1962-04-03

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton)
presented the second and third reports of the standing committee on veterans affairs, and moved that the second report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

['Mr. Speaker, shortly put the answer is no. There were no suggestions or requests on the part of officials or officers of Brazilian Traction for any action to be taken in this regard; therefore none was taken.']
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that an international short term arrangement on trade in cotton textiles was negotiated in Geneva last July. Canada signed the arrangement on September 5 and it came into force on October 1, for a period of one year. On February 16 I tabled in the house a copy of a long term arrangement which was being submitted to the governments of participating countries for approval. It is envisaged that the long term arrangement would come into effect on October 1 of this year, when the short term arrangement expires.
These arrangements are aimed at expanding the export opportunities of less developed countries, while at the same time preventing disruption in the domestic markets of importing countries.
Hong Kong is a substantial supplier of very low cost cotton textile goods to Canada. Early this year there was a noticeable increase in Hong Kong's exports to Canada of one important category, cotton slacks and shorts. The colony's exports of this category to Canada had more than doubled between 1958 and 1959. They then increased by a further 80 per cent in 1960 to a level of about 300,000 dozen. This was, by quantity, about 18 per cent of the total market. In 1961 there was a slight decline, which was part of the general falling off in Hong Kong's exports of textiles to Canada. However, shipments of cotton slacks and shorts in December and in January of this year gave every 26207-1-155
indication that exports would rise rapidly and cause further disruption in the Canadian market.
In February the Canadian government requested Hong Kong to impose export restraints under the terms of the short term arrangement. This arrangement provides that an importing country may request an exporting country to apply restraints at a level not lower than actual shipments in the year ended June 30, 1961. Last week Mr. H. A. Angus, director of Hong Kong's department of commerce and industry, visited Ottawa and held discussions with Canadian government officials. As a result of these discussions Hong Kong has agreed to impose export restraints, in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva agreement, totalling 255,000 dozen cotton slacks and shorts, divided as follows: men's 70,000 dozen; women's, 55,000 dozen; children's, 130,000 dozen, for the period ending October 1, 1962.
The United States government has also requested Hong Kong to impose restraints on exports of a number of cotton textile items. On March 19 the United States government announced that it would prohibit the importation for consumption of certain shipments from Hong Kong. This naturally gave rise to some concern in Canada lest large quantities of goods ordered for the United States market be diverted to our market. This possibility was discussed with the visiting Hong Kong officials in connection with their future licensing arrangements. Both sides agreed that it was unlikely that serious problems of this kind would arise for Canada.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Oitawa West):: I am
sure the textile industry, which has been experiencing some difficulty, will welcome the announcement indicating exactly what has been done in this field as a result of the agreement announced by the minister.
I would point out, however, that this is the first time in my recollection that I have heard a minister, on motions, merely amplify remarks made by a private member in the previous day's debate on a private member's motion. The hon. member for Sherbrooke made the announcement on this subject at five o'clock yesterday. However, to the extent supplements that announcement, we welcome that the minister's statement amplifies and it.
2430	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West): Members of this group wish to thank the minister for confirming the statement made yesterday by the hon. member for Sherbrooke. In view of the fact that the announcement we have just heard was made by the minister on this occasion, we shall examine its contents carefully and express our opinions at a later date.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government has made any diplomatic representations to the government of Brazil regarding the reported threatened expropriation of Canadian undertakings in that country?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, shortly put the answer is no. There were no suggestions or requests on the part of officials or officers of Brazilian Traction for any action to be taken in this regard; therefore none was taken.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister based on a most unusual report in today's issue of the Ottawa Journal. In view of a report in today's issue of that newspaper that Canadian Aviation Electronics in a report to shareholders states that it turned over to the Canadian army signals at Carp, Ontario in late 1961 a sophisticated computer tied into NORAD and an advanced electronics display system that will plot air, ground and nuclear detonations activity on a large screen and will keep the army's civil defence teams immediately up to date; and since we thus have revealed the location of government survival and defence operations in the event of nuclear attack, has the Prime Minister any comment to make on this incredible breach of security, or will he have the matter looked into?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the general statements made by the hon. gentleman. If I were to answer one way or the other I might be giving information that might be a breach of security. However, in not giving information I do not want it taken that there 

has been a breach of security. The interpretation placed by the hon. member upon the actual words and expressions used in the article is not, as I see it, borne out by the facts.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister, I take it, does not consider there has been a breach of security in this article?


