1962-04-05

Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning an answer given by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) in this house, as shown at page 1921 of Hansard for that day.
I have here documents which prove that the answer given concerning a parcel of land acquired for the construction of a post office in Beauceville does not agree with the facts.
I think there is here a prima facie privilege question affecting all members of the house, and I am prepared to introduce a motion to that effect.
On May 3, 1961, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works answered that no decision had been reached to proceed with the construction of a public building in Beauceville and that no option had been taken by the Department of Public Works, as shown in the 1960-61 Hansard, at page 4280.
On May 24, 1961, Mrs. Lorenzo Mathieu (nee Anne Marie Caron) and Mrs. Clement Roy (nee Laurette Bisson) sold to Mr. Paul Giguere lot 145, section 14, in St. Francois de Beauceville, for the sum of $8,000, as attested by a deed signed before Mr. Jean Luc Quirion, notary public, on May 24, 1961, and registered in the district of Beauce, on July 21, 1961, under No. 190162.
On June 21, to a question asked while the house was discussing the estimates of the Department of Public Works, the minister replied that the department now had a site, and I am referring now to page 6841 of the 1960-61 Hansard.
It is quite reasonable to assume that the parcel of land acquired on May 24 by Mr. Paul Giguere is the same one that the Department of Public Works expected to acquire as indicated in the reply given on June 21.
On September 26, 1961, by deed signed before notary Marcel Gilbert, lot 145, section 14, was sold to the government by Mr. Paul Giguere for the price of $16,000, as can be
seen in the deed mentioned and registered in the Beauce district on September 29, 1961 under No. 191091.
On March 19, 1962, in answer to a question, the Minister of Public Works-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member raises a question of privilege which, as nearly as I can ascertain from the interpretation of his remarks, is that the minister in answering a question was not truthful. Is that correct?


Jean-Paul Racine: The answer from the minister was not according to the facts. I am coming to the point, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has gone on to demonstrate what he says. It is not necessary to demonstrate, by producing the evidence, the correctness of his allegation. If the hon. member raises as a matter of privilege and takes the responsibility for alleging that a member of the house in his capacity as minister has knowingly given the house wrong information, that would be a matter for consideration of the house, of course. In order to arrive at the substance of what the hon. member is putting forward I wish to make sure that is the position he takes, namely that there has been a deliberate misleading of the house by the minister in the statement which was made yesterday and of which he complains, and that he wishes to charge the minister with that falsehood in breach of the privileges of the house.


Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Speaker, I am coming to the point.
(Translation):
On March 19, 1962, in answer to a question, the Minister of Public Works stated that the department had acquired a parcel of land from Mr. Lorenzo Mathieu by a deed dated September 26, 1961 for the price of $16,000, as can be seen on page 1921 of Hansard lor March 19, 1962.
Now, I have the evidence, from contracts filed with the registry office, that the person who sold that parcel of land to the Department of Public Works is-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I tried to indicate to the hon. member, it is not necessary for him to produce the evidence to prove his assertion. If he takes the responsibility of making the allegation which I have mentioned

Business of the House and wishes to base a motion on it or to present a motion to the house, then I will consider the matter on that basis. However, the evidence he wishes to bring is something he would naturally bring after the motion had been accepted, and he would present it to the house or whatever tribunal the house decides should hear the matter. Perhaps the hon. member would state his question of privilege again and the motion he proposes to move, and not deal with the details of the evidence which he would produce. (Translation):


Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Speaker, my motion is ready. It is pursuant to the reply given on March 19, 1962 by the minister. He said then that the person involved in the transaction with the Department of Public Works was Mr. Lorenzo Mathieu, when actually, according to the evidence I obtained from the registry office and which I have here, it is Mr. Paul Giguere.
Here is the motion I am introducing as a result of that transaction which enabled the last seller to make a profit of $8,000.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge), that the matter concerning the purchase of a parcel of land for the construction of a public building in Beauceville, as well as the replies given by the Minister of Public Works or his parliamentary secretary in this respect and related documents, be submitted to the standing committee on public accounts.


Mr. Johnson:: It might be advisable to obtain also information about the construction of buildings for the provincial police in Hull and look into that matter at the same time. (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Public Works is not in the house. I think it would be desirable for me to review what has been said by the hon. member and deal with it tomorrow at the opening of the house rather than attempting to say anything further about it in the absence of the minister concerned. Therefore the matter will stand until the opening of the sitting tomorrow morning.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Howe.
Third and fourth reports of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Ca-thers.
Fourth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.


Mr. R. D. C. Stewart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the indulgence
[Mr. Speaker-!
of the house for unanimous consent to propose a motion with respect to Bill No. S-17, standing in my name and reported back to the house today by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp):
That Bill S-17, an act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and certain wholly owned subsidiaries, reported today by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines without amendment, be placed forthwith on the order paper for consideration in the committee of the whole later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is in effect a request for unanimous consent of the house to have this private bill, which has now been reported upon, placed on the order paper for consideration later this day under private members' business under the heading "Private Bills". It would require the unanimous consent of the house to have that done. I shall be glad to ask the house-I should not say I am glad to ask but I shall ask-whether it has any objection to giving the hon. member for Charlotte the consent he requests.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the bill will be listed for consideration at five o'clock under the heading "private members' business".


Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask for similar consent with respect to Bill No. S-16, an act respecting the United Church of Canada, which stands in my name as sponsor.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to have his bill placed on the order paper for consideration today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Murray Smith (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, similarly I ask for unanimous consent to have placed on the order paper for consideration later today Bills Nos. S-9, S-10, S-14, S-15 and S-12, some of which stand in my name.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Is it permissible, at this time, to have the house informed as to the reason for this hurry?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure it is not a debatable matter, unless it is a reason that is obvious to the house and of which the house approves. I would just ask whether or not the house agrees that these several bills, Bill No. S-9, to incorporate Brock Acceptance Company; Bill No. S-10, to incorporate Gerand Acceptance Company; Bill No. S-14, respecting Canada Security Assurance Company; Bill No. S-15, respecting the Canadian Indemnity Company and the Canadian Fire Insurance Company, and Bill No. S-12, respecting the Reliance



I9S2

[Stage Direction]
Insurance Company of Canada, be put on the orders for today. Apart from such consent, these bills would normally come before the house on Tuesday. Does the house agree?
Some hon. Members:: No.
(Translation):



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Did he receive notice from the St. Lawrence pilots to the effect that they would call a special general meeting at 12 o'clock tonight, unless the Minister of Transport finds an answer to the problems they brought before him last February?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Charlevoix had sent me notice of the same question, I prepared an answer that might seem somewhat detailed, but I feel that it covers the present situation.
As the house knows, the Minister of Transport has the authority over pilotage in the four pilotage districts: the first one goes from Les Escoumins to Quebec city; the second one, from Quebec city to Montreal; the third one is Montreal harbour itself; and the fourth one goes from Montreal to Cornwall. From Cornwall to Kingston, Canadian pilots come under the Canada-United States great lakes program but they are members of the St. Lawrence pilots' federation or union none the less. A telegram I received late yesterday afternoon informed me that the pilots intend to walk off their jobs this evening probably in order to get certain financial and other advantages.
The dispute concerns the following points: the pilots of those districts work approximately nine months a year. The income from pilotage dues are divided equally among the pilots. Last year, the individual gross income of the pilots in the Les Escoumins-Quebec city district was a little over $16,300. After deduction of a rather large amount for expenses, their net income amounted to $14,700. That result is arrived at by dividing the total income by the number of pilots, after having made the proper deduction in that number to take into account absenteeism or sick leave for a period of more than ten working days. The working day over that period is established on the basis of the total number of days in the shipping season divided
Inquiries of the Ministry by the total number of pilotage hours during the season. It comes out to 4.7 hours per day.
In the Quebec-Montreal district, the gross income is slightly over $14,200 and the net income, after proper deduction for expenses, is just over $12,600 per pilot, for an average working day of 4.9 hours.
In the Montreal harbour district, the gross individual income is just over $12,200 and the net individual income amounts to just over $11,000 for an average working day of 3.1 hours.
In the Cornwall district, the gross individual income is a little over $13,000 and the net income is slightly over $12,300, the average working day being 5.3 hours.
The pilots in the Cornwall-Kingston district of the St. Lawrence river, while they are members of the same federation, come under the Canada-United States great lakes agreement. Any tariff agreement in that district is subject to the joint agreement signed with the United States. The gross income of the pilots in that group, during the last year, amounted to $15,900 and the net income to $14,900, after deducting expenses.
The principal requests made by the pilots for the present season are as follows:
With regard to the Cornwall district, an increase in full trip fees charged to the vessels, which would mean an increase of approximately 20 per cent in the pilots' income. At the Montreal harbour, an increase in fees or a transfer of certain duties from the river pilots to the harbour pilots, which would increase their income from 6 to 10 per cent. For the river group at Montreal, an increase in the number of pilots as well as a 15 per cent increase in income, which would make it necessary to increase the tariff by approximately 18 per cent. The Quebec district has not formulated any important request with regard to the tariff structure; its petition deals with questions of secondary importance.
The pilots have also indicated that they disagree on the method adopted by the department to establish the average gross revenue with regard to the number of pilots actually employed during a year, in order to calculate the average income, and they asked the department to set the average according to a method which, when the calculation is made, will show that the pilots' yearly income is lower than the above-mentioned figures.

Inquiries of the Ministry
In fact, the pilots are in a special position and their income is derived from the shipowners who, in most cases, are obliged to pay pilotage fees whether they use a pilot or not. The shipowners most interested in the matter, that is the Shipping Federation of Canada, the Dominion Marine Association and the Canadian Shipowners Association, have strongly intimated that, in their opinion, increases in pilotage fees are not justified this year.
The Shipping Federation, the main user, indicated its willingness to study with the pilots, starting with the Montreal harbour group, a new approach to the yearly problem of the pilots' income. Therefore, I wrote today to the pilots and the shipowners to propose in that respect direct talks between the two sides with a view to ascertaining whether an agreement and a new solution to the problem can be reached.
Some other less important questions are still under study by my department and we expect to submit other proposals in due course. Thus we had already agreed-and had so informed the pilots-to license a small number of new pilots in the river district at Montreal.
I want to point out further that the river about Montreal is not yet open to navigation, so soon after winter, and that the movement of ships below Montreal is still light.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Inasmuch as the pilots and the shipowners could not arrive at an agreement, does the minister intend to take whatever steps are necessary to meet the pilots and discuss with them the problems he just mentioned?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I asked the pilots and shipowners to meet again in a new effort to come to an agreement. I am awaiting a reply to my request.


Lionel Chevrier: There is not much time left. (Text):


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: As a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, has the minister anything to report on the pilotage district from Port Weller to Sarnia?


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Speaker. This pilotage district is not concerned in the stoppage of work that was announced last night.


(Translation):



AMENDMENT OF LAW TO PROHIBIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompfion-Monicalm):: I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. Could the minister inform the house whether he intends to amend the Criminal Code in order to allow any province, if it so desires, to prohibit boxing contests.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, by clause 81 the Criminal Code stipulates that everyone who engages in a prize fight or promotes it, is guilty of an offence. However, anyone who abides by the requirements established by law or engages in a boxing contest held under the authority of an athletic commission established by the legislature of a province, is not deemed to engage in a prize fight.
(Text):



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the answer the minister gave yesterday to the hon. member for Kindersley in regard to the satellite of station CFQC-TV in Saskatoon. The minister said in part yesterday that he had asked the law officers of the department to peruse the reasons for judgment as soon as possible so that a licence might be granted without delay. I am informed today that this satellite in question went on the air yesterday afternoon at 4.30. My question to the minister is, has he granted a licence to this station and, if so, at what time?
Léon Balcer: The information I received from the law officers of the department was that an appeal in this case could only be made by leave, so that gives us the power to act at the present time according to the judgment rendered by the court.


Mr. McIntosh:: I am sure the minister is aware that there is some reason for dispute between these two applicants. Knowing that the original decision handed down by the chief justice of Ontario was in favour of the Swift Current application and that the recent decision of the appeal court was in favour of Saskatoon, why did he not let the case go to the Supreme Court of Canada as I suggested yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to be interested in debating an issue rather than getting information, but I think I should give the minister a chance to reply.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I should also like to ask the minister a further question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. One question has already-


John (Jack) McIntosh: Does he not feel this is a matter which is covered by the Canadian Bill of Rights?


Léon Balcer: Any person or corporation which may feel its interests have been harmed by this judgment can always appeal; there is recourse to the courts.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillingate):: May I ask the minister a factual question? Can the hon. gentleman say whether a licence was granted and, if so, at what time?


Léon Balcer: I do not remember the date, but yesterday I was informed by my legal officers that there was a possibility of providing the people in the area with television reception. Everyone in that area was anxious to be able to look at television, and that is why I asked my legal officers if it was possible to give the permit at that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can I ask the minister if he would ascertain the date on which the licence was granted and give it to the house tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Léon Balcer: I shall be pleased to do that. [Later:]


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of the answer he gave yesterday to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate, when the minister said:
Mr. Speaker, I am really in favour of the public in the area receiving good television reception.
I wonder whether the minister would clarify what he meant when he referred to the area receiving good reception. Did he imply that if Swift Current had received the licence they would not have received good reception?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to clear up any misunderstanding with respect to this matter. I did not wish to say anything against anybody when I made my statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Léon Balcer: All I wish to do is point out that my friend the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate preferred to play politics rather than to assure good television reception to the people of Canada.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister did not mean-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am raising a question of privilege. I am sure the minister did not mean to imply what he said. He suggested that an hon. member-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is not a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member would indicate why he rises-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I have not concluded. The hon. member has not advised me that he is rising on a question of privilege.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, he did.


Mr. Speaker:: If this arises out of the answer, I shall be glad to hear whether, in the hon. member's view there is a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the enthusiasm with which my rising was greeted evidently prevented Your Honour from hearing how I began, and perhaps if hon. gentlemen opposite could keep silent I might make my feeble voice heard.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Feeble mind.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree that I have been receiving rather more assistance on the part of hon. members of the house than I require.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that the Minister of Transport in answering another hon. member made an insinuation about my motives in asking a question yesterday, an insinuation that is in no way warranted by the facts. I asked a question about a subject in which it is well known I have taken a real interest ever since the matter first came up, and I resent the imputation and hope the minister will withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think perhaps the reference by the minister was offensive but I do not think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate needs to be unduly susceptible to a minor offence of that kind having regard to some other things which have been said currently.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to Your Honour for rebuking the minister.

Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING



INVITATION TO RUSSIAN SCIENTISTS TO CO-OPERATE IN ICE STUDIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: It
is not my intention to make a speech but to abide by the rules and direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of a Canadian Press report that a proposal was made yesterday at the meeting of the Canadian committee on oceanography in Ottawa that Russian scientists be invited to observe how Canada copes with winter ice navigation to and from ports along the gulf of St. Lawrence, would the Acting Prime Minister inform the house whether consideration will be given to issuing such an invitation with a view to breaking the ice and extending peaceful contacts with the Russian people?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime Minister):: I had noticed that report myself, and we are looking into the situation.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works or, in his absence, to the acting minister who is also Acting Prime Minister. It is based on a story in today's Globe and Mail, a statement by the former head of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Mr. David Mansur, predicting that 10 per cent fewer homes would be started in 1962 than in 1961. He goes on to say, as reported: "I have never seen so much mortgage money pressing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member is attempting to give information. If he has a question to ask, I suggest he put his question.


John Richard Garland: With due respect, my question is based on the one statement, one sentence by Mr. Mansur:
I've never seen so much mortgage money pressing so few mortgages in my life.
Will the government reconsider its position, in these circumstances, with regard to extending N.H.A. financing to include existing houses?


Howard Charles Green: This is really an attempt to get a statement of government policy on orders of the day. The hon. member well knows that any such statement would be made in the house in due course.
[Mr. Pickersgill.l


John Richard Garland: The minister realizes in view of the mounting evidence-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising to ask a supplementary question or to complain about the answer? If it is the latter he is out of order. If there is a supplementary question I will permit it, but it seems to me it would be difficult to ask a supplementary question when the hon. member has had a refusal of an answer to his question on the ground that it involves a matter of policy to be stated in due course.


John Richard Garland: In view of the urgency of this question since we are rapidly approaching the building season, the minister surely realizes that the chief road block-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will be able to find an opportunity to debate the problems of house construction. This is not the time of day when we enter into debate on these matters. If the hon. member has points to raise he will have to raise them at another time.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the budget will be brought down next week.


Mr. Churchill:: Will you be here next week? You are away so much.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I think the Leader of the Opposition will not have more than eight days to wait for a complete answer.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Many of my constituents are affected by the pirates, pillagers and freebooters operating around the sealing industry on the east coast. Can the minister tell this house of any action being taken to protect these sealers and their property?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minisier of Fisheries):: I am aware, as is my department, of activities which are alleged to be taking place in the gulf of St. Lawrence concerning at least two sealing operators, perhaps more, but I must say that none of these alleged activities fall

under the jurisdiction of my department, nor are they in contravention of any acts of parliament which are administered by my department as far as I am aware. The complaints have been referred to the mounted police, and I think the police have investigated the situation.


James Russell Keays: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice? Would the Minister of Justice undertake to look into this case immediately, before the sealing season is over?


