1977-12-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the tragic incident in St. John's Harbour in September when the Portuguese sidetrawler Vasco D'Orey caught fire in St. John's harbour causing loss of life and threatening a major disaster in the harbour at St. John's, since no fire tug is now provided for that port and in view of the agreement of the chairman of the St. John's port authority, the Liberal candidate in the St. John's West byelection, that the authority needs and is lobbying for a new multi-purpose tug which would include fire-fighting equipment, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the government of Canada make funds available to the port authority of St. John's for the purchase of a new multi-purpose tug including fire-fighting equipment in order to be properly prepared to take action to save lives and to save the harbour of St. John's in the event of any other shipboard fires in that harbour.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion pursuant to the standing order only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to urge the House to take action on a matter of pressing urgency. Yarntex Holdings Limited, which operates plants in both Quebec and Ontario has reduced its work force by some 500 people in the past two years. Moreover, spokesmen for the Canadian sweater industry, which employs about 8,000 people, suggest that if the trend to closings in the acrylic yarn sector continues, the sweater industry would also find its future in jeopardy, and possible lay-offs there could become imminent.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) has had in his possession since early November the report of the Textile and Clothing Board on acrylic yarns, and so far no action has been taken on this serious matter. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House call upon the government to take immediate steps to protect both the acrylic yarn industry, and also the sweater industry, and to make those steps known to this House without further delay.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion at this time only with the unanimous consent of this House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that several dairy producers are now facing quota problems, which has prompted them to demand additional quotas; considering that the prices they must pay are often out of proportion with a fair production income, thus discouraging them further; and considering also that many young farmers could not only obtain an additional quota, but saw the one which they already had restricted by a harmful government policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the federal government take immediately the necesary steps to introduce legislation aimed at helping rather than discouraging, as is the case at present, our young farmers who are eager to relieve their seniors.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

December 15, 1977

Indian Affairs TRANSPORT


SUGGESTED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUBJECT OF TANKER MOVEMENTS ON WEST COAST-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity relating to the winding down of the hearings of the west coast oil ports inquiry today and tomorrow. I have the honour to propose the following motion. In light of the conflicting reports emanating from British Columbia following the decision to recess the west coast oil ports inquiry and in light of the uncertainties generated by the fact that the proposal by Kitimat Pipe Line Limited has not yet been withdrawn from the National Energy Board, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That the issues and concerns related to oil tanker movements on the west coast as might be affected by the Kitimat Pipe Line Limited, TransMountain PipeLine Limited, and other proposals be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and that upon receipt of the interim report of the west coast oil ports inquiry by the government, the report be referred to the same committee for due consideration and that the same committee shall report to the House within three months of the receipt of the interim report.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On November 21 the honourable Grace McCarthy, B.C. deputy premier and travel industry minister, sent a telegram to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). The substance of the telegram was a request for a meeting between herself, the justice minister, the Senate government leader, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Milne). The meeting's topic would be keeping Wickanninish Inn as a place of accommodation. The justice minister, the senior B.C. cabinet has not yet responded-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a motion to put, perhaps he will propose it forthwith.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That this House call upon the Indian affairs and northern development minister to direct the architect to delay his work on the Wickanninish project pending the outcome of the meeting with B.C.'s deputy premier, which I am sure the justice minister would be happy to convene as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Fundy tidal power development study is substantially complete and a pilot project is now under active consideration, whereas the Fundy development can generate tremendous economic activity in Atlantic Canada, whereas DREE, which is seriously impaired by underfunding, has thus far been excluded from these studies, and whereas neither the budget nor supplemental estimates contain any new and badly needed development impact for the Atlantic region, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carieton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) be included in all future Fundy studies and his department be directed to attend the upcoming meeting of energy ministers considering the long delayed maritime power corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presentation of such a motion for discussion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CANADA'S OLDEST CITIZEN

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before beginning the Oral Question Period I know all hon. members would want to join with me at this time in signalling not only a very significant event in Canadian history but as well the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished Canadian. David Albert Trumble was born December 15, 1867 at Haliburton. He is Canada's oldest citizen, being born in the year of confederation. He is residing in Northbrook, Ontario in the federal
December 15, 1977

riding of Frontenac-Lennox and Addington and is here visiting his member of parliament and celebrating his birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of Treasury Board. Is the minister prepared to take the House into his confidence with respect to details of the government's federal labour intensive program, which I understand from the minister's office he is releasing to the press later this day, and to tell the House at least what he proposes to tell the press? Perhaps at the same time he might also tell the House whether this is the same program which was announced in this House by the Prime Minister on October 19.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have taken the members of the House into my confidence to some degree by appearing before the miscellaneous estimates committee, at which time there were certain questions asked about it. Indeed, the Minister of Finance announced the program in principle, and in fact described the amount of money to be allocated to the program, in his speech on October 21. 1 do recognize that there have been other allusions to it. There will be an allocation of $150 million over the period from now to September 28. The program will be directed on a provincial distribution basis to those areas weighted for high and chronic unemployment. The provincial breakdown will be made available to members in letters going to them this afternoon. Fifteen departments of government will be involved in the program and the hiring which should create about 157,000 man-months of work. I use the term man-months as some jobs should last two or three months and others eight or nine months, so the average will be from five to five and one-half months' duration. If the hon. member wishes to put any other questions I shall be glad to answer.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that since the program was announced in the House by the Prime Minister on October 19, the number of unemployed has increased by 53,000 and we understand that only 20,000 jobs will be created or one job for every 50 unemployed Canadians, can we expect any other initiatives from the government before the first minister's conference takes place to deal with what is perceived as an emergency
Oral Questions
situation now that winter is approaching with critically high unemployment?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House share the hon. member's concern as expressed on many occasions about the high level of unemployment, particularly in certain regions of the country. The program 1 have described and which was announced by the Minister of Finance on October 20, augments the $458 million that this Parliament has approved for expenditure this year on direct job creation and many other programs that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has enunciated and articulated in this House. There are other measures which the Prime Minister and other ministers have described as being in the mill, some to culminate in the series of meetings going on with our counterparts in the provinces and other groups in the country, the details of which will probably come out about February.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I put a further supplementary question given this flip-flop approach to unemployment which is the only thing the government has to offer Canada at the present time, and in light of the fact that allocations under phase 2 of the Canada Works Program were largely influenced by political patronage in that Liberal constituencies received approximately $300,000 more than Conservative constituencies, given the fact, also, that the hon. member for Renfrew North announced a $2.5 million program of FLIP for his constituency last Monday, can the minister assure the House that this program will be allocated fairly and impartially and not on the basis of any partisan consideration?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can give the hon. member that assurance. In dealing with his preamble I find it strange that he was given the lead responsibility in this matter for his party since as I recall his constituency enjoys one of the highest allocations under the LIP program.


REQUEST FOR PROJECTS ALLOCATED TO QUEBEC
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Following my colleague's question, I would like to ask the minister, given the fact that $53 million seemed to be intended for the province of Quebec, if he would provide the House with some information, that is to which specific projects will those funds be allocated in the province of Quebec?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct about the amount allocated to the Province of Quebec. 1 might tell hon. members that the basis for the provincial distribution was the unemployment rate in each province multiplied by the labour force in the province which labour force was adjusted to equalize the

December 15, 1977
Oral Questions
participation rate across the country. Then there was a flat 3 per cent of the number of unemployed deducted. This has the effect of tilting it toward the high and chronic unemployment areas. As to the details of the $53 million in the Province of Quebec or, for that matter, any other province, I would refer hon. members to the information which will be forthcoming today and tomorrow and to the particular departments which will be administering the projects, of which there are 15.
(Translation]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, could the minister assure the House that these projects which will be implemented in the province of Quebec have been previously discussed with certain ministers of the government of Quebec? Could he also give us the assurance that these projects comply with priorities already established by the province of Quebec?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this is a federal initiative. The direct hiring will be under federal authority and the dispensation of wages will be made from federal funds although there will be the usual exchange of information with the provinces.
[ Translation]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has scheduled a press conference to that effect, would he not consider that it would be useful and fair to us in the opposition it he were to make a statement at three o'clock this afternoon so that we could ask him relevant questions? We are quite pleased with these investments but still we would like to ask a few questions and I think it would be fair also to all members of the House.
[ English ]


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I weighed that consideration but I felt that this program having been announced on October 20, as the hon. member preceding the hon. member who has just spoken took great pains to establish, this is not the first announcement of it. Because of the questions I have been asked and the obvious interest shown, 1 have responded to questions here but some of the details are available and they will be in hon. members offices today. I have answered fully the questions asked here today, and I shall be pleased to answer further questions during the question period. There is no intention to withhold information. We want all interested members to know about the projects and, indeed, to advise us with regard to the projects in their areas when they are made known.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
It relates to the deep concern of veterans and veterans organi-

zations, as well as a great many Canadians, over the announcement the minister made some weeks ago to the effect that the basic rate of the war disability pension would not now be restored to the composite rate standard which was set in 1973. My question to the minister is this: has he at any time since he made that announcement taken this matter again before cabinet? If he has, what was the result? If not, will he make such a submission at an early date?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: At the time I made the announcement I did say that I knew the veterans and the veterans organizations would be disappointed. But I also said, and I repeat it now, that the government will be again considering this matter when fiscal restraints can be eased.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope that the lack of restraint we see in so many quarters will encourage the minister to feel that the time has come to take this issue back to cabinet. When he does, may I ask him if he will also point out to cabinet the small amount of money which would be needed to pay prisoner-of-war compensation to the fewer than 200 World War 1 veterans who were prisoners of war and who are still with us? Will he also keep alive the question of amending the rules respecting widows' pensions so that those whose husbands were receiving pensions of below 48 per cent will get a pension as of right?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the items enumerated by the hon. member are always under study in my department and could be moved forward at any time.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As he will recall, in his statement of October 20 he said:
I am announcing tonight employment credits for job creation.
Yesterday, in answer to a question put by the leader of my party, the minister stated "We are busy drafting it"-meaning the employement credit bill. Would the minister tell us what progress he has made in drafting the bill and whether we may receive it today?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the bill is not ready. As I indicated before, I was stuck in the House for almost six weeks on Bill C-l 1.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am working on the bill and I hope everything will be ready very soon. I hope it will be in place in the early months of next year.
December 15, 1977


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary question to the minister arises out of a report yesterday in UPI which stated:
Finance Minister Jean Chretien says he has $100 million he can't give away.
That is referring to the employment tax credit bill. Can the minister indicate to the House when the bill is forthcoming, how many jobs will be affected by the provisions in that bill, assuming it will receive prompt passage in this House?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I hope this program will create at least 50,000 new jobs next year.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, assuming the minister can introduce the bill forthwith and assuming there is early passage of that legislation, would he indicate when job creation will be felt, if the bill is passed before we recess? What is the earliest opportunity for people to receive work as a result of his new bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I realize the minister is anxious to answer that type of question, but I caution the House that we are beginning to get far afield. We are anticipating legislation, and in addition, we are beginning to put hypothetical questions. However, I will let it go.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the bill cannot be ready before next week. When we started Bill C-l 1, the hon. member said that second reading was to be three or four days, and it lasted three weeks. Thus, I cannot rely on him very much.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is not true.


Some hon. Members:: That is not true.


RESEARCH
J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology. Given Canada's trade deficit for last year in excess of $10 billion in manufactured goods, heading for $11.5 billion this year; and in view of our reliance on technological advantage to enable Canadian products to compete in world markets, is the minister going to introduce any new programs or incentives to stimulate research and development in the manufacturing sector of the economy to promote greater efficiency, expand our export trade and put more Canadians to work?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, there are measures contained in the bill which my colleague, the Minister of Finance, is dealing with in the House now. These measures provide investment tax credits of five per cent and 10 per cent for research and development. In addition, we have
Oral Questions
our contracting out policy which we are extending to deal with this matter. I share the hon. member's concern. The level in the Canadian industrial sector is dismally low and should be significantly increased.


DELAY OF APPOINTMENTS TO MEDICAL, SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING COUNCILS
J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, is the decision to delay for over half a year the appointment of the president of the Medical Research Council and the president and members of the Natural Science and Engineering Council considered an encouraging move? When are they to be appointed?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, as far as the Natural Science and Engineering Council is concerned, we hope it will be in the very near future. As far as the Medical Research Council is concerned, 1 would prefer the Minister of National Health and Welfare to respond.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am in the process of reviewing some candidacies for the presidency of the Medical Research Council. I realize the urgency of such an appointment. No delay has ever been decided upon, as suggested.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Could he disclose to the House the amounts of money which have been spent up till now for legal fees and other judicial costs in relation to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in his department's unsuccessful attempt to oppose the Keable Commission and the honest disclosure of all circumstances surrounding the action of the RCMP special group responsible for uncovering any so-called subversive activities?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: First of all I want to tell the hon. member that all documents in our possession and related to allegations of questionable or possibly illegal practices have already been referred to the commission established by the federal government precisely to investigate RCMP activities, practices and procedures. It is therefore extremely difficult to accept the premise of the hon. member's question that we are trying to hide something when every document in our possession and every allegation directed to us have already been referred to a commission of inquiry headed by a judge from the Supreme Court of the Province of Alberta. As for the amounts for legal services, I obviously do not have the figures here. Those are matters which are being considered before the courts, and the services of the lawyers involved are paid for by

December 15, 1977
Oral Questions
the Department of Justice according to a tariff set up by the Department of Justice when their services are needed.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Are we to understand from the reply the minister has just made that he will not go before the Supreme Court to appeal the decision rendered by Justice Hugessen in connection with the case which is now pending before the Keable Commission, and to what extent is the current administration not willing to go to demonstrate the relevancy of federalism, as well as its sole preoccupation with truth and justice by working in closer co-operation with the Keable Commission?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that by setting up an inquiry at the federal level, we have clearly demonstrated to the Canadian people our intention to go to the bottom of the sometimes far-out allegations which have been made, like those the hon. member himself made on TV, when he accused the RCMP of having murdered a former-


An hon. Member:: A friend of his!


Francis Fox: -resident of the province of Quebec, a certain Mr. Viger, when all available evidence bears witness to the fact that Mr. Viger fell off a tractor on his farm and died from heat exposure. If the hon. member wants to talk of justice, Mr. Speaker, he should be honest enough to substantiate his rumours before the inquiries which have been set up or refer them to the attorney general of the province of Quebec and indicate who his informants are. Should he fail to do so, we would have to come to the conclusion that his rumours are the result of a highly irresponsible mind.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would not raise a question of privilege since the moment is not appropriate, but I-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 will hear the hon. member at three o'clock on a question of privilege.
McDonald commission-reason for opposition to


APPLICATION OF LEADER OF OPPOSITION TO BE REPRESENTED
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the same minister. With regard to the application that was recently made by counsel on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition to the McDonald Commission, which was opposed by three counsellors, namely, counsel for the commission itself, counsel for the commissioner of the RCMP and counsel for the Solicitor General, did the counsel oppose that application on the instructions, be they direct or indirect, of the Solicitor General? In other words, did all three oppose these instructions, and if not, who opposed the application of the Leader of the Opposition and for what reasons?


Francis Fox: When the Leader of the Opposition decided to ask permission to have counsel sit in on commission hearings, the matter was brought to my attention by my counsel. My position is that the Government of
[Mr. Fox.l
Canada has full confidence in the commission of inquiry which was set up by the government of Canada to look into the matter concerning allegations against the RCMP. We have full faith that that commission will be able to get to the bottom of the matter. We believe that if it comes to the question of who should appear before that commission, it becomes quite clear at that point that all political parties would have as good a case as the Leader of the Opposition to be represented before that commission as well as innumerable groups throughout the country. It is our position that the commission has received a mandate from the government to go right to the heart of the matter. We have full faith in that commission, which apparently is not the case of the Leader of the Opposition.
McDonald commission-submission to counsel of


QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL
William Herbert Jarvis: 1 regret the Solicitor General refuses to answer whose counsel was instructed by him or by the government. He described the McDonald Commission as a place where sunshine is let in. It could be more accurately described right now as foggy hall. Numerous questions were put to the Solicitor General in the House and in the committee which he refused to answer on the basis that those questions would be more properly put before the McDonald Inquiry, and I do not think he will deny that. Has his counsel received the transcript of questions put both in the House and in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and will the Solicitor General make an undertaking to the House that those questions will be put at the appropriate time by his counsel at the McDonald Commission?


Francis Fox: It is quite apparent the hon. member does not understand the workings of the McDonald Commission. Perhaps if he left the House and sat in on some of the meetings of the commission he would understand that questions are being put to witnesses by the commission counsel. Perhaps he would also understand that the decision as to whether a political party should be represented before the commission was made by the commission itself.
So far as the specific questions which were put to me at the hearings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs are concerned, I would be delighted to forward a copy of the committee's proceedings to the counsel for the commission of inquiry.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that quotas on low grade Australian and New Zealand beef will run out at the end of this year and the continuing low returns to the Canadian livestock industry, can the minister assure the House
December 15, 1977

and the industry that the present levels of quotas on Oceanic beef will be maintained in 1978?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations have been going on regarding quotas on Oceanic beef with our other trading partners, the United States and Argentina, and an announcement will be made shortly concerning these quotas which should not be much different from what they were before. But 1 would remind the hon. member that when he speaks about depressed beef prices, he is not 100 per cent correct. They are on the increase and have been for some months. It appears that we are out of the bleak picture in which we found ourselves for a couple of years with regard to beef prices. My colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and I are working very closely on this with the other countries concerned.


BEEF-POSSIBILITY OF REQUEST FROM AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND FOR INCREASED ALLOTMENT
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. We have noticed recently that Canada's allotment to the U.S. was increased by some five million pounds. The announcement was made perhaps a week or ten days ago. Has the minister received a request from Australia and New Zealand that their allotment for some 120 million pounds for this year be extended upwards in view of the U.S. allocation to Canada?


Eugene Whelan: I think it would be only natural for them, if they have a surplus of beef, to want to sell more, but just because they made a request does not mean we will grant it because we have established a fairly good quota. If there is any modification in it, the change will be very small. I should remind the hon. member also, as I am sure he is aware, that the U.S. have not filled one third of their beef quota to Canada.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I want to assure the minister that I am well aware of that situation, but I want to ask him a supplementary question. Is it the intention of the government to increase those allocations for the balance of this year? 1 am not asking him whether or not he has received a request but whether it is his intention to increase the allocations to Australia and New Zealand above the 120 million pounds?


Eugene Whelan: No decision has been made at this time and it is our intention to protect the beef producers of Canada.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that investigators have found that air safety regulations in northwestern Ontario have frequently been disobeyed, thereby
Oral Questions
jeopardizing the travelling public, and that attempts to discipline the offending aviation firms have been overruled by somebody in Ottawa, thereby raising the spectre of political influence, I should like to ask the minister when he will institute an independent public inquiry into this problem which the minister knows is the only effective way to clear the way and regain public confidence.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: In fact, of course, the investigation which revealed the necessary facts upon which to act has already given us the information required. It is my intention to act upon that information. I have already done so in some respects and 1 expect to make a complete statement of the progress being made in the very near future.


Reginald Cyril Symes: The minister very carefully avoided the question of political influence and we need to get to the bottom of it. I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Can the minister assure the House that the lack of enforcement of air safety regulations has been confined only to northwestern Ontario and is not a national problem? I ask this with particular reference to representations made to the minister by the Canadian Airline Dispatchers Association.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the issue raised by the airline dispatchers is really quite a separate one, but 1 should say that the question of enforcement of regulations is one which extends beyond the Ontario region, and after our review of the requirement for more inspectors we proposed the addition of 12 inspectors, who will be located in various regions of the country, although an extensive number of them will be for the Ontario and western region which covers northern Ontario. I think this will go a long way toward improving enforcement of regulations, and we are making other changes to ensure that too.



SUGGESTED DELAY OF BAN ON SACCHARIN TO PERMIT COMPANIES TO REDUCE INVENTORY

Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the United States has set an 18-month moratorium on the saccharin ban, and in view of the fact that the saccharin ban imposed last March by the Canadian government has caused severe hardship to companies involved in the production of the sweetner, is the minister prepared to extend the regulations so that these companies might sell off their remaining stock in order to offset some of the very heavy costs they have incurred so far?


Monique Bégin: No, Mr. Speaker. We have refused this request more than once. Our studies have confirmed the validity of

December 15, 1977
Oral Questions
scientific tests with regard to saccharin. Furthermore, we are not banning saccharin as is the case in the United States; we are simply putting it where it belongs, in drug stores.