John George Diefenbaker: Questions of breaches of security, Mr. Speaker, are never subject to discussion in the House of Commons.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucesier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister prepared to comment on reports that Dupont of Canada, Limited, are negotiating with the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia on a $50 million plant for the Sydney area to produce heavy water for atomic reactors?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation) :



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielte-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to our dedicated Minister of Transport. Could he tell the house if Canada's bilingual character will be respected within the Canadian coast guard, the establishment of which he recently announced?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, knowing the constant interest shown by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm in the cause of bilingualism, I am glad to be able to inform him that instructions have been given to the effect that badges, posters and other signs are to be prepared in both languages.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschaieleis (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In

view of his violent attacks against Canadian National authorities when he sat in opposition because there was no French speaking vice president on the board of directors, how can the minister justify the recent appointment of one more English speaking vice president to the board of directors of the Canadian National?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, when my predecessors were spokesmen for the Canadian National in this house, the reason they gave, every time we asked such a question, was that this matter concerned the Canadian National administration. Indeed, everyone knows that the vice presidents of the C.N.R. are appointed by the corporation. However, since the Conservatives have been in power and since my appointment as Minister of Transport, the number of directors was raised from seven to twelve and there are now three French Canadians among C.N.R. directors.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Is it not true that the minister stated on numerous occasions that it was important that one of the vice presidents of the C.N.R. be a French Canadian.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I
have always asked in the past to have more French-speaking representatives in the C.N.R. administration, and we have dealt with the problem by appointing three French speaking directors during the last session.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is much better than when the hon. member for Laurier was minister of transport.
(Text):



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my absence the hon. member for Gloucester asked whether I could give him any information regarding the resignation of the secretary of the national energy board. Mr. Warren Armstrong, who has held that post for some time and has done an excellent job as secretary has requested permission to return to the practice of law, which permission, of course, has been granted and his resignation is effective today. We are very sorry to lose the service of Mr. Armstrong, as he has been a very outstanding secretary, but we wish him the very best of success in the continuation of the practice of his chosen profession.
26207-1-1554
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



BELLECHASSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State. Could the minister inform the house about the investigation on the returning officer's activities in the riding of Belle-chasse?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, this investigation is being conducted by the R.C.M.P. under the direction of Mr. Castonguay. As soon as he has communicated to me the results of the investigation, I shall be pleased to inform my hon. friends.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell the house which government appointed the chief electoral officer?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is asking for information which is readily available to all hon. members of the house.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. My question arises out of a comment made by Ontario health minister Dr. Dymond that only Ontario and Manitoba were sympathetic toward a federal-provincial meeting on the subject of meat inspection as proposed by the minister. Can the minister indicate the present situation with regard to these talks, and any alternative plans if such proposals are unacceptable to the majority of the provinces?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the ministers of health for Ontario and Manitoba indicated that they would prefer to have a conference. Judging by the replies of the other ministers from whom I have heard, not all having replied, there did not seem to be sufficient indication for a full fledged conference. Incidentally, I am meeting Hon. Dr. Dymond

Inquiries of the Ministry in Toronto tomorrow and will be discussing this matter with him, but the whole matter has been referred to the dominion council on health which will be meeting here about the middle of the month.



REPORTED EXCESS OF VITAMIN D IN FOODS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, X should also like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has his attention been drawn to a statement by Dr. William Cochrane, who is indicated as associate professor of pediatrics at Dalhousie University in Halifax, to the effect that a large number of foods and food preparations in Canada contain excessive amounts of vitamin D and that this is somewhat alarming? Would the minister care to comment on this matter?


Jay Waldo Monteith: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article, and naturally I would have to examine it very carefully before commenting.
(Translation):



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roger Parizeau (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Could the minister tell the house if his department intends to pave the airport at Alma and to instal a lighting system?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the installation of the lighting system has already been approved by the treasury board. With regard to the paving, my department has submitted to the treasury board tenders to that effect.
Everything leads me to believe that the paving will be done this year.
(Text):



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has Mr. G. Russell Boucher, former member of parliament for the constituency of Carleton, been appointed to the air transport board? If so, what are his specialized qualifications for this highly technical position?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the air transport board is one

of the outstanding judicial bodies of the present government and Mr. Russell Boucher is one of the outstanding lawyers of central Canada. We were very pleased that we could secure his services for this very important appointment.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he has received copies of Bill No. C-82, which was introduced yesterday, pursuant to standing order No. 85 with relation to the minister's duties under the bill of rights.