Edmund Davie Fulton: am not sure this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice, but I shall be glad to look into it and see if there is any way in which I can be of assistance.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has a request been made to the government by the Canadian peace research institute to contribute funds to its present public campaign?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not that I am aware of.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister advise the house whether or not an application of the principles contained in the bill of rights is involved in the strike at the Commodore supper club in Windsor?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: was not aware that such a strike was in effect. If it is it must be under provincial rather than federal jurisdiction, because it has not been brought to my attention at all.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In that case, does the minister not favour a constitutional amendment which would permit the enactment of a meaningful bill of rights.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will find other opportunities to inquire about the government's policy with regard to amending the constitution.
Inquiries of the Ministry



RAILWAY ENGINEERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister yet in a position to indicate to the house the estimated cost of the settlement between the railways and the engineers?


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I attempted to get to my feet two or three times but because of the circus performances of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I was unable to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Laurier asked me last week whether I could ascertain what the cost would be for the railways in the settlement with the locomotive engineers. I have been advised that the estimated cost to all the railways in the recent settlement affecting locomotive engineers for the full three year term of the contract amounts to a total of $4,451,000.
The cost to the Canadian National Railways is $2,785,000 for the three years, and this cost includes a wage increase of 6i per cent staggered over the life of the contract, improved vacation plan, a lump sum payment for loss of arbitraries, and an increase in basic rates for western passenger engineers to compensate for loss of arbitraries.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister any announcement to make to the house with regard to extending the present fishing limits from the three mile limit to a twelve mile limit in order to protect our Canadian fishermen and fisheries?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this is a highly complicated and difficult question. When there is an announcement to make it will be made in the house in the ordinary way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister say whether there are any active negotiations going on at the present time with any other country on this subject?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Pickersgill: Could the minister say Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. member when he hopes those negotiations will be raising a question of privilege? completed?
_	Mr. Pickersgill: He is just taking up the


Howard Charles Green: As soon as possible.	time of the house.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Could the minister indicate to the house whether any final decision has yet been made with regard to the CL-41 so that the workers may have some confidence that production will begin at the Canadair plant?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to announce in addition to what I announced the other day.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the house that if this work is commenced he will also find some employment for the unemployed workers of the Avro plant in Toronto?


Mr. Graffiey:: One violation of the rules after another.

Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of a question asked by the hon. member for Trinity of the Minister of Defence Production which implied unemployment in my riding. I refer to the Brampton Times and Conservator of March 29, 1962 the headline of which shows that in my area, which is Peel county, Peel's economy is booming.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Ricard:: The hon. member does not like to hear good things.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the hon. member wishes seriously to raise a question of privilege or whether, if so, there is a point of order. If both hon. members are content to stay seated, I am content.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The whole point of order is that there is no question of privilege involved. The hon. member has no question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Speaker, it further says that rising employment has been one of the brightest facets in our economic picture.

Mr. Pallet!: It was just on what the hon. member said.


Mr. O'Hurley:: As the minister concerned, and as you, Mr. Speaker, ruled out of order the question of the hon. member for Trinity and as it was asked of me, the Minister of Defence Production, I just wish to reply politely to the hon. member for Trinity and say this. I do not think any member from the Toronto area can complain about contracts given in the Toronto area by the Department of Defence Production.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A rather sorry record.



MARITIME PROVINCES-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DAMAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could he bring the house up to date on the extent of the damage caused by floods in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have been in receipt of reports each day on what has been going on down in those areas where the maritime marshland rehabilitation personnel are at work. As I understand it, all the highways are open except one bloc in an area not too far from Sackville that would be well known to the hon. member. I also understand the waters are receding very quickly and that there is a general feeling in the area that the floods are now over and things should soon be back to normal. I might say this is a perfect example of co-operation between local authorities in the area, both in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and the M.M.R.A. personnel which has made it possible to survive the flood without worse damage than was sustained.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary answer. I should like to expand the answer I gave yesterday in response to a question asked by my friend the hon. member for Westmorland. I am happy to say that the Canadian National Railways have advised me that normal through passenger service is expected to be resumed this afternoon.

Interim Supply POWER



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the Minister of Justice received any letters, telegrams or other forms of communication from the attorney general of British Columbia suggesting some form of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments to deal with the unfortunate situation that has existed in the Kootenays over a period of time?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Speaker, not that I recall up to this morning, at any rate. I believe I advised the house some time ago that I had a meeting with the attorney general at which we had informal discussions of the whole problem, but I received no formal proposal that I recall and I do not think any have been made since, other than those that have been reported to the house. My hon. friend will appreciate that the situation in the Kootenays has greatly improved just recently as a result, in large part, of the very successful police operations there.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Malheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence arising out of a plea by Mr. George Ball, United States under secretary of state at Bonn which has been reported in the London Times of April 3, 1962 wherein Mr. Ball spoke-and I quote from the article-
-of the "urgent need to give a new priority to the conventional elements in our common defence''. NATO needed-
-he is reported as saying:
-"a wide spectrum of capabilities" if it was to respond to varying types of attack with appropriate forces.
My question is this. Has Canada been requested by the NATO command to increase its conventional forces?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is well known to everyone in the house that Canada is one country that has met its NATO commitments and in fact in many ways has exceeded them. We have' increased our conventional forces in Europe as well as those at home, starting last autumn.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. I apologize for not giving him notice. My question is based on a limited exercise of guided mental telepathy. Has the minister received any communication or suggestion with respect to the development of the Columbia river from the premier of British Columbia since he held his last conversations with him in Vancouver?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall any direct communication in this period, but I should assure the hon. member that in our last conversation it was contemplated that further communications would be exchanged between us. He should not be surprised if such communications occur.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether his attention has been drawn to an editorial in the News of the North of Thursday, March 15 of this year, entitled "Is this the way to campaign"? If his attention has been called to it, can he say anything about the allegations in that editorial of political partisan activity on the part of certain public servants in the Northwest Territories? If his attention has not been called to it, will the minister look into the matter and report to the house tomorrow? I shall be glad to send him over the paper.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has not been drawn to my attention. I shall be glad to look into the matter as indicated and bring in a report.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

Donald Methuen Fleming: moved:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $674,658,525.84, being the aggregate of-
(a)	one sixth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $666,562,659.16;

Interim Supply
(b)	one third of the amounts of atomic energy item 5, mines and technical surveys item 125 and privy council item 25 of the said estimates, $614,700.00:
(c)	one sixth of the amounts of legislation items 40 and 45, northern affairs and national resources item 125 and public works item 190 of the said estimates, $1,302,483.34;
(d)	one twelfth of the amounts of national research council item 1, national revenue item 25 and trade and commerce item 20 of the said estimates, $6,178,683.34,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall I report the resolution?


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I am obliged at this time to register a protest. I have no intentions of opposing the proposal now before us. However, I believe it is timely that we recall to our minds the very origin of parliament itself, something which goes back approximately 1,000 years in the history of our democratic civilization. I believe that political democracy as we know it is being whittled away by the procedure of which this House of Commons is now being asked to approve.
I agree that incidents of this kind have happened in the past. However, the mere fact that I committed a sin some 20 years ago does not give me any licence to commit a similar sin at this time. It has always been the right of parliament to withhold funds that have been requested until parliament has been satisfied not only as to the proposed expenditure of the funds but also as to the method by which the government expects to collect the funds.
This government is asking for interim supply prior to the introduction of a budget. I feel that this is a violation of our tradition, even though I am willing to admit that such violations have happened in the past. The latest research information that I have been able to obtain is to the effect that it happened last in the year 1946.
I know that the government is able to carry on at any time under warrants issued by the governor in council. I regret very much that I did not adequately voice my opinion the last time the Financial Administration Act was amended. I believe this parliament committed a basic error at the time the last amendment was made to that Act. The government now asks for interim supply, but we members of parliament have no knowledge of how the revenues are to be collected. I feel that the introduction of a budget is basic and ought to precede any request for interim

supply. We have the age old cry, "No taxation without representation". We are now asked in effect to vote money that really does not exist as parliament has not yet been asked to vote the method of collecting revenues for the current fiscal year.
I feel it is a gross breach of parliamentary tradition for us to be asked to agree to vote interim supply before we have been told how the government proposes to collect the money. I know the government can well raise the argument that there are existing taxation laws but in my opinion this is an argument that does not hold water. If it is valid for parliament to be asked annually for the approval of expenditures, it is equally valid for parliament to have the right to ask the government annually as to the manner in which it proposes to collect the revenue. I believe it has almost always been the case in Canadian parliamentary history that the government of the day has informed parliament as to how it intended to collect the revenue before asking for approval of methods of distributing that revenue. Interim supply may have been granted before the introduction of a budget, but that is no excuse for continuing this evil. We have voted interim supply after the adoption of a budget, but this is an entirely different matter. After the government has announced its intentions with respect to how it proposes to collect the money it is completely legitimate, in my opinion, for that government to ask for interim supply, but in this particular case the government has not brought forward a budget. It has not even made any announcement that we will have a budget before an election is called. We have yet to receive an assurance from the minister or the government that there is going to be a budget. Anybody can make promises, Mr. Chairman. It is very easy to make promises in an irresponsible manner. I am beginning to doubt whether there is any intention on the part of the government to introduce a budget before there is an appeal to the people.
I never expected to see happen what took place in 1958, when the government for pure political expediency resorted in an unprecedented way to the abuse of governor general's warrants in order to carry on the business of the country. We now have to face the situation that the government is asking for interim supply before giving the house any indication of how it intends to collect the necessary revenue. In my view this is unethical and unworthy of our traditions.
However, as I indicated when I began my remarks, this is a bread and butter issue. The pay cheques of thousands of people depend

upon the granting of interim supply, and I do not find it in my heart to vote against the interim supply now requested by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1963, the sum of $674,658,525.84 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-85, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1963.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before clause 1 carries can the minister give us the assurance that the bill is in precisely the same form as the resolution so far as sums of money and details are concerned?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In the copy I have there was a correction of one figure in the last line on the first page. There were two figures that were reversed, "65" in place of "56". That has been corrected on the copy in the hands of the chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister also give us the customary assurance that the voting of this money will in no way diminish the rights of the committee of supply to discuss all these items, and that we will have an opportunity of exercising those rights in this session?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, I suppose that depends on whom the hon. member means by "we". The passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee of supply, and the usual undertaking is
Corporations and Labour Unions hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


Erhart Regier: I wonder whether I may ask the minister when he expects to tell us how he intends to raise the money necessary to pay for these items?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In due course, and in the approved constitutional manner, Mr. Chairman.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.
Schedule C agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: When
shall this bill be read a third time; now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 4, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-38, to provide for the reporting of financial and other statistics relating to the affairs of corporations and labour unions carrying on activities in Canada-Mr. Fulton-Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 3-Application of part I.
Mr. Howard:: Before clause 3 carries I have a comment to make. This relates to a question I asked the minister yesterday about the compilation of figures by the dominion bureau of statistics. The minister replied as follows, as reported in Hansard at page 2501:
-I can refer the committee to the recent report on the Canadian balance of international payments in 1960 and the international investment position, page 62, where the bureau itself has fully set out a summary of the methods it follows in compiling these statistics and makes an assessment of their accuracy and reliability.
I obtained a copy of the particular document to which the minister referred, dominion bureau of statistics publication catalogue No. 67-201, and looked at page 62. I read the information given by the dominion

Corporations and Labour Unions bureau of statistics to indicate how they arrived at these particular figures, and I found this very interesting and enlightening statement:
Briefly, while the principal source of the bureau's estimates of the foreign investment position is the capital structure reflected on consolidated balance sheets of enterprises classified according to the principal activity pursued, the source utilized most extensively for estimating the comparable aggregate capital value of selected Canadian industries is the summation of unconsolidated balance sheets of fully tabulated companies found in taxation statistics, as compiled by the Department of National Revenue, classified according to activity of the individual company.
The dominion bureau of statistics, therefore say they compile their statistics in this booklet to which we have referred about foreign control and foreign investment from the statistics published by the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue. I assume that General Motors, to which the minister referred yesterday, is a private corporation and pays income taxes, although it may not pay as much as it should. Canadian General Electric was another company to which the minister referred.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Canadian General Electric
is a public company. I did refer to it, but it is a public company.


Frank Howard: In any event the minister did refer to General Motors, and so did other hon. gentlemen, as being a private company. I assume that General Motors and other private companies in Canada file information with the Department of National Revenue as required by the Income Tax Act. This information, then, is used by the dominion bureau of statistics after it has been processed by the Department of National Revenue, and the bureau of statistics compile the statistics which they give us in this particular document.
May I make another reference to something in these statistics at page 58 of the same publication to which I referred, the Canadian balance of international payments in 1960 and international investment position. This is under the section dealing with foreign ownership and control of Canadian industries, in the right hand column, and reads as follows:
Perhaps the most striking feature of these series, viewed in the perspective of a third of a century,-
Remember, this is over a third of a century, 30 to 34 years, about which they are talking now.
-viewed in the perspective of a third of a century, embracing depression and boom, war and peace, is the consistency of the direction of the changes. Foreign ownership of Canadian manufacturing has inched up from 38 per cent in 1926 to 51 per cent in 1959,-

I do not know that "inched up" is the appropriate term; perhaps "leaped up" would be more correct.
-and control has gone from 35 per cent to 57 per cent. Foreign ownership of mining and smelting has also reflected an almost uninterrupted growth from 37 per cent in 1926 to 59 per cent in 1959, and control has risen from 38 per cent to 61 per cent.
This document then deals with other sections of industry in the same way, using statistics which have already been placed on the record. The point is that so far as the bureau of statistics are concerned, they have been compiling this information since 1926 and are still compiling it. They are compiling it from the Department of National Revenue statistics, and as I said I assume that all companies, private and public, make returns as required by the Income Tax Act.
What has the government done about this information which it already has, and has had for the past five years? What has it done about the growth from 57 per cent to 59 per cent, an increase of two percentage points, in the foreign control of Canadian industries? Since this government took office in 1957 it has talked about the development of national unity, about our national heritage being repatriated, about developing Canadian ownership, Canadian control, Canadian distribution, and so on.
All it has done in that five year period has been to draft Bill No. C-70 last year and Bill No. C-38 this year, place them before parliament and say "Now we want to compile another bunch of statistics; the ones we have are no good." This will mean that in future years the dominion bureau of statistics will be able to bring out another publication and the government will then be in the position of again doing nothing about them. A bill of this nature is just a sham and a farce in relation to what we already know, and taking into account what could have been done about these matters.
On page 60 of its publication the dominion bureau of statistics points out that the rubber industry was 98 per cent foreign controlled in 1959, an increase in such control over the last two years. It also points out that the automobile and parts industry was 97 per cent foreign controlled, an increase of 2 per cent over 1957. It also states that the electrical apparatus section of manufacturing is 81 per cent under foreign control, an increase of 4 per cent over the last two years. The chemicals industry is 77 per cent foreign controlled, and other manufacturing is 61 per cent foreign controlled. It is the same all the way down the line, with the agricultural machinery industry being 55 per cent foreign controlled as compared with 38 per cent just two years ago.

This is information which the government already has at its fingertips. It is information compiled by the very same people whom the government will be asking to compile the same statistics under the provisions of Bill No. C-38. If it is not duplication, then what additional information does the government want? It seems to me that the government is speaking with its tongue in its cheek and is not being fully truthful and honest with parliament and the public about its desire to develop a national identity, national understanding and control of our industries.
The government has had these statistics ever since it came into office. These statistics have been compiled and built up since 1926, but now the government wants to superimpose another set of statistics on what it already has in order to get information relating to corporations and the degree of foreign control exercised over them. Detailed information in regard to the extent of foreign control and domination over unions would perhaps be of some interest to somebody, but if that is what the government wants, then why does it not bring in a separate piece of legislation stipulating that unions have to report that information?
I make that suggestion, but at the same time I contend that a separate bill is not necessary, as the information is already accessible. The minister knows that the constitutions of unions have to be filed with the Department of Labour. At least that is the case in British Columbia, where unions are required to do so under the provisions of the labour relations act before they can gain any benefit-if one could call it that-from the labour code in British Columbia.
I have not carefully examined the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, but it seems to me that, if not under that act then under some other statute, every union must file its constitution and every collective agreement between union and management with the Department of Labour. I was told so by Professor Fred Carrothers of the University of British Columbia, who has done extensive work in the field of arbitration in labour disputes and the use of injunctions in those disputes. I take his word for it because, as I say, he has done research into this matter.
If the government wants specific information about unions it should bring in a separate bill dealing with them, but it is a well known fact that every union in Canada has a set of letters attached after its name which invariably give an indication of other groups to which each individual union is affiliated. Indeed the union to which I belong, the international woodworkers union has attached to its name "(A.F.I.-C.l.O.-C.L.C.)," which means 26207-1-161
5,	1962	2525
Corporation and Labour Unions it is an international union affiliated to the A.F.L. and the C.I.O. in the United States and is also affiliated to the C.L.C. here in Canada. The international mine and smelter workers union has attached to its name "(Ind.)" indicating that the Canadian section is not under international domination. If that information were not enough, anything else required could be very easily found out.
It becomes more and more clear from the- I shall not call them evasive-answers given by the minister that he is not telling us the true story, but by questioning him the true story is gradually emerging. We now know that the dominion bureau of statistics already has this information and publishes a document about it. The department has also got information from the Department of National Revenue, so that should be proof positive that when the government says it wants to know more about the Canadian economy, it is not telling the truth to the Canadian people.
The government is not interested in knowing more about the Canadian economy. It is only interested in the period ahead of us when perhaps we shall have an election or perhaps we shall not. It is only interested in the period when we might have an election so that it will be able to engage in the same sort of political dishonesty in which the Prime Minister and his colleagues engaged in 1958, following their short term in office, and prior to that in 1957. I think it is absolutely disgraceful.