INDUSTRY


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that industries everywhere in Canada are facing at best difficult times, particularly in rural ridings such as mine, is the government prepared to offer incentives and grants so that these particular companies can research and develop new diet products and so that this industry may thrive and continue to provide jobs?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce does offer grants for new initiatives and new products. Companies can apply to either the Ontario or federal enterprise development board.



REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF SUGAR POLICY

Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the fact that representation has been made by myself on behalf of Alberta sugar beet growers to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture and the stabilization board regarding the closing of the sugar factory at Picture Butte, Alberta and in view of the fact that we produce only 10 per cent of the sugar we consume in Canada, would the minister assure the House today, prior to my meeting tomorrow in Vancouver with Canadian sugar producers, that he will bring in immediately a sugar policy to save this valuable industry?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, we have a sugar policy. Sugar beet growing in southern Alberta is assisted by the federal government, and it is my information that there will be no reduction in acreage because of the closing of that one plant.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary question. In light of the fact that sugar beet growers in southern Alberta are not going to be pleased with the answer I just received and that this government refuses to act when it comes to a meat import law, which forces many cattlemen into bankruptcy, is this the plan the government has for the sugar producer?


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, with regard to a meat import law I can assure the hon. member that that matter is in good hands, and there will be one for the year 1978.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[Mile Begin.]


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member has nothing to worry about in that regard.



AIRPORTS


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It is related to the recently published expansion plans for Victoria International Airport, presumably on the ground that more traffic is expected. During the past 15 months there have been at least 14 air traffic incidents at that airport including four accidents in which eight people lost their lives, four of those fatalities having happened within the last 30 days. Those accidents and incidents could certainly have been avoided had radar been installed. Do the plans which are being made include installing radar at Victoria International Airport, or are there plans apart from those which are now being made involving the installation of radar there?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, our ordinary practice is to develop long-range plans for airports and to provide facilities step by step. That is the case with Victoria International Airport, as it is with any other. However, I think the hon. member was being somewhat misleading in suggesting that these specific incidents were related to the absence of radar.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I was not being misleading. I want to make it quite clear that when the fatal accidents did occur the aircraft involved were beyond the sight of the Vancouver control tower and within sight of the Victoria tower. Therefore, I wonder if the minister will now give me the report he promised almost a year ago about plans for installing radar at Victoria International Airport.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have given the hon. member everything I promised to give him. He does a disservice by suggesting that he knows the cause of aircraft incidents and the way in which they could be avoided without knowing the findings of thorough investigations of those incidents. The hon. member raises this matter in this House without giving me notice of the fact he is going to speak about specific instances so that I can add some light.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Communications. The minister of communications of the province of Quebec appears to be interested in discussing administrative arrangements on the
December 1 5, 1977

question of cable jurisdiction and other communications matters, and 1 wonder if the minister is considering a full-fledged federal-provincial conference in the new year. There has not been one for several years, and there are many questions outstanding.


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is not well informed about the frequency of meetings of communications ministers. A meeting was held March 29 and another one is scheduled for next March.
Regarding the negotiations proposed by Quebec communications minister O'Neill, I acknowledged his proposal and I am prepared to enter into negotiations with him on a bilateral basis, as it has already been done with other provinces such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about ministerial meetings, not meetings among officials. Do I understand from the minister's answer that the minister is going to continue her Don Quixote policy of bilateral negotiations with each individual province and of not putting the whole matter of communications on one table to try to resolve the issues? Does the minister want to have separate agreements with the ten provinces?


Jeanne Sauvé: The memory of the hon. member is certainly failing him, because the meetings I am referring to took place at the ministerial level. As for these bilateral negotiations, I think the hon. member should understand that these are extremely complex issues, they arise in a context which varies from one province to another and must be dealt with on a bilateral basis. It would of course be desirable to reach similar agreements with all provinces. It is my objective but I am not sure I will reach it.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is the Minister aware of the economic disaster and tragedy which struck the remote village of Bella Bella on the coast of British Columbia? For the minister's information, in case he has not heard, power was lost for a week, freezing temperatures burst pipelines and a flood took place. In addition Bella Bella has just lost its hotel. Can the minister assure me that efforts will be made by his department to assist the residents of Bella Bella as they seek to rebuild and replace the buildings and facilities they have lost?
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: What is obvious, Mr. Speaker, is that there is much more concern on this side of the House than there is on the other side respecting the disaster at Bella Bella. If they are not taking it seriously, we are.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if I might be able to hear the minister's answer.


James Hugh Faulkner: We are involved, Mr. Speaker. We have two engineers working with Chief Reid. 1 understand things are under control. 1 will be in touch with Chief Reid later on in the day, and we will be communicating with the hon. member.



LOWER CHURCHILL FALLS POWER PROJECT-FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. His colleague, the Minister of Employment, has repeated on a number of occasions the type of projects that would provide long-term employment, for example, the lower Gull Island site in Labrador. I wonder if the minister would indicate if he has had any further discussions with the province of Newfoundland? Have there been any new proposals, and has he indeed participated in discussions between that province and the province of Quebec with regard to future developments?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes I have talked to the minister of mines and energy for the province of Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this particular project. 1 have asked him if he would put forward a proposal to me and to the federal government indicating what the priorities of the Newfoundland government are for the development of the Lower Churchill Falls site. Also how they relate to his government's priorities with respect to a settlement of the outstanding dispute with the province of Quebec. He has undertaken to do so, and I would expect to receive a letter from him some time next week. I believe it was promised to me before Christmas.


An hon. Member:: Don't count on the Christmas mail.


Jack Marshall: I realize the amount of money allocated in the FLIP program would not go very far towards full development. I wonder if the minister has any allocation of that funding? And is there funding going to such a project for the preparatory work which might help out in the future?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, should such funds be made available, I am sure that the Minister of Employment would want to make that announcement, and I will leave that to him.

December 15, 1977
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



TIBETANS-REASON FOR CHANGING PLACE OF BIRTH ON PASSPORT APPLICATIONS

Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. After Tibet was taken over by communist China, a small contingent of Tibetans came to Canada, and the majority of them settled in Belleville. They have become extremely good citizens. 1 would like to ask the minister why when these Tibetans now apply for their passports, does the External Affairs Department arbitrarily change their place of birth from Tibet to China?


Mr. Speaker:: I really think that is a question which ought to be put on the order paper.



TRANSPORT


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On December 2 officials of the minister's department issued an order closing the seaway. This would be about three weeks in advance of the order normally being issued. One of the results has been that some 14,000 tons of soybean meal will not reach the export market.
I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of the situation, and if so is there anything possible that can be done?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the only order on December 2 was the closing of the further movement of ships upward into the seaway system which would, of course, have to return. We were aware of the fact that there were a great number of ships within the seaway and they would want to emerge. To this day, when ordinarily the seaway would officially close, there are some 87 vessels still caught and wanting to come through. It will take superhuman efforts by the seaway pilots and coast guard to get most of them out. It was the only course of wisdom to stop further vessels and thus adding to that number.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, this will certainly cause a very severe depression in prices. There is also a possibility that sales of soybeans from southern Ontario will cease for approximately a three-month period. I would like to ask the minister if he would make every attempt to see whether there are any vessels now in the system which might be utilized to move at least a portion of the 14,000 tons of soybean meal which is sitting in the port of Toronto to the export market?


Otto Emil Lang: I am sure that the people with the soybeans will be looking for those empty vessels in the seaway, if there are any, and they should be able to make such arrangements. I hope the hon. member does agree that it would not help the situation to allow a vessel to go in, be loaded and then to be frozen inside and not be able to get out again.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the fact that British Columbia Development Corporation advised the minister's office on September 15 that they had fulfilled their obligations with reference to Trident Aircraft, and in light of the fact that up until yesterday they had not had the courtesy of a reply to their phone calls and Telex's, has the minister decided whether or not he is going to live up to the department's obligations to provide $5 million to Trident Aircraft as arranged by the former minister of industry, trade and commerce?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): My department has been in touch with Trident Aircraft and we require them to suggest that they have 25 credit-worthy applicants for their airplane with 10 per cent down, and then we will give them greater assistance.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, it would appear on the surface that the minister has now changed the rules by which British Columbia Development Corporation and Trident are supposed to play the game. May I ask the minister if he is aware of any efforts by Gruman and Canadair to take over Trident Aircraft. If so, is the department involved?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, Gruman and Canadair are doing a market survey for the Trident aircraft to see whether there is a market for them.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the great interest and concern created by recent skyjackings and bombings of scheduled airliners, I want to ask a two-part question concerning airport security in Canada. First I would like to ask about differences in levels of security in different cities in Canada, for example one can undergo a detailed-


Mr. Speaker:: In light of the time limitation could the hon. member ask his question.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, my question is what measures are being taken to monitor the inspections that are being carried out to be sure that Canadians are getting proper protection from this costly service? Secondly, would he also tell the House if any attempts are currently being made to determine if dangerous materials are being carried in passengers' baggage in aircraft holds?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the security system is being monitored, and every effort is
December 15, 1977

being made to make sure it is as effective as possible. However, I would like to have a detailed report before commenting on measures in relation to items in the holds of aircraft.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dauphin.


Mr. Ritchie:: As the Prime Minister has left the House, I will wait until tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Duff-erin-Waterloo.


Mr. Beatty:: My question is also for the Prime Minister.



INDUSTRY


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the minister has had in his possession since early November the report of the Textile and Clothing Board on acrylic yarns, is the minister now prepared to release the report and act upon it; if not, can he tell the House when he will be in a position to do so?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The report is still being considered.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. What does the minister intend to do with regard to recent revelations of an alleged active FLQ cell now in the University of Moncton? Are the RCMP investigating this matter? If not, would the minister please take steps to have the RCMP move in on this serious matter immediately and report to this House on the entire situation?


Francis Fox: I will take note of the hon. member's representations of the matters that ought to be looked into and report as soon as possible.



INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS-REASON FOR DELAY OF REPORT

Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and is supplementary to a question put yesterday by my
Royal Assent
colleague, the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth. Nearly a year ago the deputy minister of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce issued a directive on international economic boycotts stating that a semi-annual report would be published. I would like to ask the minister if he has received that report and if so, when did he receive it and will he table it now?


Hon. Jack H. Homer@Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce: With regard to the economic boycotts and the report, it is still being considered.



INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS-POSSIBILITY EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION HAS OWN GUIDELINES

Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we would like some explanation from the minister as to why a semi-annual report to be issued twice a year has not yet been issued, nearly a full year after it was first promised. Will the minister look into the possibility of whether the Canadian Export Development Corporation has developed its own set of guidelines having to do with international economic boycotts. If so, and I would like a confirmation if that is the case, will the minister undertake to make those guidelines public?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, the EDC operates under the guidelines laid down under the legislation. I can say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that there will be new legislation early in the new year with regard to the EDC and all of this can be discussed at that time.


Charles Joseph Clark: Just so the minister is clear on precisely what 1 am referring to, I am referring to the question of guidelines relating to international economic boycotts. Is the minister saying that there are no new guidelines except those set out in legislation? If that is not the case, and there are new guidelines, will he undertake to make those guidelines public to the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As I said, Mr. Speaker, there will be new legislation in the new year which will clearly define the obligations of EDC and strengthen its ability to guarantee loans and insurance to Canadian corporations.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to table a number of bills for first reading prior to the adjournment. I must admit that 1 do not have the papers in front of me, so cannot say whether this bill will be one of them; but if it is not, I will take the representation to my colleagues to see what can be done.']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows;
Goverment House Ottawa
Ottawa, December 15, 1977
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy
December 15, 1977

Privilege-Mr. Matte
Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the fifteenth day of December, at 5:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
1 have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General

[Translation)



René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege. Since the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) when answering my question took that opportunity to insinuate falsehoods, I now take the liberty of making the necessary rectifications. The Solicitor General's insinuations concerning my recent statements regarding the serious presumptions 1 entertain about the circumstances surrounding the death of Michel Viger are of an hostile character and show a reaction of panic on his part. The reasons which force me to search for truth and justice are not based on the sensationalism of rumours which would be more or less groundless; they are rather the result of a profound indignation stemming from the following facts. First, the authorized criminal action of a special committee of the RCMP which, instead of preventing subversive activities, actually sought to provoke them. Some people tell me to prove it. All they have to do is simply refer to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts which was in session here on Parliament Hill in 1969 and they will know what I mean. Second, the explicit disclosure of some of these facts by the authorities themselves, which cannot be denied, with the intention of concealing more compromising circumstances. Third, the fact that a whole nation has been profoundly traumatized in 1970, following tragic events whose origin is foreign to the legitimate aspirations of Quebeckers and which were provoked by these famous special committees whose methods are more like those of the Gestapo. These are reasonable and sufficient grounds indeed. The minister thinks that he can allow himself to cast doubt on my good faith because, in his opinion, he alone and his government hold the key to that enigma by the fact they control this famous special committee which, as 1 just mentioned, looks like some modern version of the Gestapo.
I am not therefore expecting the minister or the government to simply confess the ignominious actions of these agents provocateurs of a few years ago, we saw how a president of the United States denied vigorously some facts which were actually quite true. 1 intend to safeguard my reputation. My only concern is to rid our institutions once and for all of hatred and terrorism, and for that purpose it is necessary to go to their roots, namely these agents provocateurs who worked systematically in order to bring about the October crisis of 1970, and for the edification of the minister himself, to know
[Mr. Speaker.)
to what extent, when I am asking him what were the circumstances, his department is really aware of the circumstances surrounding the alleged accident in which Michel Viger died.
Before answering my questions, the minister should have the decency to investigate. He would discover things he may not be aware of but which can very well have happened. Because Michel Viger, whom I knew, told me himself in so many words he was a Royal Canadian Mounted Police agent, and on this I would like to conclude my question of privilege.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this government established last June a commission of inquiry in order precisely that we could have an independent body inquiring on certain allegations made in months past. The hon. member is straying enormously from the debate. He spoke the day before last and it has been reported in newspapers across Canada that he blamed the RCMP for Mr. Viger's death. The Montreal Gazette of December 14, 1977 for instance had this headline, and I quote:
MP accuses RCMP of murder.
Mr. Speaker, we have the same thing in the newspaper Ottawa Today, Today Staff:

RCMP accused in Viger death.
A Quebec MP said last night he suspects the RCMP was instrumental in the death of the man who shielded Pierre Laporte's murderers in his farmhouse outside Montreal.
Rene Matte, social credit MP for Champlain, said in a Radio-Canada interview last night that he suspected the RCMP in the death of Michel Viger

It is not only in the English press. The hon. member was well understood in both the official languages of this country. The newspaper Le Droit carries the headline:
Matte claims Michel Viger was murdered by RCMP.
Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, also in the Journal de Montreal. What I said to the hon. member in the question period is either he has or does not have information about that death. If he does not, Mr. Speaker, and he made up that rumour, he deserves to be called, as I did in the question period, irresponsible.


An hon. Member:: True.


Francis Fox: If he has information in that respect, Mr. Speaker, he also deserves to be called irresponsible because his duty as a citizen and as a member of parliament, Mr. Speaker, is to make the information he has immediately known to the relevant authorities. If he has information on the causes of Mr. Viger's death, causes which were explained by Mr. Viger's father in interviews with reporters during the day as surely being accidental, well, his duty, Mr. Speaker, is to bring those facts to the attention of the attorney general of the province where the death occurred, a government with which he has excellent relationships for that matter, the attorney general of the Province of Quebec. If he has not done so, Mr. Speaker, he is also irresponsible.
December 15, 1977


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Champlain raised the question of privilege concerning his disagreement with the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) about questions and answers during the question period. In any case, it is certainly a matter of debate but not a question of privilege. Finally, the hon. member did not move any motion. Consequently, as far as the Chair is concerned, nothing can be done in the circumstances.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the usual business question. I must preface it with an expression of regret that the President of the Treasury Board did not, as I requested, stay to make a statement on the very important program he is announcing. I presume he had an appointment in the Press Building which was unavoidable even for parliament.
1 wish to ask the deputy government House leader to confirm what he intends to call for today and tomorrow. There have been certain discussions with respect to the business for Monday and Tuesday, when it is contemplated there will be a debate on external affairs. 1 think this will be a very important debate and one which will capture the attention of the country. Is the hon. member in a position to inform us when the motion will be put down, and in what terms it is likely to be? Would he also consider setting down the motion for the adjournment in accordance with the discussions which have taken place, so that we might dispose of it and carry on with the important debate to which I have referred?


Mr. Cafik:: The first priority, and the business which will be called today, is Bill C-5, the report stage and third reading of the Canada Elections Act. We would like that bill disposed of in all its stages before introducing anything else. If Bill C-5 is disposed of before tomorrow evening, we would call Bill C-7, to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. After that, it is planned that Monday and Tuesday will be set aside for a special debate on external affairs. In addition, we would hope some accommodation might be reached on the question of the freedom of information reference to the committee. That matter is under discussion at the moment.
As far as the tabling of the motion relating to the external affairs debate is concerned, that will not be done until we have disposed of Bill C-5, but we would like it to be done as quickly as possible. In terms of the motion for the adjournment, we would also like to dispose of Bill C-8 prior to its introduction. If those two items are taken care of, we would be able to do those things tomorrow.


Walter David Baker: That is a very full reply and I should like to think we can expect an equally full reply in
Business of the House
relation to a question which was raised by my hon. friend from York-Simcoe who suggested that the government, if it wished, could introduce the important employment tax credit legislation which was talked about long before Bill C-l 1. We would undertake to deal with that bill quickly because it is such an important measure.
As well, I think it would be appropriate for the deputy government House leader to tell us now what the government intends to bring forward by way of legislation when we come back in January, particularly in terms of measures to deal with the economy of the country. I hope we shall not be coming back to deal with such things as a petroleum statistics bill. I realize that the hon. member may not have that kind of information available to him today, but would he consult his colleagues to determine whether before we leave an announcement could be made by the government House leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, telling us what measures the government plans to introduce to deal quickly with economic matters in terms of legislation?


Norman Augustine Cafik: In connection with the expeditious passage of tax credit legislation prior to the adjournment, I must tell the hon. member that I am not in a position at the present time to know what stage that matter has reached; but I can assure him I will bring this question to the attention of my cabinet colleagues, together with the disposition which the hon. gentleman has expressed.
Second, in relation to tabling, prior to the adjournment, a list of legislation to be dealt with following the Christmas recess, I might say that this matter has been discussed on a number of occasions in the context of the announcement of business for a whole session. Such a practice has not been followed in the last 1 >/2 or two years because the original reason for tabling a list of all legislation in advance was so we might be able to negotiate an arrangement whereby time would be allocated and the various bills, and so on, dealt with in an expeditious way. It did not serve that purpose, and for this reason the practice has not been followed recently. Nevertheless, I will draw the matter to the attention of the House leader, and I am sure it can be discussed when the House leaders meet.


Walter David Baker: Is it possible that the real reason why we do not get a list of legislation is that the government does not know what it is doing?


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


An hon. Member:: Cheap shot.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that last question was one which I had in mind as a supplementary, but now I do not need to ask it.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Humbug.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I get back to the minister's statement that he does not wish to table either the motion having to do with external affairs or the motion for

December 15, 1977
Business of the House
the adjournment until Bill C-5 has been concluded? I would point out that if these two matters are to be debated on Monday, notice will have to be filed in any case before the House rises tomorrow. I wonder whether he might not let us on the opposition side have copies of the intended motions, so that we can know what to plan in terms of the debate on Monday and Tuesday.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I simply indicated that if there was a disposition agreeable to all members whereby an order of the House, or something to that effect, could be made under which we would dispose of Bill C-5 by a given time between now and Friday, we would be able to table these motions immediately. That might be a convenient way of achieving the objective hon. members are seeking, as well as the objective the government has in mind, namely, to dispose of Bill C-5 prior to Friday evening.