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minisier of Justice):: No,
Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I have received it. I did not regard the matter as of such supreme importance that I should shelve my other duties to look for it.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Arrogance again. [Later:]


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be allowed to supplement the answer I gave a moment ago. I was not aware that my hon. friend was referring to the bill which was defeated on first reading yesterday. I thought he was referring to Bill No. C-81. However, in so far as this question refers to Bill No. C-82, I think I should say that fortunately the house became aware of the ruse or device which the hon. member was adopting in trying to bring this matter before the house in a manner which was really not possible-


Mr. Pickersgill:: I rise on a point of order-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The house, however, having divided-


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, such arrogance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would both hon. members resume their seats? The minister is replying to a question, and a point of order has arisen with respect to his reply. Therefore I feel I should interrupt him to hear the point of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not made my reply yet, Your Honour.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I feel, sir, that since the minister is seeking to raise a matter that was settled by the house yesterday, this is a contravention of the rules that should not be permitted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Quite the contrary. I was seeking to explain why this bill not only has not

Judges Act
come to my attention but will, I understand, federal incorporation of co-operatives. In view never come to my attention simply because of the intimation of the Prime Minister last the house defeated it yesterday on first read- year that this question was being studied, ing. Therefore it is not before the house, could he say whether a decision has been but my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillin- reached in this regard and whether legislation gate does not seem to appreciate that.	will be introduced during the present session?


Mr. Benidickson:: A new form of closure.


Frank Howard: I pose a supplementary question to the minister. Is he aware that he himself, being a member of the rules committee last year, participated in proposing a standing order which requires him to do just what he is talking about?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is replying with argument rather than putting a supplementary question.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Trinity-Conception asked me a question concerning lay-offs of Bell island miners. The hon. member for St. John's East has also made inquiries about this matter. The officials of the unemployment insurance commission at St. John's advise me that they have completed interviewing and registering the miners in question. I may say that some 600 miners were registered on Bell island by officials sent there for that purpose. These applications are now being processed.
There are some vacancies on file in the local office for mining and construction employment in Labrador. The St. John's office now has about 360 vacancies listed. About 175 of these are in mining and construction. This figure should expand when various mining areas in Quebec and Newfoundland are canvassed. My officials are also canvassing mining centres in Quebec and other areas in order to endeavour to place as many of the Bell island miners as are willing to accept employment away from the island. This process will continue until such time as we are successful in placing as many as can be placed. I will be pleased to make further reports from time to time.



CO-OPERATIVES REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION PERMITTING FEDERAL INCORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of the long-standing request of co-operative organizations for the introduction of legislation to provide for the


John George Diefenbaker: Naturally the matter is one that has received consideration. The other question as to what action the government will take is one that will be answered when it is appropriate to do so. However, I suggest that before we start looking for new fields of legislation the hon. gentleman, in his new position in opposition, might devote himself to seeing that those matters which were in the speech from the throne receive attention.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can say whether it is a fact that the President of the United States, the secretary of state or someone on behalf of the government of the United States has indicated to the Canadian government its desire to have the Columbia treaty implemented as quickly as possible? At the same time can the minister say whether or not there has been a threat that the United States will not carry out its commitment unless action is taken by this government?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I believe Mr. Speaker, this question was dealt with while I was in Geneva.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the Secretary of State for External Affairs could indicate when this was dealt with then it would be possible to accept his reply, but I suggest to Your Honour that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not aware of it. Nevertheless the suggestion made just now to the hon. gentleman by the Prime Minister is in error.


Howard Charles Green: I think this was dealt with in the house while I was in Geneva.



JUDGES ACT


Edmund Davie Fulton: the second reading of Bill No. C-84, to amend the Judges Act.

Judges Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and approval at the various stages. That kind and the house went into committee thereon, of discussion, if it is involved, has not yet Mr. Chown in the chair.	been held.
Mr. Caron:: May I ask, is this bill available and has it been printed in English and French?