Mr. Pallell:: Is the hon. member engaging in the same technique, the same type of personal attack upon the Prime Minister that the Liberal party has seen fit to commence?


Lionel Chevrier: You are an authority on that.


Frank Howard: My friend should not tempt me to express my personal views about the Prime Minister and other members of the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am afraid that the only thing which has been a sham and a farce about this whole question has been the kind of speech which the hon. member for Skeena has just made, the same kind of speech he made yesterday and the day before. It is a sham and a farce because it is a complete misrepresentation and distortion of what this bill will accomplish. It is a complete misinterpretation and distortion of the picture with regard to the availability of statistics, and it is a misrepresentation of the objectives that this bill seeks to accomplish.
My hon. friend seems to think he has had a great secret delivered into his hands, with which he is now going to embarrass the government, because yesterday I gave him a page reference in the dominion bureau of statistics publication. He finds there that
2526	HOUSE OF
Corporation and Labour Unions the dominion bureau of statistics relies for its information as to statistics of the balance of international payments and the international investment position, on the publication by the Department of National Revenue entitled "Taxation Statistics", in which is reflected a summation of unconsolidated balance sheets of fully tabulated companies.
The only hon. member who has just discovered that the information the dominion bureau of statistics was quoting comes from "Taxation Statistics" is the hon. member for Skeena. Everybody in the house has known for a good many years that the Department of National Revenue makes this information public, and has known that the dominion bureau of statistics has relied upon it for many years.
What the hon. member has sought to do is mislead this committee, and all those who may have the misfortune to read his speech, into believing that because the Department of National Revenue publishes a green book called "Taxation Statistics" somehow or other the dominion bureau of statistics has access to the details that are contained in income tax returns, and that the information in individual returns with respect to corporate activities, methods and payments are available to the bureau and the government at large.
It may be, indeed it is my hope, that the hon. gentleman is himself under that illusion, but I doubt it. The serious issue I take with him is, that unless he is under that illusion, he would have willingly misled the committee had his speech been allowed to stand unchallenged.
The dominion bureau of statistics does not see any individual income tax return. It does not know how General Motors of Canada, to name one company which has been named, carries on its operations. Nor does any member of the government possess any information on the basis of a tax return with the exception of the Minister of National Revenue, if he reads it; and even if he reads it he is not at liberty to tell the government about it. So no other member of the government knows what is contained in the return of General Motors or in the return of any other company which files a return.
And even if this information were available it would be nothing as compared with what we are asking for under this bill- information which includes such matters as charges for royalties and research and similar payments and charges for various services including engineering, architectural, legal, accounting and auditing services and so on, showing the fees and charges separately in


each case. And there is all the other information which clause 4 would require these corporations to file.
The suggestion inherent in the hon. member's speech a moment ago is that this kind of information is available to the dominion bureau of statistics. That suggestion is just unfounded and malevolent nonsense. It is because such information is not available anywhere that we have introduced this bill and made it necessary to report this and other information which, if it were not for this measure, would never come to the knowledge of the government, the dominion bureau of statistics or anyone else.
There is another thing that the hon. member carefully omitted to point out. The dominion bureau of statistics itself-and I gave the hon. member the page reference- clearly draws attention to the fact that information in the form in which it comes to them does not enable that organization to make speedy, accurate and 100 per cent reliable statistical summaries. Here is what they say on page 62:
In the post-war years the series has made extensive use of the condensed balance sheets published by the Department of National Revenue in the annual report on taxation statistics. As this material does not become available for a considerable period after the time to which it relates, the bureau's series involving Canadian as well as foreign investment cannot be produced as currently as statistics of international investment. The condensed balance sheet figures are not ideal for estimating the total value of selected Canadian industries comparable to the foreign investment record. Corporations are not permitted by the Department of National Revenue to file consolidated reports, while for obvious reasons consolidated balance sheets are used wherever possible in the records of international investment.
I gave the page reference of that quotation to the hon. member yesterday, but he carefully avoided drawing attention to the fact that the dominion bureau points out that it is not in a position to get accurate, up to date particulars of the kind so necessary not only if detailed knowledge is to be available but also if adequate statistical summaries are to be compiled and published.
So I could go on indicating the inadequacies, the glaring omissions, the misconstructions, the misinterpretations and the misleading effects of what the hon. member has been saying about this bill for the past three days. There is one thing I should like to suggest and that is with regard to the matter of the labour unions. I am prepared to discuss those provisions fully when we get to them, but I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that at this stage you will not permit a general discussion of the trade union position, which should be reserved until we come to that part of the bill dealing with trade unions. I make this observation now because on

several occasions the hon. member for Skeena began to get into this question of unions. In my opinion the discussion is sufficiently general now; indeed, it is over-general now that we are dealing with the clauses of the bill.
I suggest it would be a mistake to get into a general discussion at this time of the question of trade unions which, I suspect, the hon. member is trying to introduce.
As to the purpose of the bill, and the charges and allegations which have been made, I can only conclude by saying that such a deliberate obfuscation of the objects and intent of the bill, such a distortion of its effects, such misrepresentation as to what it does, can only give rise to the thought that the hon. member's speeches are made for political purposes. In any event, I certainly say that what is being done here now and what has been done for the past three days will, if continued, have the effect of depriving Canada of the benefits of an advantageous piece of legislation which would place the government for the first time in history in possession of full details as to how foreign owned corporations and subsidiaries in Canada carry on their affairs.


Frank Howard: When it comes to obstruction, misinterpretation or misinforming the committee, I must bow to the superior capabilities of the minister, which were evident from his introductory remarks on second reading and from the other remarks he has made from time to time while this bill has been under consideration.
I did not know the minister had such a low regard for the dominion bureau of statistics as to practically call the statistical summary worthless. I had assumed it was of some value. Perhaps if it did have any value, and if we had a government which believed truly in all the things it says it believes in, steps would have been taken earlier to deal with this question of foreign control. That would have been done shortly after the government took office, but it was not. For general policy purposes the statistics contained in this report show that over the years since 1926 foreign control over Canadian industry has been increasing year after year. There is no question about that, and the minister cannot discount it. He cannot discount the fact that he has access to this document. Surely this would have been sufficient for policy purposes. The minister claims that information of various kinds- and he read a list from clause 4-is not now available in any way.


Edmund Davie Fulton: To the government.


Frank Howard: Not now available to the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Nor to the public.
26207-1-161J
5.	1962
Corporation and Labour Unions


Frank Howard: Never mind the public for the moment; it is the government which wants to have this information. Architects' fees, engineering fees, legal fees and so on; that is not available to the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Research payments, for example.


Frank Howard: The other day when we talked about the schedule and all the various corporations included in it, the minister said that this information relating to those corporations and companies mentioned in the schedule was available to the government. I am thinking of a bank to which the Bank Act or the Quebec Savings Banks Act applies, an insurance company registered under certain acts, a trust company licensed under the Trust Companies Act, a loan company licensed under the Loan Companies Act, a radio company licensed under the Radio Act, a transcontinental air carrier designated as a group 1 carrier, and so on. Either this information is available or it is not. The minister cannot argue both ways, though we know that is his usual course; to argue from both sides of the fence or from both points of view, as happens to suit his purpose at the moment.
The other day he said one thing and today he stated just the opposite. Which statement will we believe? Was the minister truthful on each occasion? It seems impossible. Perhaps the minister in his own mind can rationalize the process of doublethink he employs on occasions, but I do not think anyone else will accept it. On April 2 the minister quoted the splendid statements made by the Prime Minister in addressing the chamber of commerce in Great Britain. The Prime Minister said:
We have made it clear that we expect foreign concerns operating in Canada, or Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies, to carry on operations as Canadian businesses.
That is a fine phrase, an admirable concept and policy. What has been done about it? Nothing. I continue:
We expect them to make available a fair portion of their equity securities for purchase by Canadians-
That is also a splendid attitude. What steps have been taken in this respect? When the Prime Minister was making this speech to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Great Britain the dominion bureau of statistics figures to which I referred were available. The Minister of Trade and Commerce with his vast knowledge of everything that is going on everywhere undoubtedly knew of this. No action was taken; there was no thought of action. The attitude was to push it to one side; maybe no one will look into
2528	HOUSE OF
Corporation and Labour Unions it; maybe people will look at the icing on the cake without examining what is underneath.
The Prime Minister went on to say it was expected that these companies would include Canadians on their boards of directors. That is an admirable approach. What happened? Nothing. The government has continued with its great expectations for five years. What has happened? The government has presented Bill No. C-38. These great expectations represent the longest pregnancy in history, and when they come to fruition we witness a miscarriage.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You should know all about that.


Frank Howard: The minister told us about foreign control, architectural fees, expense accounts, consulting and engineering fees and the like. This might be useful information if we could have an explanation of the use to which it will be put. The minister says this is a first step toward understanding the Canadian economy. The government should have taken the first step four or five years ago in the direction of having corporations include Canadians on their boards of directors, assuring that a fair portion of equity securities would be available for purchase by Canadians, employing competent Canadians in senior management and technical positions, having corporations conduct a fair share of their research in Canada and making purchases of their requirements in Canada, as the Prime Minister so piously said was his expectation when he addressed the chamber of commerce in England.
It boils down to this. The Prime Minister and his colleagues in the government enjoy engaging in fine phrases and the expression of pious hopes and expectations which read well and sound assuring and will be interesting for posterity to examine. We have had many such statements from the government. However, the day will come when these statements will be compared with the action that has been taken. We are told that we will be judged by our deeds. We frankly do not believe the minister and the government can be relied upon to carry out what they say they will carry out under this or any other legislation.
I am not distorting anything. I remind the committee that only after persistent questioning and digging did we learn the true purpose behind this legislation. It will be used only as a campaign gimmick to mislead the people into believing that the government will take action toward developing the national culture we all wish to see developed, but we do not believe this will happen under this government.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I asked the minister to submit a report of the subsidiary companies appearing in the report of the Bell Telephone Company, and he undertook to do so under the appropriate portion of the schedule. When we reach that point will he also advise how many other telephone companies report to the board of transport commissioners?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will have that information. I have been gathering fairly full information about telephone companies in anticipation of questions of that type. I hope that all such questions can be fully answered when we reach that part of the schedule.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Return to be filed with minister.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I will ask one of
my colleagues, in accordance with the indication given on second reading, to move:
That the said bill be further amended by substituting the words "dominion statistician" for the word "minister" in line 9 on page 2 and in line 17 on page 4.


Michael Starr: I so move.


Frank Howard: This is an extensive clause covering several pages. Could we proceed point by point after the minister's amendment has been circulated?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Those are the only two amendments I have to clause 4. I have no objection to taking it subparagraph by subparagraph or in whatever way the committee would like. Perhaps we could take subparagraph (a) beginning with the words "section A" under the heading "returns" first and then subparagraph (b), or it could be taken Roman numeral by Roman numeral. I do not mind at all, and suggest we proceed in whatever would be the most satisfactory and orderly method.


The Chairman:: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
X Amendment agreed to.


Frank Howard: The latter suggestion of the minister would be an orderly way of proceeding, calling the paragraphs by Roman numeral.


Paul Raymond Martineau: There is a considerable portion of clause 4 at the very beginning. Perhaps it would carry and we could call out the Roman numerals after that. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall paragraph (i) of clause 4 carry?


Mr. Fullon:: I take it that the introductory-portion of the clause and the portion designated by the small "a" in brackets would carry and then we could proceed to the portion designated by the Roman numeral (i).


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the introductory portion of clause 4 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall subparagraph (a)
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Subparagraph agreed to.
Paul Raymond Martineau: Roman numeral (i).


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, in this portion there are set out a number of companies. Perhaps there is no need to read them all. What I am getting at is that those companies which are covered by parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, and 15 in the schedule are not required, under the respective acts, to file the corporate names of their corporations. Does this information come to the attention of the dominion statistician? If any of them do not do so, can the minister indicate which ones do not?


James Ross Fulton: I think the answer to the question, in order to be accurate or at least to keep it within the bounds of my own information, is that I do not know in detail. I imagine the same question will be asked with respect to every other item or subparagraph of the clause and I shall be obliged to give the same answer to every such question. I do not know personally whether in fact a return made by these various companies under the statutes under which they are obliged to report contains every one of these particulars. However, I have been satisfied that that information is within the knowledge of the officers; and certainly the information with respect to subparagraph (i) with which we are dealing is within the knowledge of the officers to whom the kind of companies named make their reports.


Frank Howard: This is something the same as-


James Ross Fulton: In other words, I do not personally know whether the returns under the Bank Act, the Quebec Savings Banks Act, the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and so on contain a blank requiring the corporate name of the corporation to be shown. I rather imagine they do contain such a blank. However, what I do know with absolute certainty is that the inspector of banks, the superintendent of insurance and all the other officers know the corporate names of the corporations that report to them.
Corporation and Labour Unions


Frank Howard: Is this not something like saying that the dominion bureau of statistics does not know in fact how much taxes, for argument's sake, or does not know in fact the engineering and architectural and accounting fees which General Motors pay but they do know in one way or another what these are because they take the taxation statistics of the Department of National Revenue? It is the same thing as saying they may not in fact know some of this particular information but they have knowledge of it because they have been compiling statistics since 1926 which have been giving the extent of foreign control that exists over Canadian industry.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall subparagraph numbered Roman numeral (i) of paragraph (a) of clause 4 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Subparagraph agreed to.
On subparagraph (ii).
Frank Howard: I do not wish to rephrase or restate the question, but I think in one way or another we should do so. My question under subparagraph (ii) is this. With respect to those companies which are under the schedule or are related under the schedule to which I referred previously, and which are exempted or will be exempted from this act once it becomes law unless changes are made in the schedule, do those companies file with dominion bureau of statistics the information which is set out in subparagraph (ii) or do they file it with somebody else and then dominion bureau of statistics have access to it?


James Ross Fulton: The answer I give is very much the same as the answer to the same question under subparagraph (i), with this addition. These questions are all matters of public knowledge, because the requirements for reporting are contained in the various statutes to which the hon. member refers and the information can be obtained by studying those statutes. I do not intend to make any statement which may be inaccurate. I do not have each one of those statutes and all the details imprinted on my mind. I am therefore not going to answer the questions beyond what I have just said. I will emphasize again, however, here and in the context of all the other subparagraphs of this clause, that with respect to this information as it applies to the first six heads of the classes of corporations mentioned in the first six heads of the schedule, there is none of this information which cannot be obtained and be made available to the government at any time and to the dominion bureau of statistics at any time it is desired by virtue of the operation of those acts. As

Corporation and Labour Unions I have already said, most of it, if not all of it, and a great deal more besides is already available and known.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall subparagraph (ii) carry?


[Stage Direction]
Subparagraph agreed to.
On subparagraph (iii).
Frank Howard: I should like to ask the minister this question. I think it is necessary to put this on record so that whoever reads Hansard in the future will see that what the minister is saying is that in fact the corporations listed in the schedule which are exempt do not have to file precisely the same information as do other corporations which will be covered by this particular act. I ask the minister whether those companies which come under paragraphs 1 to 6 inclusive and paragraphs 13 to 15 inclusive of the schedule and which are exempted from this act are obliged to file returns or whether they have to file under these respective acts information which would show, and I quote, "the manner in which the corporation was incorporated and the date and place of its incorporation".


Edmund Davie Fulton: I make the same answer I have already made. By way of comment on what the hon. member has said in the introductory part of this particular question, I am glad to assure him that if he looks at Hansard I am sure he will find that I have said at least half a dozen times already that I do not say it is precisely the same information. What I have already said is that it is as extensive and in many cases more extensive, and that the information and the kind of information we wish to know here is abundantly available and the ability to get it is there in the other statutes. For the rest I must ask my hon. friend to read the statutes in question.


Frank Howard: I am sorry, but I did not catch the minister's last phrase. Would he repeat his last words? I did not hear them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said that perhaps if my hon. friend is really interested in this matter he might care to read the statutes in question.


Frank Howard: That is what I thought the minister said. Perhaps if the minister was really interested in giving the committee full information he would have had this information made available to him so that he himself would be able to properly answer questions about this bill. I think he should have done that unless, of course, he did not expect that anyone would be much interested in it and thought that he could just sneak it or slip it through the committee without too much debate.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall subparagraph (iii) carry?


[Stage Direction]
Subparagraph agreed to.
On subparagraph (iv).
Frank Howard: I would ask the minister the same question as that which I have asked him previously on subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii).


Edmund Davie Fulton: I give the same reply.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall subparagraph (iv) carry?


[Stage Direction]
Subparagraph agreed to.
On subparagraph (v).
Frank Howard: I would ask the minister the same question with respect to this subparagraph (v).


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have told the hon. gentleman that the answer to these questions is the same in every case.


Frank Howard: Does the minister now perhaps think it would have been better for him not to have insisted on having his day in parliament, but that he should have referred the matter to a committee where we might have obtained this information?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I do not think so. I also know that if I had brought in the hundreds of pages of information in order to enable me to answer this question-although that information is readily available elsewhere and easily obtained if necessary-the hon. member would have thought up hundreds of other equally unnecessary questions.


