by this government to encourage foreign takeover.
As the hon. member for York-Simcoe pointed out, the Foreign Investment Review Board, the screening agency the government has set up, has a mesh that is too wide to trap small United States business from slipping through. It really does nothing to protect the interests of Canadians in this area. It should be very clear, when we are dealing with limited amounts of money-and they will be limited-that there will not be enough to go around so that all Canadians who want to take advantage of the program will be able to do so, and any money that we lend to foreigners will be money denied to Canadians.
What this will amount to is the use of Canadian taxpayers' money, some of which has been paid by Canadian small businessmen, for the foreign takeover of Canadian interests. When the minister spoke, he brought out the old chestnut used every time the question of economic nationalism comes up or any step which would do anything to encourage Canadian economic nationalism. He said this would discourage the economies of depressed areas, and what we have to do is encourage foreign-controlled corporations and small, foreign businesses to come here.
My party is not arguing-I want to stress this for the benefit of members on the other side-that what we should be doing is encouraging people living in an underdeveloped part of the country to keep their economy in a depressed state. We are saying that the economy of this country should be built by Canadians and that Canadians should receive the benefit of Canadian taxpayers' money. Also, when it comes to providing any incentives through this particular bank, they should be provided to Canadians because they are too scarce to be given to foreigners.
I believe, although I am not sure of this, that the parliamentary secretary mentioned that the Ontario government was not being terribly insistent in respect of the concept of foreign capital being brought into Canada. Fair ball-but this is not the issue here. It is not a question of foreign capital coming in; it is a matter of the use of Canadian capital by foreigners. It is worth looking at the record when the question of action by the Ontario government is considered. The Ontario government has gone considerably further than the federal government in respect of the issue of economic nationalism. More than a year ago, the Ontario government stopped giving loans under its development corporation to foreign-controlled companies. This the federal government has been unwilling to do. So the main thrust of the policies of the Ontario government has been toward economic nationalism,
Federal Business Development Bank Act
whereas the federal government has been extremely lax on the subject and, indeed, has been throwing up barriers to prevent our trying to gain some control over our own economy.
I think it would be interesting to bring to the attention of members of the House who might not have seen it, the report on the front page of today's "Report on business" in the Globe and Mail under the heading "Small business capital held critically short". This article quotes the president of Western Industrial Garments Limited as saying:
The federal budget measures will not really be effective until the detail work is completed. They will probably help us keep up with inflation and no more. But small business has not advanced significantly in ten years. It needs a stronger financial base to compete against multinational and other large corporations and that means an infusion of capital for inventories and expansion.
This is the sort of money which could be made available to Canadian small businessmen if we restricted the lending policies of the Federal Business Development Bank. This is money which the government has denied them the use of. It is interesting, also, to consider a report submitted by Mr. Jim Conrad, entitled "Canadian income and foreign ownership". It is a report prepared for the Committee for an Independent Canada. I think one paragraph is very instructive in respect of this discussion; it reads as follows:
The foreign-owned corporations in the non-financial sectors are the largest and fastest growing in Canada, and therefore benefit most from tax incentives given by the Canadian government (reduction of the corporate tax rate to 40 per cent, various deductible items-e.g. depletion-DREE grants, forgiveable loans which are taken from Canadian taxpayers and given to foreign corporations). In addition, foreign corporations are able to borrow from the bank, and raise debentures in the money market, generally much more easily than Canadian firms, due to the fact that foreign firms have the security of the foreign corporate head office. Therefore, we would expect to see the foreign equity ownership in Canada to be growing rapidly, and paying increasing returns to its foreign owners.
What the Committee for an Independent Canada is trying to point out is that, far from solving the question of Canadian economic nationalism or the problem of trying to gain some control over the Canadian economy, the problem is getting worse in this country. We need from this government more than pious proclamations. Canadian businessmen need more than simply the assurance that the minister is on their side, while at the same time the actions of this government serve to destroy the best interest of Canadian small businessmen. They need the government to show that it is acting in good faith, that it puts the priorities of Canadian small businessmen first and that it is willing, in cases such as are presented by the motion of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew Carleton, to stand and be counted in accordance with the principles in which it says it believes.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I want to indicate briefly to the House that my party wishes to associate itself with the amendment moved by the hon. member. I hope that later we will have the opportunity of a standing vote on this issue so that members of the Liberal Party can indicate their position on the question of independence of the Canadian economy. The minister, when replying to the amendment, said he agreed in principle with its thrust. If he agrees in principle, I ask the minister-if he does not agree with the wording of the

Federal Business Development Bank Act
amendment-to indicate to us that he will draft an amendment along the same lines, getting at the same principle, and will bring such amendment before the House. I am not satisfied with a few pious words in which he sloughs off the opposition by saying, "You are a nice little boy. You have moved an amendment. I agree with it in principle, but I do not like the way you dot a couple of i's or cross a couple of t's." If he is serious, why does he not come before this House with an amendment of his own?
The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) said that very few transactions now take place because we have the Foreign Investment Review Act, and the Federal Business Development Bank would not lend a great deal of money to foreign firms. I cannot accept his explanation. There are a few loopholes in the Foreign Investment Review Act. One is that there is no legislation to cover the foreign firms already in this country which expand in the same field of endeavour or into a different area. I can see a firm coming to this country, expanding into an area not being screened under the Foreign Investment Review Act, applying for funds under the Industrial Development Bank and receiving them.
It seems to me this is grossly unfair and is the type of thing that should be covered by this legislation. Another question in respect of the Foreign Investment Review Act is that there is a threshold range: if a corporation or company has assets under $250,000, it is automatically not screenable by the Foreign Investment Review Board. Some of the small business operations which are foreign-owned might well come under that threshold when they start out in the business community. For such reasons, I believe the amendment before the House should carry. We are establishing the Federal Business Development Bank to assist small business in this country. Why should we use public funds to assist foreign business endeavours? That is beyond me.
I do not understand why this government cannot accept this amendment or one that agrees with it in principle but may be worded differently, so this House may express what I am sure are the true feelings of the Canadian people. Foreign ownership in this country is a matter most Canadians are concerned about. If we leave a small loophole in this bill-whether or not it will be really significant, in terms of dollars, is irrelevant-it will be symbolic. I think we should close any such symbolic loophole. If we do, it will be one of the steps we can take toward asserting control and maintaining sovereignty over our own economy-something that is long overdue. So I urge members of this House to show clearly by their vote where they stand on this, one of the important issues that we face.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The question is on the motion in the name of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.
e (1500)


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Dick) negatived on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to a special order made yesterday, further consideration of the report stage of Bill C-14 stands deferred until next Wednesday.
* *



Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill C-15 respecting oil and gas in Indian lands, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
J. Judd Buchanan: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Mb. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to make a few comments on Bill C-15 as amended, which is before the House today. I want to say at the outset that I have two very outstanding reserves in my area, of which I am sure the minister is well aware. They are both very progressive reserves. I am referring to Walpole Island. I may say that I live right across from St. Anne's, which is part of Walpole Island which, in my estimation, is one of the most progressive reserves in Canada.
The four amendments made to Bill C-15 serve mainly to render this piece of legislation more precise in ensuring that the rights of Indians on producing lands are well safeguarded.
Subclause 1 of clause 5 was amended by stipulating that royalties obtained in respect of oil and gas on Indian lands and paid to Her Majesty in right of Canada, are held in trust for the Indian bands concerned. We understand that for the most part royalties are paid directly into the band funds. Yet there may be instances, from time to time, of hold-ups in payment, or it is conceivable that the government might, at some later date, insist that all royalty payments be paid to the Crown. Therefore it is necessary that the legislation include a reassurance for the Indian bands that should the funds, to which by law they are entitled, not be paid directly to them, they will be held in trust for their benefit.
The second amendment to the bill in subclause 2 of clause 5 provides that:
November 29, 1974