An hon. Member:: Keep that up and you will be here until the new year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am afraid the minister has missed my point. I am simply suggesting it would be helpful to all members if we could know, before the motions are tabled, particularly with regard to the debate on external affairs, what the terms of the motion are to be. I am simply asking that he supply the representatives of the parties with copies even before that motion is tabled.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think that is a very reasonable request. 1 think the request I have made is very reasonable, too. I will take into account what the hon. member has said, and when the motion is drafted I will try to make copies available to members of the opposition parties.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, this question is very important. Such situations occur each year just before the Christmas holidays. This is nothing new; it happens every year.
Bill C-5 is very important and it interests all members of this House as well as the public because, normally, in a democracy the whole population must know the elections act since it must apply it.
We agree that Bill C-5 must be passed as soon as possible and as intelligently as possible.
However, from what the minister has just said, it appears that there might be-we are not absolutely sure about this-a debate on external affairs. We do not know what the motion will be and whether there will really be a debate. Why not tell us? And if there is a debate, why not tell us exactly what particular subject will be debated? I very much fear, Mr. Speaker, that when the motion on Bill C-5 is passed next week, if we do not know exactly the nature of the debates which will take place in the House, it is possible that a certain number of members will be absent, and we know that the weather can have a very great influence on such matters.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, it would be normal to ask the minister to specify the nature of this debate so that we can

prepare ourselves intelligently and have interesting and useful sittings.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, 1 think a false impression is being created, and if it has been created on my part, I apologize. If Bill C-5 is not disposed of by Tuesday, I presume there will be no debate at all on external affairs. This is why 1 have indicated that the motion will be tabled when Bill C-5 is disposed of. Presuming that, in private discussions with hon. members, I am led to believe that Bill C-5 will be disposed of this week, I have also indicated to all hon. members that the external affairs debate, if held-as presumably it will be-will be a broad-ranging debate which will allow hon. members a full opportunity to participate and to speak on all matters relating to external affairs. 1 have not seen the motion, but I am under the impression that that is its nature. I think all hon. members will be well guided to bear those factors in mind in making preparations to participate in a debate which may be held on Monday and Tuesday, depending on the disposition of Bill C-5.


Maurice Brydon Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the acting House leader tell us whether the government is going to table the bill on the Alcan pipeline? It seems to me this is a matter of great concern not only for the Yukon but, in economic terms, for the whole country. Can the bill be tabled before the Christmas recess, so that hon. members will have a chance to review it before they recess?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to table a number of bills for first reading prior to the adjournment. I must admit that 1 do not have the papers in front of me, so cannot say whether this bill will be one of them; but if it is not, I will take the representation to my colleagues to see what can be done.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-411, to amend the Criminal Code (pornographic displays).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, it is true that this bill deals with the subject of pornography, but I regard it as an environmental pollution control bill. It will not affect the availability of pornography in society; that is not its purpose. Its purpose is to prevent those running establishments which emphasize sex and
December 15, 1977

pornography as one aspect of their literature from displaying such material so that it is visible to the public passing by on the street.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 217, 223, 307, 315, 340, 442, 534 and 724.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Export Development Corporation and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as Export Development Corporation is concerned: 1 and 2. By tradition and as a matter of commercial principle Crown Corporations have not been required by Parliament to answer detailed questions on their administration and operation, and in the case of Export Development Corporation, the Export Development Act places the responsibility for such matters on its Board of Directors.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the General Adjustment Assistance Board and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: 1. There are no persons under contract with the Enterprise Development Board, the successor to the General Adjustment Assistance Board.
2. There were no persons under contract to the General Adjustment Assistance Board during 1975 or 1976.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Export Development Corporation obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Export Development Corporation in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: In so far as Export Development Corporation is concerned: 1, 2 and 3. By tradition and as a matter of commercial principle Crown Corporations have not been required by Parliament to answer detailed questions on their administration and operation, and in the case of Export Development Corporation, the Export Development Act places the responsibility for such matters on its Board of Directors.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the General Adjustment Assistance Board obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the General Adjustment Assistance Board in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: 1. Neither the General Adjustment Assistance Board, nor its successor, the Enterprise Development Board have obtained part-time or full-time employees from private employment agencies in any Province.
2.	See 1 above.
3.	See 1 above.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	Have any firms applied for sales tax exemption under the provisions of the last budget that cover new energy conservation equipment items and, if so, which firms?
2.	What new items have been (a) approved (b) rejected under the energy conservation equipment tax exemption provisions?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. Yes. It is impractical to provide the names of the hundreds of companies that have applied for an exemption. Many requests for exemption applied to the same product.


[Stage Direction]
December 15, 1977
Order Paper Questions
2. (a) Thermal insulation designed for pipes, ducts, boilers, tanks and wrapping materials designed exclusively for use with such insulation; wood-burning stoves, wood-burning furnaces and wood-burning space heaters, but not including fireplaces or stoves, furnaces or space heaters that burn oil or gas in combination with wood; automatic timer controls for electrical equipment which controls are designed primarily to reduce energy consumption rather than for convenience, security or to provide visual effect but not including controls designed to be integral components of electrical household appliances or any other electrical equipment; wind deflectors designed to reduce fuel consumption and for installation on motor vehicles and trailers; waterwheels for converting water power to mechanical or electrical energy and pumps and generators specifically designed for use with such waterwheels; loading dock door seals and shelters designed to conserve heated or refrigerated air during loading and unloading; and power factor correction capacitors, (b) A wide variety of items where evidence to support energy conservation representations were not received and could not be independently established by technical expertise available to the Department.
Mr. Leggatt: In each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of New Westminster by the Department of National Revenue and those agencies that report to it?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1969-70, not available; 1970-71, not available; 1971-72, $449,305; 1972-73, $514,578; 1973-74, $546,925; 1974-75, $125,396;	1975-76, $136,336; 1976-October 31,	1977,


Mr. Howie: In terms of billions of dollars, what was Canada's merchandise trade balance in (a) 1973 (b) 1975 (c) 1976?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Statistics Canada reports that: Canada's merchandise trade balance was as follows:
Year	Billions of Dollars
(a)	1973	+ 2.74(b)	1975	- 0.53(c)	1976	+ 1.09


Mr. Herbert: Did the government make any contribution within the past five years towards the construction of a tourist centre in the County of Soulanges, Quebec and, if so (a) in what amount (b) were there any terms agreed to with the payment?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: (a) Under the terms of the Government's Federal Labour Intensive Winter Works Project for the Winter 1971-72, the Canadian Government Office of Tourism contributed $80,000 towards the construction of a permanent tourist information centre at Riviere-Beaudette, Autoroute 20, County of Soulanges, Quebec, (b) The following is the proforma for the project: Objective: To give quick stimulus to job creation in the winter across Canada. Method: By carrying out the clean-up, refurbishing, re-design or augmenting with special new facilities, features or equipment, of one or more travel-tourism attractions or facilities per province. Provincial Contribution: The aim was for the provincial contribution to match the federal contribution as closely as possible (a minimum for provincial contribution would be 25 per cent of the costs of the projects selected). Costs: Were to be predominantly labour-intensive, although a minor share of equipment or capital cost could be included provided this could be related to job-creating activities. Approximately 75 per cent of the federal share of the contributions was to be made for the FY 1971-72 ending March 31, 1972 and 25 per cent in the two months of April and May and ending May 31, 1972.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, as reported by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections (with amendments).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. As the hon. members know, there are on the order paper 18 motions at the report stage of Bill C-5. an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. The Chair feels that 12 of these 18 motions do not meet the requirements of the Standing Order of the House or of our precedents, according to which amendments cannot go beyond the scope of a clause or of the bill itself, nor seek to amend the main legislation. Moreover, since some of these amendments are not accompanied by royal recommendations, they infringe upon the royal prerogative.

Motions Nos. 3, 7 and 12, standing in the name of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), seem to be defective from the procedural standpoint in that they introduce into the bill a new proposition. In this regard I refer the hon. member to citation 203 of Beauchesne's.
Motions Nos. 5, 8 and 15 go beyond the scope of the bill itself and amend the parent act, and thus would not be acceptable.
Motion No. 9, also in the name of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, infringes upon the financial initiative of the Crown and would require a royal recommendation.
Motion No. 13, standing in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mac-Eachen), seems to be irrelevant to the clause it seeks to amend as it attempts to amend the parent act.
Motions Nos. 16 and 17 are the same. However, they go beyond the bill and are not relevant to the subject matter of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading stage. They also seek to amend the main act.
We are, therefore, left at this time with motions Nos. 2, 4 and 14 which are considered to be in order, along with motions Nos. 10, 11 and 18. The Chair would suggest that the motions in the name of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Col-lenette) bearing the numbers 2, 4 and 14 be grouped together for debate, and that a vote on motion No. 2, if required, would also dispose of motions Nos. 4 and 14. As for motions Nos. 10,
11 and 18, they should be debated and voted on separately.
I invite hon. members at this time to comment on this first impression of the Chair, which 1 think is based upon precedents and Standing Orders which can hardly be contradicted.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, in so far as motions Nos. 6, 13, 15 and 16 are concerned, I believe there will be consensus in the House of Commons to give unanimous consent to deal with those motions which are put down in the name of the government. Therefore, I request that they be called in the usual manner, and when they are called I will seek unanimous consent to proceed with them at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to hear arguments from other members who are concerned about the point I have raised. 1 will recognize the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) and come back to the request of the minister.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, what you have said may be quite valid. Your Honour went through quite a list. As a matter of fact, we might be out of here by four o'clock at the rate we are going with your assistance. I believe all the matters which for one reason or another you thought to be beyond the ability of this chamber to discuss were discussed in committee.
Canada Elections Act
1 must admit that I am a little confused, as Your Honour proceeded quite rapidly. Your Honour had notes. If you had called motion No. 1 and made the objection, we might have been disposed to give unanimous consent, in spite of your objection, to allow the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) to present her motion. I do not think it would take long to debate it, and we might be able to go through the motions in that order.
I think Your Honour dealt with 14 out of 18 amendments, some of which we want and some of which are controversial. I wish I had a copy of Hansard to find out what was said about the amendments I put forward. 1 think if the motions were taken one at a time and it was suggested that motion No. 1 went beyond the scope of the bill, it would be easier. I thought the hon. member for Trinity had found a way of bringing it within the scope of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is correct in saying that the Chair had some notes which were read, but that is an indication that the Chair took the trouble and the time to look through the motions and to verify the references. I should like to refer the hon. member to Standing Order 75(10), which reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker shall have power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage and may, if he thinks fit, call upon any member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of the subject of the amendment as may enable Mr. Speaker to form a judgment upon it.
My remarks were not made to preclude the hon. member from expressing his point of view but, rather, to save time. I think some of the objections I have voiced are quite evident. The hon. member and others concerned will find it difficult to convince the Chair otherwise, unless it can be done by unanimous consent. That is why I did not want to put the request of the minister concerning motions Nos. 6, 13 and 16 to the House immediately, in order not to take away the right of hon. members who might have done the same type of work, or had dialogue with colleagues, to seek unanimous consent for their own motions. 1 am ready to proceed in a way that will satisfy everybody, and 1 would welcome some assistance from hon. members.
We could perhaps proceed by elimination. If nothing procedurally wrong is brought to my attention, we could proceed immediately with the motions that are acceptable to the Chair. We could seek unanimous consent for the motions that have been proposed on which there has been discussion. We have been told by the minister that unanimous consent may dispose of the question of their acceptability and in due time bring them up for debate.
In the meantime, the hon. member, through the Chair, could examine whatever possibility there is concerning the motion he has put, and the Chair would give a chance to other concerned members to do the same. In due time we can make sure that this legislation has been heard in all its implications and hon. members will feel they have not been prevented from doing their share in improving or amending the legislation.
800 2 7 -s I i/2

December 15, 1977
Canada Elections Act


Miss Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, if I understood you correctly, the objection to my motion No. 1 is that it seeks to add to section 13 of the act, and as Bill C-5 amends a subsection of section 13 my motion goes beyond the scope of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to correct the hon. member. I said the hon. member's amendment goes beyond the clause to which it is attached. It does not go beyond the bill, but beyond the clause.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, since the clause in Bill C-5 that I am attempting to amend opens up section 13 of the act, I suggest my amendment might be considered if there were unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no other comments I would seek unanimous consent to the proposition of the acting House leader on motions Nos. 6, 13 and 16. Is there consent? Precedents allow this to be done. It does not mean that the Chair feels it is a good habit to develop this method of proceeding, but if there is unanimous consent, the House is master of its own rules and these three amendments-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there are four-Nos. 6, 13, 15 and 16.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry; I omitted No. 15.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I suspect there may be some feeling that the government is attempting to go beyond the scope of our rules on these four amendments. The amendments were brought forward at the request of members of the standing committee, not on the initiative of the Crown. I think that should be known. We are simply trying to respond to the representations made by members, on both sides, of that committee who requested me to take this action. I agreed. I do not want hon. members to feel that the government has some self-serving objective in bringing forward these amendments at this time.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we are not questioning the motivation of the government, but we find ourselves in a strange position this afternoon, much the same as we found ourselves in on another occasion with respect to $1 items. I say, with respect, that the Chair had been given notice of the difficulties and had time to consider this very controversial and difficult matter of procedure. Now we find ourselves, without notice from the Chair, dealing with important procedural matters. The minister said there have been discussions. ! think I am speaking for all members when I say it is regrettable that we now find ourselves faced with these difficulties, without any notice.
I hope this is not going to be the practice. It does not lead to swift consideration of the business of the House. I have not had notification of any difficulty from the procedural point of view. It is obvious from the consternation of the deputy House leader for the government that he has not received any indication of difficulty. I cannot speak for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); perhaps he has. We

are dealing with an important piece of legislation with respect to which there are procedural objections. Quite frankly, I regret that very much.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say it, but the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is making a mountain out of a molehill. There is no trouble. Your Honour has done the right thing by studying the proposed motions with regard to their procedural acceptability. Your Honour has given the opinion that there are indications of unanimous consent to proceed, and Your Honour has indicated that if that is the case, you will agree. Thus, why do we not get unanimous consent and put motions Nos. 6, 13, 15 and 16 on the list of motions to be dealt with?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Not having been advised of the procedure the leader of the government suggested to the House, Mr. Speaker, 1 was very much surprised. However, following consultations with my colleagues, and because we have closely watched the progress of Bill C-5 which is currently under review and which has reached the report stage, we understand that the intention is to study motions Nos. 6, 13, 15, and 16 together. Moreover, the government leader has consulted me, as he must have no doubt consulted the other leaders to come to a consensus which would be acceptable to all members.
I understand that this may be a somewhat improvised procedure, but because the House has had the opportunity to consider seriously all these amendments, I feel that we should accept this intelligent way to proceed and that we should get on with it. But I should like to emphasize once again that this is a very important piece of legislation and that Canadians should abide by the election act when they are called upon to vote. Its provisions must be as clear as possible, because it is always the same people who never study the legislation which they are responsible for enforcing on election day. That is why I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that come election day, voters have the power and, if we want to make sure that they use this power, the people who are responsible for enforcing the legislation must be informed of it as much as possible. As members of parliament, we must see to it that the legislation is not complicated, but that it is clear and easy to understand.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be difficult. 1 understand the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The deputy House leader for the government has indicated that he would like unanimous consent for a number of motions which stand in his name. I, for one, would be prepared to support that request. I am not sure whether the deputy House leader for the government is listening.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I am listening.
December 15, 1977


Paul Wyatt Dick: Thank you very much. Perhaps we could deal with a couple of clauses which have been approved, in order to indicate some quid pro quo. With unanimous consent, we can proceed. I believe the entire debate will be finished by tomorrow afternoon, anyway. If we arrive at an agreement now, and then an hon. member opposite rises and says "no" to my motion because of an irregularity, I will not be very happy.
If we establish agreement for all 18 motions at this time, then we will proceed through the list. There will not be much discussion, except on a few points; therefore, it will not take long. At this time I would prefer that Your Honour did not ask for unanimous consent, because my feelings at this moment may be different from my feelings later, after discussion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I intervene at this time without precluding other members from speaking. Perhaps the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) has forgotten that he has a motion which is not acceptable. Because it infringes upon the financial initiative of the Crown, the Chair has no authority to seek unanimous consent. The Chair could seek unanimous consent only to permit the government to get from the Governor General the royal recommendation. Therefore, I cannot accept the request of the hon. member to ask for unanimous consent with regard to the 18 motions.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the motions requiring a royal recommendation should be struck because they have been duplicated by the minister: he has adopted my wording and is able to receive royal recommendation; I am not. The same situation exists as far as the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins) is concerned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This proves the hon. member is aware of what is happening in the motions and there is no element of surprise. I have to apply the rules. My concern is not to seek an early Christmas adjournment but to look at the report stage of the bill on which there are motions of hon. members in order to determine whether they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders. We have not proceeded in any different way from other occasions. Actually, the Chair has demonstrated much co-operation.

In answer to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) who wants the act to be clear, I suggest that the act may be clear, but when the Chair must rule on the acceptability of an amendment, it must do so according to the rules, the precedents and the practice of the House. The Chair is not allowed to pass or amend legislation but it must apply the rules and ensure that the Constitution of Canada is complied with and serves hon. members as well as it can.
I offered my full cooperation. Finally I suggested that the easiest way to proceed was to seek unanimous consent for the motions introduced by the Acting President of Privy Council (Mr. Cafik). There is apparently some hesitation on the part of one member of the opposition to give unanimous consent to these four motions at the present time. So, I return to my first suggestion which would be to proceed immediately to the
Canada Elections Act
study of the motions which are considered to be acceptable and unobjectionable, and group motions Nos. 2, 4 and 14 for the purpose of the debate, so that they may be disposed of with one vote. Later, we could consider and discuss separately motions Nos. 10, 11 and 18. In the meantime, the hon. members who are interested could meet and determine on which acceptable motions there is unanimity; then the Chair would be at the entire disposal of the House to formally seek its unanimous consent, and we could proceed with our study at the report stage.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I have just one point. I do not think this is the time to commence negotiations, because the problem is clear: certain of these motions are procedurally out of order. It is my intention, and I rose to indicate it earlier, to seek unanimous consent on behalf of the government and on behalf of members of the committee. If the House does not want to deal with these motions, then let members withdraw unanimous consent and the bill will go forward without the motions. But I implore hon. members to realize what they are doing, because some of these motions are extremely important in terms of providing voting rights, for instance, to civilians voting with the armed forces overseas. If members want to deny that right, let them deny it; but I will put the question.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse on a point of order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to hear the interpretation to understand fully the House leader's remarks. Since there is no interpretation right now, it is very difficult to understand what the minister is saying.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the minister has the tendency to speak too fast. He might want to correct that.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I can speak more slowly, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that I have indicated that I propose, in order to live up to my commitment to members of the committee, to move these motions on their behalf, with the consent of the government; and if the House decides it does not wish to provide that unanimous consent, they will accept that responsibility-but I will have fulfilled my commitment.


Mr. Scott:: Mr. Speaker, the spirit we enjoyed in the committee was one of understanding and co-operation. As the deputy House leader said, the committee agreed that the matter would be proceeded with in that manner, and that was the understanding of all the parties. The minister made a commitment which he wishes to carry out. I think we should go along with it.

December 15, 1977
Canada Elections Act


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to keep this discussion going much longer, but I am in a somewhat unique situation on motion No. 17 which stands in the name of the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins). That motion would allow the right to vote to teachers who are presently working under contract with the Department of National Defence but are still in the employ of their school boards. 1 had a private member's bill on exactly that issue in the previous session, and I have in this session.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1 am simply saying that it would be my wish that we come to some agreement and we put the motion before the House, because it is my intention not to disfranchise those who can vote.


Mr. Benjamin:: The minister is prefectly right. Amendments for which we ask unanimous consent are amendments put forward at the request of members of all parties. Some of them are for the convenience of the Chief Electoral Officer. I wish the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) had kept his seat instead of trying to impress the House with his knowledge of the rules. If you will pardon my expression, Mr. Speaker, he is fouling up the agreement at which all parties arrived. As far as I am aware, there is unanimous consent, if only everyone would shut up and sit down.


Mr. Hopkins:: 1 am not surprised we have stopped at motion No. 17 because there has been considerable discussion about a royal recommendation. However, when the deputy House leader appeared before the committee, he undertook to obtain a royal recommendation for this motion, and he came back with it, for which I thank him. At the same time, I wish to state-as has been indicated by certain members on the other side of the House-that there was good rapport among members of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. 1 have spoken to representatives of all parties on the other side of the House and understand they agree to motions Nos. 16 and 17, for which I thank them. 1 simply suggest that we should go ahead and obtain unanimous consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest a way in which we could proceed. First, I propose that you make a ruling with respect to motion No. 1 which you indicated you do not favour. The case has been stated by the hon. member in whose name it stands, and 1 suggest Your Honour should make a ruling on it. Then I suggest we proceed to debate motions Nos. 2, 4 and 14 which you have grouped for discussion.
The other suggestion 1 make is that we agree to give unanimous consent on motions Nos. 6, 13, 15 and 16, but that we leave open the right to argue procedurally any of the other motions, such as motions in the name of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), particularly those which Your Honour says go beyond the scope of the bill, rather than those which involve expenditure. In all fairness to the hon. member, he should have the right to argue the procedural admissibility of his motions.