Frank Howard: It seems most unkind of the minister to deal in this fashion with such an urgent and important matter as this, and to make reference to questions as being unnecessary. The minister may be able to satisfy his own followers in caucus by telling them that everything is all right because, after all, he is on their side, but when it comes to attempting to understand what the government is trying to do by this bill then his reference to unnecessary questions

I think I have paid too much attention to it-really indicates the attitude of the minister toward these things, that he is not prepared to go into questions relating to the bill in detail.
Subparagraph (v) agreed to.
On subparagraph (vi).


Frank Howard: There is a reference here to particulars as described in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) in respect of each body corporate holding 10 per cent or more of the total number of issued shares of the corporation, and

so on. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I am reading the wrong one. I assume that if I were to pose the question I asked with respect to paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) I would get the same answer from the minister, that he does not know.


[Stage Direction]
Subparagraph agreed to.
Subparagraph (vi) agreed to.
Subparagraph (vii) agreed to.
On subparagraph (viii).
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, the minister has said that the purpose of the government is to endeavour to get all the facts with regard to these corporations and trade unions. It is my intention to move an amendment to add a paragraph after subparagraph (viii) and I wonder whether this is the appropriate time to do so.


Paul Raymond Martineau: We are now engaged in the study of paragraph (viii).


Murdo William Martin: It has not been adopted?


Paul Raymond Martineau: It has not been adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Subparagraph agreed to.
Murdo William Martin: I presume I would be in order now, Mr. Chairman. The minister has said that the purpose is to gather information respecting foreign control and its effects so far as the Canadian people and economy are concerned. I should like to point out one very serious omission. In my view the political control that could be brought about by corporations and trade unions is equally as important as economic control. With that in mind I should like to move:
That immediately following subparagraph (ix) of paragraph (a) of clause 4 the following be inserted as a new subparagraph (x) -
On rechecking I find that I probably should move this amendment after paragraph (ix).
On subparagraph (ix).


Paul Raymond Martineau: I believe the hon. member for Megantic wishes to speak on this paragraph. If the remarks of the hon. member for Timmins apply after the paragraph has been carried I will now recognize the hon. member for Megantic.


Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, I find it
somewhat difficult to understand either the English or the French text. If I am not mistaken it means that private companies not allowed to sell shares to the public will not be obliged to report the information set out in subparagraph (ix). Is my interpretation correct?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The words "except in the case of a corporation incorporated by or under
5,	1362
Corporation and Labour Unions an act or instrument by the terms of which any invitation to the public to subscribe for its shares and debentures was prohibited" have the effect of excluding private corporations.


[Stage Direction]
Subparagraph agreed to.
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of repeating the remarks I have already made because I do not think it is necessary. I will proceed to move the amendment. I move:
That immediately following subparagraph (ix) of paragraph (a) of clause 4 the following be inserted as a new subparagraph (x):
"(x) the names and addresses of any
(a)	candidate for election as a member of the House of Commons, a member of the legislature of a province or a member of the council of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, and
(b)	political party to which any money, securities, or equivalent of money was contributed or loaned and the amount thereof that each such candidate or political party received and showing as to each amount whether it was in money or otherwise and whether as contribution, loan, advance, deposit or otherwise and if a loan the terms thereof and whether the loan has been repaid", and that the present subparagraphs (x) and (xi) be renumbered as subparagraphs (xi) and (xii) respectively.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, that we would like to move the same amendment when we come to the same point in the clauses of the bill having to do with unions.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I would advise that this amendment appears to have nothing to do with the purposes which this bill has in mind and while I do not raise it as a point of order I say that in my judgment the amendment is entirely irrelevant as an amendment to this bill. It might be relevant and have a place as an amendment to some other act but it has nothing to do with the purposes for which this bill was introduced and therefore I must oppose the amendment.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment on the statement of the minister and on the substance of the amendment itself. It is well known that when a court deals with a statute it does not pay any attention so far as the purpose of the statute is concerned to what members may have said in the course of debate or argument for or against the legislation. All the court does is to look at the law itself and come to a conclusion as to what it means. If we apply the same thing here, the minister has said that the purpose of the bill is such and such, but in fact this is not what the bill says.
I referred to the title of the bill earlier and it is "an act to provide for the reporting of financial and other statistics relating to the affairs of corporations and labour unions carrying on activities in Canada". That is the
2532	HOUSE OF
Corporation and Labour Unions title of the bill. I submit that within that title this amendment is quite proper because it deals with financial and other statistics relating in this instance to the affairs of corporations from the point of view of their contributions to political parties. I submit that such statistics come within the ambit of the legislation just as much as payments for advertising and payments for consultants' fees.
If it is necessary to know what the affairs of a corporation are, and a union-I only drag that in because they are both in the same bill-in respect of control over the economy, then surely the general public is entitled to know what the affairs of that corporation and that union are in respect of their control over a political party, what their contributions to a political party are. This is a simple question of justice and fairness to the people of this nation. We think this particular amendment should be supported and made a part of the legislation.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Although we have no real objection to the amendment, we have to support the opinion submitted by the minister that it would be better in the electoral law than it would be in this bill. However, we have no real opposition to the amendment.
Amendment Mr. Martin (Timmins) nega-tivated: yeas, 11; nays, 36.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I declare the amendment lost.
On subparagraph (x).


Walter George Pitman: This paragraph reads:
-the name and address of each director of the corporation, and the nationality of each individual who is a director of the corporation,-
I must disagree with this word "nationality". Surely, the purpose of this bill is to ascertain the extent of foreign control. I cannot see how the nationality of a director, if I am correctly construing the word "nationality", is of any value. What value is it to know whether a director is a Ukrainian, Japanese or Chinese. I would say that this provision is contrary to the whole emphasis throughout our legislation in which we are seeking to wipe out differences of national origin. Do we not want to know what the citizenship of the director is? I would move, therefore, Mr. Chairman, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins:
That subparagraph (x) of paragraph (a) of clause 4 be amended by deleting the word "nationality'' in line 36 thereof and substituting therefor the word "citizenship".


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to assure the committee that so far as the question the hon. member for Peterborough has in mind is concerned, the use of the


word "nationality" in this bill for this purpose has no significance with regard to discrimination-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Perhaps before the minister continues I should bring the amendment before the committee. It is proposed by the hon. member for Peterborough:
That subparagraph (x) of paragraph (a) of clause 4 be amended by deleting the word "nationality" in line 36 thereof and substituting therefor the word "citizenship".


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I can make a better start this time. I appreciate and share the desire of hon. members to avoid the use of any word which has any token or suggestion of discrimination in the sense in which the hon. member for Peterborough has used that expression. There are certain technical difficulties surrounding the use of the word "citizenship", which he has suggested, instead of the word "nationality". As a descriptive word in the context of this kind of legislation, "nationality" is the apt word. For instance, one does not say a citizen of the Netherlands, one says a Dutch national. One does not normally speak of a citizen of England, but one talks about a British subject. In other words, we are not here referring to origin in the sense of race. We use the word "nationality" as an indication of the nation of which that person is a national and to which he owes allegiance.
I am advised, after discussing the matter, that the word "citizenship" of such a person would create certain technical difficulties in respect of interpretation. I have no strong views on the matter myself, but I am convinced that the use of the word "nationality" is more apt for the purpose we have in mind, which has nothing to do with discrimination but merely the establishment of the nation to which the person in question owes allegiance.


Gabriel Roberge: As the minister says, this is really only a technicality. May I offer this suggestion, that this paragraph be amended by using the two words, nationality or citizenship.	y


Edmund Davie Fulton: I see no objection to it if that is agreeable to the hon. member who moved the amendment. This would make it read "nationality or citizenship".


Walter George Pitman: I am quite willing to accept that amendment because then companies would be able, if they were asked for this particular information, to give the name, address and citizenship or nationality of a director. If a director were a Canadian citizen, he would not have to say he was a Ukrainian national or a Japanese national. You are using "or" and not "and". I think this is quite acceptable and the resultant information will be quite different from that which would be

received if the paragraph were left unchanged.
I very much appreciate the minister's remarks with regard to his desire not to be guilty of any kind of discrimination, but as matters stand now this is more in line with the minister in his other areas of activity. I am sure the minister does not want this to become a snooping bill, or have it come to be regarded as a snooping bill by directors of corporations and unions.
If a person can state he is a Canadian citizen and does not have to state he is of Japanese, Ukrainian or Chinese origin then that would be very acceptable.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would just point out with regard to the use of the word "nationality" that if a person were a Canadian citizen he would simply say "Canadian". He would not have to refer to his national origin, but I would be happy to accept the amendment and have added to it "or citizenship." I do not mind which comes first-citizenship or nationality.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In that case the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peterborough will read:
That subparagraph (x) of paragraph (a) of clause 4 be amended by adding after the word "nationality" in line 36 thereof the words "or citizenship."


Walter George Pitman: That is quite acceptable, and perhaps when we come to the next subparagraph we might do the same there.
^ Amendment agreed to.
Subparagraph (x) as amended, agreed to.
On subparagraph (xi).


Walter George Pitman: Perhaps the minister would be willing to accept the same change here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Then this amendment is moved by the hon. member for Peterborough:
That subparagraph (xi) of paragraph (a) of clause 4 be amended by adding after the word "nationality" in line 38 thereof the words "or citizenship."
Shall the amendment carry? j- Amendment agreed to.
Subparagraph (xi) as amended, agreed to.
On clause 4, paragraph (a).


Mr. Peters:: Since we have finished with subparagraph (xi) I believe there should be another subparagraph added as (xii) so that it would allow us the opportunity of checking between the filing of collective agreements, as provided for on page 7, and which reads "the name and address of each employer, or 26207-1-162
5.	1962
Corporation and Labour Unions association of employers, resident in Canada with which the union has a collective agreement".
I suggest that we should add a new subparagraph which would readthe name and address of each union, or unions, resident in Canada with which the corporation has a collective agreement,
The reason I suggest this is because it would give us an opportunity of checking one against the other. In my opinion it is not imposing any great hardship by asking companies to do this as well as unions. For that reason I move the following amendment:
That paragraph (a) of clause 4 be amended by adding thereto the following as subparagraph (xii): "(xii) the name and address of each union, or unions, resident in Canada with which the corporation has a collective agreement, and"


Edmund Davie Fulton: I must say that with respect to the principle of getting this information there can be no objection, but I think we are going to have all the relative information under part II of the bill, where the obligation to report the names and addresses of the employers with whom unions have agreements is imposed upon unions. I would find it difficult to conclude otherwise than that that is the logical place where the requirement should be laid. It seems to me most logical to ask for this from the unions. This information certainly has to be sought but, having asked it from the unions, I can see no point in asking it from the companies. It would add unnecessarily to what hon members opposite have already described as a considerable burden of reporting on corporations.
I want to emphasize that I see nothing wrong with the principle of getting this information but we have already arranged to get it and I cannot see any point in duplicating it. Therefore I would oppose the amendment.


William Arnold Peters: But take the example of a union with less than 100 employees. Under the provisions of the act it would not have to file this information, whereas a company with less than 100 employees might come within the provisions of the bill and therefore would have to file any collective agreement with its employees. The reverse could be true, and I can see a number of cases where that information could be given by one side and not by the other. The amendment would give us a more uniform picture of the collective agreements as such. I can see very little reason for a company refusing to meet this limitation, because we are not asking the unions to assure themselves that a company is going to report under the provisions of this bill before we ask them to file their collective agreements.

Private Bills
On the other hand a company could file an agreement even though the union with which it was in negotiation did not have to file the agreement negotiated. As I say, I can see a number of cases where this would provide us with information that would not be available otherwise.
Amendment (Mr. Peters) negatived: Yeas, 16; Nays, 50.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-17 respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and certain wholly owned subsidiaries-Mr. Stewart-Mr. Martineau in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: Perhaps I should make a few remarks in connection with this measure. By this bill the respective railways and undertakings of three wholly owned leased subsidiaries of Canadian Pacific, including all their respective powers, rights, privileges, franchises, assets, effects and properties will be vested in Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which company will assume all their liabilities, obligations and duties.
The names of the three subsidiary companies and their locations are as follows: Joliette and Brandon Railway Company, Quebec; The Saint John Bridge and Railway Extension Company, New Brunswick; and The Saint Stephen and Milltown Railway Company, New Brunswick.
The petition for the bill has been made jointly by Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the three subsidiary companies concerned, in accordance with resolutions passed by the directors and shareholders of all companies.
Joliette and Brandon Railway Company was incorporated by statutes of Quebec (1905)
5 Edward VII, chapter 56 and vested with the franchises, subventions, railway, property, privileges, easements and appurtenances of the Montreal and Lac Maskinonge Railway Company, incorporated by statutes of Quebec (1887) 50 Victoria, chapter 68; the said company was leased to Canadian Pacific Railway Company for 94 years from January 1, 1906, by an indenture of lease dated October 31, 1906.

The Saint John Bridge and Railway Extension Company was incorporated by statutes of New Brunswick (1881) 44 Victoria, chapter 44; the said company was leased to Canadian Pacific Railway Company for 999 years from December 31, 1943 by an indenture of lease dated October 31, 1943.
The Saint Stephen and Milltown Railway Company was incorporated by statutes of New Brunswick (1886) 49 Victoria, chapter 17; the said company was leased to Canadian Pacific Railway Company for 99 years from May 1, 1897 by an indenture of lease dated April 21, 1897.
All three companies are presently operated by Canadian Pacific Railway Company as part of its system under the provisions of the abovementioned long term leases. It is intended to continue to operate these companies as part of the Canadian Pacific system after the legislation comes into effect so long as economic conditions warrant their operation. The proposed legislation will not affect the public in any way.
The purpose of the bill is to effect a simplification in the corporate organization of Canadian Pacific Railway Company. It will eliminate unnecessary clerical work which is now required by reason of the existence of these subsidiary companies.
In 1958 a similar act was enacted by the parliament of Canada, vesting in Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the railways and undertakings of nine other wholly owned leased subsidiaries of Canadian Pacific Railway Company; the act in question is chapter 54 of the statutes of Canada 1958. Other similar acts vesting in Canadian Pacific Railway Company the railways and undertakings of wholly owned leased subsidiaries were enacted in the years 1955, 1956 and 1957. Altogether 35 wholly owned leased subsidiary companies have been vested to date in Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
The present bill is identical with chapter 54 of the statutes of Canada, 1958, and the other vesting acts, except that this year only three wholly owned subsidiaries of Canadian Pacific are to be vested and that no dissolution of these subsidiary companies is sought as the said three companies were incorporated by provincial legislation.
The practical effect of the ownership by Canadian Pacific of all the capital stock and bonds, where issued, of the three companies involved, combined with the leases of the companies to Canadian Pacific Railway Company is tantamount to the amalgamation of these companies with Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The act sought from the parliament of Canada will complete the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

Clauses 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-16 respecting the United Church of Canada- Mr. Morton-Mr. Martineau in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Murray Douglas Morton: the third reading of the bill.


Frank Howard: Perhaps when he closes this debate the hon. member who sponsors this bill could answer a question for me. I notice that the United Church of Canada, according to the wording of the bill, is "hereinafter called 'the corporation' ". Could the hon. member tell us if he is of the opinion that this is one of those corporations which might have to report statistics under the bill we were considering before five o'clock, if it becomes law?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, April 5, 1962
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 5th April, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



EXCHEQUER COURT


William Arnold Peters: the second reading of Bill No. C-40, respecting the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada.
26207-1-162i
Exchequer Court
He said: Mr. Speaker, I did not think this bill was going to come up this session nor did I think the necessity would arise. Your Honour will notice that I have delayed this bill and several others for some time for the specific purpose of allowing the government to make a decision on this matter.


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon.
member a question. What is the basis for the hon. member's last statement?


William Arnold Peters: The basis for that statement is that I decided something was going to be done about this matter. I had the words of the house leader last year which gave me this indication.


John Cameron Pallett: What does the hon. member mean by "delaying" the bill in terms of putting it on the order paper? I think the hon. gentleman misunderstood the question.


William Arnold Peters: This is a technicality. As my hon. friend knows, when the list is made up the bills appear on the order paper. If they are not dealt with when called they drop to the bottom and then come up for a second time. I thought that by following this practice the government would be given an opportunity to take action. I therefore waived my original right with respect to the placement of the bills on the order paper. I did this because I understood negotiations were under way to solve the serious problem of parliamentary divorce.
The hon. member for Skeena and I have been interested in this matter for some time. In the last two or three sessions we acquiesced in the suggestions of the house because we thought something would happen. I was asked why we assumed this. In reply I refer hon. members to page 8865 of Hansard of September 25, 1961 where the following statement is found:
-the question of procedure with respect to parliamentary divorce is under study, and the government has hopes of being able to present to the house at the next session some proposals in this regard.
I was not aware that the government was not going to take action.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I ask the hon. gentleman who made that statement and the source of the quotation?