The minister may, with the approval of the band concerned, enter into a special agreement with any person for a reduction, increase, or a variation in the basis of calculation of royalties payable under subsection (1).
The addition of the words "increase, or a variation in the basis of calculation of royalties payable under subsection (1)" emphasized the fact that the minister must have the approval of the band affected in all matters concerning the establishment of royalty structures. We feel it is essential that the Indian bands be consulted on every aspect of royalty rates, not just on the reduction of the same. Indeed, in the broader context, we think this context is fine, and we feel it is vital that Indian bands be consulted on all decision-making matters that affect them.
The addition of subclause 2 to clause 6 constitutes the third amendment to the bill. This addition again serves to ensure that the producing bands concerned be consulted, not only regarding establishment of the royalty structure and changes therein but for the purpose of the administration of this law.
The final amendment is the renumbering of clause 7 of the original bill as clause 8 of the amended version, and the inclusion of a new clause 7 which reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything herein contained, nothing in this Act shall be deemed to abrogate the rights of Indian people or preclude them from negotiating for oil and gas benefits in those areas in which land claims have not been settled.
The purpose of this clause is to ensure that the Indian or native people may negotiate for oil and gas claims in those areas of land that have not yet been settled. This serves to allay the fear of the native people that this legislation might prejudice treaty and aboriginal rights.
We are extremely pleased that our amendments have been accepted, and once again may I congratulate the minister and the committee for the excellent work that has been done, and for the committee's co-operation and understanding of these particular aspects. This bill as it now reads is quite acceptable to us, and we also believe that it serves to guarantee further the rights and claims of our producing Indian bands.
There is one area of grave concern that we still have with respect to this legislation. A change was introduced in the royalty rate structure for petroleum in Alberta in January of last year, and again in April of this year. The changes raised the royalty rate structure of the province generally above those of reserve land. The Indian Act prohibited the producing bands from raising their royalties along with the provinces. It is our hope that with this new piece of legislation they may do so, but our concern lies with the past, and is focussed on the amount that the bands would have received had the provincial royalty structures applied to their lands from January, 1973, to date.
It is true that the royalty rates for oil produced on Indian lands changed as of April 1, 1974, and it was stated by Mr. Ed Moore, supervisor of Indian minerals, Calgary, that these are now somewhat higher than those of the province. But we must still concern ourselves with the rates from January, 1973, to April, 1974-a period of some 16 months. The moneys lost in that period should be repaid to the Indian bands.
Indian Affairs
Two specific references were made to this fact in the committee meeting, and I would like to refer to those, if I may. I would like to quote from page 18 of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development held on October 29, as follows:
Mb. Lesaux: However, there is provision in the bill to enable a regulation to be effected and that regulation, I trust, will reflect part of the catch-up to which you refer, Miss MacDonald.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Is it the intent of the bill to make the regulations that the bill says will be within the discretion of the Governor in Council retroactive to January 1, 1973?
Mb. Buchanan: No, it is not; though it is my understanding that there was some sort of a lump sum payment involved, a sort of catch-up provision that was included in these regulations.
My understanding is that it is effective April 1, but that there is a catch-up provision. I think there was a lump sum payment as well.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Will that catch-up provision apply only between the regulations promulgated on January 28, 1974 and those of April 1, 1974, or will they be retroactive to the change in the provincial royalty structures?
Mb. Lesaux: I am sorry, Miss MacDonald, I cannot give you a definite time-frame. All I can say is that this has been discussed with the major oil company concerned, has been acknowledged as being a commitment of that company, and that the sum involved is a matter of negotiation between the band and the company, with our acting as intermediary or being of assistance to the band.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Can the minister or the department provide us with figures which show the number of wells on these reserves and the barrel production since the time that the royalty structures were changed in the province of Alberta?
Mb. Lesaux: Mr. Chairman, I would like first to apprise the bands of your request; then I believe it would be quite in order to table such information.
I wish to point out at this time that the figures to which the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) referred, and which Mr. Lesaux stated could be tabled, have not in fact been forthcoming. It is true that the dollar figures for royalties on production of oil and gas on 20 Indian reserves were tabled, but not the barrel production figures per reserve. I know that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) has been concerned about this matter and has made numerous inquiries about these figures. I would suggest to the minister that it is most important that the figures be tabled at an early date.
Returning to the question of loss of funds experienced by the Indian bands I should like to quote again from the minutes of the committee meeting of October 29. The first question was asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
Mb. Neil: Mr. Chairman, maybe this is a matter of policy and perhaps I should be asking the minister-of course he was not around at the time-but I am wondering when Alberta, for example, changed its regulations and increased its royalties, why the federal government, if they felt their regulations were defective, why did not the federal government then immediately bring in a bill of this nature? It seems to me that the Indian people, as a result of the failure of the government to move, have lost probably millions of dollars.
Mb. Lesaux: I would prefer you to pose your first question to the minister.
Mb. Neil: I appreciate that.
Mb. Lesaux: On your second question, I can assure you that there will not be a loss, as you describe it, of millions of dollars, that there will be catch-up provision, which I suggest has already been discussed with the major producers.

November 29, 1974
Indian Affairs


Mr. Neil:: You say catch-up provision. Will this be based on the rates that existed in Alberta?


Mr. Lesaux:: Yes, sir.


Douglas Charles Neil: And your catch-up provision will be a case of getting moneys from the oil companies to make up the difference between the 1966 rates and the prevailing rates in Alberta when they change their regulations?


Jean Lesage: Well, the 1966 rates, I...


Douglas Charles Neil: This is the rate you have been working on.


Jean Lesage: Yes, but if you are suggesting, Mr. Neil, that we go back to 1966 with a catch-up ...


Douglas Charles Neil: No, no. I am only suggesting that you go back to the date when Alberta upped its royalties.
The two references to the loss of money and a future catch-up provision indicate in a rather nebulous fashion that the Indians will receive the funds which they were unable to obtain from the time when the provincial royalty structure changed.
We fully expect the government to ensure that this commitment is honoured with regard to the royalties on petroleum. I say petroleum only, because I have some indication that the producing bands have already been conpensated for the loss of natural gas royalties. However, I do request further clarification on this point, and should the compensation not have been made to this point in time, the government should make certain that the loss of money in this area will be made up in the future.
This money is extremely important to the Indian bands-I cannot over-emphasize this fact-for the general improvement of living conditions on their reserves. I might point out that a conclusion has been drawn that, because the oil companies were able to take oil from the reserves without paying the maximum royalty, they substantially increased production on Indian lands. I would like to quote again from the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development of November 5. At that time the hon. member for Wetaski-win asked the following question:
Mr Schellenberger This will be my last question. Because the oil companies have good legal advice and they realize the inadequacy of the legislation under the Indian Act-and I suppose this question again should go to the minister, but I wonder if you have any comments- have the oil companies increased production on Indian lands because they were able to take that oil without paying the maximum royalty, and by increasing production on these Indian lands have depleted their resources substantially in the last year?