I think no one wants to foul up the understanding which was reached on motions Nos. 6, 13, 15 and 16. If there is any doubt about it, we can carry on debate on motions Nos. 2, 4 and 14 and deal with the others later. We are prepared to debate the ones Your Honour approves. We are prepared to deal with motions Nos. 6, 13, 15 and 16 on the basis of unanimous consent. But some of the others which Your Honour thinks are out of order are motions concerning which members would like to argue procedural admissibility, and 1 believe Your Honour will give them that assurance.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with what has been suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I seem to be the fly in the ointment. Since all the other alternatives have been discussed, perhaps it might be best to go on to motions Nos. 2, 4 and 14 and then proceed to motions Nos. 10, 11 and 18. The reason I want to state that clearly, if I may, at this time, is that you have ruled against my motions Nos. 3, 5 and 7, ones about which I happen to feel very strongly. The reason I put them down in this way is that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, in a report made to the House on April 29, unanimously agreed to have them debated and the government left them out of the bill. I would like to be able to speak on them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will have a chance to put forward his argument if he can convince the Chair that the motion is acceptable procedurally. Whatever report the committee has made, and whatever the House may want to do, must be within the confines of our rules. This is what my ruling will be about. When I gave an indication of my opinion regarding these motions, I did not wish to stop any member from putting forward argument on his motion, which is the usual practice of the House and is one which I intend to follow.
It is up to hon. members to argue their case before the Speaker makes a ruling. That is something upon which I cannot disagree, so I accept the suggestion of the hon. member. 1 hope that when he argues his case, he will argue it on the procedural aspect of the motion and not on the reason for his presentation of the motion.
In order to find a way for this House to move more quickly, perhaps I can put to the House the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that we call motion No. 1 and invite comments from the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) as to the acceptability of her motion. Then I will make a decision on that motion, and after that we will proceed with motions Nos. 2, 4 and 14. Then, because they have been grouped for debate, a vote on Motion No. 2 would dispose of all three of them. Then we could come back to motion No. 3. If there are some arguments to be made, I would listen to them and make my decision; then we could proceed.
December 15, 1977

Elowever, so that we can plan the work of the Elouse, I wonder if there is unanimous consent to go forward in due ;me with motions Nos. 6, 13, 15 and 16 proposed by the minister.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, call them one at a time, please, and start with motion No. 1 as suggested.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is a matter requiring unanimous consent. The question could be put later.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, do I not have unanimous consent to put those motions? If that is the decision, that is the end of the motions. I have sought consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's words are being slightly twisted. He did not say no unanimous consent, ever; he said no unanimous consent, now. He suggested that we call them one at a time. My hope is that when we reach motions Nos. 6, 13, 15 and 16, there might at that point be unanimous consent. The hon. member is nodding his head. I think I have stated it correctly.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Absolutely correctly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Trinity has put down a motion and the Chair has indicated that motion No. 1 goes beyond the scope of the clause it is intended to amend. Unless the hon. member can argue the point successfully, the Chair will not change its mind. I invite the hon. member to comment.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will make my argument very brief. Since clause 9 of Bill C-5 seeks to amend section 13 of the Canada Elections Act, my argument is that since section 13 has been opened up, it should be possible to make the amendment I have proposed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak on the same point of order, the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) discussed this point in committee and at that time she was having some difficulty as to how she might word her motion. When I saw it, I thought, as Your Honour has pointed out, that it might be in violation of the rules. I think the hon. member feels strongly on this point, I know there will be a very brief discussion on the point she wants to raise. If we are going to give unanimous consent later on some things, I think it behooves us to give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Trinity, because this matter is very important to her. I would certainly be willing to give my consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not the prerogative of the Chair to deem that there is unanimous consent. I refer the hon. member for Trinity to page 521 of May's where it says:
An amendment which is out of order on any of the following grounds cannot be proposed from the chair:
(1) An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill, or if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration.
Canada Elections Act
1 remind the hon. member that section 13 in its entirety is not before this House. Only that portion of section 13 of the act which is being amended by this bill is before the House at this time, and in no way will the foregoing citation permit me to put the hon. member's motion to the House.
The argument made by the hon. member defeats her own point. She tried to convince the Chair that she wants to amend a part of the act which is not before the House in Bill C-5 which we are studying. I cannot accept the hon. member's amendment.
Following the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), I will now ask whether there is unanimous consent to put the next motion to the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The minister said "No."


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


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


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since the Chair has declared motion No. 1 out of order on account of some irregularities. I remember two years ago a case in the House of Commons concerning the report stage of Bill C-52 amending the Pension Act. At that time, the Chair, despite many misgivings, had seriously considered all views and ruled that the amendment presented under a motion numbered so and so was not in order and that it was not possible to put it to the House.
The Speaker had then ruled the amendment out of order and we could not go further. Now on the basis of such precedent, I think that the situation today is absolutely similar to that of two years ago and I support the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I thank the hon. member for his comments and I will now call motions Nos. 2, 4 and 14. [English]
These three motions are to be debated together, and a vote on motion No. 2 will dispose of all three motions. These three motions are in the name of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette).


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-5, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be amended in clause 10 by striking out line 19 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"agent of a registered party".

December 15, 1977
Canada Elections Act


Norman Augustine Cafik: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-5, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be amended in clause 10 by striking out lines 32 and 33 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"party, and where the registered agent of a party".


Norman Augustine Cafik: Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-5, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be amended in clause 41 by striking out lines 41 and 42 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"and not otherwise, and where the official agent".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have very briefly explained my understanding of the reason for these three motions. The reprinting of the report of the committee to the House of Commons did not take into account the precise wording that was agreed to by the committee. It is really a correction of typographical errors in order to conform with the report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Carried.

Accordingly, as previously suggested by the Chair, the adoption of motion No. 2 disposes of motions Nos. 4 and 14.


An hon. Member:: Which way?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare motions Nos. 2, 4 and 14 carried.
Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 14 (Mr. Cafik for Mr. Collenette) agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are disposed of here all the time, but it does not mean "favourably."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now consider motion No. 10 in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).


Norman Augustine Cafik: Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-5, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be amended in clause 35 by striking out lines 34 and 35 at page 39 and substituting the following therefor:
"(9) When a recount of votes is made by a judge pursuant to subsection (7) or where the results of any other recount are such that the number of votes separating the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes and any other candidate is no more than twenty-four."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Might I bring to the attention of the hon. member that this motion has a royal recommendation attached to it.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I just draw briefly to the attention of the House that this particular amendment is the result of a proposition put forward by a member of the opposition. It effectively means that when there is a required recount under the law, where the gap between the winner and the next runner-up is within 25 the present law provides that the Crown, through the electoral office, will pay legal costs up to $250 a day. This amendment corrects that. If it is within 25 votes either prior to or after the recount, it will still be covered in the same way. The government agreed to accept that amendment. It will not happen very often, if ever, in the circumstances I have described.
[ Translation]


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?
_ Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) wishes to ask a question.


Albert Béchard: If this is a literal translation, could the minister tell us why in English it reads:
... no more than twenty-four".
And in French:
. . . moins de vingt-cinq".

It is the same thing, but not the same words.


Norman Augustine Cafik: This matter was brought to my attention not only by the Chair but by legal counsel. It was looked into and a number of options were considered. In the final analysis, it was decided the manner in which it is expressed in the motion was the most accurate way we could devise. There is no difference whatsoever in terms of its effect. As the hon. member has pointed out, it happens to be expressed differently in the two official languages.


An hon. Member:: Good for you.


William C. Scott: I have to agree with that. As a matter of fact, I was the one, on behalf of my colleagues in committee, who spoke to the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) in this respect. An error can be made. For any election to be decided by a majority of 25 votes is not much, and why should the candidate be put to this expense through no fault of his own? We felt that $250 a day was not enough for the price of legal advice at this time. We support the government on this amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The minister is seeking the floor on a point of clarification, which is permissible.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I am sorry, because I do not like to intervene, but I would draw to the attention of the member who spoke prior to myself that motion No. 11 deals with the second aspect, that is, the amount of remuneration for legal fees in the case of
December 15, 1977

a recount. Motion No. 10 deals strictly with the item to which I referred in my comments.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that point. From the minister's remarks, it appears there was an implied discussion of motion No. 11. Certainly, the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) mentioned that. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that the minister and the following speaker mentioned the number "25". That is where the confusion arises. If you state that number and less, it is definite. I understand that the only person who would have qualified for this reimbursement was the former hon. member, Jean-Luc Pepin, in the constituency which he represented in 1972. This amendment would allow that if a person was defeated by 25 or 50 votes, a recount was requested, and after the recount it was discovered there had been an error in the addition-they had won, or lost, by 24 votes or less-then he or she would be covered for the expenditures by the Chief Electoral Officer.
I agree with the minister that it will not happen very often. But it has happened. I believe this is a very worth-while amendment, and I am glad to see that the royal recommendation was brought in by the minister for it.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree on the suggested amendment for reasons identical to those given by the previous speaker. I think that more and more in Canada, as the number of political parties tends to rise, we should protect traditional parties, the old parties, as possible difficulties concerning recounts will be more and more frequent. So I think we should help those who have governed this country for many years by recognizing at least this aspect that would give them the satisfaction of a recount that would not be an unduly heavy financial burden for a candidate or a party.
Mr. Speaker, even if my remarks might seem facetious, I said it very seriously as it is the only solution considering the frequency of problems and the difficulties we are facing presently at the constitutional level throughout Canada. I do not wish to include the province of Quebec more than other provinces, because in every province there are people who think differently and see Canada in a different way but nevertheless, we should at the time of general elections designate representatives of the people and then the votes might be closer. This is why the government leader included this aspect in an amendment to the elections act to ensure better protection for some candidates following an election that could be a financial burden for them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. Is the House ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 10 (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.
Canada Elections Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now consider motion No. 11.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-5, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be amended in clause 35 by striking out lines 19 and 20 at page 40 and substituting the following therefor:
"relates, the lesser of such amount and five hundred dollars for each day or".
He said: Mr. Speaker, in this amendment we have changed the limits in the Election Expenses Act from $250 to $500. This means that in the case of a recount, a person within the category in question will be entitled to receive compensation for payment of legal fees to a maximum of $500. It would be the amount of the bill up to that maximum figure.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 11 (Mr. Cafik, for Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to motion No. 18. '
[ Translation]
Hon. Norman A. Cafik (for Mr. MacEachen) Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council moved:
Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be amended in Clause 71 by adding immediately after line 21 at page 82 the following new subclause:
"(3) Section 27 of the said rules is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(16) The Chief Electoral Officer may make regulations modifying this section for the purpose of making it applicable to Canadian forces electors described in subsection 21(3), and when such regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, this section shall, for such purpose only, be read and construed as modified by such regulations." "


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to motion No. 18. I tried to get Your Honour's eye before you actually put the motion. Motion No. 18 is of no consequence whatsoever in the law unless motion No. 16 carries. Motion No. 18 is consequential on motion No. 16 which, as we have discovered, requires unanimous consent in order to be put. I think it is counterproductive at this stage, as motion No. 18 has no meaning whatsoever unless motion No. 16 is carried.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question having been put, is there consent that it be withdrawn and considered together with motion No. 16?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
1912

December 15, 1977
Canada Elections Act
Motion No. 18 withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This brings us to the consideration of motion No. 3 appearing in the name of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). The Chair has indicated that the motion is defective from a procedural standpoint in that it introduces a new proposition into the bill. On this point, I wish to refer the hon. member to citation 203(3) which reads as follows:
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
The hon. member's motion attempts to modify the clause by giving a purpose or direction to the money, which is not provided by the clause under consideration or by the intent of the bill. 1 am ready to listen to the argument of the hon. member.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if I cannot rely on this motion being acceptable, at some stage 1 may ask the minister to act in the friendly and co-operative way in which the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections has historically acted; that is, with consent and from a non-partisan point of view. I hope he will consent to there being discussion of this matter.
I am willing to have motions No. 3, 5 and 7 lumped together and dealt with at one time. They deal with slightly different aspects of the same thing. Your Honour has ruled motions Nos. 3 and 7 out of order as they introduce a new proposition to the bill. Your Honour stated that motion No. 5 goes beyond the scope of the bill and amends the parent act. They are all within clauses of the bill which are opened up. Your Honour read a citation to the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) which refers to clauses. It does not refer to subclauses. There is a distinction, as we often refer to clauses and subclauses.
These motions were put down in my name because the government did not see fit to bring them in. There was all-party consideration in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I emphasize-all-party consideration. The Liberal party, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative party were there at that time, April 29, 1976.
1 asked a number of questions in the House. The then government House leader said he wanted to amend the legislation in the way I had brought in the amendments. He said there was a private member's bill before the House that he wanted brought forward and discussed. That bill went forward to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. At page 26 of issue No. 44 for Tuesday, April 13, the Chairman said:
The next is Mr. MacGuigan's bill, restricting expenditures obtained under the Canada Elections Act to the acitivity of that party in the federal field.
There was a brief discussion. Then he said: "Those in favour of the subject matter of Mr. MacGuigan's bill? Those opposed?" The subject matter of the bill was agreed to. In the

next publication, which contains the report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to the House, the following appears on page 7 of issue No. 45, dated April 29:
Your committee recommends that the government consider the advisability of introducing amendments to restrict expenditures obtained under the Canada Elections Act to the activities of the party in its federal capacity as referred to in Bill C-362.
So the committee did make a recommendation: it made an all-party, unanimous recommendation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is really debating the motion. I had hoped to receive argument from him as to its acceptability. However, he has at least given me an opportunity to examine the three motions to which he referred, Nos. 3, 5 and 7. I might be ready to reconsider my decision on motion No. 3, but I do not see any way in which 1 could do so with respect to motions Nos. 5 and 7.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I am sorry; I did not want to get into debate. I wanted to show that a recommendtion had been made and that it may have been overlooked in the bill which was put forward. That is why I put these motions down. 1 certainly made an attempt to bring them within the scope of our rules. Perhaps I will settle for No. 3 at this time.
Motion No. 3 would introduce certain additional words at line 32 on page 14. The clause is already there; we are definitely into a subclause in this case. The clause states:
(a) all money provided by an individual other than the candidate or by a corporation, trade union, unincorporated organization or association, whether as a loan, advance, deposit, contribution, gift or otherwise, shall be paid on his or its own behalf out of moneys to which he or it is beneficially entitled to a registered agent of the party-
My amendment would provide that such money-it is the same money we are talking about-shall be for the use of the party in its federal capacity only. I do not think this introduces a new topic, though as a matter of fact there is some doubt as to whether this topic is already covered in the bill. I would point out that this is an elections act for electing members to the federal House; we are registering federal parties at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, and I am merely talking about using the funds for the benefit of the party at that level, though 1 may have spelled it out in more precise detail.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am glad the hon. member has addressed himself to motion No. 3. 1 allowed him to pursue his comments because I have been examining his request to reconsider my first opinion as to the acceptability of that motion. The hon. member is right in the sense that his amendment is directly related to the clause. It does, of course, bring in a new concept-and that was my preoccupation-the concept of limiting certain funds to federal activities, which was not in the bill. But I have come to the conclusion that since this a borderline case, I am ready to accept the motion and it can be put to the House.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I therefore move, seconded by hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
December 15, 1977

Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-5, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be amended in clause 10 by striking out line 32 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"party and such money so provided shall be for the use of the political party
in its federal capacity only; and where money is received by a"
Mr. Speaker, 1 may not be successful in convincing the House of the necessity for the course I am proposing, but I can assure Your Honour that I shall not attempt to argue motions Nos. 5 and 7. Frankly, I was hoping that they would all be accepted and taken together. I had intended to make one speech on them all, anyhow. As the mover of this motion, I am limited to 40 minutes. I shall try to be as precise as I can, but 1 wish to cover some of the history relating to this measure.
The intent of the Election Expenses Act of 1973 was that money was to be raised with the benefit of a federal tax deduction and used for federal activity of a registered party. There has been some debate on this matter pro and con. In 1974, there was a by-election in Carleton East, in the province of Ontario-right here at the edge of Ottawa-wherein Mr. Benoit ran for the Progressive Conservative party and Evelyn Gigantes ran for the New Democratic Party. The representative of the Liberals was the successful candidate but he lost nine months later in the general election.
In that election, one of the political parties-to be precise, the New Democratic Party-raised every cent of its provincial campaign funds by using the federal tax deduction. They said, "Toll it through the federal party. We will give you a reduction in your federal tax payable." They immediately moved the $100 down to the provincial party and ran the by-election. Now there was a loophole and some of us felt it was wrong. I only say there was some concern. In October of 1974, I point out, there was a further development. I quote a letter dated October 28, 1974:
Liberal Party in Ontario 15 Duncan Street, Toronto, Ontario
We Liberals now have a new opportunity and a new responsibility. Our responsibility is to broaden our base of financial support in order to lessen the potential influence of large institutions in the political process.
The Election Expenses Act, Bill C-203, stimulates financial involvement by encouraging volunteer support and small donations. To accomplish this the new act provides for tax credits. A tax credit is a direct reduction of federal income tax payable. The system must work. It is therefore necessary to obtain your support through your contribution.
In the past a donor who made a direct contribution to the party or a donation to the Liberal Union (later the Red Carnation Fund) did so with no tax benefit. You now have the opportunity of supporting the LPO up to a maximum of $1,150 and be able to claim a direct credit against your personal income tax (not against taxable income but against the tax payable) to a limit of $500 as indicated by the chart below.
Then a chart follows. Continuing:
The funds are used to pay staff of the party, provide party offices and other services that the party needs to function between elections.
A substantial share of your contribution will be deducted from your 1974 income tax if your cheque is received before the year end, payable to the Liberal party in Ontario, 15 Duncan Street, Toronto, Ontario. The Liberal party is in urgent need of your support. Your cheque is vital if we are to continue functioning as an effective party organization.
Canada Elections Act
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that this is not directed to the national Liberal party, which has its office, I think, at 305 Bank Street.


Mr. Maine:: It is 102 Bank Street.


Paul Wyatt Dick: My apologies. This is sent to the Toronto office and is signed by Jeffrey L. D. King, president of the provincial Liberal party of Ontario. He was elected at the annual meeting in Toronto when the provincial Liberal leader was named guest speaker, at a function where their federal counterparts, including the federal Liberal leader, did not come to greet them. That was a provincial affair at the time, and this was signed by a man who to all intents and purposes was provincial Liberal president at the headquarters in Toronto. In other words, the Liberal party began to use the same mechanism in 1974. I felt that this was wrong, so on November 6, 1974, I posed this question to the then House leader, as reported at page 1111 of Hansard:
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I intended that my question be directed to the President of the Privy Council. Thank you very kindly. I had no intention of demoting the minister.
I had made an error previously.
In view of the fact it has been some ten days since it was drawn to the attention of this House-
I believe through newspaper articles.
-that there has been a flagrant abuse of the Election Expenses Act, I believe an immoral exploitation of a loophole, such that provincial political party associations are going to reap benefits which were not intended, does the President of Privy Council have any intention of introducing amendments to close up this loophole and stop the exploitation of the Federal Election Expenses Act by the NDP or other political parties?
The then president of the privy council, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp), replied:
Mr. Speaker, I have been reviewing the operations of the Election Expenses Act and I think it will be necessary to bring revisions before the House. The hon. member may be aware that one member on the Liberal side, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, already has a private bill on the order paper for that purpose.
Mr. Speaker then recognized me for one short supplementary, and I asked:
Mr. Speaker, is the introduction of this bill being delayed as a government bill because of the fact that on October 28, 1974, on Liberal party of Ontario stationery over the signature of the president Jeffrey King, individuals were being asked to donate to the provincial party in the same manner-
The hon. member for Eglinton replied:
The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. I do hope, however, that hon. members on the othr side of the House will co-operate in dealing with measures to clear the order paper so I can deal with this matter.
He expressed the intentions of the Liberal party in saying that he wanted to deal with this matter, and then referred to the fact that the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) had a private member's bill on the order paper outlawing the practice of handing money which is tax deductible down to the provincial level. Then a funny thing happened, Mr. Speaker. In 1976, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, following discussion which 1 will go into in more
80027-52'/2

December 15, 1977
Canada Elections Act
detail later, made a unanimous, all-party recommendation to the government. This is to be found in issue No. 45 of the committee proceedings for April 29, I think it bears repeating that we have here all-party support. The recommendation is as follows:
Your committee recommends that the government consider the advisability of introducing amendments to restrict the expenditures obtained under the Canada Elections Act to the activity of the party in its federal capacity as referred to in Bill C-362.
Bill C-362 was the private member's bill of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville in that session referred to by the then president of the privy council. In other words, there was an all-party recommendation to the government of the day that this loophole be closed. I took a look at the contents of Bill C-5 and I had to do some stickhandling, I guess. I wanted to have the matter dealt with, so on November 22, as reported at page 1117 of Hansard, I raised the matter again. You will note that this is three years and 16 days after I first brought the matter up and when the Liberal government of the day said it intended to correct this loophole. I put the following question to the President of Privy Council:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the President of Privy Council. On December 6-
That is an error; it should be November 6.
-1974, page 11 11 of Hansard, I directed a question to the then president of the privy council, the hon. member for Eglinton, with regard to the Election Expenses Act. I pointed out that provincial party affiliates of federal parties were reaping the benefits through a loophole in that act and money taken off of federal tax payable was being taken down to provincial levels to fight provincial election campaigns. At that time the then president of the privy council said that they were very interested in closing that loophole and that private members' bill in the name of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville would, he hoped, be debated very soon. The same recommendation was made in the report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections on April 29 of last year. Why was that loophole not included in Bill C-5 presently before the committee? Why is there no provision included to cut off that loophole?
The President of Privy Council replied:
To be frank with the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, at the moment I am not aware of the reason that particular amendment has not been proposed. Presumably any loophole that may exist in the law can be in practice closed by the operation of the national political parties and the candidates for whom collections are made. I suggest to the hon. member that this is a matter which might be considered in the committee because the bill is now before that committee.
That was the committee I referred to. The fact is that it was dealt with by the committee in the previous session and that committee made an all-party recommendation that this loophole be closed. The minister continued:
It might be a matter for consideration.
How thoughtful of him!
Certainly, I will give it some thought and consider whether it would be necessary and desirable to move an amendment to bring this objective about if it does constitute a real problem.
Then I followed up with this supplementary question:
Mr. Speaker, there was a private members' bill to cover this loophole and it was requested by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in their report of April 29 of last year that the government provide for this. The bill presently before the committee is silent on this. We cannot introduce an amendment of a provision which has not even been opened up in the government legislation before us. Will the President of Privy Council take the necessary steps

as quickly as possible to refer that subject matter or an amendment to Bill C-5 so that it can be considered at the same time?
Mr. Speaker, I was in error because, of course, I have found a way to bring in the amendment. The President of Privy Council responded as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I will consider the representations made by the hon. member and whether at this stage it would be desirable to bring in an amendment, either by consent or otherwise in the committee, or have it done in another way. I still believe it is a loophole that can be closed by the national parties operating as they see fit in the management of collected funds.
Mr. Speaker, you know, I know, every member of this House knows, and anyone who is not locked up in a hospital because of mental instability knows that no party will stop using loopholes until there is an order that all parties stop. Each is afraid that the others will have the advantage. 1 have looked into the matter and I know that although for almost a year this party refused to use this mechanism to help fund provincial parties, they are going to use it now, as does the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party.