William Arnold Peters: Those are the words of the Minister of Veterans Affairs speaking in his capacity as house leader as reported at page 8865 of Hansard of September 25, 1961.
A similar statement was made on other occasions. On the occasion just referred to I assumed something would be done. I was pleased with the results of negotiations that took place among hon. members of the

Exchequer Court
Liberal and New Democratic parties and the hon. members for Davenport and Marquette. There seemed to be agreement that something could be done without any particular fanfare and fuss. It is our sincere desire to have this problem solved. If it can be solved through negotiations, all the better.
We are now faced with the terrific rush of private hon. members to get their bills on the order paper which indicates that dissolution may be just around the corner, and the problem has not yet been solved.
We are concerned about recent rumours about negotiations that have taken place between parties in the house. Probably this is true. The hon. member for Skeena and I have shown an interest in this matter but with the exception of the discussions with the two hon. members referred to, little discussion has taken place that would indicate a solution is in sight.
Much publicity is being given to the other place and some of the hon. members of that chamber. More attention is being paid to their need for publicity than to the need of solving the problem.
Some may say the problem cannot be, need not be or should not be solved. Certainly the method of solution is open to debate and in making the suggestion I am today I feel I am offering a proposal capable of being implemented by the government without cost which may even result in putting a few dollars in the federal treasury.
On March 22 of this year Hon. Senator Pouliot raised some questions about this matter in relation to the British North America Act. The Minister of Justice should consider that many provinces operate divorce courts under licence of the federal government. Senator Pouliot has done considerable research in the field and is under the impression that only the Exchequer Court of Canada or another federal court could handle divorce cases because provincial courts or any other courts are ultra vires of the constitution. That may be a valid point. Those divorce courts already in existence may be in conflict with the British North America Act. I have contended that the present set-up is unconstitutional.
The easy way for the government to solve the problem would be to appoint two or three additional judges to the Exchequer Court of Canada and let them handle the divorce cases there with the existing facilities.
I know the Exchequer Court of Canada is not presently equipped to deal with these cases but they could be dealt with there expeditiously and economically. There is a higher appeal court over the Exchequer Court of Canada. I understand that the exchequer

court now handles mainly income tax, corporation tax and other appeal cases.
I do not wish to examine all the many suggestions that have been made for solving the problem, many of which are unrealistic. The suggestion has been made that all these cases should be dealt with by the other place. The attitude taken is: Let the senators be the divorce court for parliament. It would be perfectly all right if the government were to sit down with the members of the other parties and decide what type of rules they could provide for a court which would make, in my opinion, a complete change in the Senate operation. However, first I think we should like to know what the present government's intention is in relation to Senate reform. If we are going to reform the Senate radically, I think this reform would have some effect on the divorce court that could be established in that place. I believe that at the present time there is only one man who is well enough informed in this particular field to be able to operate that divorce court. If we are going to retire the present members of the Senate at the age of 80, then this gentleman will no longer be available for that job.
I also believe that we should be obliged to set up a proctor in order to protect the rights of this house. I think we should also be obliged to make it necessary to bring back to the House of Commons a report on what happened in the other place in relation to the detective agencies that appear before it, the lawyers who appear before it, the taxation schemes that are put into effect in each of these cases, and to bring back to parliament a report indicating the desires for reform that would take place from time to time as the operation of a court in the Senate developed. I think this would have to be done before there can be any agreement.
It may be said that this is not too important a matter. However, let me read a few excerpts from some editorials which have appeared in the press. In one which appeared in the Toronto daily Star of July 16, 1960, we find this statement:
Parliamentary divorces are the scandal of the nation. They have long cried out for reform. The government should set up the necessary preliminary study at once, possibly by a special committee of the house.
The terms of reference must go beyond a switch of Quebec and Newfoundland divorces from parliament to a court.
It then goes on to state what other things they should do. Another editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail of March 5, 1962, in referring to discussions we have held in this House of Commons, contained this statement:

-illuminated the farcical nature of the divorce machinery by Insisting upon debating the merits of individual bills in the Commons, thus disrupting the parliamentary timetable.
Then it goes on to say this:
Parliament's first progressive move should be to hand the Newfoundland and Quebec petitions to a competent federal court. The second move, and one which should not be long delayed, should be the liberalization of the divorce laws.
Another editorial which appeared in the Star Weekly of August 5, 1961, had this to say:
-Parliament degrading its function by becoming a legislative Reno, the logical and easy move would be appointment of a royal commission to inquire into Canadian divorce procedures.
Then it goes on to say this:
But while parliament continues to seek so assiduously for revisions of present divorce procedure, it might logically recommend a commission. As yet, however, it has not chosen to do so.
It goes on further to state this:
Until this happens, however, the parliamentary divorce mess will continue to be a shame and scandal to all Canadians.
I understand that in my own particular riding some of the constituents who do not support me have said that one of the things wrong with their member of parliament is that he has continued to fight for divorce reform in Ottawa. I ask you this question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that in this House of Commons we pass about 550 or 650 bills a year? Five hundred of those bills are now private bills granting divorce and only 50 bills to 75 bills are related to running the business and the government of this country. Is it not now time that the house leader should stand up and say that he would be willing, as a temporary measure, to accept the exchequer court this year or now as the logical place in which to handle these cases?
I should like to point out only one other thing that I think has been a fault. We are told that the Minister of Justice will supervise the faults of our particular type of procedure on parliamentary divorce. I can read you, Mr. Speaker, a number of references to cases which I have brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice in this house and inquiries I have made about cases which have come before the miscellaneous private bills committee and in which collusion was indicated, as was widely reported by the newspapers, and in which we have asked for an investigation. In each case we have found that the Minister of Justice has almost asked that we prove it before he would even consider it. In one case I have in mind he considered it two years ago and he is still considering it. As far as I know, no decision has yet been made on that particular case. I have knowledge of other cases in which we have failed
Exchequer Court
completely to give the right answer and to provide the modernization of a procedure that was outdated in most countries 50 years ago, and one from which our mother parliament many years ago extricated itself by the establishment of a proper and justified court.
I think the minister is now going to be obliged to make a decision. If he does not do so, no more divorces will be granted in this parliament. No more divorces will be granted this year. I think he now is obliged to make the decision to accept the exchequer court as the logical place as the machinery is already set up. I for one am tired of the broken promises that have been made, and the unfulfilled commitments that have been given to the house. I think the only logical-


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to take the strongest possible objection to the hon. member's threatening this house by saying that, unless certain action is taken, no more bills of a certain nature are going to be passed in this house. I do not think that is a position that can be accepted by hon. members of this house. If the merits of this bill warrant it, it will certainly be considered and passed. However, we are not going to be blackmailed and be told that we are either going to take a certain action or no more bills of a certain nature are going to be passed in this house.


William Arnold Peters: That is no point of order. I am not threatening anybody.


An hon. Member:: Closure.


William Arnold Peters: The matter is completely open to argument. I have been promised by this particular government many things which just have not happened. I can speak only for myself. As far as I am concerned, this is a logical opportunity for the minister to accept the proposal we have made. I wish no credit for myself. He may have it. The work has been done in preparing a method of proceeding with the matter. If the minister will stand up and say that he accepts this bill, I will certainly relinquish it and we can solve this particular mess; and it certainly is a mess. Like the hon. member who stood up a few moments ago, he has done absolutely nothing through caucus action to force this government to do anything about the matter. I think there would be very few who would stand up in this country and say they wish to endorse the mess we now have and wish to perpetuate it. If this is what he says, then I think he should stand up and say so. If not, we are offering to the government a logical solution to a particularly vexing problem and one which has been recommended by many of the news media of Canada. I think

Exchequer Court
it should commend itself to the support of the minister on this particular occasion. If he wishes it to be done, it would be quite possible to put this into effect for only a limited period of time and parliament could then again review the procedures if they are not working satisfactorily. However, I think very few will disagree that the procedure in use at the present time is not satisfactory. The time has therefore come for parliament itself to find a solution. The putting of our divorce bills into the exchequer court seems to me to be the easiest government operation possible and the one that will create the least opposition.
(Translation):


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of his remarks, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) mentioned that himself and his colleague from Skeena (Mr. Howard) devoted a great deal of time during the present parliament to the study of the question of divorce. We were certainly aware of that fact, because I feel that they have taken up a considerable amount of the time of the house.
In the dying days of the present parliament, I should like to point out, if I may, that the hon. member for Timiskaming and his colleague from Skeena seemed to me very much impressed and even obsessed by problems of procedure in this respect. I think that this matter of procedure is altogether a minor one and that we should concern ourselves with the problem arising from this bill, especially from the moral and legal points of view.
I am against this bill for two main reasons:
In the first place, I am against divorce. Second, I am opposed to the illegal bill introduced by the hon. member for Timiskaming.
I am against divorce because it is the worst social evil man has ever known, in spite of his social and intellectual achievements.
A short review of the history of the world shows that divorce, this release of one's obligations under both natural and family law, has been on the upsurge not in highly moral societies but in decadent, lascivious and worn out civilizations.
The history of Rome and of France are but two examples of this.
History does show that divorce was established in Rome not when the empire was going through its period of greatness, but when it was becoming decadent.
The divorce problem suddenly appeared in France at the time of the French revolution.
[Mr. Peters.}
Divorce creates disorder in the family. It destroys its basic element. Moreover, it defeats the objects of marriage, which are to bring children into the world and to raise them, to abate the lusts of the flesh and to provide for mutual help.
Finally, I am opposed to divorce because it kills what the Creator has instilled in us, the desire to be closer to Him and to maintain our human dignity during our whole life.
A study of the social evolution of countries where divorce has been permitted reveals that the individual who took this course headed towards his downfall and away from his human dignity. Statistics indicate that 80 per cent of the suicides involve divorced persons.
The more courts you set up to consider divorces, the more divorces you will have, and divorce cases will increase.
I think that in the Canadian context of Christian morality, one must make all possible efforts to make it more difficult to get a divorce. I do not accept the allegation made by the hon. member for Timiskaming who, at the outset of his remarks, called the attention of the house to the fact that if divorce cases were referred to the exchequer court, that would reduce the cost of obtaining divorces for Canadians.
We should leave things as they are. The fact that divorce is extremely costly is all to the good, because it will lessen this social evil which afflicts both families and individuals.
To set the record straight, I would say that the more divorce courts we have, the more divorce cases are heard, thus contributing to an increase in the number of divorces. Allow me to give you a few statistics concerning divorce throughout Canada.
In 1960, there were 38.6 divorces per 100,000 people in Canada; in British Columbia, the ratio was 100 divorces per 100,000 inhabitants. Meanwhile, the percentage in Quebec was only 9.4; in Ontario it was 46.9 and in Alberta, 74.5. Newfoundland sets the example with the lowest rate: 1.3 per cent.
These figures justify the stand taken by the two provinces which object to the establishment of divorce courts.
At present, divorce petitions in Canada are not a matter of right; it is a privilege, a favour, an exception. Consequently, if divorce

petitions do not constitute a right, they cannot be referred to a federal court. Of course, some provinces have established provincial divorce courts; that is their privilege.
I respect other people's opinions, but I ask that mine be respected also. To refer divorce cases to a federal court, namely the exchequer court is, in my opinion, to give that court authority over the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland, whereas it has no jurisdiction over those provinces at present in matters of divorce. Since petitions for divorce are not a right but an exception and a privilege, I claim that they cannot as such be referred to a federal court, whether it be the exchequer court or another court which hears petitions of right not cases of privilege.
The hon. member for Timiskaming mentioned in the course of his remarks that the country's constitution, the British North America Act, would not allow the establishment of divorce courts in the provinces.
He probably had in mind section 26 of the British North America Act, which deals with the legislative authority reserved to the parliament of Canada, marriage and divorce coming under section 26.
Using the same argument, I maintain that it is contrary to the British North America Act to propose to refer to the exchequer court the matter of divorce, a matter which is necessarily related, through its ramifications, connections and consequences, to the field of civil rights. As far as the solemnization of marriage is concerned, according to section 92, subsections 12 and 13, civil rights are involved which come exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.
Indeed, the province of Quebec, of which I am a representative in this house, objects to divorce, because it is an action which is not recognized in our civil law. Quebec's hard-won civil law, which was earned through the historic events of 1763 and the Treaty of Paris when freedom of worship was meant to be conceded, with certain restrictions of course, through the Quebec Act in 1774 and particularly through the different British North America Acts, finds recognition in subsection 13 of section 92.
That is precisely one of the basic reasons why Lower Canada, that is the province of Quebec, signed that federation agreement of 1867. It was in order to safeguard its civil rights.
Exchequer Court
Section 185 of the Civil Code of the province of Quebec reads as follows:
Marriage can only be dissolved by the natural death of one of the parties; while both live, it is indissoluble.
Because of those constitutional, legal, and historical reasons, I do not acknowledge the legality of transferring to the exchequer court a matter which would affect civil rights of the province of Quebec.
Of course, I am still considering the question. It is a very serious problem which must be considered at length. I am still wondering why, in 1867, in order to eliminate some anomalies (this is not the only one) marriage was not left under the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures?
There also exist some anomalies in the economic field, where the provinces and the federal government, due to the changes we have been experiencing in 1962, feel shackled.
We can see the lines of thought in Canada converging toward the repatriation of our constitution which will be amended with the consent of all parties concerned.
I hope this point of view we are submitting today will be duly considered.
In ending my remarks, as I want to allow other members to express their views, I declare that I do not recognize the legality of divorce.
In the province of Quebec, we do not want divorce courts, either provincial or federal.
We respect the wish of all other Canadians, and we think that those citizens who request this favour of an exceptional nature ask for a privilege which cannot be established as of right before the exchequer court.
(Text):


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I extend to the mover of this bill my congratulations. This proposal to take from the Canadian House of Commons the detailed examination of so many of these cases which have been sent here in the past has my support. There have been a lot of anomalies in connection with our practice and procedure, such as the system whereby the other place is given certain jurisdiction to entertain some of these actions, with none of the safeguards which are found in our ordinary courts; the attempt to make our standing committee an appeal body without any examination of witnesses but merely through a perusal of the transcript of evidence and without having any specific standing orders

Exchequer Court
to govern us in our review. It seems to me that something should be changed, if possible.
I say this without subscribing to the views which I have heard expressed that it is a discredit to the parliament of Canada to be dealing with these matters. It is my firm opinion that we are the ultimate court of appeal and, as such, even the most humble of the citizens of this country should not be denied access to parliament if the occasion arises. I subscribe also to that view. I think the principle which the mover of this bill has in mind might well be a good one. I appreciate what the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) has in mind. He says he is opposed to divorce, and so am I. Unfortunately, sometimes circumstances do occur just as circumstances bring about the commission of a criminal offence, and they leave us with no alternative.
In considering what we can do, I should like first to express the hope that in this case the two provincial governments mentioned in the bill will take the first step of establishing domestic courts. These domestic courts should first direct their attention to trying to minimize this alarmingly high rate of divorce by exhausting all the methods of conciliation and compromise which are available. I have every reason to believe, and I say this from my own personal experience in the practice of my profession, that there are many things which could be done by provincial courts if they had complete responsibility for taking intermediate steps. However, this is probably irrelevant to the consideration of the bill.
I admire the courage of the mover of this particular bill. This is a matter which fairly bristles with difficulties, such as are bound to be involved in any matter that involves human relationships. These difficulties involve questions of jurisdiction and questions of a legal nature. For example, the bill which the hon. member has moved would purport to give jurisdiction to the exchequer court. As I pointed out when I spoke on this matter last year, the exchequer court today is a court composed of judges who, if they do not have the knowledge when they go to that court obtain it later, have knowledge of certain technical aspects of disputes covering patents, copyrights and matters of a financial nature. This proposal would involve the creation of a branch of the court and the appointment of a number of judges. When I spoke last year I mentioned that, as presently constituted, the exchequer court makes no provision for appeal. The right of appeal is limited to matters involving more than $500. If the amount involved is less than that, there must be, if my memory serves me correctly, leave obtained from a judge of the supreme court 
and the matter must include the study of certain technical aspects of the statutes of the provinces.
If we drove the petitioners for divorce into the exchequer court as the result of the enactment of this bill, these petitioners would be deprived of the right of appeal. Then, there is the question of alimony which arises in these issues. In all these matters, it is the innocent and unfortunate children who are often the victims. If this particular measure were enacted, the exchequer court would be charged with the responsibility of pronouncing the dissolution of the marriage, if the facts warranted it. The petitioners or respondents, whoever had the responsibility for the children, would then have to go to another court to settle the question of alimony and maintenance. This, Mr. Speaker, I believe is quite wrong. These people would be put to the expense and the difficulty of repeating the evidence because in both types of action precisely the same thing has to be proven. This, I could not accept.
I am going to limit my remarks by pointing out to the hon. member in whose name the bill stands that I have sympathy with the principle that has caused him to bring the bill forward, but I do not think it will serve the purposes which it is aimed to secure. After all, while we have an issue here which needs to be dealt with, we must examine closely the means by which the control we seek can be gained. I do not think these means are sufficient, but as I am sure there are other hon. members who wish to speak I shall not say anything more at this time. I have expressed my views and would like to hear what other hon. members may have to say.


Murray Douglas Morton: First of all I would like to refer to some of the remarks made by the mover concerning the negotiations that the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) and myself and with the mover and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I might say that the purposes in discussion at that time were primarily an attempt to come to a solution, and I am advised that this is still the case. There have been attempts made to put the project we have in mind in legal language, and also to fit into the solution certain safeguards which were mentioned at that time.
I think in all fairness we should say that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) has given a report of progress on two different occasions and he is hopeful before coming into the house of being able to bring a measure before the house, or before the group concerned as to the arrangements now being made.