Mr.   Seymour@: Yes, I believe that has happened because, even though we do not have the exact figures on it, the royalty has not increased substantially and yet the royalty amount, according to the minister will be increased substantially. I can only conclude that production has caused the increase.
The Minister himself in his speech on October 21 said that the Pigeon Lake Indian Reserve had oil estimated in 1969 to be good for 30 years' production at the then prevailing rate, but now, only five years later, it is thought that these reserves will decline drastically in the next three years due to increased production. The Indian people must be compensated for situations such as this-when the reserve is depleted there will be no more royalty income. They must benefit from their resources today in order to prepare for the future.
This leads me to the question of the export tax. I find it necessary to bring this up again because I wish to ascertain what has happened to the money that has been col-

lected since October of last year as export tax on oil produced on Indian lands. Can the minister indicate when a statement will be made concerning these funds? Where is the money presently? What is being done with it? How much money is owing to the producing bands? When will it be returned to them? Will they receive interest thereon?
These are fundamental questions that have been raised on numerous occasions in this House, particularly by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. We are anxious to discover the true facts surrounding these funds. The Indian people could well use the money for building homes, buying machinery and farm equipment, and for generally raising their standard of living. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin recently gave an example of the Samson band who want to increase the size of their furniture factory and tried to borrow from the Indian Economic Development Fund. They found it impossible to do this. These people want to do something constructive, something that will improve conditions and employment for their own people, but their efforts are hampered by financial pressures, I may say financial pressures that exist unnecessarily. They had sufficient money right here in Ottawa but they cannot benefit from it at the present time. Surely this and similar situations could be quickly remedied by giving the Indian people the money that is rightfully theirs. Hopefully in his reply the minister can give us some assurance that immediate action will be taken to restore the money owing to these Indian bands.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I notice that the minister is standing to be recognized and wishes to speak. I must draw to the attention of the House that as the minister moved the motion, although he has not said a word, it is considered that he has made a speech. And because on third reading of a bill the right of reply does not apply, because third reading is not by precedent considered as a substantive motion, as is a motion to move second reading, the only way that the minister would be able to speak at this time would be with the unanimous consent of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is Friday afternoon and I think we would be glad to hear
from the minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the minister be heard, by consent, at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Judd Buchanan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to thank my colleagues in the House for their Friday afternoon generosity. First of all I am happy to be in a position, as was the preceding speaker, to tell the House that in my opinion also the Standing Committee has improved the bill. The amendments are of a nature which I welcome and endorse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
# (1520)


J. Judd Buchanan: Before speaking on the amendments I should like to refer to the export tax, to which the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) referred, and
November 29, 1974

which is also of concern to the hon. member for Wetaski-win (Mr. Schellenberger). Like the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, I am anxious to pursue the matter of the export tax, and to do my utmost to ensure that 50 per cent of the export tax collected in the period when it was shared equally by the federal government and the provinces is returned to producing bands. This matter is being pursued with provincial governments. The Department of Finance is the department which will negotiate for these funds with the provinces.
May I now speak to the amendment. There are three changes proposed. The first makes it clear that royalties are paid to the Crown to hold on behalf of the bands concerned. There was never any other intention, and this amendment puts into more specific language that which would have taken place in any event.
The second amendment puts into the bill the commitment to consult the Indian bands most directly affected. I am committed to consultation, as is the government. There is a great and growing reliance on consultation as a necessary adjunct to the management processes, to ensure that those affected are directly involved. I will be pleased to see our commitment enshrined in law, for it will make certain that the future will follow the course this government has pioneered.
The remaining amendment ensures that the bill cannot interfere in any way with settling claims in areas where there are no treaties or the Indian title has not been superseded by law. It is a safeguard, probably not required, but better to have than to wish for, if circumstances should change from those which I now anticipate.
With passage of this bill the way will be clear for the Indian people whose reserves are producing oil and gas to reap increased benefits. This is a vitally important factor that cannot be overlooked by the House. The Indian people stand to gain substantially from the resource which lies beneath reserve lands. It is a resource peculiarly and specially related to the modern economy.
We are often told of the damage that our society has done in the past, is doing in the present, and is likely to continue to do in the future. These warnings are often overstated. But obviously there is an element of truth to them. Nevertheless here, today, we have an opportunity to see that some of the advantages of the modern economy flow to the Indian people. When the treaties were signed on the prairies, few thought of oil and gas in the treaty areas, and no one foresaw the impact of technology on this natural resource. This bill ensures that the bands benefit fully from society's use of this non-renewable source of energy.
This bill, as members know, provides for higher royalties which reflect the new situation in oil and gas. It provides for the bands to be consulted about changes in the royalties and regulations which may become necessary as the oil' and gas situation changes, and it has changed rapidly in the last few years. The bill ensures that the Indian people will get their full and rightful share of returns from this unique and valuable resource.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Health and the Environment


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


FIRE LOSSES REPLACEMENT ACCOUNT ACT
J. Judd Buchanan: that Bill C-18, to amend the Fire Losses Replacement Account Act, as reported from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


J. Judd Buchanan: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


ALBERTA -BRITISH COLUMBIA BOUNDARY ACT, 1974 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH COMMISSION TO DELINEATE BOUNDARY
Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill S-13, respecting the boundary between the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS ACT
[Stage Direction]
MEASURES TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT ____ ______ FROM CONTAMINANTS
The House resumed from Tuesday, November 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of the Environment) that Bill C-25, to protect human health and the environment from substances that contaminate
[Stage Direction]
Health and the Environment
the environment, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mb. Deputy Speaker: I am trying to determine who has spoken in this debate. The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) introduced the bill at this stage; therefore there is nothing to prevent the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) from addressing the House at this time.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to hear the minister speak, so long as it is understood that she is not closing the debate.
Mb. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): It should also be noted that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) insisted on the minister making a speech. It is too bad that he is not here to listen to her.


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to take part in the debate on second reading of Bill C-25, to protect human health and environment from substances that contaminate the environment. Hon. members will recall that when this bill was presented for second reading, I was in Victoria to attend a meeting of the council of environment and resources ministers and that I was unable to be present in the House. I wish to thank the parliamentary secretary for having replaced me and having so ably introduced the bill under consideration.
I would simply like to remind the House that this bill represents a very important step in the history of the challenges that we must meet as concerns the degradation of the environment, and even more important, as concerns the new development concepts that we must establish in modern society.
Mr. Speaker, with this bill, we enter the second generation of the environment policy, where we take preventive rather than corrective action. Because this was a new field, we had to start by repairing the damages that had been done to the environment and by eliminating the circumstances and situations caused by our activities on this planet. We also had to take emergency action to correct some of the damages caused to the environment, as well as to protect endangered species, of which we had just began to take notice, and also to make our environment healthier, since it is very important that man can go on living in an environment which can bring him all the satisfactions to which he is entitled.
Before bringing forth the bill, of course, we endeavoured to examine all instruments that are at our disposal to meet those new problems. We studied all existing laws to make sure that there would be no duplication in that field because we do have some instruments that fortunately allowed us to act. These are the Fisheries Act, the Clean Air Act, the Canada Water Act as well as some acts relating to the Department of National Health and Welfare which we have been able to invoke in some circumstances.
But today, we want to go further and fill the gaps in federal or provincial legislation because some circumstances arise in which, if we had to face really difficult