An hon. Member:: They do not need that in Ontario.


Paul Wyatt Dick: My hon. friend says that Ontario and Alberta, the provinces with the most progressive governments in the country, have closed the loophole at the provincial level and refused to allow federal parties to pass money to their provincial counterparts. The other eight provinces do not have such legislation. The legislation before us provides for the laundering of money not only to provincial but to municipal elections, and not only to municipal elections either, because just this year the New Democratic Party advertised for people to send contributions under the federal Election Expenses Act to support the socialist party of Spain. Imagine using our tax dollars at the federal level to support a foreign party of whatever political stripe! A certain political party has inquired whether it can use federal tax dollars to support its counterparts in Chile and Argentina. Mr. Speaker, this government has an $8 or $9 billion deficit, so we should not be financing other political parties in the world.
This loophole is so wide it can easily be abused, but the practice cannot be stopped as the law stands. That is why I offer these amendments. The abuses must be stopped if this government and members of this House have any conscience. The original intent of the act was to make it easier to collect money for federal political parties and for the support of candidates at the federal level at the cost of the federal treasury. The first proposal was a tax allowance of $75, which is a loss of $75 to the treasury. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that with our deficit we need all the money we can get. Why should we support a continued loss to the treasury of about a $3 million per year so that provincial parties can ride on our coattails?
If parties want to assist provincial activity, let them take the money from their own treasuries, as Ontario and Alberta have done, by introducing similar legislation. The people who want to engage in that activity at whatever level should pay for it.
December 15, 1977

When I brought this matter up in the last round of committee meetings, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Cafik) said that in 1973 the then president of the privy council said he did not mind if we were involved in provincial activity. In a moment I shall show how selective he was in choosing that quotation because the former president of the privy council stated the exact opposite.
As I have already said, there is no doubt that the three major political parties are using this provision to fund provincial organizations. This is unfair. The Liberal party in Quebec can use the federal Liberal structure to fund itself, for instance, but the Union Nationale party cannot use it as it has no federal counterpart and is not registered nationally. Neither can the Parti Quebecois. The Social Credit party can use it, because it is both national and provincial.
It is well known that federal tax moneys were used in the last municipal election in the city of Winnipeg. A New Democratic Party candidate ran for mayor and was funded by federal tax dollars. But the use of this system, laundering the money at the federal level and directing it in this way, he was able to run his campaign. That is how wide open this is, Mr. Speaker. We can fund municipal elections in the same way.


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


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, 1 wonder if I could ask the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions to tidy up one small housekeeping matter.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[English)

Norman Augustine Cafik: That members of the Standing Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be granted leave to travel outside Canada, namely, to Washington, D.C., U.S.A., for a period of up to four days while the House is adjourned, for the purpose of studying problems relating to the management of national economies in the 1970s, and that the necessary staff accompany the members on the inquiry.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour will recall that during the question period matters were raised by the hon. member for St. John's East with respect to the announcement of the details of the FLIP program. The President of the Treasury Board indicated that he would not make a statement on motions with respect to it, but that he would be making a statement later in the day.
Privilege-Mr. McGrath
Part of his rationale for following the course that is apparent under the rules was that members of the House would receive in their offices the statement that he was to make at his press conference.
I have raised this matter before. It has come to my attention that members of parliament will receive the statement tomorrow. As has been argued before, in other cases, there ought to be a statement on motions regarding government announcements.
The minister is in contempt of this House because he did not make a very short statement in this chamber on a program which is significant enough to cause him to scutter across Wellington Street for a press conference. There are rules for short replies and reasonably short question periods in circumstances such as this. I have raised this point because I feel very strongly about it. The government is holding the House in contempt by doing this, especially when members will not receive written notice until tomorrow, and the press conference took place today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Before the parliamentary secretary speaks on this point of order, I should like to remind the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton that perhaps he has a matter of grievance, but the Chair cannot recognize it as a point of order or a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the point of order of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is not proper, but I have a proper question of privilege. If I am wrong, 1 will apologize to the House and to the minister. In reply to a question today, the minister indicated that I would have the details of his statement delivered to my office. When I returned to my office, knowing the minister was meeting with the press at three o'clock, I called his office in order to find out at what time we could expect receipt of his statement. I was informed that we would not receive it until tomorrow. Inadvertently or otherwise, it seems to me the minister has seriously misled the House on this important matter. As long as ministers treat the House contemptuously, then they are responsible for delaying the proceedings of the House. Every time that occurs we will raise it as a question of privilege or a point or order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I call your attention to Standing Order 16 which says that the proceedings on private members' business shall not be suspended except as provided for in

December 15, 1977
Export Development Corporation
Standing Orders 15(5), 26(12) and 44 or when otherwise specified by any special order of this House. So I suggest that these points of order and these so-called questions of privilege which are now being made go against the right of members to present their bills or their motions at private members' business time. I say that we have been dealing with points of order or so-called questions of privilege which are strictly political and that we should now proceed immediately with private members' business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The question of privilege raised by the hon. member for St. John's East will be taken as notice and brought to the attention of Mr. Speaker. If that is agreeable to the hon. member, we will proceed now to private members' business.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)- External Affairs-Imprisonment in Soviet Union of Anatoly Sharansky-Efforts to obtain release; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes)-Export Development Corporation-Reason for financial support for Canadian Superior Oil to drill in Dominican Republic; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Manpower-Lay-offs at Labrador linerboard mill-Government action to alleviate.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed with private members' business, in the sequence shown on the order paper of today namely notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Shall order No. 2, in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) stand?


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand at the request of the government.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings, documents and agreements relating to the financing by the Export Development Corporation of a cane sugar complex in the Republic of the Ivory Coast to be built by Redpath Sugars Ltd.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion follows a reply to a question which I had on the order paper in October, 1976. It was answered just prior to Christmas, 1976. Originally, the motion was put on the order paper in February, 1977. It died in the last session and was repeated by me in this session. I should like to explain why the question was posed in the first place.
The annual Canadian consumption of sugar is approximately 100 pounds per person. Of this amount, something more than half is used by food manufacturers. World sugar production presently exceeds 80 million metric tons per annum, of which Canada consumes over two billion pounds of sugar per year and is dependent upon imported raw sugar for approximately 90 per cent of its needs.
With regard to imported sugar, approximately 800 million pounds per annum come from Australia, 600 million pounds per annum from South Africa, and 400 million pounds from Mauritius. I obtained this information from an answer tabled by the then minister of industry, trade and commerce.
The 1971 report of the Tariff Board relative to the investigation ordered by the then minister of finance respecting sugar reads in part as follows:
The price of refined cane sugar in Canada appears to be based primarily upon considerations not as closely related as is desirable to such factors as production costs and competitive pricing. It is based on formulae related to the London daily price for "free market" sugar adjusted by a variety of factors; this situation has the further characteristic that one company is the price leader and the others assume that the refiner's margin of the price leader is constant in the short run.
Resulting from the clamour over the price of sugar when there were sharp rises, a document entitled "Food Prices Review Board-Sugar Prices and Policies," dated July, 1974, was prepared. At page 6 it reads as follows:
There has been a strong trend by a number of countries to establish their own sugar industries, both growing and processing. As new developments in the technology of sugar-processing continue ... it is expected that more countries will process raw sugar, either from beets or sugar cane.
The document continues, at page 32:
The Food Prices Review Board considered that the Canadian sugar policy . . . should be based upon a broader multilateral approach ... In a world market where future supplies are likely to be much tighter, it would appear to be ironic for Canada to continue policies which put nearby sugar-exporting countries, such as Cuba and Brazil, at a disadvantage in selling supplies in the Canadian market. . .
In the face of expanding world demands and uncertain world supplies, Canada's sugar policies must not be confined by traditional attitudes or arrangements.
December 15, 1977

In 1974, the same year as the report-in fact, following it by two or three months-the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs stated that the government would be introducing a new policy. The minister was contemplating the idea of a federal board to buy raw sugar and resell it to refineries. Just after that, president Neil Shaw of Redpath, Canada's largest sugar refinery, criticized politicians for meddling in the affairs of the Canadian sugar industry. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that we are talking of the Redpath company, a subsidiary of the Tate and Lyle multinational giant. In a book published in August, 1975, also by the Food Prices Review Board, concerning the Canadian refining industry, one can read the following statement on page 16.
-most of the Canadian refiners negotiate contracts allowing them to purchase their raw sugar on a "deferred pricing" basis. Under such contracts the price of the raw sugar would-
-in many cases, not-
-be determined . .. until the raw sugar was actually used in their refineries.
In the same document it is said:
-refiners can derive their refining margin from the list prices issued by Redpath.
Redpath is the company we are considering. It goes on to say:

the refining margin received by the other refiners would not be determined directly by their own refining cost and profit expectations but instead by those of Redpath . . . This situation is quite typical of an ... industry ... in which there are few sellers.
In January of 1977, in a letter signed by the former minister of industry, trade and commerce, I read the following statement:
The general policy of the government is to leave the buying and selling of products in the hands of private companies with government involvement limited to border measures such as the tariff and matters affecting competition. This is the case with regard to sugar.
Also, in another letter from the then minister of industry, trade and commerce dated November 21, 1977, we find the following statement concerning proposals for the Foreign Investment Review Act:
These proposals were approved for the acquisition of control of Merry Packaging Limited and Holway Paper Box Manufacturing Limited by Redpath Industries Limited and its wholly-owned subsidiary, CBC Packaging Limited respectively.
I would explain my anxiety by referring to a couple of fairly well known cases that are being pursued in the courts. In 1974, testifying at the anti-combines trial of Redpath, St. Lawrence Sugar Limited and Atlantic Sugar Refineries Company Limited, an expert Crown witness testified that Redpath Industries Limited paid several million dollars more than necessary to a tax-exempt Bermuda company in which it was a shareholder. He said that the figures indicated that Albion contracted with various suppliers at discount prices for the raw sugar and charged it to Redpath at the price fixed daily in London. I understand that the case of tax evasion by the use of a Bermuda subsidiary is scheduled to come to trial in January, 1978. In connection with the appeal from the combines acquittal involving the same firm and other firms but involving primarily Redpath, a hearing was held in October of this year and a verdict is pending.
Export Development Corporation
That is the situation which led me, in October of 1976, to ask what were the terms and conditions under which the Export Development Corporation financed an industrial cane sugar complex for the Republic of the Ivory Coast. The reason I asked the question was the somewhat conflicting reports. For example, one report stated that the Export Development Corporation kicked in $88.3 million in the form of a ten-year loan, while Canadian banks supplied $21.6 million; Antony Gibbs and Sons Limited of the U.K. participated with $16.7 million, and the rest came from a $45 million Eurocurrency loan. The same report states that the Export Development Corporation gave a boost to Redpath Sugars Limited by helping finance a $172 million cane sugar complex in the Republic of the Ivory Coast. But another report in another newspaper states that a further $10 million is expected to come from the Canadian International Development Agency in the form of a concessionary financing loan.
Thus intrigued by the variety of figures that were in different reports, I asked for details. The details as supplied in the answers are as follows. On August 1 1, 1976, the Export Development Corporation and four Canadian banks made an agreement to lend $50 million to the Societe pour le developpe-ment des plantations de canne a sucre, l'industrialisation et la commercialisation du sucre, to finance a sale by Redpath Industries Limited and Redpath Sugars Limited, Montreal, of goods and services for the development of a sugar cane estate and the construction of a raw sugar factory. Repayment is to be by 20 semi-annual instalments beginning six months after completion. EDC also provided a guarantee for loans by banks up to $5 million.
We are discussing taxpayers' assistance, federal assistance, to a subsidiary of a giant multinational corporation which, according to a chart which I have with me, has at least 66 subsidiaries in just about every country of interest. I see countries such as England, Zambia, Canada, Bermuda, U.S.A., Jamaica, Mexico, Norway, Nigeria, Northern Ireland, Belgium, Rhodesia, British Honduras, Guyana, Trinidad, India, Holland, France, the Congo, Mauritius, Switzerland, Indonesia, Mozambique, and South Africa. This is the kind of company that needs federal assistance. I do not really know how much it needs, but according to the answer it is $50 million. But there is no indication as to what forms of assistance are being given by other agencies, apart from the note I read in the newspaper about the $10 million from CIDA.
1 also feel that the conditions I asked about in my question have not really been provided. Who will have priority, the banks or the Export Development Corporation? In a case such as this, what risks are we taking? That was not mentioned, and that is the reason 1 ask in my motion that the documents upon which this decision was made be provided. That is why I ask for all the correspondence, all notes and minutes of meetings which will indicate to the public why it has been considered necessary to invest something in the order of $65 million, according to the figures I have, to assist Redpath, part of one

December 15, 1977
Export Development Corporation
of the largest multinational chains in the world. Surely the Canadian taxpayer is entitled to this information.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to second the motion moved by my dear colleague, the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). There are a couple of things I would like to clarify for him as a result of my research. As I understand it, the motion before us requests an order for copies of all correspondence, all notes, the minutes of meetings and all documents and agreements relating to the financing by the Export Development Corporation of a cane sugar complex in the Republic of the Ivory Coast to be built by Redpath Sugars Limited.
As 1 understand it, the project in question is an integrated sugar complex. It is wholly-owned by the government of the Ivory Coast, a government which has committed itself to expanding and diversifying its agricultural base. In an effort to expand its agricultural base, it created Sodesucre, a government-owned corporation, to assume the responsibility for the production of Ivory Coast sugar. The country has traditionally imported sugar and hopes to develop its own natural resources to supply the domestic market and to provide the country with foreign exchange earnings from export sales. In all our dealings with underdeveloped countries, we try to ensure that they have the opportunity to become self-sufficient. In addition, we hope that they develop agro-industrial bases so that they can exchange their goods and products with other countries of the world.
How was this company established? Sodesucre called for tenders in the international market for the development of this sugar complex. In response to this call, Redpath Sugar submitted a successful bid. The bid was won in the face of very stiff international competition from firms which were supported by their national equivalents of the Export Development Corporation. The successful bid of the Canadian firm will result in the placing of substantial equipment orders in Canada and in the creation of jobs for Canadians employed by suppliers and subsuppliers.
The sugar complex is a commercial project being built because the government of the Ivory Coast has decided that its economy needs, and can benefit from, such a complex. The Export Development Corporation supports commercially viable transactions which involve exports beneficial to Canada, so it is quid pro quo.


Walter David Baker: Are you a free trader?


Gilbert Parent: I believe that if free trade benefits Canada, I would be a free trader. I believe we have to consider the over-all benefits which would accrue to our own country as well as the countries with which we are dealing.
To get back to what I was saying, by definition such a transaction involves a willing buyer and a willing seller. In other words, it must be mutually advantageous and mutually beneficial, as I was saying to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-or is it Ottawa-Carleton?


Walter David Baker: "Grenville-Carleton".


Gilbert Parent: Renfrew county?


Mr. Paproski:: That must have been quite a party you had.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: "Granulated Renfrew".


Gilbert Parent: If I can get on with this very serious topic without these remarks from my left and my right-


Reginald Cyril Symes: Get after those corporate welfare bums.


Gilbert Parent: I do not have to go after them; 1 can go after you fellows.
Furthermore, it should be a financially sound proposition. 1 hear someone coming.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have come for you.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-11, An Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to provide other authority for the raising of funds.-Chapter No. 1.
Bill C-15, Appropriation Act No. 3, 1977-78.-Chapter No. 2.
Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: May I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5:43 p.m. the House took recess.
December 15, 1977


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5 as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I think I have time left until just a fraction before 8.30 in which to conclude.


An hon. Member:: No!


Paul Wyatt Dick: I have finished the preliminary half of my remarks and 1 should like, in the second half, to document what 1 have had to say. It may be my only opportunity. This matter, the subject of my remarks before five o'clock, first arose when in October, 1973, members of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, engaged in consideration of the Election Expenses Act, were concerned as to whether or not provincial organizations other than registered federal parties would be able to benefit from the generosity of the Minister of National Revenue in allowing a tax deduction in respect of certain donations to political parties. I would refer in the first instance to page 14 of issue No. 15 of the reports of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections dated October 30, 1973. The witness on that occasion was Mr. David H. Wishart, chairman of the study group on election expenses set up by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. As recorded at page 14 the former member for Skeena, Mr. Howard, sais this:
Is it your view, with respect to the income tax deductibility feature of the bill, that a person could make a contribution to a subsidiary section of a registered party, such as a provincial section or the like, and would then be able to get a receipt for that for income tax purposes? That particular provision is on page 35, the proposed subsection is 126.1 (1).
Mr. Wishart replied:
We did not read it that way, Mr. Howard. What you have in mind is if, say, someone contributed to the New Democratic Party of British Columbia, would he be able to get a tax receipt for that? I can only read the words in the text about an election of members to serve in the House of Commons.
So obviously that witness believed that we were talking of expenses for electing federal members to the House of Commons. Then immediately following, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) said:
Canada Elections Act
Could I put a supplementary in there? Does it not also refer to a contribution to a registered party? Supposing you leave out the election altogether, and consider Mr. Howard's question from the point of view of a contribution to a registered party. Is there any limitation on how it would be interpreted if you gave a contribution to the registered party with the direction that it be transferred to the provincial branch?


Mr.   Wishart@: I am sorry, Mr. Brewin, I just do not know the answer to that question.
That is an indication that the New Democratic Party was well versed in this matter, that it had done its homework and had its lawyers there to assure themselves that they would be able to use this scheme.
The next time that the matter was raised in committee was on Thursday, December 13, 1973. In issue No. 17 of the committee's proceedings, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) put a question in a somewhat convoluted way but it is the answer that is important. The answer given by the person named in the report, who I presume is the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), is as follows, as recorded at page 7:
If the person who received the funds is a registered agent of the party, so nominated and listed by the chief agent, he could issue tax credits as I understand it. The only question in my mind concerns your mention of a provincial secretary.
Then I would ask hon. members to note these words:
I would enter a caution because the bill is couched in terms of the election of members to the House of Commons and presumably we are dealing with funds for elections to the House of Commons and registered parties seeking to elect people to the House of Commons.
In other words, the President of Privy Council is saying: "Watch out, this is an Election Expenses Act dealing with the election of members of federal parties to the House of Commons". He is staying well away from any provincial affiliation. Then a little later on on the same page Mr. McKinnon, I presume the hon. member for Victoria, says this:
Mr. Minister, in a province such as British Columbia where we have a Social Credit party, it would be to their advantage then, would it not, to contribute the funds to the federal Social Credit party and have them transfer th'em back to the provincial Social Credit party and thereby come under this tax allowance which would not be the case if they contributed directly to the provincial party? Federally speaking, they are of no consequence in B.C. but it would be a big advantage to them if they follow the way you have explained. They will be able to collect money really for provincial purposes and be exempt from federal tax.
The President of Privy Council replied:
What you are really asking me is whether funds collected for which tax credits are issued can be used for provincial elections? Is that what you are asking?