Like every new member first coming into this house I am sure we were all astounded by the incredible fact that the parliament of Canada, with all its problems, should be required to deal in detail with the increased number of these divorces. I think it is apparent that some solution should be reached.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, 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:
An act to incorporate Evangelical Mennonite Mission Conference.
An act respecting the governing council of The Salvation Army, Canada east, and the governing council of The Salvation Army, Canada west.
An act to incorporate Polaris pipe lines.
An act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
An act to amend the Judges Act.
An act respecting The United Church of Canada.
An act respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company and certain wholly owned subsidiaries.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1963.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-38, to provide for the reporting of financial and other statistics relating to the affairs of corporations and labour unions carrying on activities in Canada-Mr. Fulton-Mr. Chown in the chair.
Gordon Campbell Chown: When the committee rose at five o'clock we were about to consider paragraph (b) at the bottom of page 3 of the bill.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, at five o'clock we had just passed subparagraph (xi) and it was my intention to move that a new subparagraph be added to be known as subparagraph (xii). I feel this is the proper
5.	1962	2541
Corporations and Labour Unions place to move that amendment which I will now have distributed.
I move:
That paragraph (a) of clause 4 be amended byadding thereto the following as subparagraph
(xii):
(xii) The name and address of each corporation or person with which the reporting corporation has an agreement or arrangement relating to one or more of the following:
(a)	The exchange of statistics;
(b)	The defining of product standards;
(c)	The exchange of credit information;
(d)	Definition of trade terms;
(e)	Co-operation in research and development;
(f)	Restriction of advertising;
(g)	Prices;
(h)	Quantity or quality of production;
(i)	Markets or customers; or
(j)	Channels or methods of distribution.
Perhaps I should explain to the committee what these are. All are contained in section 32 of the Combines Investigation Act. Briefly put, that section of the act generally prohibits agreements among companies for the purpose of fixing prices, limiting quantity or quality of production and engaging in restraint of trade practices. Another portion of section 32 of the Combines Investigation Act-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Is it in order to discuss the Combines Investigation Act on this bill? With respect to the amendment that has been moved I would have said it would be proper as an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act but not as an amendment to this bill. Accordingly, I must oppose the amendment in any event. But it seems to me it is out of order to get into a discussion of the Combines Investigation Act in discussing the amendment.


Frank Howard: I am not getting into a discussion of the Combines Investigation Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member is reading the Combines Investigation Act.


Frank Howard: I am not. I just read an amendment of mine. I told the minister and the committee that these points are contained in section 32 of that act; that is where I got them. I was explaining the relationship of my amendment to that act to show that I was taking the words of the minister and putting them-


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I must insist on the point of order.


Frank Howard: Do you mind if I speak to the point of order?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am speaking on a point of order.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak to the point of order.
2542	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions
The Depuly Chairman: Order. We have a minister and an hon. member on the floor at the same time. If the minister is rising on a point of order I should hear him out and then perhaps the hon. member for Skeena may speak to the point of order.


Frank Howard: But the minister already rose on a point of order-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order, please.


Frank Howard: -and now he seeks to raise another point of order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Order.


Frank Howard: Indeed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, the rules apply to you, too.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I gave the floor to the minister, who I believe rises on a point of order.


Frank Howard: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The minister rose on a point of order earlier. He offered his point of order and sat down. I rose to comment on the point of order and then the minister rose on another point of order. He can have only one at a time. That is why I said "Indeed" to my friend the hon. member for Greenwood. I was seeking the floor to comment on the point of order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, may I explain that the only reason I rose was because the hon. member for Skeena was on his feet at the same time Your Honour was on yours.


Frank Howard: What about the minister?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not on my feet.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: The minister is not on his feet.


Frank Howard: Like other hon. members opposite, the minister does not like the rules applied to him.
An hen. Member: Neither do you.


Frank Howard: This is evidenced by the minister's own statements appearing in Hansard on more than one occasion. In dealing with the point of order as to the propriety of this particular amendment I say again, as I said previously, that the bill in the title says that it is an act to provide for the reporting of financial and other statistics relating to the affairs of corporations and labour unions carrying on activities in Canada. The minister says that in his interpretation this relates to the foreign control of our economy.
I am submitting that providing for the reporting of financial and other statistics this amendment is perfectly within that ambit. In one instance we want the relationship- 

and I will read it again-between the operations of corporations reporting, as to the exchange of statistics between them. That is statistics. We mention the defining of product standards. It could be a statistic of the financial reporting of a corporation. We mention the exchange of credit information. Certainly that is statistical, and a definite matter relating to the operation of corporations. We mention the definition of trade terms and co-operation in research and development. All of these things are related to the bill. In fact, later on in clause 4 the minister wishes to find out particular questions about engineering, architectural, legal, accounting and auditing and consulting fees and charges and he quoted the Prime Minister talking about research statistics. Prices certainly are a question of statistics and financial matters. Quantity or quality of production is affected by this too. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment is not only perfectly in order because it is within the ambit of the title of the bill, but that it is perfectly in order as it relates even to an expression of the minister, namely foreign control of our economy.
It is even more in order when we realize that we should be more concerned about corporate price fixing control of our economy, if we are concerned about it at all. As the minister stated on second reading and since then, the question of foreign control is one of a great deal of importance to Canadians. It is something that he wants to find out about in this particular statute. But as I say, we should be equally concerned-and the bill provides for this equal concern- about the type of control that exists either within Canada as between corporations in Canada, or between corporations in Canada and corporations outside of Canada in so far as their constrictions on competition are concerned. I submit that price fixing, collusion, the setting up of production standards quantities and qualities are the order of the day in industry rather than the question of competition.
If I may be allowed to do so I should like to relate two or three references to this matter from a book by Professor Reynolds who is an associate in political economy in Johns Hopkins University. It is entitled "The Control of Competition in Canada". He has this to say about this question of the control of our economy. I am reading from page 17 where he states:
It Is safe to say that at least fifty price fixing trade associations are operating in Canada today, and the number may be considerably higher.
The price-fixing trade association certainly has an effect upon our economy and a far greater one than it has under foreign control.

Corporations and Labour Unions The Deputy Chairman: If I may interrupt affecting the economy and damaging our the hon. member just momentarily I should economy, we should not be concerned only like to say that at this stage I am having with foreign control of corporations in Canada some difficulty in relating what he is saying but must also concern ourselves with price to the subsection of the bill that is at present fixing arrangements amongst companies with-under consideration. I know that he is speak- in the country. Whether or not they are wholly ing to his own amendment, and I have some owned Canadian companies or whether they doubt as to its admissibility, in some of its are subsidiaries of foreign corporations does parts though not in all of them. On the not matter too much in this regard. If they other hand I felt if he related his discussion enter into price fixing arrangements they are strictly to statistics I would have some diffi- having a detrimental effect on our economy, culty in ruling it out of order. For that reason They are having a bad effect upon the farmers, I allowed him to continue. Knowing this, if who are completely at their mercy, and they
he would endeavour to co-operate with the Chair, I would appreciate it.


Frank Howard: Very easily, Mr. Chairman, and very delightfully.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do you think he can be delightful?


Frank Howard: It comes natural with me. I do not have to force myself, as do hon. gentlemen opposite. Let me read some statistical information from Professor Reynold's book entitled "The Control of Competition in Canada". I am reading from page 72. He talks about the use that is made of statistics and states this:
Between 1929 and 1933 the prices of the monopolized goods fell by about 10 per cent while under price agreement the decline was about 13 per cent. Agreements thus seem to be able to resist downward pressure on prices almost as effectively as monopolies. Competitive prices on the other hand, fell by 36 per cent and the prices of farm products were cut in half.
This is an indication from Professor Reynolds as to the effect upon our economy of one kind of monopolized goods during that period of recession from 1929 to 1933 as compared with the prices of commodities which had administered prices, which had prices set by price agreements and by collusive arrangements. He compares these with so-called competitive prices in which there was no agreement, and points out that they fell almost three times as much and prices of farm goods were cut in half, in order to indicate that the farmer was at the complete mercy of monopolies and oligarchies and others engaged in price fixing arrangements I say that this is the sort of information the dominion bureau of statistics should have in order to bring to the attention of the government the full type of control that exists over our economy and in order to get to know the degree of foreign control which exists. I submit that we know that already by the dominion bureau of statistics figures to which I referred earlier this afternoon and which the minister pooh-poohed as being of no value whatsoever. However, they are the figures which he himself used on second reading of the bill. I say that if we really wish to get to know what is
are having a detrimental effect upon the consumer because they are draining off the consumer's purchasing dollar by price fixing arrangements which keep prices unnecessarily and arbitrarily high. We have had a number of instances in past years and I do not wish to go into them except to say that practically every major group of industry in Canada has been convicted under the combines act of engaging in price fixing conspiracies and setting prices arbitrarily high.
I therefore think that if this is a government that wishes to put into effect that which it preaches or if it wishes to practise what it preaches, I should think it would fall over backwards in order to accept an amendment of this nature. If it feels there are one or two items in here that are not within what it considers to be the proper ambit of the title of the bill, I submit that view is incorrect. Nevertheless it can object to them and we can consider whether or not one or two of them may be out of order. I submit they are all in order because they all fall within the title of the bill and they are all things that the bureau of statistics should know in order that the government may have a true, proper, clear and, as the minister said, precise picture of the forces which control the economy of Canada so that we may deal with them properly.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The committee has heard the amendment moved and read by the hon. member. Shall I dispense with reading it again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Howard) negatived: Yeas, 15; nays, 36.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I declare the amendment lost.
On paragraph (b).


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall paragraph (b) carry?

Corporations and Labour Unions


Frank Howard: No, Mr. Chairman. I think we had better proceed with paragraph (b) in the same way we did with (a), by taking the subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii).


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is it agreed that we consider paragraph (b) by Roman numeral reference?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall subparagraph (i) carry? It includes (A), (B) and (C).


Alexis Pierre Caron: In (C) there is reference to a statement of surplus made up as of the last day of the reporting period. I should think it should be "surplus or deficit", because it is worth while knowing if there is a deficit. There might be a deficit instead of a surplus.
On subparagraph (i).


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in (B) of subparagraph (i). In this case we are asking for a statement of income and expenditure for the reporting period, and I suggest this will give us an incomplete picture if that is all we get. I suggest that we want to know about the sales of a company within the country and also about its export sales. An example would be the Massey-Harris Company. Under the first part it would be able to say that it was a Canadian company and very likely the board of directors would be Canadian. Yet to get a clear picture of the financial position of the Massey-Harris Company it would be necessary to know the volume and amount of sales within Canada and also the amount and volume of sales outside Canada, with the amounts which would be returned in each case to the parent company. To accomplish this I move:
That part (B) of subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) of clause 4 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(B) a statement of income and expenditure for the reporting period with such income to indicate separately the amount received as a result of sales within Canada and sales other than within Canada, and"


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Peters) negatived: Yeas, 16; nays, 42.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I declare the amendment lost. Shall subparagraph (i) carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, could we have the figures again?
[And the Clerk Assistant having repeated the result of the vote]


John Whitney Pickersgill: Forty two.


Michael Starr: Sixteen in both opposition parties.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. Shall subparagraph (i) carry?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the record will show that we had more than 50 per cent of our members here.


Michael Starr: The first time in two weeks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Fifty per cent of zero is zero.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think the word "surplus" is used in the accounting sense. Whether there was a surplus or deficit on the year's operations will be shown in the annual statement. This is what is called an internal surplus which is carried forward and therefore the total is adjusted from year to year. It does not have to do with whether there is a surplus or a loss on the year's operations. It is an accounting term.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Would it not be clearer to say "surplus or deficit"?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think, Mr. Chairman, there will be no doubt in the minds of those who are called upon to file these returns as to what is meant by this term, statement of surplus. You see, we have already required, under (B) the filing of a statement of income and expenditure for the reporting period. This will show whether there was an operating profit or an operating loss. Then, the third part, part (C), is a statement of surplus, and that is an accounting term which means the inner surplus carried forward from year to year. I am reminded that section 116 of the Companies Act clearly sets forth what is meant by a statement of surplus, so I do not think there will be any doubt in the minds of those who are called upon to file the return.
Subparagraph (i) agreed to.
Subparagraph (ii) agreed to.
On subparagraph (iii).


Miss LaMarsh:: I do not know whether or not the committee proposes to deal with the subparagraphs, but since no one else rises I propose to rise in respect of (J) of subparagraph (iii). There is a matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister who is piloting this bill through the house, namely, the matter of insurance. If, in fact, this committee is dealing with a bill, the purpose of which is to obtain information as it appears, then surely this is not just a matter of legislative peeping-tomism. Surely our purpose is to obtain information and, thereafter, if legislation is necessary to counteract anything, new legislation will be introduced. I would assume, from the opening speech made by the minister in introducing this bill to the committee, the purpose is to ensure that those who operate within Canada operate primarily for the

good of Canada. It would appear, then, that it is imperative that all members of the committee attempt to strengthen this bill and to obtain as much information as will be necessary to prove or disprove allegations which have been made in the past.
An allegation has been made to me, and I believe previously to the government in a brief submitted by the insurance company representatives in Canada, about the fact that there has been considerable financial blood letting of Canadian corporations which are foreign controlled by a peculiar device, in that where formerly these Canadian companies placed through local insurance agents or brokers insurance of various types such as life insurance, fire insurance and insurance on automobiles, not only on company fleets but on individual cars owned by individual employees, as a result of influence from United States head offices these policies have been withdrawn by gentle pressure from within the corporations. The employees in some cases have been influenced, and in other cases Canadian corporations have been influenced to place their insurance elsewhere.
In particular, without reference to the names of the corporations, which are Canadian corporations subsidiary to United States corporations, or to the insurance companies concerned, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that on at least two occasions this has happened in my own locality. Niagara Falls, as is generally known, is an industrial area and something like 2 per cent of the industries in the area are Canadian corporations. In the last few years, and I do not propose to say five years or four years or ten years, but in the last few years, this has happened. In one case, the local agents had written policies of fire insurance on local buildings and, in the process of a few months a pattern became obvious whereby the Canadian company began to cancel the insurance placed through the local agent and, in a large part, the Canadian company then began to place it through the head office. In some cases, the actual payment was not made by the Canadian subsidiary corporation to the United States head office corporation. This became a bookkeeping matter as between head office and the local office. The effect was that the Canadian insurers who had been serving these policies no longer receive the Canadian business.
In another, and much more flagrant case, the Canadian subsidiary corporation brought pressure to bear upon its employees in respect of their automobile policies on their privately owned automobiles. All of the employees were requested to cancel out their insurance, and they would receive the same benefits from a master policy which would be
Corporations and Labour Unions held by their Canadian employers. In fact, what happened was that the Canadian subsidiary placed a policy with another general insurance company which was not even licensed to practice within the province of Ontario, and those policies, as placed, cost the individual employees the same amount of money but for less coverage. As a result of the pressure within the company itself, no individual felt that he was in a position to resist. He thought as long as he got the same coverage it would be all right. In fact, all the premiums went to the United States corporation for which the United States head office, and not the Canadian subsidiary, received a very substantial reduction in its over-all fire insurance rates.
These allegations have been presented to me by a responsible officer of the association of fire and casualty agents in this country. If these allegations are correct, they might be the subject of some legislation. I noticed in going through the clauses that the department has not brought forward for the committee any suggestion in respect of insurance privileges. In the first place, I deprecate the phraseology of the motion which I have to put before the committee because I am not a drafter of legislation, but I should like to move at this stage, Mr. Chairman:
That section 4(b) subparagraph (iii) (J) be amended by adding the words "including premiums or payments made for insurance coverage".
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is the only way in which we can ascertain whether or not the allegations which have been made are in fact correct or incorrect. If correct then, as in the case of all other information we obtain from the forms required to be filed under this statute, the committee will be in a position to prepare such legislation as may be required to alleviate the condition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am grateful to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, for having brought to our attention the fact that no specific mention is made in this particular portion of the bill of charges for insurance premiums, whether life, property or other. It seems to me this subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (b), is the part where the teeth of the bill appear. It is perhaps significant that hon. members in the far corner of the committee have not bothered as yet to make any reference to this, in view of the fact they have said the bill accomplishes nothing.


Frank Howard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The hon. member for Skeena rises on a point of order.
254S

Corporations and Labour Unions


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do you really think a point of order arises, Mr. Chairman, out of anything I have said so far?


Frank Howard: My point of order is that the minister alleges or imputes motives-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not imputing motives at all, I am making a statement of fact.


Frank Howard: -and as a matter of fact, the minister was so secretive before that we just gave up in disgust.


Gordon Campbell Chown: There is no point of order that I can see in anything the hon. member for Skeena has said. The point he raises is a matter of debate, and he can make his contribution in that regard later.