problems, we would not have any legislative instrument enabling us to act in an effective way. I need only recall the recent controversy about the effects of chlorinated water on human health.
Some scientists in the Mississippi area have started pointing out that there might be a certain link between the cancer rate in the Mississippi area and the fact that Mississippi waters are among the most polluted in the world even though Mississippi water is treated with chloride.
Mr. Speaker, every time something like that happens we should not go into a panic and immediately prohibit the use of these disinfectants to treat sewage water. Of course, we will have to face problems that are known to us and which are probably much more serious. In fact, if we have managed to get rid of typhoid fever because we now know how to disinfect our water we must still see to it as the years go by that we do not get into a situation where chlorinated water could be a probable cause of cancer.
Therefore, if this situation proves to be alarming, if our research, which is very rigourous, leads us to discover that chlorinated water is dangerous, we would have to find an instrument to control the level of concentration of this substance used to disinfect water. We would perhaps at least need instruments which would give us further knowledge of the chemical components of certain of these products. So, Mr. Speaker, with modern developments there are always new problems arising and governments which want to be modern need more and more refined instruments which will allow them to face these situations.
In brief, therefore, we would like to beef up certain federal and provincial laws and as far as possible we would also like to increase the efficiency of our present legislation.
The aim of Bill C-25 is to protect our health and environment against chemical substances which are judged to be dangerous or toxic. This bill will allow us to control concentration levels as it is obvious that certain substances are dangerous only if they are absorbed in sizeable quantities. That, for instance, is what goes on in the Mississippi region, where the concentration of those substances are constantly assessed for their toxicity and asepsis. They are not toxic at certain levels but, absorbed in high enough quantities, they assuredly are. We should then control their level; it would not always be necessary to prohibit the use of those chemicals.
Mr. Speaker, this new bill must be passed because discoveries are made through research which is being done here and in other countries. We keep up to date with research being done throughout the world. The nature of some substances must be taken into account. We are beginning to discover that some of them do not disperse in the atmosphere, that some do not disintegrate. It is felt therefore that their accumulation might be harmful because, through that accumulation they could infiltrate the environment and become clear sources of contamination.
This new bill, Mr. Speaker, would therefore empower the government to require from all manufacturers, users and distributors, data on the composition of those chemi-
November 29, 1974

cals, and even require those manufacturers and users to perform tests to check the effects of the absorption of those substances, either in the environment or by individuals, in the atmosphere or even in the ground. Those data would be absolutely essential if we are to exercise the necessary controls.
We also want to measure the extent to which those substances are being used by the public, in the atmosphere and in manufacturing processes generally. For instance, we know paint contains toxic substances.
Some substances are suspected of being toxic, those in aerosols, for instance. I am seeking therefore the authority to study those substances and their chemical, biological and toxicological characteristics. In some cases, manufacturers may be compelled by legislation to provide the government with the information it needs, information which may very well be treated as confidential. If we are better informed about the rejection patterns of these substances, Mr. Speaker, we will eventually introduce the necessary legislation. We must obtain answers to the questions we ask ourselves about the new chemicals appearing daily on the market. Phenols and freons are big questions marks. Freons are chemicals which are used as propellants in aerosol and which are suspected-I repeat, suspected only-of affecting the ozone level in the atmosphere.
That is particularly crucial in the Arctic regions because, as we know, the level of ozone there is a lot lower than at other latitudes, and consequently we must study the effects of supersonic flights over those regions because aircraft release substances that can be injurious to the ozone over our latitudes. Supersonic flights, of course, must be supervised but it might also be advisable to control the use of aerosols.
Mr. Speaker, getting all those details which are indispensable for the promulgation of regulations, controls, measures and the circulation of information, such are the objectives we have in mind in introducing Bill C-25.
I do not say, Mr. Speaker, that we do not already have a lot of information about all those matters. No, quite the contrary, as I said, the Department of Environment and the Department of National Health and Welfare and other government agencies continuously make studies based on the information they can obtain from other countries also concerned by those questions. We already have a lot of information in that respect.
And I must say that although Bill C-25 will empower us to ask manufacturers for additional information or data on the products they make, already before the legislation is even passed, before it is even put into effect I must give credit to the manufacturers who already provided information to the department on the nature of new substances they intended to introduce on the market. They are already co-operating because they realize that prevention is indeed better than cure.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is to strengthen that co-operation from manufacturers that I seek authority under Bill C-25 to officially ask for the information I need.
The legislation already in existence dealt with the direct contamination of air or water, contamination coming from industrial sewers and plant chimneys. But the new legislation will provide us with means of control over about a
Health and the Environment
hundred products that can be contaminating, even indirectly.
And that is why I needed a new instrument enabling us, for instance, to oblige manufacturers to run tests and notify us of the results. Mr. Speaker, that would facilitate the evaluation of those products and lighten the responsibility of making appropriate recommendations to manufacturers, users, distributors and, if need be, on the methods that could be used to destroy certain chemical substances considered as harmful to the environment.
The law, Mr. Speaker, already contains self-defense mechanisms against vexatious behaviour. I do not intend of course to use this legislation to launch undue inquiries, but only those that would prove essential to public interest. The law also has means of redress for those who would feel they were wronged by certain rules, orders in council or provisions of this legislation. It also provides for consultation mechanisms and, I would like to emphasize this point, the law would give the Minister of the Environment only residuary powers in cases where other federal or provincial legislation would make provision for problems of the kind we are now facing. The law also provides for penalties, which are unavoidable. In order to be effective, a legislation must provide for penalties and they are, I believe, sufficiently harsh to discourage those who would intend to violate such laws and regulations.
In short, Mr. Speaker, this well balanced legislation will enable us to make up for the failings of some of our existing laws and would undoubtedly meet with the people's desire to live in a healthy environment, allaying their concern over environment, what with all the theories we hear about this planet's limited capacity to absorb pollution.
This piece of legislation is also a proof of the modern ideas of this government, that will not let economic development and environment concerns develop on parallel lines. There is no conflict, Mr. Speaker, between those two important things, however, they must not develop on parallel lines, but they should meet so that we may find new development concepts. The legislation is therefore meant to prevent damages to the environment so that we could avoid devoting all our energies to repair damages. It would also enable us to tie up a loop, because there can be no gap, Mr. Speaker, in the feed chain or life cycle. Each defective link jeopardizes the entire chain or cycle. And as the Minister of the Environment, it is my duty to be on the alert for such defaults or deficiencies which could occur in the chain or life cycle and to suggest to the government the necessary action to restore that life chain or cycle. For there can be no gap in that chain or cycle and there is surely some interaction between what goes on land and underwater.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce that bill to the House, because I have the impression that it meets the deep yearnings of the people as well as those of the hon. members opposite who no doubt want to join me in cleaning the environment, and say with me to the people that this government is conscientious and is conscious of the dangers of modern development and that a wise and progressive government does not want to refrain from dealing with those problems as it becomes more and more urgent to solve them.

November 29, 1974
Statute Revision Act
[DOT]	(1540)


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there has been a suggestion among the House leaders in regard to facilitating the business. While my hon. friend from Lambton-Kent will be our next speaker on this bill, and while hopefully he will speak for a few minutes on the bill before four o'clock, there are two other bills that the government House leader is anxious to forward and get through second reading and into committee. I think that could be done now, as long as my hon. friend will be entitled to the floor when we are through and we revert to this particular bill.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I believe it will be my private member's bill that will be debated this afternoon, so we need not see the clock until five or ten minutes past the hour to facilitate this suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, why don't we move time ahead instead of pushing it back? I suggest that the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) rise now and move adjournment of this debate, that we then take the two bills that the government House leader has in mind, and then start the bill of my hon. friend from Nova Scotia, even at five minutes to four.
[DOT]	(1550)


John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the observations from all sides of the House I would be prepared to move the adjournment of the debate at this time, maintaining the floor when the House next considers this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Mr. Holmes, seconded by Mr. Baldwin, moves that the debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On motion of Mr. Holmes the debate was adjourned.