Mr. McKinnon:: In your explanation to Mr. Benjamin you indicated they could transfer these moneys between federal and provincial parties.


Mr. MacEachen:: That is not what I said.
Then after some obiter dicta he continues:
Now it is then up to the registered party to determine how it supports its political activities and we do not determine that in the law.
That is in conflict with what he had said on page 7, namely:
I would enter a caution because the bill is couched in terms of the election of members to the House of Commons and presumably we are dealing with funds for elections to the House of Commons-
And so on. There appears to be some contradiction there. The minister is trying to get the best of both worlds. Then on the next page of the report, again the hon. member for Victoria:

December 15, 1977
Canada Elections Act
1 do not wish to take too much time of the committee, but surely you are asking for laundering of money are you not, in that, the normal contribution of provincial parties will soon be challenged through federal parties so that they can take advantage of the tax concession and then back to the provincial party?
1 suggest that the use of the word "laundering" by the hon. member, a word usually used in a derogatory sense, is an indication that he was not pleased about it; and the first words of the President of Privy Council show that he thought the bill was couched in terms which meant election of the House of Commons.
I go now to page 38 of issue No. 25 of the report of the privileges and elections committee for Tuesday, December 11, 1973. Mr. O'Connor, a former member of the House, had this to say:
I believe it is the next section that restricts the tax provisions and allowances for donations strictly to registered parties and candidates in a federal election. Has any thought been given to the discriminatory effect of such a provision on provincial parties, and candidates in provincial elections, particularly in the year 1974, when there will almost surely be three provincial elections in the mari-times, combined with the good possibility of a federal election, all within perhaps three, four or five months of each other? The effect of such a considerable tax credit or tax allowance will be to encourage people to make donations to the federal party or the federal candidate, as opposed to his provincial counterpart and party-much to their detriment. Had any thought been given to extending this principle to other than federal parties?
So the understanding of a Progressive Conservative member of that committee was that this bill was restricted to the financing of federal parties at the federal level. The President of Privy Council replied:
We have thought about the effect on provincial situations. I did not feel that it would be proper to get into the financing of political parties at the provincial level.
In those words he implies that the bill is restricted to the federal party level and was not connected with provincial parties. As recorded at page 39 of the same issue, Mr. O'Connor said this:
I think that there could be substantial discriminatory effects of this section against provincial parties and candidates. I think it may encourage a practice which I am sure we do not want, which might be undesirable, that of people making donations to a federal candidate or federal party in anticipation of he in turn providing the receipt for tax purposes and then handing the money over to his provincial party or a provincial candidate friend in his area. I am sure we do not want to encourage that type of thing.
Again there is an indication that this bill has to do with elections at the federal level. A little further on Mr. McKinnon, presumably the hon. member for Victoria, said this:
I would like to speak to the subject as I recall and refresh our Minister's mind about his answer to a similar query about a month ago ... did he not think we were asking for laundering of money, that is that donors would give the money to the federal candidate or the federal party and they in turn would pass it on to the provincial candidate or provincial party, having given the tax receipt, the secret of it all, to the donor? And your answer at that time was that you would not wish to interfere in the interior workings of a party, and certainly you implied that you had no objection to such a practice. The reason I have intervened now is to ask a further question on this-how would you feel about it in municipal politics?
Again he referred to the time when I indicated that the President of the Privy Council had put his foot on the other side so that he was straddling the fence.

At the bottom of the page comes the reply:


Mr. Mac  Eachen@: I think I will repeat exactly what I said earlier, that if the registered party feels that contributing or helping a provincial organization is to serve its purposes, then we will not prohibit that in the law, and I do not think we should.
We have had no representations from the provinces in any way. They have made changes in their electoral law and brought benefits to themselves in various cases, and we just have not heard anything from them on this.
We have thought about the effect on provincial situations. I did not feel that it would be proper to get into the financing of political parties at the provincial level.
That is a contradiction, if ever I heard one.
As recorded on pages 40 and 41, Mr. Howard, the former member for Skeena, went into a long discussion about it being all right, or appearing to be all right, and that he did not think the Minister of National Revenue would look behind the receipt. The President of Privy Council replied at page 41:
If they feel that a provincial section is worthy of support, they can do that and under the law it will be disclosed.
That is not how it is working today, Mr. Speaker. Later at page 41 Mr. Howard said:
I can phone my federal sector and say: 'Here, I am going to give you $100. I want a receipt, but that is earmarked for the provincial section of the party in B.C.' He can transmit that to the provincial section: 1 get my tax deduction, but the money goes to the provincial section.
That brought the following response:


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If that arrangement is acceptable to the registered party and it agrees that it wants to spend its money that way, that is not prevented.
At the bottom of the page Mr. Howard asked:
Mr. Chairman, if, by implication, it is permissible, why do we not do it directly and talk in terms of contributions to provincial parties?
Even when Mr. Howard had the situation clarified the President of the Privy Council did a flip-flop. Mr. Howard was bothered and said so. In effect he asked why we would not be honest about it instead of hiding behind this kind of scuttle-butt.
In issue No. 42 for Thursday, April 1, 1976, at page 19 the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) introduced his bill saying how much he disliked the way they were tolling through provincial funds. I do not have time to read it all. At page 21 appears the following:


Henry Perrin Beatty: I would like to voice my support, Mr. Chairman, for the thrust of the legislation proposed by Mr. MacGuigan. One of the concerns that I have had for some time is the possibility that funds which were raised for one purpose were being channeled through to a totally different purpose.
At the bottom of page 22 I said that I agreed with the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville. At page 23 a witness, Mr. Hamel, said:
I have had a number of questions asked of me, I will not name the party, but one party asked me whether they could finance one of their similar parties in Chile or Argentina or one of the foreign countries.
Then he added:
At the moment there is no restriction.
I put the question:
There is no restriction as well, 1 understand, for people using the Election Expenses Act presently to help fund leadership campaigns.
December 15, 1977

Mr. Hamel replied:
No.
A few moments later the hon. member for Windsor-Walker-ville said:
I think that would be contrary to the spirit of the act, at least, but this legislation does not go that far. It might, however, be the model for further legislation . ..
Next we come to issue No. 44, for Tuesday, April 13, 1976.
I have already indicated, this bill was reported unopposed by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections with agreement by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville. At page 7 of issue No. 45 for April 29, there appears the following:
Your committee recommends that the government consider the advisability of introducing amendments to restrict the expenditures obtained under the Canada Elections Act to the activity of the Party in its federal capacity as referred to in Bill C-362.
in conclusion, I should indicate that this matter is dealt with in issue No. 2 at pages 18 and 19 for Tuesday, November 22, and in issue No. 3 at pages 8 and 9 on Wednesday, November 23.
If we do not close this loophole the next step will be up to the public of Canada which can call us to account in the years ahead. The people might say, "Look what those crooked politicians did. We thought they were being honest and cleaning up the election financing but all they did was sweep it under the rug."


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, in connection with motion No. 3 we have heard a great deal about the evils of the Elections Expenses Act which allows funds raised at the federal level through a tax credit to be used for other than federal purposes. We have had political parties in this country for 100 years, Mr. Speaker, and 1 think they have behaved responsibly at the federal level. I do not think accusations or innuendoes about the activities of any political party in this country are warranted.
Political parties would have to answer to the public for taking funds raised at the federal level and using them at another level. There is no disposition in this bill to do that. I would point out, however, that discharge of this motion might lead to administrative nightmares in the application of the law. It is extremely difficult to accomplish what is proposed in this amendment. For that reason, and on the principle that laws that cannot be enforced are bad laws, many members may feel the motion should not pass.
Political parties in Canada, particularly the smaller ones, that operate on both the federal and provincial levels, often have joint offices in the provinces to look after both federal and provincial concerns. In some cases the division of manpower and resources is easily earmarked-the federal funding for federal purposes and provincial funding for provincial purposes. If this motion were adopted there would be the problem of determining how much of each person was working for whom and how that could be justified under the law.
In light of the fact that our political parties are responsible to their members and the people of this country, it is recog-
Cartada Elections Act
nized that they must act in a responsible manner unless they want to answer at the polls.
For these reasons the government is not prepared to support the motion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to respond briefly to the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). At the outset I want to say to my friend that political parties are not just machines in some kind of corporate mechanism. Political parties consist of people.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is right, in my party as well.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am glad the hon. member said that, because it helps to rebut the arguments put forward by him as the sponsor of this motion.
Political parties are gatherings of people to bring about social and economic changes, as well as to promote ideas at the provincial, municipal and federal levels. The hon. member does not seem to be aware of the financing of his own party, let alone of the New Democratic or Liberal parties. I am slightly embarrassed to tell him of a banquet which was celebrated in honour of the eightieth birthday of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). That celebration was attended by approximately 2,500 people. As a matter of courtesy, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and myself paid $50 each to the Progressive Conservative party in order to attend that banquet. In fact the former minister of finance, Mr. John Turner, attended as well. Several weeks later I received a receipt in the amount of $36 for tax purposes.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Did you use it?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes. I wanted to get back from the Conservative party some of the money I spent, even if it was at the expense of the Liberal government. I am sure the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton would claim somehow that it was for federal party purposes. It was a legitimate operation, as far as I was concerned. The Conservatives were honouring one of their members, the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I think the sponsor of this motion should look more closely at how his party is financed and who is entitled to receipts for tax purposes. He mentioned only what the New Democratic and Liberal parties did, and forgot to mention the Progressive Conservative party.
A friend of mind, who is a Progressive Conservative, raises money for that party in the city of Regina. The people who give him money receive receipts for tax credits, which is not wrong. My party has published its financial reports every year since 1933. It is financed in the following manner: the great, overwhelming majority of its funds are raised by the provincial constituencies of our party. For example, the last year that I was provincial secretary for our party in Saskatchewan, we sent $47,000 to the federal party in Ottawa as our share of the contribution toward national party operations, as did British

December 15, 1977
Canada Elections Act
Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. In fact, approximately three-quarters of the funds of the New Democratic Party are raised by the provincial sectors.
When the next federal election is called, every provincial sector is assigned a quota of funds which they may raise for the federal party. Under this legislation, those contributors are entitled to receipts for the purposes of tax credits. I suspect that is the case in the Progressive Conservative party as well.
The hon. member refers to this as a loophole or something which is sinister, but this is the first time it is out in the open for everyone to see. That can hardly be called sinister, and certainly it is not a loophole. It is an incentive and encouragement for more Canadians to take an active part in the political affairs of their country by supporting the party or the candidate they choose. Surely that is healthy in a democratic society.
Also the hon. member referred to deductions for the purpose of federal tax credits which are given to provincial constituencies, as well as municipal ones. Again he inferred that this was something sinister and unheard of. Tax credits or deductions for income tax purposes are allowed by the federal government for thousands of corporations and, more particularly, for charitable organizations that are licensed only to operate municipally or provincially. If a person makes a contribution to a provincial charity, he is allowed to deduct it from his income tax. If we follow what the hon. member is indicating in his motion to its logical conclusion, then only contributions to federal charities could be used for income tax purposes. I am sure the provincial Red Cross groups and other organizations would not be in agreement with that type of legislation.
The minister referred to this as being an administrative nightmare. If this motion were to pass, I suspect the commissioner of election expenses, who works out of the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, would require at least 100 people on his staff. Their duties would involve the inspection of books, bank accounts, receipts, and the operations of 281 federal constituencies, five or six federally registered parties, and over 700 provincial constituencies. The receipts, bank accounts, deposits and the issuing of funds would have to be examined. Also there are three to six parties in every province. Their books, accounts, receipts and payouts would have to be examined. I doubt very much if the Chief Electoral Officer or his election expenses commissioner would have the authority to look into the operations of all sectors of every political party. This would have to be done in every province of Canada, which is ridiculous. I was hoping the hon. member would give up after the first five minutes of his speech.
In closing, I suggest a more positive way of improving the present legislation, the tax credit provisions. It seems to me there would be nothing wrong with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), when he brings down his budget in the spring, announcing a minor change in the provision for tax credits for political contributions. It would require a slight change in the income tax form.
My suggestion is: in the province of Saskatchewan, as an example, the provincial income tax rate is 38 per cent of the

federal tax payable. A person could deduct a tax credit with respect to a political contribution from his total federal tax first. Then he would have 38 per cent of the remaining federal tax payable which would be his provincial tax payable. That would automatically reduce the actual amount of his provincial tax payable. In other words, both the provincial and federal jurisdictions would make allowances for tax credits in regard to political contributions.
I hope the Minister of Finance will consult with his counterparts in the ten provinces. In order to include this in the budget which will be forthcoming in the spring, all that is required is one paragraph. This would make the hon. member who has moved this motion feel better. It would divide the tax credit among the provinces and the federal government. I see nothing wrong with that. In any event, even without it, the federal tax credit for contributions to political parties is one of the most progressive and advanced steps made in Canadian politics in many years since we got universal suffrage.
All our political parties on the federal level also operate on the provincial level, and in some parts in Canada on the municipal level, and it is the same money. They work together as an instrument for social and economic change. The benefits that the nation allows by way of tax credit for political contributions is a positive incentive and an encouragement for more Canadians to take a more active part in politics, particularly in the financing of politics and, more essentially, the financing of political parties in which they choose to believe and the candidates whom they choose to support. I hope the House will give this motion very short shrift.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated on division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Dick) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to motion No. 5 on the acceptability of which Mr. Speaker has some doubts. I am ready to receive arguments from the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) or other
December 1 5, 1977

hon. members as to the acceptability or otherwise of motions Nos. 5 and 7. 1 have warned the hon. member that he might have difficulty in convincing the Chair that these two motions do not bring in a completely new proposal. Although 1 accept the fact that they relate to the point of order he raised on motion No. 2, when one reads these two motions and the clauses which they seek to amend, one has a distinct impression that they bring in a new proposal. If the hon. member has anything to add to what 1 have said, I welcome his remarks.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not intend to take a great deal of time on this. I want to point out that if motion No. 6 purports to open up certain subsections, whereas the bill which was reported to the House purported to open up subsection 13.3(1), I felt that although subsection 13.3(1) states that we might be able to delve into that section, we might not have to deal with certain subsections. If I am wrong, the same arguments that you, Mr. Speaker, might be using to rule out my motion No. 5 you will use to rule out motion No. 6 because it purports to open up more than one subsection.
What I intended to do in this motion, which is connected with my motion No. 3, was to put the onus on the auditor appointed by a registered party to set out in his report to the chief agent of the party whether or not all the receipts and expenses of the party for a fiscal period were in connection with the political party in its federal capacity and, if not, what amounts were spent for provincial, municipal, or out of Canada political activities.
The party to my left has been saying that they have been disclosing this information since 1933. I thought that everybody would welcome this open disclosure which they all seem to want. Without such an amendment, this information will be buried under the carpet where the public cannot see it. I will say no more. If you allow this motion, Mr. Speaker, and we go on to the next one, I will say that what 1 said on the last motion will apply to the next one. If you see fit to do so, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it can be disposed of on division. Otherwise, you might have the same difficulty perhaps with motion No. 6.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not want to prejudge the decision, but the hon. member would have to convince the House to give consent to the motion. I take it from the minister that there might be consent to motion No. 6. But so far as motions Nos. 5 and 7 are concerned, which would open up a subsection on the appointment of an auditor and give direction to him, I believe that this would bring in a new perspective which was not foreseen in the bill and for that reason I cannot accept it, unless there is unanimous consent to motions Nos. 5 and 7.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet spoken on motion No. 7. All I can say is that if there is a willingness to give unanimous consent to it, I will undertake not to make a speech but to let the matter go on division. Perhaps that might encourage the minister and we will have the interparty compatibility that this committee has usually had.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there consent to motions Nos. 5 and 7?
Canada Elections Act


Some hon. Members:: No.
Motions Nos. 5 and 7 ruled out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready to proceed to motion No. 6? There is a request from the minister to seek unanimous consent to motions Nos. 6, 13, 15 and 16. Perhaps this is a good time for me to ask whether or not there is consent to these four motions. I know the hon. member has the right to request that the Chair put the question on each motion, but I put the question on all four, for all it is worth.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you put each motion individually as we approach them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we proceed with motion No. 6 in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) although the Chair has voiced a reservation on it?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-5, to amend the Canada Elections Act, be amended in Clause 11 by
(a)	striking out line 22 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"11. Subsections 13.3(1) and (2) of the said Act are"
(b)	striking out lines 25 to 29 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"13.3(1) Every registered party shall, within thirty days after becoming a registered party, appoint an auditor, unless the party has previously appointed an auditor who continues to hold office as such.
(2) Where an auditor of a registered party ceases for any reason to hold office as such, ceases to be qualified as an auditor or becomes ineligible as provided in subsection (3), the party shall, within thirty days, appoint another auditor."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. This particular amendment was part of a larger amendment introduced at the committee stage, and this element of it was felt to be out of order at that time. I indicated in the committee that I would bring forward an amendment and seek unanimous consent to restore that disposition in the House.
Effectively this amendment would amend clause 11 in order to clarify the requirement of Bill C-5 that registered parties have and keep auditors.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 7 has been disposed of as not meeting the requirements of our procedures. The House will now consider motion No. 8, appearing in the name of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). The Chair has already indicated that this motion also goes beyond the scope of the bill and seeks to amend the act. However, I am prepared to hear arguments from the hon. member.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I thought in dealing with motion No. 5 that I indicated that perhaps I might be able to persuade

December 15, 1977
Canada Elections Act
Your Honour or the House, later in dealing with motion No. 7. At that time I said I was only speaking about motion No. 5. If I may have a brief moment, I would like to try to persuade the house that motion No. 7 should be allowed to stand. Motion No. 7 would add a couple of paragraphs to clause 12. At page 15 of the bill section 13.4 of the act is opened up.
Clause 12 begins with the following:
Section 13.4 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:
Then subsections (4) and (5) are added, and all I am attempting to do is add subsections (6), (7) and (8).
My proposed subsection (6) says the following:
A return referred to in this section-
That section is opened up on page 15, line 30 of the bill, for it refers to section 13.4. All i am asking is that a return referred to in that section be accompanied by an affidavit of the chief agent attesting that all of the expenditures referred to in paragraphs 2(c) and (d) were made in respect of the activities of the party in its federal capacity. Subsection (2) is referred to in subsection (5) which is on page 16 of the bill. That reference can be found at line 18 of page 16, and subsection (2) is also referred to at line 37 of page 15. The subsection to which I am referring is already referred to.
The proposed subsection (7) in my motion No. 7 reads as follows:
Where an offence against this Act that is an offence by virtue of subsection (6) is committed by the chief agent of a registered party, the registered party is guilty of an offence against this Act and is liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding double the amount that was expended on behalf of provincial, municipal or out of Canada political activity.
With regard to my proposed subsection (8), I know that in the last two years all the federal parties have got themselves into what I think is a mess. I do not think it was intended, but my proposed subsection (8) says that:
Section 7 shall come into force January 1, 1981.
This would give the parties three years to rearrange their affairs and get out of the mess.
The subsections to which I have referred are added to section 13.4. In Motion No. 5 there was a more difficult point which I had to get around because in that case we were dealing with subsection 13.3(1). That was called a subsection. In this case section 1 3.4 is to be amended, so a whole section has been opened up and not a subsection. I believe if Your Honour reads the quote which Your Honour read earlier when dealing with the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), Your Honour would find that this talks about section and not subsection. Therefore, I think there is a considerable difference. In that case the motion opened up and specified a subsection. This motion deals with a section.
If Your Honour sees fit I intend to apply the speech I made on motion No. 5 to Motion No. 7, and I will sit down and let the matter go on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member really has made his speech on this amendment. I do not know how he can apply his remarks to the work of returning officers.


Paul Wyatt Dick: We are on motion No. 7.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We are on motion No. 8. Motion No. 7 was ruled out of order.