Frank Howard: You are entering into debate, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: A totally improper remark.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was endeavouring to point out to the committee, when I was interrupted, that this is one of those parts of the bill which really has teeth in it. What does it do? It provides that corporations are required to furnish a statement-and this is the first time corporations in the history of Canada will be required to furnish such a statement -showing total amounts paid or credited by the corporation during the reporting period to persons not resident in Canada. This does not appear anywhere else in such specific form.
Let me observe also that with respect to the classes of companies mentioned in the schedule we can get at this information, but the fact remains that this is the first time it has been provided in specific form that corporations should report the amounts paid to persons not resident in Canada, as and on account of each of the following items. I am not going to read the whole list because it is before members of the committee. I think it would be interesting to those who read the report of this debate in Hansard to know in summary what we are going to require. We want to know what corporations pay to people outside of Canada on account of dividends, interest, rents on real property in Canada, rent on equipment used in connection with the business they carry on in Canada, royalties and similar payments including copyrights, patents, industrial designs and trademarks, payments for production, distribution and sales franchises, payments for advertising and sales promotion, and payments in respect of scientific research.
[The Deputy Chairman.]
We want to know what these companies pay to people outside Canada for scientific research. We want to know precisely what the situation is so that we can know what intelligent measures to introduce in order, shall I say, to encourage subsidiary companies in Canada to carry on their scientific research in Canada. We want to know how much they now pay outside Canada for that research.
We also want to know how much they pay to persons outside Canada in respect of product and process development research, how much they pay outside Canada for management and administration fees and charges, how much they pay outside Canada for salaries, fees and other remuneration to officers and directors, how much they pay outside Canada for annuities, pensions and similar payments, how much they pay outside Canada for fees and charges for professional services such as engineering, architectural, legal, accounting and auditing; because it is our view, in accordance with the statement made by the Prime Minister which I have already quoted in this house, that companies carrying on business in Canada, if they are foreign owned, or even if they are subsidiaries of foreign owned companies, should be good Canadians, and that it should be their policy to make these payments in Canada so as to encourage the development of research, management and consultant experience, architectural and engineering skills in Canada instead of paying all these sums to people outside Canada.
But before we can intelligently appreciate what is the situation and know what measures should be taken to bring about desirable changes, if it is necessary for the government to take those measures in order to accomplish that, we want to know what is the present situation and how much is paid outside. Therefore we have provided in this bill that for the first time the government in Canada will have the precise-and I do not hesitate to use that word nor do I apologize for it-the precise information as to what is going on now in these fields.
As I said at the beginning of these remarks, I appreciate what the hon. member for Niagara Falls has done in bringing to our attention that we had overlooked making specific provision that what is paid for insurance to persons outside Canada should also be required to be reported. It could perhaps be argued that it is covered incidentally under some of the other specific things we have provided for, but I do not argue that too strongly. It is acceptable to me, especially in the light of what the hon. member said, that we should make it clear that this heading, which may be a very important heading of

payment to persons outside Canada, should be covered specifically because certainly we have a very excellent, adequate insurance industry in Canada, including life, fire, casualty and other forms. It would certainly be our objective to encourage companies carrying on business in Canada, and profiting by their business in Canada, to place their insurance in Canada with Canadian companies. Therefore as a first step we should know how much they are paying for insurance to companies outside Canada. Accordingly I am prepared to accept the principle of the suggestion that the hon. member has made.
I wonder if the hon. lady would permit me, without being too precise and meticulous, to suggest that the objective could be accomplished better by introducing a separate subheading, rather than by lumping insurance with heading (J), as she tentatively suggested. If it would meet with the approval of the hon. lady I would be prepared to accept an amendment from her which would add, immediately after paragraph (I) of subparagraph (iii), on page 5, a new paragraph (J) which would read "premiums and other charges for or in respect of insurance," and then renumber paragraphs (J) to (N) as paragraphs (K) to (O).


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I shall be delighted. I move the following amendment:
That the said bill be further amended by adding thereto, immediately after clause (I) of subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (b) of section 4 thereof, the following clause:
'(J) premiums and other charges for or in respect of insurance,'
and by renumbering clauses (J) to (N) of the said subparagraph (iii) as clauses (K) to (O) respectively.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Will the committee agree that the original amendment put forward by the hon. member for Niagara Falls was not put to the committee, and go right on as though this were the original amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 as amended, agreed to.
On clause 5-Relieving provision.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I would ask one of my colleagues to move an amendment to this clause in accordance with the information I gave, to the effect that the said bill be further amended by substituting the words "dominion statistician" for the word "minister" in lines 30 and 43 on page 5 and in line 2 on page
6.	I shall ask the Minister of Defence Production to move accordingly.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I move the following amendment:
Corporations and Labour Unions
That the said bill be further amended by substituting the words "dominion statistician" for the word "minister" in lines 30 and 43 on page 5 and in line 2 on page 6.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 as amended, agreed to.
On clause 6-Offence.
Edmund Davie Fulton: There is the same amendment to this clause, to substitute "dominion statistician" in what I think is line 8.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I move:
That the said bill be further amended by substituting the words "dominion statistician" for the word "minister" in line 8 on page 6.
k Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 7-Demand by registered letter to officer etc. of corporation in Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The same amendment will be moved to this clause by my colleague the Minister of Defence Production with respect to lines 21 and 25.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I move:
That the said bill be further amended by substituting the words "dominion statistician" for the word "minister" in lines 21 and 25 on page 6.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Perhaps I might point out to the minister-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The other word "minister" in line 23 does not need to be changed. There it will refer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
*7 Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 8-Application of part II.


Frank Howard: Now that we have begun to discuss another part of this bill, the part in which its provisions are applied to unions, I think we should make some general comments as we did with regard to the provisions affecting corporations. If we assist the minister in the future by remaining silent on one or two clauses I hope he will not accuse us, as he did earlier, completely without justification, of not paying attention.
I may say that we do not consider so-called labour unions, or trade unions, as being foreign controlled or foreign dominated in the same terms as we think of corporations, inasmuch as labour unions are free associations of employees. With respect to a corporation there is usually an importation of capital into the country to establish something in the first place, or to buy up companies in this country or to invest money in them. A trade union or a labour union begins by organizing the members or the employees of a particular

Corporations and Labour Unions company into an organization for their own protection and for the defence of their own interests as differentiated from those of the employer. So I say, as did my hon. friend from Timmins in his opening remarks on the second reading of this measure, that although these two elements in our economy, business corporations and unions, are contained in the same bill there is an essential difference between them. Any attempt to relate one to the other and to suggest they have the same impact upon our economy is not a fair and just comparison. However, they are dealt with in the same bill, and we must consider the matter in that light.
I said in my remarks on the earlier part of this bill that trade unions, as I know them, already file their collective agreements under the various labour acts which exist in the provinces and federally. They file their constitutions. These are public documents, and they enable one to see the true relationship of a local union in Canada to its parent body whether that parent body is in Canada or in the United States. We note that the Department of Labour publishes a monthly labour gazette which gives us a breakdown with regard to collective agreements and their contents. The Department of Labour also publishes annually a document called "Labour Unions in Canada" in which are set out the names of the unions, their officials, the number of locals which exist in Canada and all sorts of other relevant material about them. As I said before, we cannot think about these unions in terms of so-called foreign control; in this respect a comparison with corporations cannot be made. The autonomy of local unions-and this applies generally to all unions I know of-is far greater than the autonomy resting in any Canadian subsidiary of a United States parent corporation. The base of a corporation rests upon the authoritarianism of its managers and is related to seeking profits. The base of a labour union or a trade union-and I differentiate between the two-rests upon the individual members of that union, and these members are the controlling force. I do not know how much weight we can attach to the statement, but the Gordon royal commission recognizes this in its report. It made certain references to unions in the report and said, in effect, the same sort of thing as I have been saying. The commission found no evidence of unions in Canada which did not derive their authority from their membership. There is a vast difference between unions and corporations in this regard.
Thus I think that in this field the information which the government is likely to receive as a result of the requirements of part II of this bill will not help to achieve any object

at all. It will not give the government any understanding of the forces at work in our economy. It will just give them, possibly, information which is not now readily available. One thing it would give, for example, is an indication of the sex of union members. Perhaps that is the sole purpose of the bill. Perhaps some bright person who drafted this bill said: Well, we are going to get all this other useless information so we might as well get the sex of union members, too. I cannot think what value that information will be. It may be thought that female members have more voice, more power in the affairs of unions than male members. I do not know.
I should like to quote some words by one who has been accused of being a member of the labour clique in this nation-one who, apparently, has some domination over this party. I should like to quote some comments by Mr. Bill Mahoney, national director of the United Steelworkers of America. His own words are as follows-there are a number of preliminary remarks, but he goes on to say:
I know of no union which does not give regular and detailed financial statements to its members. Local unions, too, are constitutionally required to present financial reports and undergo periodic audits of their accounts. This can be verified by examination of union constitutions which are filed with the return referred to in paragraph (a) above.
I might as well refer to paragraph (a). It says:
A considerable part of the data specified in section 10 (1) of the bill is already furnished annually to the Department of Labour and most of this is printed in the publication of the economics and research branch of the department, Labour Organization in Canada. The return on which this publication is based includes a list of all local unions with names and addresses of their secretaries. In addition, local unions furnish the names and addresses of their officers and the number of their members on cards circulated by the department.
Because he is the director, he talks about the united steelworkers in particular. I quote again:
The united steelworkers of America, for example, prints twice a year the comprehensive audit report of its independent auditors, Main and Company of Pittsburgh. This report includes statements of income and expenses of the international office and the various district offices, together with a list of fees and dues received from each and every local union. Payments by and expenditures on the two Canadian districts of the union are readily ascertainable from the report. The report also lists the investments in securities and property by the international union.
This report is distributed to every local union in the organization and is printed in our monthly newspaper, Steel Labor, which goes to every member and is available to the public. It is also released to the press. Recently we have been sending it to members of parliament.

This is the essential point:
The availability of financial statements of international unions operating in Canada has been pointed out again and again, in the press and elsewhere. Any demand for legislation on the matter has been part of a synthetic "smear labour" campaign. It is regrettable that the parliament of Canada should be made party to that campaign.
He speaks at length of other aspects of this question, but those are the salient points.
The information sought to be obtained under part II of which clauses 8 and 9 are a part will not contribute anything to the information of the government concerning control of our economy. As in the clause relating to corporations, as I pointed out earlier, the government already receives the information. I do not know why it is required in another form except perhaps to employ more statisticians. This is another indication of the uselessness of this bill.
As far as I can see, the only information the government will receive under this part relates to the sex of union members, how many are male and how many are female. I do not know of what value that would be. Perhaps someone has an interest in this question with a view to publishing statistics showing the number of male and female union members, but I cannot imagine that this would be of value in assessing the effect of foreign interests on our economy. That seems to be the only information that will be obtained under this part. I cannot become too excited in wondering why the minister desires this information.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-Return to be filed with minister.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments to offer to this clause.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Will the committee agree to considering clause 9 by order of the Roman numerals rather than the lettered paragraphs? Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would ask my colleague, the Minister of Defence Production, to move:
That the said bill be further amended by substituting the words "dominion statistician" for the word "minister" in line 4 on page 7.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I so move.
'g Amendment agreed to.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would also ask my colleague the Minister of Defence Production, to move:
That subparagraph (v) of paragraph (a) of clause 9 be amended by adding after the word "nationality" the words "or citizenship" in line 22 on page 7.
Corporations and Labour Unions


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subparagraphs (i) to (v) inclusive agreed to.
On subparagraph (vi).
Frank Howard: Under this subparagraph the government wishes to know the sex of union members. I see no reason for it although maybe someone has some interest in the matter. I wish to move an amendment which simply deletes the reference to the sex of the members.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is my hon. friend moving to strike out sex?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister did that years ago when he sat on this side of the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I never did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Don't you remember your
comics?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was crime.


Frank Howard: I merely wish to strike out the minister's public interest in sex.
I move:
That paragraph (a) of clause 9 be amended by deleting subparagraph (vi) therefrom and substituting therefor the following:
(vi) the name and address of each local union or branch of the union in Canada and the name and address of each officer of any such local union or branch.
The effect of this amendment is merely to delete the words, "and the number of male members and the number of female members of any such local union or branch".


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I have been provided with a copy of an amendment which would purport to amend subparagraph (v) in a manner in which we have already amended it. I understand that we are on subparagraph (vi).


Frank Howard: I appreciate what has happened. So many flimsy copies of amendments of the minister and mine have been circulating that confusion was bound to result.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe I have the point now, My hon. friend's amendment would strike out in subparagraph (vi) the words, "and the number of male members and the number of female members of any such local union or branch".


Frank Howard: Correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: One could make either as much or as little of this point, Mr. Chairman, as one felt inclined. However, I do put this point before hon. members of the committee. If I understand it correctly, and I believe
2550	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions I do, it is a matter not only of concern but pride in Canada generally, as well as in the union movement in Canada, that there is no discrimination in employment and that there should not be discrimination in employment on grounds of sex or on any other grounds on which discrimination would be improper.
It has been represented to us therefore that it would be a matter of satisfaction to the trade unions, in furnishing their official returns which here under section A would be open to public inspection and upon which no doubt many annual reports would probably be based, to show the extent of non-discrimination between the sexes in employment in Canada. To bring about that objective, it was necessary for us to specify that the number of male employees and the number of female employees would be shown in the returns.
It does not seem to me that that should give rise to the allegation of discrimination or of some desire to see discrimination on the part of the government which is presenting the bill to the house. All that we are doing is saying that in the return made the number of employees who are male and the number who are female will be stated so that we can see precisely what the position is.
If I were convinced that most of the people in Canada who work or are members of unions felt that this provision somehow or other indicated a desire to discriminate, then I would not attach all that importance to the provision and would be prepared to accept the amendment. However, I doubt that the hon. member has correctly stated the feeling in that regard. I do not think the workers who are members of unions will be greatly concerned because in the return the number of employees who are male and the number who are female have to be shown. I doubt that my hon. friend speaks for the workers of Canada in that regard.
In any event we think it is essential that the numbers of employees should be shown. I could not accept the amendment if only for the reason that it would have the effect of deleting the requirement that the number of employees be stated. Therefore on both grounds, Mr. Chairman, namely because with respect I do not think that the hon. member for Skeena has correctly interpreted the feeling of union members with regard to this question of whether the number of male and female employees should be stated and because his amendment would delete altogether the requirement for stating the numbers of employees, I must oppose the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word about the hon. member's amendment. I do not think I could bring myself to support


this amendment, as the Liberal party is for growth. It is obvious that in order to have adequate growth we must have both sexes and plenty of them. Speaking seriously, may I say that it seems to me that, if we are going to get this other information, there are many arguments for getting as much information as we can get, which is not going to cost anybody anything extra to provide, in order that we may have a better knowledge of our country and of all the social and economic aspects of it.


Frank Howard: I should like to say this to the Minister of Justice when he talks about no discrimination. I may tell him that I worked in a logging camp for a few years and that I do not know of a logger in the country who would not like to have a number of female members in that organization. Perhaps this is what the minister wishes to promote. I do not know. However, the point is that some of these unions are not going to be able to ascertain this information.
The minister says that it is not a question of discrimination. If the minister says he wishes to have this provision in here in order to show that there is no discrimination, that is one thing. Perhaps what he is saying is that he wants this provision in so that statistics will show that there is no discrimination; but I do not know how he is going to get that from the loggers local of the I.W.A. which has 4,500 members to 5,000 members and when there is not a woman in a carload. Is that discrimination? How about the mining camps which may have women working there-


Edmund Davie Fulton: If there are no women in that local, it should not be very difficult to make that return.


Frank Howard: It should not be difficult to make a return, but is the minister going to say there is discrimination in this industry because they are not employing any women? By arguing this point so heatedly or by arguing in favour of listing male and female employees, I think what he is doing is giving us the intention or the reason for this bill, which is really a snooping one designed to pry into other people's affairs.


William Arnold Peters: It is a fact that in most of these unions this provision is going to cause a bit of a quandary.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You mean you cannot tell the difference?


William Arnold Peters: I know of no union which from a statistical point of view, is going to be able to tell this from most of the local union records. The membership card or the application in the initial stage states whether it is a

male or female employee, but in relation to dues and other considerations, there is no difference in the amount. They are numbers when the matter is reduced to this statistical proposition. Unless they change their requirements, their dues books and the method used for reporting in the local and sublocal offices, I am sure they will not be in the position to do this. I represent another section of the I.W.A. in which we have both men and women as union employees. As far as I know, with the exception of the application card, there would be no relationship unless you looked over the names and somebody in each reporting period decided whether this was a female employee or a male employee. This was never a consideration. No differentiation was made whether an employee was female or male. The situation is unlike that with regard to company records where often the wages were different for male and female employees. The union membership has not made this differentiation. I think this provision will be asking for something that is beyond what is now compiled in the report of the union where they would be normally reporting their membership in a statistical manner.


Walter George Pitman: I am going to appeal to the minister from another point of view. It would seem to me that this particular section would have nothing whatsoever to do with the main purpose of the bill which is to provide information as to external control. Is this not information which would already be available to the Minister of Labour? Surely the Minister of Labour would know the number of male members and the number of female members. Indeed, one would even wonder if you had the name and the address of the officers and so on; you would have at least that much from that area. But at the same time, is this not a duplication of information or a possible duplication of forms of which we were complaining so heatedly previously when we were talking about business? I would ask the minister whether this information is not already available to the Minister of Labour and to the Department of Labour and whether it could not be very easily acquired from that area.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know. It seems to me that, in the state of emancipation which Canada has reached today, the girls would probably like to be enumerated. I think it would be an affront to the women who work in Canada if we did not divide the number of employees as between male and female. Furthermore, I am told that for years, with respect to unemployment and employment, the statistical returns have been broken down as between male and female. I therefore do
5,	1962
Corporations and Labour Unions not think this requirement will be unwelcome to the unions who report under this provision.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question?