STATUTE REVISION ACT
Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill S-3, to provide for a continuing revision and consolidation of the statutes and regulations of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill S-16, to revise references to the Court of Queen's Bench of the province of Quebec, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Robert Carman Coates: that Bill C-213, to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of the result of opinion polls), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have debated the subject matter of this bill in this House, but I hope it will be the last.
In view of the fact that this parliament should last for approximately four years, short of some calamity we cannot anticipate at the moment, hon. members of this House should be in a better position to put their own houses in order, in so far as future election campaigns are concerned, by developing in one manner or another a more realistic approach to electioneering, and attempting in every way possible to assist the public in making reasoned judgments as to which political party and candidate should be supported in a constituency.
This bill has the support of the leader of my party. That hon. member, like myself and many other Canadians, has indicated a growing concern about the use of polls during election campaigns. I have no objection to their use by political organizations, individuals, groups or companies. It is my belief that such use has become a part of our way of life, and we accept the fact that polls are a vital and useful source of information in certain instances.
What has concerned me from the beginning, and concerns me today, is the fact that we have no rules or regulations associated with the use of polls and the results being placed before the public as authenticated information on which the public can draw conclusions. I am fearful that the use of such information by the media can be developed in such a way that people are misled or
November 29, 1974

duped into reaching conclusions, and that this can be an obstacle in the way of obtaining information on which the public can rely in coming to a conclusion or a decision during an election campaign.
The results have been used in the past, in certain instances, in a way that has come close to stampeding voters during election campaigns to come to wrong conclusions. I am afraid that this may happen if the present system is allowed to continue. If this bill is referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections I believe we may be able to devise rules and regulations in respect of information presented to the public during election campaigns, so that the public will appreciate that there is a backup to the information provided as the result of an authentic poll.
Let me give an example of what can happen. On one evening toward the end of the last election campaign, I think in the last week or 10 days, I was listening to an evening newcast by the CBC. Certain views were given, based on a poll conducted by the CBC. Certain statements were made about certain things which might happen on the basis of information obtained by the corporation. That was well and good. During a later newscast that evening by the same corporation, based on the results of the same poll, a totally different statement was made as to what might happen.
As something more than a disinterested political observer, I reached the conclusion that the CBC did not know what it was talking about, or that the poll was so difficult and complicated to read even its own officers could not make a firm decision about the prediction. This is the sort of thing that has happened over and over again.
Some people might ask what difference it makes because people do not pay attention to polls in any event. I believe that people do pay attention to polls.
I think the Labour Party in Britain in 1970 discovered, to its unfortunate shock, that the poll on which it relied showed a result that was nothing like what the electorate produced in the way of votes. In effect what the poll did in respect of that political election campaign, because it indicated that the Labour Party in Britain would win by a very substantial margin, was to draw voters away from that party to the Conservative Party.
What concerns me, whether it should happen in favour of or against my party, is that people start making decisions, not on the gut issues that are being discussed but on figures presented as being authentic to show that this or something else will happen. People do make decisions in that way. Therefore I say the very least we as members of parliament can do, if we are to allow polls to continue in this country and be used by the media during an election campaign, is place the public and ourselves in a position of knowing that when the results of polls appear, the polls have been governed by some guidelines which we can accept.
We must be sure that there is no manipulation by the media in an effort to direct the electorate in any given direction. I do not say that the electorate necessarily would follow the direction in which the media might tend to lead it, but I do say that up until now it has been very difficult for me to believe there is any credibility at all in
Canada Elections Act
the results of any of the polls that have been produced and used during an election campaign because, almost without exception, when the information is brought forward there is a doubt factor which can run as high as 25 per cent.
In the particular poll to which I referred involving the CBC, the doubt factor ran as high as 33 per cent. When one realizes, when election day comes around, that 5 per cent of the electorate, should it swing one way or the other, can either elect or defeat a government, one realizes it is difficult to have mucb, faith in polls which have such a doubt factor involved in them. Yet the media does not mind this very substantial doubt factor because, if the results are not the same as were indicated, they can then say that the doubt factor substantially went one way or the other, which altered the result the media had predicted.
I do not know about the radio and television stations, but many of the newspapers in this nation become very upset by any suggestion that they should be prevented from using polls. They say this would be curtailment of freedom of speech. I say in answer to that that any time the press does not provide accurate information to the public, based on sound facts, that information should not appear in the newspapers. I say there is no curtailment of freedom involved if the newspapers are prevented from using information which, in the first instance, is not authentic. All too often newspapers have neither the staff, the time nor the capability to produce accurate information in respect of what they endeavour to place before the public about an event that is taking place.
More often than ever before in the history of election predictions, polls have been shown to be inaccurate. At the same time while this is the case I believe a great many people in this nation still rely on them in an endeavour to make up their minds on how they will vote. Whether we like it or not, my experience in respect of the various election campaigns in which I have been involved is that many voters make their determination on whether or not they think they are voting for the candidate who will be a member of the party which forms the government.
All too often the polls give an inaccurate assessment of what in actual fact happens on election day. Unless some guidelines are produced, I feel polls should be abolished so far as their use publicly in the media is concerned.
At the same time, so that members of parliament cannot be charged with limiting freedom of the press in any way, I would accept as an alternative guidelines established by Parliament that would tell the media that if they are to produce the results of polls during an election campaign, and place these results before the public as accurate and authentic information on which the public should be able to rely, then the media will have to follow a set of rules and regulations to the effect that it must be shown how many people were encompassed by a poll, that the poll was national in its investigative function, or provincial if the poll being placed before the public purports to give a reading on the trends in a given province.
In addition the regulations should provide that every area in the nation must be involved. Far too often, especially in respect of Gallup polls produced in this country, there is no mention of the attitudes of the people who live in the four eastern provinces.

November 29, 1974
Canada Elections Act
Many polling organizations seem to think that Canada begins at the New Brunswick-Quebec border and extends to the west. As one coming from Atlantic Canada I feel that our people should have a voice, and have a point of view which should be expressed. I also feel it is important to know what the people in all parts of Canada think, especially if something is being presented which is supposed to contain authentic information about how Canadians feel.
There are many other considerations, but I believe there should be a substantial contact with the people in the nation, that all parts of the nation must be involved, and that there should be a minimal doubt factor. All these things should be spelled out when the poll information is being presented to the public as authentic information concerning the type of trend that is developing during an election campaign.
If these things were done I would feel better about it when listening to the poll information, and so would the public. There would be an elimination of the danger that the media in one form or another could manipulate the public by using poll information that was not accurate, to tell people things that were going to happen when in fact they did not have the information to indicate that such events were occurring. I think that the people who are putting out that kind of information have to accept responsibility for it, and must face the fact that after the event occurs the information they presented should have been at least in close proximity to the result forecast. I believe it would be in the best interests of everyone if this were to happen.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks on this bill. As for all other bills put before the House during the hour set aside for consideration of private members' business, I fear the clock will again put an end to the debate. But I must nevertheless congratulate the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) for having proposed this bill.
As far as the polls are concerned, Mr. Speaker, I understand we are grappling with a difficult and serious problem because it allows journalists not to play their informative part, but to mislead the population by publishing the results of these polls. I say "mislead", because I have 13 years of experience in politics, and every year or at every election, my constituents have been seriously misled. The vote proved the public opinion polls wrong. Even in the last election, they predicted my defeat by 3500 votes to my Liberal opponent. Yet, I made it with a majority of more than 4,000 votes, which makes a difference of almost 8,000 votes with the polls' predictions.
I feel that such action should not be allowed during a period as sensitive as election time. Some take an election campaign as a joke; to them, it is like a horse race. But when one is serious about politics, when one is a member of a political especially a third party, when the odds are one to one hundred, it is then that we realize the bad influence of opinion polls.