Paul Wyatt Dick: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was not allowed to speak on motion No. 7. I spoke on motion No. 5.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions Nos. 5 and 7 are ruled out of order.


Paul Wyatt Dick: But there is a distinction because one refers to subsections.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In his most recent remarks the hon. member did refer to motion No. 7, but 1 thought his main argument referred to motion No. 8. However, I must tell him that as far as motion No. 7 is concerned we almost have a double decision. It has been ruled out of order.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, on motion No. 8 1 can say that the Chair is absolutely right that it has to be ruled out of order. I thought there might have been some predisposition on the part of the minister that we would move into a new era of politics, as has been done in the major provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia where the officials at the polls represent two different political interests. This clause is copied directly from one of the provincial acts and I know it would cause the Chief Electoral Officer and all his representatives in the ridings more trouble than any other section, but all I am doing is seeking unanimous consent. I would need to have it in this case. There is no doubt that it is absolutely out of order unless there is unanimous consent. I wonder if the minister would consider giving his consent on this matter.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the members of my party would be willing to give their unanimous consent if Your Honour were disposed to ask the House for it. We would agree to allowing the motion to be debated and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) has made a request for unanimous consent with regard to Motion No.-


An hon. Member:: Number 7.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, motion No. 7 is out of order. We are dealing with motion No. 8. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The minister says no and again does not want to co-operate.
Motion No. 8 (Mr. Dick) ruled out of order.
December 15, 1977


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent the House will proceed at this time to motion No. 9 (Mr. Dick), but by the remarks of the hon. member earlier this afternoon he has agreed that on motion No. 9 a Crown recommendation would be involved.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Withdraw.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is not questioning the decision of the Chair, so the motion cannot be considered.
It is withdrawn by the hon. member.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Dick) withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House having dealt with motions Nos. 10 and 11 the House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 12 appearing in the name of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). Again 1 refer the hon. member to my initial reaction to his motion this afternoon.
The motion seems to me to be defective from a procedural standpoint. It introduces a new proposition to the bill, and taking into account many references, past precedents and, in particular, a reference to Beauchesne citation 203(3), it cannot be accepted. However, I am ready to listen to the hon. member's comments.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, this matter is referred to at page 41 of the bill inclause 39(61 )(1) and then later 39(61)(4). Now, as in the case of my motion No. 3 where after reconsideration it was found acceptable because it was qualifying what was in existence and we are amending that section already. This situation is identical. We are explaining how the poll clerks and the district returning officers are to be paid. To my mind it would have been better to have included what would have been section 29 which was a proposal I had under motion No. 8. This was out of order because the minister would not co-operate or have a fair debate on it.
In this specific instance I am asking that the subsection as amended continue, but after it says "allowances attributable to polling stations that are payable to deputy returning officers" to continue with " . . . deputy returning officers who shall be appointed by the candidate at the election who represents the political interest of the government of the day"-which would be the Liberals in this case-and then the words "and poll clerks". All I do is qualify the clerk by saying "who are appointed by the party whose candidate had the highest or second highest number of votes in the preceding election and who are of a political interest other than the political interest represented by the government of the day". Then to continue on with the bill. This is not as tidy as amending section 29, but it is perfectly in order because it describes and section 29 has to be read in conjunction with section 29(4). For interpretation of statutes you have to read sections with sections and you have to read the whole act together for clarity. This is not a new idea, the poll clerks are there, the DROs are there and they are going to be paid. I am suggesting that they assist in
Canada Elections Act
the qualifications in the appointment. It is a modern concept which has been adopted in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. It would be a beneficial amendment with the result that the Canadian public would feel there was a more just and fair system.
I stand by your ruling whatever it may be and I hope you understand the qualifications which I have here are of the same nature as motion No. 3, and they are really not introducing anything different in substance. If you do not rule in my favour, I might be able to seek unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do see the objective of fairness the hon. member is trying to reach and if I do use his own words, a concept. And I will just add a new concept that he is trying to bring. While we have a clause that is to set a tariff for those electoral officers, setting effective dates and obtaining the authority for the issuing of warrants to pay these people, the hon. member is taking advantage of a clause that only adds a new concept in which he believes. With that I do not agree. Procedurally this cannot be acceptable. It could be acceptable with unanimous consent of the House and I am seeking unanimous consent at the request of the hon. member.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I accept your ruling and ask for unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to proceed with the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Motion No. 12 (Mr. Dick) ruled out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to consideration of motion No. 13. The hon. minister knows motion No. 13 does not on its own meet the requirement of our rules or standing orders.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, in order to fulfil our commitments as a government to members of the committee who studied this bill, I seek unanimous consent to put motion No. 13.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I do make the request, 1 would bring to the attention of the House that motion No. 13 is accompanied by a recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General to meet that requirement. Is there unanimous consent to give consideration to this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that 1 would not be as obstreperous as the minister and would consent to give some indication that there is co-operation from some sides of the House.


Norman Augustine Cafik: In dealing with motion No. 13 I would like to indicate-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. minister is ready to comment on the motion, I have to put it to the House. There being unanimous consent, Mr. Cafik (for Mr. Mac-

December 15, 1977
Canada Elections Act
Eachen), seconded by Miss Begin, moves that Bill C-5 be amended as follows:
Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-5, to amend the Canada Elections Act, be amended in Clause 40 by adding immediately after line 21 at page 44 the following new subclause:
(3) The Chief Electoral Officer shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable after receipt by him of all returns in respect of election expenses required by section 63 of the Canada Elections Act to be transmitted to him in relation to the first general election to which section 61.1 of that Act applies, make a report to the Speaker of the House of Commons relating to the election expenses of candidates, and that report shall stand referred to the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Privileges and Elections for consideration of the appropriateness of the limitation of election expenses of candidates provided in section 61.1 of the Canada Elections Act."


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, before commenting specifically on the bill 1 note that every time unanimous consent is sought and I have withheld, it has been drawn to the attention of the House. That does not embarrass me in the very least. The fact of the matter is in terms of co-operation 1 think all hon. members who would be honest with themselves would agree that in passing this bill through the committee no one could have been more co-operative than 1. 1 have taken many steps in order to deal with this bill in a way that suits the disposition of the committee. This particular amendment in motion No. 13 is a further reflection of that disposition.
The motion provides that the Chief Electoral Officer, when making a report on election expenses of candidates at the first general election to which the amended Canada Election Act applies, that the Election Expenses Act contain such a provision to do the same thing in respect of candidates as it does in respect to parties. It is an amendment to make the provisions symmetrical and obtain a report from the Chief Electoral Officer as to the adequacy of the provisions of electoral levels for both parties and candidates.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? Motion No. 13 (Mr. MacEachen), agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House is now scheduled to consider motion No. 15, on which there is hesitation by the Chair because this motion also goes beyond the scope of the bill as it attempts to amend the parent act. The hon. minister admits that this is so, but also requests the consent of the House to proceed with the motion.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, this matter was not dealt with fully in committee. It was discussed on one occasion by one member who did not come back to the committee. I have gone through all the proceedings. It was not indicated in any of the minutes that the minister was requested to come back with this motion or anything of this nature. Since what this motion effectively tries to do is undo something which is before the courts at the present time, I think we should wait until we have the court decision. For that reason, I withhold unanimous consent.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, this amendment posed by the minister for which he seeks unanimous consent is part of a further commitment he made to political parties on the ad hoc

committee. The representatives from the member's own party on that committee were party to the request to the minister for this amendment. The impression in committee was that we could take it for granted there would be unanimous consent for the motion to be presented for debate.
I wish the hon. member who is threatening to withhold unanimous consent would reconsider and consult with the representatives of his own party on this matter. An all-party committee discussed this matter with the officials of the minister and the Chief Electoral Officer. This amendment is the result of this discussion. Surely we should at least have an opportunity to discuss this in the House. I plead with the hon. member to provide unanimous consent for us to deal with it.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I would say that the government is not married to this amendment. It is being brought forward only because of our co-operative disposition in trying to achieve objectives that we felt were in the minds of the members opposite. If there is not a disposition to give unanimous consent, the government will not be particularly aggrieved. We are simply trying to accommodate the will of the opposition in light of the fact that this bill affects every member of parliament. We are not trying to deal with it in a partisan way.
I would make one further point. As to the impact of this amendment on any matters that are before the court, they are totally irrelevant. It has no impact on that question whatsoever. Quite evidently, the government is not married to this proposition. It is prepared to support it if members opposite would like it to be supported in order that we may accommodate the disposition of such matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe I am the only member of the House who is actually a member of this ad hoc all-party committee which meets under the chairmanship of the Chief Electoral Officer. We have had a number of discussions on the Roche case, as it has been called. These are the amendments which we came up with and proposed to the government.
While the minister may be correct in saying that the government is not married to these amendments, I can assure hon. members that the political party organizations which exist in Canada are married to these amendments. We regard them as absolutely vital if we are to fight the next election campaign under the election expenses law.
The result of what happened in the Roche case makes it perfectly clear that the meaning of the concepts envisaged in the Election Expenses Act absolutely fall to the ground if anybody can come in and do the kind of thing that was done in that case. Therefore, it would put all organized political parties which have indicated a willingness to abide by the Election Expenses Act into an almost impossible position. That is why we came up with these two additional clauses. That is why I believe the government accepted the recommendation.
December 15, 1977

I might say that the government had a different kind of proposal, but when it saw what we came up with it backed off its own and went ahead with the one that the all-party ad hoc committee proposed. I would ask hon. members to give unanimous consent to allow this to go forward.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I have sat on the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections since 1973. In preparation for the debate on this bill, I read through each one of the minutes.
I find in issue No. 1 for Tuesday, November 8, and Wednesday, November 16, 1977, that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) queried Mr. J. O. Gorman on pages 18, 19, 20 and 21 about this topic. On pages 18 and 19 of issue No. 2 of the committee I asked something about this.
It is also referred to in issue No. 3 at pages 17 and 18 where the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) discussed this with Mr. Hamel, putting two different types of examples. The Chief Electoral Officer indicated one would be caught by the act as it existed and one would be legal as the act existed. I remember in 1973 we asked that there be a defence allowed in that act. Since the Crown has appealed the decision, I do not think we can say it is not working. It may very well be working. The Crown is sufficiently satisfied that there was a wrong decision at the lower court and that they had a strong enough case to make an appeal.


John Mercer Reid: Not the Crown, the Commissioner for Election Expenses.


Paul Wyatt Dick: All right, the Commissioner for Election Expenses. I thought that was an agency of the Crown. On that ground, and because of the lack of co-operation 1 have had from the minister, I feel this is a minor thing and I will withhold my consent on this occasion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Shame!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may say a word on this same point of order. I hope I can suggest something that might bring peace. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) is not prepared to give the necessary consent to proceed with this motion. However, it has come out of the debate that has taken place that there have been discussions among the representatives of all the parties, including his own, of which he was not aware. I wonder whether there is some way we can stand this matter so that there can be discussions overnight and we can deal with it tomorrow.
Let me right away say this, and 1 invite the attention to this of the deputy government House leader. 1 realize that one of the concerns about not getting this bill through the report stage tonight and having to finish the report stage tomorrow is that some members might not be willing to proceed with third reading tomorrow. I want to give the undertaking on behalf of this party that if this report stage is stood over until tomorrow so that we can conclude it then, we will agree to proceed with third reading tomorrow.
Canada Elections Act
We may get no further tomorrow than we can get tonight, but I make my appeal to the hon. member for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton, not that he change his mind tonight because he has made it pretty firm where he stands, but that he be a party to discussions overnight to see whether there might be consent.
I listened with interest to the point made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), not only about the agreement of all the parties, but that all parties have a stake in it. I would go further and say that the country has a stake in any effort to see to it that a bill that is supposed to put a ceiling on election expenditures actually does it. If we do not cover this, the sky becomes the limit.
1 do not blame you, Sir, for getting to the point in your chair, that indicates you want me not to get into the substance.
I shall get back to the procedure.
I make an appeal to the House to let this motion stand. We could then go on to motion No. 16 and continue the report stage of this bill tomorrow on the understanding, as far as we are concerned, that third reading will also be proceeded with tomorrow.


Walter David Baker: I want to make it clear that it is agreeable to us that third reading should be completed immediately following the report stage consideration. I say this so that the deputy government House leader, when considering the suggestion made to him by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), might understand the position we are prepared to take. I hope the hon. gentleman will consider standing the motion on the basis of that undertaking.


Norman Augustine Cafik: If my understanding of what has been said is accurate we would be quite prepared to agree to standing this motion. However, 1 should like to make sure that my understanding is accurate: there would be an agreement of the House, now, which would allow us to proceed to third reading of this bill tomorrow and to complete third reading tomorrow. If that is the case I am quite prepared to allow motion No. 15 to stand in order to allow the party opposite to consider its position with regard to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The way to evil being paved with half measures perhaps we should make it an order of the House that, notwithstanding deferral of consideration of motion 15 and the completion of the report stage, tomorrow the House would proceed to the adoption of the bill without further delay, completing all its stages.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is the proposition I was making and you are perfectly right in including in that House order that proceedings on the bill should be concluded tomorrow-that Bill C-5 be passed through all stages before the private members' hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There seems to be agreement. Unless somebody expresses a contrary view, it is so ordered. Motion 15 is accordingly allowed to stand.

December 15, 1977
Canada Elections Act
Motion No. 15 (Mr. MacEachen) stood.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Elouse will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 16 in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister, and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). This is a motion to which the Royal recommendation is attached. The Chair had reservations as to the procedural acceptability of this motion since it went beyond the scope of the bill and was not relative to the subject matter of the measure as debated on second reading. Nevertheless, since there have been indications that the House might be prepared to give consent I will allow the minister to proceed.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment was considered to be put out of order at committee stage. The government agreed at that time that it was out of order, but in the belief that we are complying with the wish of the committee by proceeding in this way 1 am seeking unanimous consent for the motion to be put.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The essence of this motion was originally conceived by a subcommittee consisting of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins), and myself. A recommendation along those lines was made in April, 1976. I thought it was a very worth-while proposition even though the government failed to put forward its legislation properly on the first occasion. I would certainly like to see this motion adopted and will give my consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will put the motion to the House but in doing so I might mention that since motion No. 18 is consequential upon motion No. 16 a negative decision on motion No. 16 would dispose of both motions.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) I move:
Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-5, to amend the Canada Elections Act, be amended by adding immediately after line 37 at page 81 the following new Clause:
"70.1 Section 21 of the said Rules is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(3) Every civilian who is
(a)	employed outside Canada by the Canadian Forces as a teacher in a Canadian Forces school or as administrative support staff for such school, and
(b)	qualified under the Act as an elector,
is a Canadian Forces elector qualified and entitled to vote under these Rules."
A number of representations have been received in connection with this question. Teachers working for National Defence headquarters on bases abroad are not at present allowed to vote, whereas members of the Armed Forces are. Representations have been made on this point by the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East as well as bv other hon. members. I myself met with representatives of the Teachers' Federation while this bill was going through committee and indicated that the government was completely in agree-

ment with proposals to correct this anomaly. Hence we have brought forward this amendment not only on behalf of the government but at the request of members on both sides of the House in order that administrators and teachers attached to DND bases abroad may have the right to vote in Canadian elections.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins).


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak on motion No. 16 and I am uncertain as to the speaking order. In view of the fact that a government member has just spoken, should he not be followed by an opposition member?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have no objection. I did recognize the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East though, and it would be for him to decide whether to yield to the hon. member or not. It is the prerogative of the Chair to recognize a member when he stands. The hon. member did send a note to the Chair so I had no hesitation about recognizing him-I know he is affected by motion No. 17 which he is proposing.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: In keeping with the good rapport in the committee and having spent 12'/2 years in the teaching profession, from which members will understand that this is a serious interest of mine, as it is of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and others on the opposition side, even though my motion No. 17 has been ruled out of order I will gladly yield to the hon. member for Provencher on condition I may follow him.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins) for his co-operation this evening. I find it rather odd that I can speak at this hour to my private member's bill, this not being the hour designated for private members' business. 1 am pleased that the government has accepted the essence of my private member's bill, which was introduced in the last session and given the number C-426. I have resubmitted the bill but it has not been called in this session, and now obviously will not need to be called. It does not have a number as it has not received first reading. As I say, I am gratified that the government and members of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections have finally seen fit to end in Bill C-5 an injustice which has been going on for too long. I agree with the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East that this is an injustice which should have been taken care of a long time ago.
In view of the publicity given to Bill C-426 and the involvement of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, their provincial organizations as well as the Canadian School Trustees' Association, I think certain facts should be placed on the record.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Do I have an undertaking that I will be assured an opportunity to speak following the hon. member for Provencher?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 15, 1977


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member is directing that question to me. I do not believe it is in my power to give such an assurance; I believe that is the Speaker's role.
The present situation is one in which members of the Armed Forces and their spouses can vote in their home ridings. This has not been the case with teachers, and the argument has been that they were not under contract with the Department of National Defence and thus did not qualify as public service electors. Consequently they did not have the right to vote.
I was made aware of that fact through past involvement as a teacher. Friends of mine teaching abroad, especially in Europe, found they could not vote, so they contacted me and asked me whether I would bring forward a private member's bill which would right this anomaly. This was done and, as I have already said, this proposal was encompassed within Bill C-426, introduced in the last session on June 21, 1977.
Although the teachers we are speaking of worked for the Department of National Defence, under contract with that department, the argument has always been that they were on leave from their school boards and, as a result, when their term of service was completed they would return to the service of their school boards. Therefore they were really in a state of limbo; they simply did not have the right to vote.
We are speaking about a fairly large group of people. I do not have statistics for the present school year, but we are looking at between 400 and 450 electors; I think that is a fairly accurate estimate. We received the support of the Canadian Teachers' Federation and their provincial organizations, as I have said, as well as the Canadian School Trustees' Association.
When one looks at what has transpired one sees the government has in fact been playing footsie with this amendment. It could have amended the Canada Elections Act well before the Election Expenses Act. In a bulletin issued by the Canadian Teachers' Federation dated January 11, 1977, it is stated that they had the understanding that this topic was to be debated in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections on April 13, 1976. 1 quote from this bulletin:
For some reason they-
That is, the discussions.
-were sidetracked from any earnest consideration of the problem. The CTF president and the Minister of National Defence have both made subsequent representations to the President of Privy Council.
I should like to quote an extract from a letter from General Quinn, then commander of Canadian forces in Europe, dated December 3, 1976, regarding a bulletin dealing with the topic of federal voting rights. He had this to say in part:
-MND has advised the CTF that he would recommend that the MND support a CTF request to the President of Privy Council to again seek an appropriate amendment to the Canada Elections Act to ensure the franchisement of Canadian teachers serving in our overseas schools.
That was followed up by a letter from the then president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation to the Minister of National Defence asking him to use his good offices to bring in an
Canada Elections Act
amendment which would permit teachers under contract with DND to vote. A similar letter was also directed to the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). We have had to wait until today to see what I regard as a legitimate, just, and fair request placed before the House of Commons.
The most interesting correspondence is that sent by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), in his capacity as the then parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence, to the President of Privy Council, dated November 26, 1976. In that letter he had this to say:
It is therefore the request of my minister that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for resolution during this session of parliament. Such action would remove a serious cause of discontent amongst overseas teachers. I am sure you can understand that these individuals find it extremely difficult to comprehend why they cannot vote, when the people with whom they work day by day have the franchise.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi recognizes his own words, so that is an achievement in itself. What should be remembered is that these teachers are assessed income tax. They have had to pay their unemployment insurance premiums and make Canada Pension Plan contributions. To all intents and purposes they were Canadians serving on Canadian Armed Forces bases in the service of their country.
While some might think that this is a rather small victory tonight, I hope the amendment will carry with the unanimous consent of the House and will be an indication of our support for these teachers who are serving their country. I feel that this is an important step in the democratic process. The right to vote is their inalienable right, one that is being recognized at long last.
For myself, I am very pleased that while the government has not seen fit to pass Bill C-426, in essence this is what is happening this evening. I am therefore glad the government has approved that bill.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, as I said previously, as an ex-teacher I wish to thank members on both sides of the House for their continued lobbying and for the good rapport which exists in the adoption of this motion.
I was an elementary schoolteacher for seven years, a principal for four years, a high school teacher for five and one half years, and a vice-principal for one and a half years. In the five and one half years spent at Canadian Forces Base, Petawawa, I came to know many people in the Canadian Armed Forces. After my arrival in Ottawa I became involved in NATO and familiar with the conditions under which people work and live abroad.
What we are dealing with tonight is not an item of partisan politics but rather an item of the basic right of a Canadian to vote in a Canadian election. There are 309 teaching personnel overseas with the Department of National Defence at the