William Arnold Peters: How ridiculous this requirement can be is probably shown by the situation in the mining industry. It was mentioned that there were very few women employed in the mining industry, but I am sure the hon. member for Timmins can remember as I do stories about incidents that happened a little before my time. We remember the story of a woman working underground as a man and after a period of years becoming a machine operator. We also remember what happened when showers were installed at the Hollinger mine and it was found that several of the men who were working there were unable to take showers because it would reveal their sex. This would appear to me to be very snoopy legislation if it would produce the same result that was brought about by modernization in the mining industry.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It appears to me quite obvious what the difference is between us on the government side and the members of the New Democratic party with respect to this question. In this matter we would have female employees at least listed as numbers while the members of the New Democratic party would make them ciphers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put one question to the minister that has been raised in my mind by the last observation by the hon. member for Timiskaming. Will the government be satisfied with a superficial differentiation so that there will be no necessity of using showers or anything of that sort in order to get these statistics?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can assure the committee that the government will be prepared to accept a paper return and will not do any snooping, and if any doubt should arise in our minds we will call on the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to resolve it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the Minister of Justice should have made so immoral a proposal because the minister must have read the Senate and House of Commons Act and must realize that no member of parliament can receive a place of profit under the crown and keep his seat in this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would expect the hon. member to do this for nothing.
2552	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is just an indirect device on the part of the minister to try to get me out of parliament and it is not going to work.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Howard) negatived: Yeas, 5; nays, 52.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I declare the amendment lost.


Frank Howard: Vive la difference.


[Stage Direction]
Subparagraph agreed to.
On subparagraph (vii).
William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask the minister a question. In statements he made prior to the introduction of the bill he mentioned the fact that he had examined and given consideration to the United States legislation that applies to labour and management and the fact that it had in it a bill of rights for labour and management which had some effect on the presentation of information. If the government is sincere in wanting to know about some of the difficulties that may arise and certainly have arisen in the United States, this provision could be strengthened considerably and the provisions of the United States legislation might be applied in this instance. It would mean that there would be some guarantee against trusteeships being imposed for reasons not advantageous to the employees in a particular plant, or being imposed in a dictatorial way or for other than legitimate purposes. While the United States bill did a lot more snooping than the government appears to be interested in doing in the bill we have before us, in this instance their bill gave some protection to the employees and union members with relation to trusteeship.
In the main a trusteeship is usually justified for one or two legitimate reasons. It may be that the executive officers of the union have misspent or misused the funds of the local. In other cases the presiding body might put the local under trusteeship for failing to live up to the constitutional requirements as endorsed by the local. Then there are other abuses such as the maintenance of paper locals and so on.
In this instance the minister is asking for the name of each local union or branch of the union in Canada under a trusteeship imposed by the union, the date such trusteeship was imposed and the reasons therefor; and that is all. It would appear to me that the minister is not really interested in correcting the abuse. He wants to find out about it but to me it would seem very inappropriate to find out about the abuse


and then do nothing about It. It may be that if a particular trend develops with regard to abuses in this field the minister may recommend to his colleagues or the dominion statistician may recommend to the cabinet, particularly the Minister of Labour, that there should be an amendment to the bill of rights or under some other statute to provide a remedy for some of the abuses that can take place in this field.
As well as having the name of the local union or branch of the union under trusteeship, the date that the trusteeship was imposed and the reasons therefor, I would think we should also have the names of the people who are the trustees, the amount of the remuneration they are receiving, the constitutional provisions that allow them to impose the trusteeship, the length of time the trusteeship has been in force and other pertinent information which, if it were available, would permit a certain amount of corrective action to be taken, even by the general public.
We have read about the investigations in the United States which have revealed that some unions were not operating in the interests of their membership. It was generally conceded that this was one field in which abuses were most evident and I believe the information asked for in this provision is not sufficient to alert the general public to the full ramifications of what happens under trusteeships, the purpose of trusteeships and what action the local people involved are able to take to reinstate themselves and remove the local from trusteeship or receivership, whichever it happens to be.
I am sure the Minister of Labour could assist in this regard. I suggest there is other information that would bring under public scrutiny some of the abuses that are inherent in the disallowance of constitutions and the imposition of trusteeships on locals by the executive officers of the parent body.
I believe the constitutions themselves are deposited with the Minister of Labour and, in the main, they do cover some of the aspects of trusteeships. If the information were disseminated widely enough, these abuses would be brought to the attention of the general public and allow the general public to have some insight into what was happening in a particular trusteeship. I think this is in keeping with the thought behind the United States reporting bill, that protection can be given to individual employees in a particular plant where trusteeship might be imposed in a manner that was not advantageous to the employees, especially when there might not be an apparent method for getting out of the trusteeship.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Timiskaming with regard to this question of trusteeship and its potential abuses. May I ask him, in turn, to bear in mind that at present the purpose of this bill is to get information concerning what is happening in order to give us the basis upon which we can act to correct abuses. I would suggest to him that the proper place to correct such abuses as there may be in the labour field would be in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, in so far as authority lies within federal jurisdiction. In the same way, the place to correct abuses such as those to which reference was made a little while ago by the hon. member for Skeena in respect of certain activities of corporations, would be in the combines act and not in this bill.
I point out also that, in many respects, the authority to correct malpractices in this field of trusteeship lies in the provincial jurisdiction and not here. If I could get this point across, I should repeat that we have not purported to apply here remedies in this legislation. This measure has as its purpose to give us information on the basis of which remedies may be devised. Certainly, it was not the purpose here to bring in any specific remedy in respect of malpractices under trusteeship. What we wanted to do was to get information as to the circumstances under which trusteeships are imposed, because we understand it is frequently a very direct way of enabling international organizations to exercise direct control over the operations of a union in Canada. We want to find out the extent to which that is being done, and the circumstances under which it is being done. This will cover actually both the provincial and federal fields. When we have the information, then if it is indicated that there are undesirable practices my colleague the Minister of Labour can take action within the sphere of federal jurisdiction and the provincial governments will have the information which will enable them to take action within their sphere of jurisdiction to eliminate these undesirable practices.


William Arnold Peters: I agree that certainly this bill has not gone so far as to take corrective action. The fact that trusteeships have been imposed appears now in a publication of the Minister of Labour, "Canadian Labour Organizations in Canada". This publication indicates how many locals are under trusteeship. Trusteeship is not imposed very often. In my personal experience, I have known several locals to be put under trusteeship. In most cases the reason was the inability of the executive officers to handle the finances of the local. They got themselves into a position
Corporations and Labour Unions where their expenditures were more than their revenues. I think this is a legitimate type of receivership or trusteeship, and is one that is temporary in nature.
However, other locals have, for no particular reason, been put under trusteeship and very little corrective action can be taken by any government, by any authority or even as a result of the knowledge of the public themselves, unless the background circumstances for the trusteeship are given. I think this information should be included in this section. I am aware that the majority of unions use the trusteeship provision in a limited way, and many of them do not use it at all. Those that have used it can usually point to a constitutional clause and I think this information should be included in their return.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out to the hon. member that the clause under discussion does state that that information will be required. The provision refers to precise information as to the date such trusteeship was imposed and the reasons therefor. They will have to give us those reasons and, in this way, we will be able to amass information as to the kind of circumstances which are being relied upon, the kind of control which is being exercised, and whether it is with justification or without, whether there is a constitutional weakness or just what weaknesses, if any, give rise to an undesirable situation. I must emphasize that this information will be in the public portion of the return.


[Stage Direction]
Subparagraph agreed to.
Subparagraph (viii) agreed to.
Frank Howard: There is a point I should like to raise here in respect of adding a new subparagraph (ix). I do so not only from the point of view of being consistent with the amendment which was moved to the section dealing with companies in connection with their contributions to political parties, but because we have some interest and concern about the matter. I should like to move an amendment substantially the same as the one which was rejected earlier this afternoon. I move:
That the following be added as subparagraph (ix) of paragraph (a) of clause 9
"(ix) the names and addresses of any
(a)	candidate for election as a member of the House of Commons, a member of the legislature of a province or a member of the council of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, and
(b)	political party to which any money, securities, or equivalent of money was contributed or loaned and the amount thereof that each such candidate or political party received and showing as to each amount whether it was in money or otherwise and whether as contribution, loan, advance, deposit or otherwise and if a loan the terms thereof and whether the loan has been repaid, and"
2554	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure the committee will appreciate that there are many of us who would be interested in getting these returns. However, the hon. member for Skeena will appreciate our impartiality as well in that, having rejected this amendment when it was sought to be applied to companies, we reject the amendment when it is sought to apply it to unions. It is not appropriate in either case under this bill. It might be appropriate as an amendment to the elections act or some other statute.


Frank Howard: I wonder if I might make one comment? The minister gave himself away in respect of impartiality when he said that many of us would be interested, including himself, in seeing this. The minister would like to stick his nose into the contributions by unions, but when it comes to his pets, the corporations in Canada, oh no: he holds up his hands in horror and says, for heaven's sake, don't dig into the places from which we get our dough. We in this party are consistent and we think all these things should be brought to the attention of the public.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the amendment is voted on I would like to say that for the same reason we supported the amendment in relation to companies we shall be consistent, perhaps not intelligently in the hon. gentleman's opinion, in supporting this amendment. However I must say that I believe my hon. friend from Hull said earlier that he was not absolutely sure this was really the right legislation in which to put this, but there seems to be no good reason it should not be put in here if the committee wants it put in here.
Personally I think all this information would be very interesting to all of us in the house. Whether it would be helpful to us is another matter, but it would be interesting and would satisfy our curiosity in the case of both unions and companies. However it seems to me that all this does is illustrate how wise is the party I belong to in advocating a totally new method of financing elections instead of these antiquated methods about which hon. gentlemen are now seeking belatedly to get information.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question?


Frank Howard: I would only say the wiseness of the hon. gentlemen in the official opposition seems to be one that developed as of late, and only after defeat.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would advise the hon. gentleman, who is probably going to be seeking the suffrages of the electorate, that when he gets support he would be well advised to take it and not question it.


Amendment (Mr. Howard) negatived: Yeas, 14; Nays, 34.
Paragraph (b), subparagraphs (i) and (ii) agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
On clause 10-Relieving provision.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On clause 10 there are two further amendments to be moved by my colleague, the Minister of Defence Production, to the effect that the words "dominion statistician" be substituted for the word "minister" in lines 25, 37 and 43.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I move the following amendment:
That the said bill be further amended by substituting the words "dominion statistician'' for the word "minister" in lines 25, 37 and 43 on page 8.
/o Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 as amended, agreed to.
On clause 11-Offence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask my colleague to move the same amendment with respect to the word "minister" in line 1 on page 9?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I move the following amendment:
That the said bill be further amended by substituting the words "dominion statistician" for the word "minister" in line 1 on page 9.
) i Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 as amended, agreed to.
On clause 12-Demand by registered letter to officer, etc. of union in Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask my colleague to move a similar amendment with respect to the word "minister" in lines 23 and 29, but not on line 25?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I move the following amendment:
That the said bill be further amended by substituting the words "dominion statistician" for the word "minister" in lines 23 and 29 on page 9.
>


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 as amended agreed to.
On clause 13-Information available for inspection; fee for inspection.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman-


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I, with the permission of the hon. member, ask my colleague to move a similar amendment? This amendment would be to substitute the words "Secretary of State" for the word "minister" in line 40 and to substitute the words "Minister of Labour" for the word "minister" in line 2 on page 10.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I move the following amendment:
That the said bill be further amended by substituting the words "Secretary of State" for the word "minister" in line 40 on page 9 and by substituting the words "Minister of Labour" for the word "minister" in line 2 on page 10.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall this amendment carry?


Frank Howard: Could the minister tell us what is the effect of this amendment? What is the Secretary of State going to do?


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is a clause based on the fact that copies of part A of the returns filed by both companies and unions with the dominion statistician will be forwarded to the Secretary of State and the Minister of Labour respectively. Under clause 13, now before us, these two ministers will designate an office in their respective departments where these returns will be kept under circumstances where they are available for inspection by any member of the public on payment of the requisite fee.


Frank Howard: I appreciate that perhaps the government is in great need of money and would like to charge as much as it can for this information to offset the cost of getting it. The clause provides that the fee shall not exceed one dollar, but it seems to me a dollar is a rather substantial amount for someone who wants to search the records and who will find information of so little value. The minister said that 25,000 corporations would be filing returns, and I do not know how many unions there will be. Perhaps the minister has an assessment of their number, but I imagine it would be quite a substantial number.
Should a member of the public want to make a rather extensive search of this information, for some outside purpose rather than a government purpose, and was charged a dollar in each case, then obviously it would cost him $25,000 to make a complete search of all the statements filed by corporations. There would also be a considerable amount of money involved in searching the returns filed by unions. To me a dollar seems an exorbitantly high charge for the small amount of information which will be gleaned from these returns, though perhaps for a dollar charge the information gained in part (B) might be worth while, although I doubt that also. Presumably this information to be supplied under part (A) is public information, so why not make it available to the public upon request rather than soak people for a buck so that they might find out for argument sake, the number of males and the number of females within a particular union or the number of shares that might have been issued
5, 1962
Corporations and Labour Unions with respect to a particular company. A dollar seems far too much to charge for the information which will be available.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I assure the committee that this amount provided here, which, it should be noted, is the maximum fee, not the prescribed fee, is not intended to enable the government to make a profit but merely to cover the cost of maintaining the necessary physical equipment plus the filing, indexing, and so on which will enable the information needed to be located when someone comes in and wishes to inspect it. I shall do my best to persuade my colleague the Minister of Finance, or whoever has the final word with respect to the regulations, to keep the fee to a minimum rather than set it at a maximum of one dollar. If we find as time goes on that there is a profit and that it is an unreasonably high amount, we can reduce it.
It is about four years, now, since I actually practised law, but certainly my recollection is that this fee compares very favourably with fees payable under any of the provincial companies acts for similar services.


Frank Howard: Again I say it is a pretty high charge to make. Even it were ten cents it would be a high charge to make for the information that is going to be obtained.


William Arnold Peters: Is it intended to have one department completely responsible for this information and for publishing statistics in connection with it? Almost every government department has a large conglomeration of information on directorships, ownership of shares and so on-I am thinking particularly of the branch concerned with the supervision of insurance companies. This information is published every year, possibly not in as much detail as we are seeking here. If we were to publish the information we hope to obtain by reason of this bill and make it available for a dollar or two dollars, it might have a certain usefulness and I believe this would be a better way of handling it than the present intention merely to make it available upon payment. If the minister is sincere in his desire to have this information as widely distributed as possible, he might consider this suggestion. We have a library here. I am sure 90 per cent of the people do not go into it, because you can bury anything in those shelves. However, this information could be made available there for scrutiny.
I would strongly recommend that we publish this information on a yearly basis. If there are 25,000 companies affected we might have a fairly heavy document of 500 pages, but it would be available by purchase for those who needed it, if this bill is to serve any purpose at all. The publications media

Corporations and Labour Unions across the country would be able to use it as background information if it were available in this way. If it is not distributed across the country, a predominance of attention is likely to be paid to it by Ottawa correspondents and other people living in Ottawa such as those connected with the universities in this area; there will not be a national distribution of this information, and I think that if the results are to be effective it should be available on a national basis.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 14-Privileged information; prohibition against communication.
Edmund Davie Fulton: There is a substantial amendment to be moved in connection with this clause. Perhaps I could read it and distribute it now; it would then be available for consideration overnight, and discussion tomorrow-unless the hon. member for Megan-tic has an urgent question to ask.


Gabriel Roberge: I was about to ask the chairman if the committee would be agreeable to proceeding paragraph by paragraph in the next clause. I myself will have some amendments to offer. Maybe the amendment proposed by the minister will cover the same ground.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure the hon. member will find that the amendment I propose will take care of many of the ideas he has in mind. Certainly I shall be agreeable to proceeding paragraph by paragraph as we have done in earlier clauses.
Mr. Chairman, it is one minute to ten, and perhaps the committee would consent to the amendment I shall ask my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs to move being taken as read. It would then be available to hon. members tomorrow.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is it agreed that this amendment be taken as read for the purpose of having it recorded in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That the said bill be further amended by striking out subsections (3) and (4) of section 14 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
Idem.
"(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in respect of proceedings relating to the administra-/ tion or enforcement of this act.
Exception re employees of dominion bureau of statistics.
(4)	An official who is an officer or other person employed in the execution of any duty under the Statistics Act or any regulation thereunder may
(a) communicate or allow to be communicated to any other such official any privileged information obtained under this act, and
(b) allow any other such official to inspect or have access to any statement or other writing containing any privileged information obtained under this act.
Exception re other persons for purpose stated.
(5)	Any official or authorized person may, for any purpose relating to the determination of policy in connection with the formulation of any law of Canada or the ascertainment of any matter necessarily incidental thereto,
(a)	communicate or allow to be communicated to any other such person any privileged information obtained under this act, and
(b)	allow any other such person to inspect or have access to any statement or other writing containing any privileged information obtained under this act.
Use of information.
(6)	Notwithstanding anything in this section, in no case shall any privileged information obtained under this act be communicated to any person for the purpose of facilitating the institution or furtherance of any proceedings brought or taken or that may be brought or taken under any law of Canada other than this act."
and by renumbering subsections (5) and (6) of section 14 thereof as subsections (7) and (8), respectively.
Clause 14 stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask the leader of the house if in indicating the business which the government proposes for tomorrow he could also, as he sometimes does when he is in a benevolent mood, give us a bit of a preview of next week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I anticipated that we would have finished this bill today, plus the supplementary estimates, and I was going to call for tomorrow the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister dealing with the electoral boundaries commission. However, we shall have to carry on with the present bill, Bill No. C-38, and complete it tomorrow, followed by supplementary estimates; except that I reserve the right to call, after Bill No. C-38, the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister if, on consultation with him in the morning, it is indicated that he would like to go ahead with it. If that be the case, I will of course advise both parties.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did I understand the minister to say that will be called as the first item?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No; this bill will be the first item, Bill No. C-38.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, well, I am not in a
benevolent mood so I cannot go into that.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday. April 6, 1962