I see that the government members are having fun and are laughing, but with millions of dollars, it is easy to laugh and to buy every possible opinion poll. I think the public is misled because many people rely on polls. Even if some believe that people pay no attention to these polls, I suggest it is not so. A large number of people rely on these polls which often influence their votes. Those people expect the results to be in accordance with the poll and they are all disappointed after the election to find that the opposite happened. I say this not only for the successful candidates but also for their opponents, in order to prevent terrible disappointments, to keep a candidate from believing that according to the poll, he should win, whereas the next day he is astounded by the results. I would even say that it is unhealthy for some defeated candidates, Mr. Speaker.
I think that everything would go well if the government wanted to act properly, if big parties wanted to be honest. I am referring to the big parties because it is still felt today that everything can be bought, and since the big parties have the money, since they can pay reporters, radio broadcasters and pollsters, they control the polls. Now, there are two kinds of polls. Some are pretty good in their areas, although they cannot give the picture of the whole country. On the other hand, other public opinion polls, and they are in great majority, are "cooked" by supporters who want to influence and attract the 15 or 20 p. 100 of the voters who might be influenced by these polls.
Mr. Speaker, I think that prohibiting all publication during the whole electoral period would guarantee protection to the public, especially when there are controversies with the media. During the last election, I have had a striking proof of that. I knew that those polls were false and I did not even pay attention to them. I did not even give one dollar to the media and, unlike in previous years, I did not resort to radio or television programs for support. I published nothing in the big newspapers, precisely because I had lost all confidence in them.
To my astonishment, I was elected with a majority of almost 2,000 more votes than in previous elections. But those people had been misled during the whole election campaign. They were brainwashed by 12 or 15 ministers, going about in cars, helicopters, planes, for three weeks in my riding, spreading propaganda. To my mind, that is dishonest influence. The people who are supposed to be free, are not allowed to do something serious, wise on their own. They are not even given time to think things over.
That is why I am happy to see this bill introduced; this evening, I hope, it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections where we can face each other, the government members and those of the opposition, and say what we think as well as what is going on. After the elections, the electoral comedy and the money game are over. I feel much more honest and dignified work could be done in committee to protect the freedom of the Canadian citizen.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to abuse the time of the House dealing with this matter, but after such a dirtthrowing campaign, there is much to say. However, with this bill, I wish to demonstrate to the Canadian people
November 29, 1974

that there are things money cannot buy, that Canada is still a democratic state, that it is still up to the citizen to decide, that no decision can be imposed upon him and, more often than not, that his decision cannot be bought.
Mr. Speaker, I wish that this bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-213, because it raises a quite important issue. It goes much beyond the public opinion polls made during the election campaign. Indeed, it deals with the entire question of information during the election campaign.
As a matter of fact, since the appearance of the communication media through broadcasting, our election techniques have been entirely altered. This view, Mr. Speaker, applies as much to hon. members opposite as to members on this side.
As a result of the advent of television and radio and the increasingly broader role played by the media in the information of citizens, the broadcasting of views and information is quite important in the choice made by the electors on voting day.
In the past, the only opportunities for the elector to get acquainted with the government measures and decisions were the public meetings.
You remember, Mr. Speaker, that it was the custom after Sunday services or still at grandiose ceremonies to summon the local people and convey to them comments and judgments that were mutually exchanged on what was done during past terms.
Today, the elector is shut up in his home. Quite often, he does not have the time to get interested in electoral debates. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think we are mistaken about the interest most citizens take in the electoral campaign.
All hon. members will agree that the period of keenest interest exists in the last few days of the electoral campaign, in the last two weeks in particular, and that everything before that serves as nothing more than a warm-up for the electoral machinery. Therefore, that is the time when interest is developing and it is also when the modern information techniques are applied.
Surveys as we now know them changed in a quite unpredictable way. Indeed, over the years, we had grown accustomed to giving first place to the written media. Anyone going through dailies and weeklies of that period can find out that every party bought space in them, and more generally emphasized communications in the written media. But radio and television caught up, and now the broadcast word is just as likely to influence voters as the written word.
I was rather surprised to read Bill C-213 in its present form and hear my hon. friend suggest among other things that he would not oppose the regulation of surveys. Personally I would not oppose it either if all the facts were known. But I had a quick look through papers published on the question, I looked at studies completed here in United States and England, and I realized very soon we have but limited knowledge in the field. As a matter of fact, nobody doubts surveys have an impact, but the ques-
Canada Elections Act
tion of measuring such an impact, of estimating its effect on the voter is still unanswered. I would direct my colleagues to an article which appeared in pages 25 and 26 of October 1974 issue of the Economist, that is a few months after the July election.
Reference to a couple of studies done by university professors can be found here. The first one is by Professor Harris. It is considered the most authoritative, first because it involves a representative sample of voters and second because questions asked dealt directly with the impact of the survey on the voter's choice. And here, is Professor Harris' conclusion. Professor Harris found no evidence that polls affected total turn-out of voters or switches between one party or another.
Mr. Speaker, citizens are undoubtedly interested in knowing results of surveys. However, the credibility of surveys may be the determining factor. As a matter of fact, during the last election campaign, for instance, the Liberal and Conservative parties both published the results of an opinion survey. Obviously, each of them believed to be ahead of the other and both believed they had made important gains. I do not think that such a survey was a determining factor on the voter's choice as, finally, these conclusions were contradictory.
Another survey was made by a radio station in Montreal, based on a very limited sample of voters and three weeks before the vote. Even there, I do not think this survey had a determining influence on the voter's choice. On the other hand, it has also been said that the sponsors of these surveys could control public opinion. However, a survey was made 15 days before the elections outcome in the Province of Quebec by the IQOP, l'lnstitut quebecois d'opinion publique, which is directed by people who are neither Liberals nor Progressives Conservatives but who belong to a provincial party. That survey was made in a way that I consider scientific. It was made by an agency famous in this field and that specializes in surveys. Second, this agency made the survey according to a proven method. Consequently, it had more credibility because two factors were involved in the evaluation of the results. Third, the sample chosen was representative that is to say that voters were chosen according to their location in urban centers and rural areas were also well represented so that the sample reflected the province's sociological pattern if I may say so. Last, the period at which the survey was made was also taken into account.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that a survey made under those conditions, those four factors being taken into account, can allow the voter to reach convincing and useful conclusions. Moreover, if a poll is conducted by a host on an open-line program at lunch time, in the afternoon, when people are busy doing anything but getting serious information and debating political matters, if results are broadcast by a station, by a host who knows nothing about sociology, a host who simply answers calls from radio listeners, if those polls are conducted by people who may already have their own opinion and may tend to influence the results of the survey, such polls, in my opinion, have no credibility whatsoever and finally prove that Professor Harris was absolutely right in concluding that such polls have a marginal effect on the voters' choice.