December 15, 1977
Canada Elections Act
present time. Of these, 296 are teachers and people involved in directing staff, and 13 are business administrators, audio-visual technicians, library technicians or administrative assistants. Of the 309 teachers and administrative personnel, 145 are single and 164 are married. There are 26 teaching teams or couples, which leaves a total of 138 spouses. I should like the minister to confirm that the 138 spouses of teachers and their sons or daughters 18 years of age or over will be included as Department of National Defence electors.
People attached to the educational staff of the Department of National Defence who are working abroad should vote in the constituency in which they lived before they left Canada. If this were not the case they would have an advantage that public service electors living abroad do not enjoy at the present time. It must be realized that many of these teachers are still in the employ of their school boards in Canada. Regardless of where they lived in Canada, if they are now attached to DND schools outside Canada, they are deemed to be DND employees and along with their spouses and children should be considered as DND electors.
Sometimes I think we get so involved in partisan debates in this House that we fail to see the real value of the issue at stake. I think it is to the credit of the members on both sides of the House that they have taken up the case of the 447 teachers and spouses living abroad. This does not include sons or daughters 18 years of age or older. We should actually be considering between 475 to 500 electors abroad who are Canadian citizens but who do not have a vote in Canadian elections. This is a great injustice. We sometimes hear the argument that many of these things are difficult to enforce, but there should be no trouble in this case.
Less than a month ago I visited the Canadian Armed Forces in Europe. I was told by military personnel there that there is absolutely no problem in adding these people to the voters list under the term "deemed to be DND electors." In its usual efficient way the Department of National Defence has a record of these employees, their spouses and children, so it is just a matter of adding them to the list of DND electors when they return to Canada.
We discussed earlier the subcommittee which 1 chaired last year as a member of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I was not satisfied with the decision arrived at regarding the teachers at that time, and followed the matter up with members of the House. I had a motion ready to place before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections but was told there was a possibility it might be out of order because a certain amount of money would be involved in adding names to the DND electors' list and that it would therefore require the royal recommendation.
I put motion No. 17 on the order paper thinking it would be ruled out of order because of the need for the Royal recommendation, but was pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) saw fit to set down a government motion using my terminology. As a result, we have before us tonight a government motion with the
[Mr. Epp.l
royal recommendation. It has been supported by all parties, which is a demonstration of the democracy of this chamber.
Many efforts have been made in this area in the past, but the result of the debate is what counts in the end. In concluding, I should like to thank all hon. members who took part in the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. Am I to understand that, because of the similarity, the hon. member wishes to withdraw motion No. 17 from the order paper?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation about withdrawing motion No. 17 if government motion No. 16 is adopted. As I have said, we become so involved in partisan politics that it is nice to see something achieved through unity. I am sure we all support the deputy House leader in this motion, and I hope we will have all-party agreement to adopt it this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, we support this amendment and, with members of other parties, have been involved in discussion of it. We in the New Democratic Party are happy with this amendment as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. I understand from time to time people other than teachers and school administrators are hired under contract by the Department of National Defence and other departments to work overseas. This amendment should have included those people.
In late 1973, the Canadian National Railways, a Crown corporation, had a contract with the government of Iraq. A fair number of CN engineers and technicians were in Iraq in order to advise its government concerning the construction of a railroad. Those employees resided in that country for a year and lost their ability to cast a ballot during the 1974 election. I see no reason why every Canadian embassy and consulate could not be classed as an advance poll in order that the thousands of Canadians employed by Crown corporations, government departments and private corporations who have assignments overseas can cast a ballot, as is the situation in regard to members of the armed forces.
I hope members of the House will realize that the act should be amended in order to include the people to whom I have referred. I hope this is recommended to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and eventually results in an amendment.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, in the report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections dated April 29, 1976, there is a word of thanks to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and a number of other hon. members whose worth-while bills were adopted.
There was a great deal of co-operation by all parties in that committee. A subcommittee was chaired by the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins). Even
December 15, 1977

though that hon. member and myself represent people who are resident on the Ontario side of the Ottawa Valley and our constituents are side by side, we do not always agree. All members were happy to serve on this committee and came to the unanimous conclusions which are contained in the report.
At committee stage the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) suggested the possibility of extending this provision to cover more people than just the teachers and administrators of the Department of National Defence. During those discussions we referred to MacMillan-Bloedel out in British Columbia which has salesmen in Australia and Malaysia, as well as other enterprises that have agents overseas for periods of one and two years. In fact at any one particular time there are approximately 250,000 to 300,000 Canadians overseas. It was decided that it would be just too expensive to include all those people.
The people who are overseas on government business and on diplomatic and trade missions can be included because the government is aware of their Canadian residences. We decided to deal with DND people as a block because they are required to put their home residences on a form before leaving the country.
People who travel on leave from university or on sabbatical, or people touring or working with another company overseas, would have to register with the various Canadian embassies abroad. This process was felt to be too expensive. In fact Canada does not have embassies in every country. I am aware some countries utilize this process, but it was regarded as being too expensive. For this reason the subcommittee accepted what the hon. member for Provencher had included in his private member's bill. The standing committee was very harmonious, and we reached an agreement in 1976.
As there is a military base in my riding and a number of my constituents are required to go overseas as administrative civilian support personnel, I am happy to see this adopted.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I have no personal desire to intervene in this debate, but a substantive question was posed by the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins). I seek the unanimous consent of the House to answer that question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This being a motion to amend, the hon. minister does not have the right to reply. Therefore he requires the unanimous consent of the House in order to do so. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East asked a question concerning this amendment. He wanted to know if the spouses and children of those covered under the act, namely, teachers and administrators, were convered as well. In light of the fact that this motion deems them to be employees of the Department of National Defence, they are covered in the same way as spouses and
Business of the House
children of members of the Armed Forces in the same circumstances. Therefore the answer is that they are in fact covered.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is now on motion No. 16, in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 16 (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As was agreed previously, motion No. 16 affirmatively disposes of motion No. 18.
Motion No. 18 (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to withdraw motion No. 17 and to thank hon. members for their co-operation on motion No. 16.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins) to withdraw motion No. 17?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 17 (Mr. Hopkins) withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The consideration of the report stage of Bill C-5 is now completed, except for motion No. 15 which has been stood by agreement. Under an order of the House, this bill will go through all stages and be adopted tomorrow before private members' hour. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the business of the House. There was some discussion early in the day with respect to motions. Could the deputy House leader inform us whether he put down a motion with respect to external affairs to be debated on Monday or whether he intends to do that on Monday, and also, can he tell us about the adjournment which he and I discussed earlier?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In light of the agreement of the House and the House order with respect to the final disposition of Bill C-5, I think that is a reasonable request and I assure the House that I will do everything possible to have both those motions brought in tomorrow, if they are prepared. I will do whatever I can this evening and early tomorrow morning to make such arrangements, if that can be done.

December 15, 1977
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
any news of her son? Because he is Jewish, because he wants to go to Israel or wants his civil rights?
On Monday Canada officially offered landed immigrant status to Anatoly Shcharansky.

Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, communism and capitalism are two different theories of production and distribution of goods. Capitalism has produced enormous advances in economic standards that have occurred throughout the industrial revolution. It is an efficient system which also encourages human enterprise, freedom, and mobility. But for many around the world the communist model has been the attractive one. Embodied perhaps in its noblest form in the constitution of the Soviet Union, it purports to protect the freedom of the individual, freedom of religion, of association of movement; it grants economic and social rights far beyond even the official guarantees of the citizen in Canada. It is a document of great vision which, since the 1920's, attracted many even in Canada who saw it as an enormous advance over tsarist feudalism and repression.
The story of how the Russian revolution was perverted is one of the great tragedies of human history, a tragedy whose end might even be the destruction of modern civilization. Yet so great is the hypocrisy of the modern tsars who rule from the Kremlin that they continue to hold forth their model constitution and to enter into accords like the Helsinki Agreement, binding themselves to respect the basic human rights of their citizens, with no intention of doing anything more than they happen to consider convenient.
Anatoly Shcharansky is a young Soviet Jew who wants to go to Israel. He is a Soviet citizen who stood up to ask for his constitutional rights to go to his historic homeland to join his Israeli wife who came to this parliament in Ottawa last month to ask for our help. Last Saturday some members met with 30 Shcharansky relatives, most of whom live in my constituency, who all asked our help for their relative. It was Anatoly Shcharansky who also undertook to monitor in the Soviet Union his country's compliance with the Helsinki Agreement. He did in the Soviet Union what I am doing in Canada as a member of the Helsinki Review Committee of this parliament. These are his only apparent crimes.
On March 16 of this year he was arrested, and that was the last anyone outside prison has seen of him. No contact has been permitted, no charges have been laid, no defence has been allowed. In Canada a person can be held prisoner in jail for seven days without being charged. In the Soviet Union nine months are permitted, and these nine months end today, December 15, for Anatoly Shcharansky.
Every week his mother, who is now 70 years old, visited the prison in Moscow for contact or news of her son. What part of the establishment of communism is it to deny an old woman
(Mr. Cafik.l
Today the answer came in the form of a Reuter's press release from Moscow announcing that the nine-month investigation will be continued for another six months. So much for human rights; so much for the constitution; so much for the Helsinki Agreement. The Canadian government cannot accept this treatment of Shcharansky. Human rights are international; we are one family. Mr. Shcharansky's relatives in Canada have asked their government to raise the Shcharansky case and to make a specific recommendtion on his behalf to tie his case to the Helsinki Agreement, and I am asking, for those relatives, that the government do so.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for his concern for the fate of Mr. Anatoly Shcharansky. He is in good company because no less than 60 hon. members have sent letters or made representations to the minister in this regard. As the hon. member indicated a few minutes ago, many of our colleagues met with Mrs. Shcharansky ten or 15 days ago.
The minister informed the House on December 12, in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), that he had called the Soviet ambassador and made representations to him about the Shcharansky case. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) drew the ambassador's attention to the broad concern being expressed about the case in Canada, and said that in the interests of detente and of relations between our two countries Canada would be prepared to accept Mr. Shcharansky, should the Soviets decide to allow him to leave the Soviet Union.
The government has met with Mr. Shcharansky's relatives in Canada who are willing to sponsor his admission to this country, and we would, of course, expedite his entry into Canada.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-REASON FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR CANADIAN SUPERIOR OIL TO DRILL IN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to pursue a question I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) on December 8 relating to an export development loan or insurance guarantee of some $25 million to Superior Oil of Canada Limited as insurance for its exploration activities in the Dominican Republic.
My concern is that we are using public money in a fashion which will not benefit Canadians, contrary to what the minister claims. The minister argues that this insurance of $25 million is necessary to encourage Superior Oil to drill for oil in a central American country and that, without this insurance

December 15, 1977
guarantee, Superior Oil and other companies would not undertake this exploration.
The government has a stated policy of self-reliance in energy, and if we are to take the government seriously it should be expanding efforts to explore for oil here in Canada rather than helping companies to do so outside our boundaries. The minister argues that because of this contract we might have a guaranteed supply of oil in the future, if Superior finds it in the Dominican Republic.
First, let us find out who Superior Oil is. Superior Oil Canada is owned by Superior Oil of the United States. It is a subsidiary of an American oil corporation. Superior Oil of the United States is owned by MacIntyre Mines, which owns Falconbridge in the Sudbury area. As we all know, Falcon-bridge recently announced that it is laying off employees because of the so-called slack in the nickel market throughout the world. It is interesting that, like Inco, Falconbridge is undertaking development of nickel mines in Third World countries, particularly Guatemala and other central American countries, and that the use of oil is a very important process in the development of the nickel industry. I wonder if there is not some consideration beyond merely supplying Canada with oil in this deal which has been worked out. However, what worries me most is the assumption by the minister that somehow we are going to have a guarantee of oil in the future.
If it is necessary to give a $25 million insurance policy to Superior Oil, I think there is some doubt as to a guaranteed supply of oil from the Dominican Republic. The insurance policy provides that if Superior Oil is interrupted because the Dominican Republic either nationalizes the oil wells or holds back on export permits, then Superior can claim the loss in terms of drawing on this insurance policy. The minister says on the one hand that we will have a guaranteed supply of oil. If it is so guaranteed, why is it necessary to give Superior this insurance policy against interruption of supply? It seems to me there is a contradiction here and that conceivably, in the future, because of the political instability in the Dominican Republic, we could end up with no oil coming from the Dominican Republic. Therefore the Canadian taxpayer has lost out on the supply of oil as well as the insurance in the amount of $25 million issued to Superior Oil through the Export Development Corporation.
This seems to me to be a very questionable venture at a time when we have a policy of self-sufficiency in oil. We should be directing our energy and dollars to stimulating exploration here in Canada. Also, because of the activity of multinational corporations, particularly in the nickel mining industry and the relationship that Falconbridge has to Superior Oil, I do not think that deals of this kind should be worked out, considering the callous disregard for the workers of the Sudbury area by companies such as Falconbridge and others.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain to me why the minister keeps on saying this is going to be a guaranteed supply of oil for Canadians. The very existence of
Adjournment Debate
this insurance policy and terms indicate to me there is some doubt that the oil is guaranteed.


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Superior Oil Limited, located in Calgary, Alberta, can rightly be considered as one of the major companies dealing with exploration and development of oil and natural gas in Canada. In 1976, the company achieved an ambitious exploration and development program, particularly in the province of Alberta. Their operations have set a record in 1976. They took part in the drilling and the opening of 210 wells, including 96 at the prospection stage, and 114 at the development stage. Those wells were distributed as follows: 202 in Alberta, four in British Columbia, three in the Northwest Territories and one in Saskatchewan. Canadian Superior Oil Ltd. has also taken part in the drilling of 52 wells in various foreign countries.
They intend to follow this dynamic exploration program in Canada as well as throughout the world whenever the economic and geographic situation is favourable. The company has shown a rapid growth during the past years. Therefore, its operating capital has increased from $44 million in 1972 to $147 million in 1976. It paid $32 million in taxes in 1976 as compared to $5 million in 1973. Projections for 1977 are much greater still.
Since its inception 30 years ago, Canadian Superior Oil Ltd. has accomplished tremendous technical progress in the exploration for and development of hydrocarbons. In order to take full advantage of the talents of its 440 Canadian employees, the company expanded its operations to the international scene some years ago. To remain competitive in an area that is so competitive, the company must seize every promising opportunity that comes along, both in Canada and abroad. The international nature of its operations exposes it to foreign techniques for hydrocarbons exploration, thereby enabling it to develop some technical expertise for its Canadian exploration programs. This is most significant in this day and age, in view of the increasing difficulty of oil detection and extraction in Canada. The use of the most sophisticated techniques available has become an essential feature, if we are to simply obtain oil and gas self-sufficiency in Canada at some point.
The production sharing agreement signed by Canadian Superior Oil Ltd. with the Dominican Republic is another opportunity for Canada to sell geophysical and drilling services, and if the well proves commercially productive, it will offer opportunity for selling Canadian equipment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but his allotted time has expired.

December 15, 1977
Adjournment Debate


MANPOWER-LAY-OFFS AT LABRADOR LINERBOARD MILL-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ALLEVIATE EFFECTS
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the many members who are here tonight are aware of the number of times I have raised this serious problem which has arisen in my district as a result of the closure of the Labrador linerboard mill. I raise it again tonight because the situation is worsening. It is worsening because I cannot seem to get anyone on the government side to realize that there are other industries which were dependent to a great extent on the mill and that they should be protected. They should be monitored before they fall by the wayside.
Not only are the service industries suffering, but there is now a serious effect on the retail stores and other small businesses in that thriving community. It is vitally important that, rather than accept the shock that came about as a result of the closure of the mill-and the government accepts it laying down waiting for the problem to resolve itself- increased efforts should be directed toward these small businesses which are now feeling the effects of a depressed economy.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) indicated the type of assistance that has been given by way of mobility grants and retraining programs. While it is appreciated, it does not solve the problem which exists. In a way it tends to contradict the objectives we should be trying to reach.
Mobility funds are fine, but the workers in Stephenville and the surrounding area want to stay at home. Many have built expensive homes and have established roots. They now have to pull up stakes. In many cases families will be broken up. Homes built at inflated prices will now have to be sold at a loss. Many are mortgaged and have high monthly payments which these people cannot afford.
The retraining assistance is also appreciated, but for what are these people being retrained? They are being retrained for jobs that do not exist. My district has the highest rate of unemployment in all of Canada.
Another feature of the efforts of Manpower which the minister mentioned is the financial assistance available under the emergency response feature of the Canada Works Program. However, he indicated it is premature to apply for assistance because the employees are receiving severance pay. The minister is wrong on two counts.
First, the majority of the workers did not receive severance pay, or only received a small percentage of it. Second, the minister is wrong in expressing the attitude of leaving the matter until it becomes an emergency instead of having a contingency plan in place now. What is required is what I suggested almost a year ago, a year before the mill closed. There was every opportunity to make plans, but my warnings went unheeded. It has been obvious for the past two years that the mill was ready to close and was being kept in operation only by the continuing attempt of the provincial government to save, at great cost, the jobs involved.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
The government had at its disposal every means to save the situation. The extensive area surrounding the mill, which is situated in the Harmon complex, was the location of a massive strategic air base left to the province by the United States together with many millions of dollars worth of facilities of every type suitable for the establishment of appropriate agencies of government. There was, as I suggested last year, plenty of opportunity to decentralize those agencies.
Let me mention some which I had in mind. They included the establishment of a marine training centre, the establishment of a segment of the air search and rescue operation, the establishment of a segment of the coast guard college and of a segment of the fisheries college. What a blow it was when, after a meeting on the spot in which government representatives had expressed their concern about the situation, the government failed to take any action to move a single agency to the area. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the meeting to which I have referred took place only one week before the announcement of the government's great decentralization program.
Time does not permit me to describe the advantages of such moves as I have suggested, moves which could have been made at little cost to the treasury. I can only appeal to the minister, through his parliamentary secretary and through his colleagues, to look at this whole question again with a determination to give sympathetic consideration to the needs of the small industries which still exist in the area and which are doing their best against every sort of handicap. Special consideration should be given to such industries when determining the help which can be extended through the various programs the government talks about in connection with small business.
I appeal to the parliamentary secretary to try to understand the consequences of the destruction of an industry in circumstances which I tried to bring to his attention in a reasonable way, not in the way some have approached him following the closing down of other industries. I trust the government will do everything it can to help a community in which the unemployment rate is so high and the state of the economy is so depressed.
[ Translation]


Mr. Raymond Dupont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know, department officials went to work as soon as the announcement of that lay-off reached them in April 1977. Indeed, in late April and early May the officers of our Manpower Consultative Service met on various occasions with management and union delegates as well as the representatives of the provincial Department of Manpower and Industrial Relations. Those meetings enabled the parties involved to reach on behalf of the affected workers a first agreement to promote manpower studies on May 9, 1977, to which a final agreement was added in September 1977. Under the guidelines of the Manpower Consultative Service, management and

the union continued to work as if through a manpower rehabilitation committee which the commission assists financially by paying half of the research, planning and consultation costs. The committee uses all the means available to it to help the workers affected. Indeed, it uses a whole series of public or private programs and calls on the expertise of technical advisors.
The commission allocated $25,000 under its Manpower Consultative Service to deal with the linerboard mill problem. Besides our Manpower Consultative Service the hon. member for Humber-St.-George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) undoubtedly knows that, since last April at which time the provincial government informed it that the linerboard mill was going to close down, the commission has been actively trying to help through its services and programs the affected workers and has not stopped doing so. First, a Canada Manpower Centre was opened in the linerboard mill to help workers register and make the benefit of our programs and services more readily available to them. On November 25, 1977, 402 of the 588 salaried workers involved are still registered for our programs and services; 208 were directed toward jobs; 38 were found jobs; 118 received financial assistance under the manpower mobility incentive program; 59 were recommended for courses
Adjournment Debate
under our training program; and finally, the employment applications of the 95 other workers are posted in all Canada Manpower Centres where job opportunities suitable to their qualifications might be found.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we shall continue our concerted efforts in favour of the other workers who have been affected by these lay-offs. There is hope that someone else may purchase or operate the linerboard mill very shortly. If this hope does not become a reality or if the new owner cannot hire enough of the former employees, we shall help them more through the emergency response feature which has been provided for similar cases. I want to say once more to all hon. members that all the resources of my department have been put at the disposal of the workers of the Labrador linerboard mill who needed them and all other groups of wage earners who are affected by lay-offs or the closing down of plants in Canada, and that they will remain at their disposal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, December 16, 1977