November 29, 1974
Canada Elections Act
I think, Mr. Speaker, that at election time, we hear a lot of true and false statements. I share the opinion of my colleague for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) who said that all kins of information are often heard during election campaigns. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the information or comments we hear are far more harmful than the few results that may be published following polls.
For example, a candidate during the last election campaign stated that the government favoured Quebec because $1 bills showed Parliament Hill as seen from Hull instead of Ottawa. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think candidates who go about telling such lies have a far worse influence on public opinion than any radio station, country paper or minor newspaper which decide to conduct their own polls.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have to face the fact that, under present circumstances, many voters do not follow as closely as might be expected the political events. Not every voter waits for the results of polls before deciding for which candidate or party they will vote.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, to come back to one of the studies on the matter, the one by professor George Gaskell from the London School of Economics, an institution that my colleagues of the Social Credit Party of Canada know quite well, Professor Gaskell mentioned that even within the studies that are now being made, the results of a poll are quite different if its findings show that there is a very wide difference between the leading party and the runner up, whether the two parties are following one another very closely or the voters are completely indifferent or undecided concerning the issue of the election.
Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the studies on this question, I would really feel unprepared to accept the bill as proposed. If it were suggested that we legislate on polls or allow a definite period of time in which these polls were to be conducted and if, on the other hand, agencies like Statistics Canada were asked to conduct these polls, in that case, I think we could make regulations which would allow public opinion to take shape under reasonable conditions. However, in the present context, I do not think it would be wise to prohibit all polls by saying afterwords: "We will regulate them".
I believe it would be much more useful in the interests of our electoral traditions and especially of the protection that we, as members of Parliament, must ensure our fellow citizens, if we were to introduce immediate regulations, some legislation that we could discuss and assess as against the results of the investigations which could be carried out on the value of polls.
I am not one of those who would be the first to restrict public opinion or favour measures restricting freedom of speech. However, I realize, as do all my colleagues, that there are all kinds of exaggerations and that these methods are used to serve all kinds of purposes. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the best way of arriving at an acceptable situation is to ignore polls. In fact, all commercial agencies use polls when they want to market a product and all political parties, whatever their colour, make good internal use of polls.	*
Of course, when it comes to electoral strategy, it is very easy to say that the results are in our favour and that such

or such candidate is ahead. However, I am of the opinion that, before getting rid of this technique which, at present, gives appreciable results, we had better try and put forward a legislation which would allow us to make surveys in acceptable conditions, rather than simply proposing to abolish them. When organizations conducted polls or surveys to determine the unemployment rate in this country, before the establishment of Statistics Canada, we did not think very high of the results, but now that a duly authorized organization such as Statistics Canada makes known the results of its monthly surveys conducted according to specific standards and criteria, these surveys are given the credibility they deserve and are useful in the developp-ment of economic policies.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is the same with polls. We should manage to propose-and this is something I suggest to my hon. colleague who sponsored bill C-213-regulations on polls, to authorize some professional agencies rather than simply abolish polls and ignore that this technique is useful and may be of use to the electorate. As for me, I do not think that the proposed results could be achieved simply by abolishing polls under the pretence of the exaggerations or dishonest actions which may happen in public opinion and under the pretence of the manipulation of public opinion; Mr. Speaker, one must admit that the number of voters who may be affected by the results of a poll varies with the elections.
There are elections In which the opinion of a majority of voters is already set in favour of a party. There are election situations in which the public opinion is quite divided between the policies and the mandates proposed by different parties. Finally, there are elections in which the outcome seems so remote that the majority of voters take no interest in them. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that we have enough information nor sufficient evidence at this moment to accept, as my colleague suggests, to purely and simply do away with the taking of polls during election periods, and once the writs are issued.
I rather think, Mr. Speaker, that all parties who really want to improve our election habits should further their studies in that respect on an individual basis in an effort to determine the extent to which polls affect public opinion and propose regulations rather than merely ignore the polls. I would like to relate that question to the financing of political parties. The financing of political parties has been under attack for several years, particularly the obscurantism of election funds involving all sorts of tinkering with the financing of political parties and election costs. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it would have been simplistic for the House of Commons to decide overnight to do away with all contributions to political parties simply because there was a risk of tinkering on the part of candidates of a party or the government. Parliament looked into that matter during the 29th Parliament and passed a very complex legislation. I think all political parties that are now prepared to apply it realize that. I think progress was made in that direction, and I would think that we should follow that example if we want to improve our political habits about public information. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I would purely and simply ask that this bill be withdrawn since in its present form it does not contain enough material to be referred to committee.
November 29, 1974


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that almost every one of us has either spoken of polls in the way one of our party leaders expressed himself about them during the last election, or thought about them in that way. He said, "When the polls are in my favour, they are wonderful; when they are against me, I pay no attention to them."
I readily understand the concern of the hon. member who introduced this bill, a concern expressed in his hope that our elections might be run in such a way that our electors would really have free choice. I support that ideal to the hilt, but it seems to me that other things interfere with that free choice far more than the publication of polls.
The previous parliament enacted legislation respecting election expenses. I do not think it went far enough. I think money spent on high powered advertising frustrates the opportunity of people to think freely at election time. If we want to improve our elections by allowing citizens of our country freer opportunity to express their thinking, we should go further in equalizing amounts of money available to the various parties and, as well, take any steps we can to rid ourselves of misleading advertising, which is prominent in election campaigns just as it is prominent in the commercial world generally.
We can do something else to improve our elections. I know that what I feel is felt by members in all quarters of the House, and I regret very much that we have not moved in this direction. I am speaking, of course, of shortened election campaigns. They ought to be several weeks shorter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Election campaigns lasting seven, eight or nine weeks are rough for all those who participate in them and they weary the souls and minds of our people, until they hardly know what to think. Near the end of that long period they are easily stampeded one way or the other. I think we would improve people's freedom of choice at election times if our election campaigns were shorter.
As for this specific bill, I would certainly have no objection if the subject matter of it were referred to the appropriate committee so that this matter could be discussed further. However, I see some very real difficulties in it.
During an election campaign, I pursue one of my favourite ways of campaigning by going to shop gates. If I stand at a shop gate early in the morning and ask enough of the workers going in how they are going to vote so it becomes 'clear to me that I have 75 per cent or maybe 90 per cent of the workers at that particular plant-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend need not laugh. There are plants in Winnipeg where that is the case. However, if I send out a news sheet, poster or handbill, or in any other manner say that the workers at
Canada Elections Act
the CPR Weston shops, Dominion Bridge or Manitoba Bridge plants in Winnipeg North Centre are voting 75 or 80 or 90 per cent for me, according to this bill I would be committing an illegal act.
There are real difficulties when you try to control the dissemination of information or the collecting of information and publishing it in one way or another. Maybe I have taken the extreme case, but certainly any reading of these words makes it clear that the bill does not just confine itself to the established commercial poll-taking organizations. It applies to any person who purports to take some kind of poll and publishes the results of that poll in any manner whatsoever. I think the bill is good as a vehicle for getting the subject discussed. If the subject matter could be referred to a committee for such discussion, that would be useful.
I cast my eye across the way and I see that my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) is here. He usually is on a Friday afternoon. He is part of this exclusive club that is here on Friday afternoons.


Mr. Francis:: Thank you, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has a bill on the order paper which deals with a broader subject, of which this is a part. I refer to the hon. member's Bill C-333 having to do with subliminal advertising. I am concerned not only with subliminal advertising, but with the subliminal effects of a great deal of open advertising.
Most of us have ideas and ideals about what life should be like, the kind of persons we should be and how we should live. However, if I get the opportunity to sit in front of television, I come away with the impression that in order to be a full fledged member of society in this twentieth century, and it is getting pretty close to the twenty-first, you have to make sure your breath is pure. If you are female, you need to have the sweetest mouth in town. I find you have to make sure you have no body odours that are offensive and the impression given is that you have. These advertising people tell you what to do about all that. I find that you must drink beer and enjoy it.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: How many drink it who don't?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I don't drink it. I don't enjoy it. Indeed, I share the feeling of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) that it is offensive that this kind of advertising is put over television.
The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) is concerned about freedom of people to express themselves at election time. I say that the freedom of people in this country to decide the kind of persons they want to be is terribly thwarted. It is terribly frustrated by the kind of advertising for profit that goes on in the media of this country.
I could go on with a long list, but I do not want to speak too long on this. The ultimate is that you really are not a full fledged member of twentieth century society and are unable to get into the twenty-first century unless you have the right kind of tissue in your bathroom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 29, 1974
Canada Elections Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what the advertising people are doing to us. The hon. member who brought forward this bill has drawn our attention to the fact that they are also trying to influence us in terms of our voting patterns. They are all doing it for commercial reasons. They are all doing it for a profit. I submit that society has to sort this all out somehow.
I belong to a party that believes there is a lot we can do by legislation, but I do not see how we can legislate the press or the media. We might suggest that they be here when we are discussing them. I am glad to see two reporters in the gallery at the present time. When I got up there was only one. A second came in. This is a red letter day for me.
I do not want to take any more time because others want to speak. The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North has done a service by raising this issue today. That is not an indirect way of saying I will support his bill, because I am afraid I cannot. I think it would create more problems than it would solve. In any event, as I said earlier, I still want to be free to try to make an assessment of how things are going in my constituency at election time, and to say how I think things are going. How you can draw the line between one person doing that and another, I do not know.
I end with an emphasis on the point I have been trying to make. A concern that is really hitting us in our society today is the extent to which freedom of thought and freedom of decision as to the kind of people we want to be is terribly thwarted by commercial interests. I am glad there is some legislation on the books regarding misleading advertising. I think we have to go a lot further. I hope that one day we will have media, print and electronic, educational forces, religious forces and all the rest, the aim of which will not be some particular axe to be ground and not some particular profit to be made, but the real enrichment of human life.


Robert Muir: I wonder if the hon. member will permit a question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly.


Robert Muir: Thank you very much. I always listen with great interest to the distinguished and hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He talked at great length about misleading advertising. During the last election campaign thousands of yellow sheets were passed around my constituency by the NDP candidate which said in so many words "Moneys have been allocated for two constituency offices and two secretaries for Bob Muir. Bob Muir has not opened these offices and has not employed these two secretaries. Where has the money gone? Your guess is as good as mine".
I am sure that all members here, especially the distinguished member from Winnipeg North Centre, know how moneys are allocated for constituency offices. Members do not receive any moneys. It is all a deal between treasury and so on. Does the hon. member consider that misleading advertising in view of the fact he has mentioned misleading advertising so much?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if the facts are as the hon. member has stated them, that is of course misleading. I deplore misleading advertising or misleading propaganda of any kind, particularly in this area. I say this as one who has spent no government money at all on a constituency office.


Robert Muir: Thank you.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I lost in that exchange one and a half of my three and a half minutes. I can, therefore, abbreviate more than ever before. I want to agree with the hon. member who just spoke about the iniquity of beer advertising. I think it is most unwholesome. I commend him rather to a much more sedate and thoughtful document, the Senate Report on the Commonwealth Caribbean, which refers to the high quality West Indian rum.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: That is the kind of thing he should be reading instead of spending his time on beer ads which are just as much trash.
# (1650)
I want to say that when I first heard my colleague from Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) mention this subject, I was very cool to it. But as election has followed election, I look with more favour upon his suggestion, because I think there is in fact, in this age where the medium is the message, some great danger in the manipulative tendencies getting just a bit out of hand. I agree with that great man Charles Lynch, who, while he is often wrong certainly can write, when he pointed out not long ago that the question about Gallup polls is whether or not they distort the democratic process by depicting the voting pattern in advance. This is a very important matter which I believe should be carefully studied.
The hon. member will probably be successful because a lot of us who have been here for quite a while have found that we tend to harp upon a given subject. I have been talking about permanent voting lists ever since I have been here, and some day we could get them. Perhaps we will then have what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) desires, a shorter election campaign period, and that is all to the good. Some day, I hope, we will have electronic voting in this chamber and a set period of waiting for the vote. I remember that in one parliament I and my colleagues spent slightly over a month on the voting process, and this means something less than an efficient operation of the parliamentary system.
I commend my colleague for his bill and I believe it should be studied by the committee. To expedite that process I will resume my seat.


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks I want to touch on an area which I have not heard mentioned this afternoon. Being a naive backbencher perhaps I have not caught on to something, and in many ways I am very thankful that the galleries are not too full. I gather that the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) is experiencing
November 29, 1974

grave concern as to the effect these various polls may have upon the average voter. Indeed I gathered from his remarks that he is of the opinion that the voter is being led down the well-known garden path.
On this point I have to disagree. Few, if any, public opinion polls in the past three or four elections have, in my opinion, been correct. I say that the average voter, in the west at least, pays little or no attention to such polls. Voters meet the candidates and speak with them, and then make up their minds. I am sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) must know from all his years in politics that it is the people who make up their minds, not the polls.
I cannot accept the view of the hon. member from across the way who went on about the big money parties controlling such polls. Has he no faith or trust in his fellow citizens? Does he believe that most voters are so naive that they will believe anything they hear on the radio, see on television or read in the newspapers? I would not dare accuse the electors, in my riding at least, of such foolishness.
If we choose to enforce such a bill as Bill C-213 we are, in effect, telling the people of Canada that they are not to be trusted; that in the opinion of the supporters of this bill-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I do so to seek the will of the House concerning private members' hour which, as hon. members know, started at 3.54 p.m. Is it the desire of the House that private members' hour be precisely one hour, or that we should allow the hon. member to continue until five o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, at 3.54 p.m. we called it four o'clock so I think we should go to five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert John (Jack) Pearsall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, we are, in effect, telling the people of Canada that they are not to be trusted. I gather that the supporters of this bill are of the opinion that the average Canadian does not have the intelligence to understand what he or she sees, hears or may read during an election campaign, and I find this carrying things a little too far. As I said earlier, thank heavens there are not too many of our electors sitting in
Canada Elections Act
the galleries today, for I am afraid they would have some very harsh things to say about their representatives down below in this chamber.
I believe that the great majority of Canadians are intelligent enough to review all the issues during a an election. They make their choice regardless of what the polls try to tell them. There is a poll conducted on the west coast which is known as the hamburger poll, and which has been going on for quite a few years. Perhaps other members have it in their areas as well. Some of the results of this poll have been really ridiculous, but it was amazing how it was only the news media that built it up to any extent. When the final results came in the man with all the hamburgers in his favour lost the election, and his supporters ended up with bad stomachs.
All through this bill the average Canadian is being told that he is not to be trusted when he walks into a polling station, or looks at television, or reads a newspaper during an election campaign, and I honestly feel that this is an insult to the average Canadian, indeed to all Canadians. They make their choice regardless of what the polls try to tell them. I believe all my fellow Canadians conduct themselves during an election in a manner that we would expect of them.
When I hear it said today that the Canadian people can be contaminated by such polls, I cannot help but wonder what is the thinking of the hon. member and how is he going to answer the people in his riding when he puts forward such a bill as this.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: He has been through eight elections so I think he can answer to them for a little while longer. Don't let that concern you.


Albert John (Jack) Pearsall: Well, I told the House I was a naive backbencher. Therefore I cannot concern myself with this bill and I believe it should be withdrawn.
I should like to make one other point that I missed and which the hon. member raised. He attempted to convey to us that the kind of poll he was mentioning in his bill could have an influence-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. Once again I regret having to interrupt the hon. member but the hour allotted for private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 2, 1974