The Deputy Chairman:: I am just waiting to ascertain if that is the situation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the bill is No. C-84 and it has been distributed to hon. members. It is in our books. It is a simple bill of only two clauses.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The chairman is just waiting for his copy of the bill, if the committee will bear with me for just a minute or two.
On clause 1.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Has the bill been printed in both French and English?


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am advised that the bill has been printed in both languages and has been distributed.


William Moore Benidickson: Earlier in the session, after a report from Mr. Silk was made public, the Minister of Justice was asked about some matters that required federal co-operation, and I take it that the matter of the appointment of a chief judge and county court and district court judges in Ontario was referred to at that time. However, I do not know if the minister was asked whether officials of the Ontario government and the attorney general had approached him with respect to a very significant item in Mr. Silk's report, which suggested that in Ontario jurisdiction with respect to divorces might very well be assumed by district and county court judges.
Some parts of the northwestern area of the province are just as far away from the seat of government as is Halifax, and are only visited by supreme court judges approximately twice a year. Mr. Silk's recommendation has considerable merit, and I would ask the minister whether he has been in consultation with the government of Ontario with respect to consequential federal amendments that might be necessary to permit county and district court judges in Ontario to assume jurisdiction for hearing divorce petitions.


Mr. Fulion:: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking from recollection; therefore I would have to speak subject to correction. About all I can say is that I have been furnished with a copy of the Silk report, but I do not recall that there has been what I would call specific consultation on the question of the divorce jurisdiction of district and county courts. If I am correct in my understanding I would put it this way, that I think it is a matter upon which there would have to be consultation and discussion as to appropriate amendments


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, yesterday at the resolution stage of this bill the minister made reference to the appointment of one of the judges of the supreme court of Ontario to become chief justice of Cyprus for a period of six years, and indicated that this was one of the reasons he was asking for an increase of two in the number of judges in the trial division of the supreme court of Ontario.
I want to ask the minister, does he envisage appointing a judge to the supreme court of Ontario for a period of six years only? His treatment of the subject yesterday is capable of that construction, and I wish the minister would clarify the point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure the hon. member, who has made an exhaustive study of these matters, knows that it would not be possible for me to make an appointment for a period of six years only, and no such course of action is intended.


George James McIlraith: That is what I understood was the situation, but I think the minister's remarks, if they are re-examined, rather indicate that one of the judges might be appointed for the period during which Mr. Justice Wilson is absent on his duties as chief justice of Cyprus. I wanted to clarify that point for the record.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I have read my remarks in yesterday's Hansard and I do not think they are capable of any such interpretation. I simply pointed out that Mr. Justice Wilson has been given leave of absence without pay in order that he might take up his appointment as chief justice of Cyprus, an appointment which, as I pointed out, normally extends for a period of six years. My remarks had no reference to the duration of the appointment of any other judge to the trial division of the supreme court of Ontario.


George James McIlraith: I thank the minister for clarifying the matter. I think if he reexamines his remarks of yesterday he will find an ambiguity in them which I think it is desirable to have clarified for the record. That is all I was seeking to do.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I rather anticipated when I saw the bill that it would make provision for special remuneration for a chief county court judge. I do not see that this is the intention of the government, and it surprises me somewhat. When I spoke earlier I should have joined in the remarks that were made yesterday by the hon. member for Ottawa West. I am not going to repeat

them in any shape or form, because I agree in every respect with what he said on the matter of salaries.
We have here a salary of $10,500 for the new chief judge who will supervise 78 judges and junior judges of the country and district courts of Ontario. As the hon. member for Ottawa West said yesterday, that is rather unsatisfactory. I thought the hon. member made a very good comparison in this respect. When the minister requires senior, competent legal counsel even from young members of the bar sometimes, we find in the estimates at page 156 that he pays a deputy minister with legal talent $21,000; he pays two associate deputy ministers $19,000 each; he pays two assistant deputy ministers $17,750 each; two senior advisory counsel, $16,000 each; four senior advisory counsel $15,000 each, and one senior advisory counsel $14,000. Another salary range is between $12,000 and $14,000, and there are 15 who in the normal course of salary increases, based on relatively short term service, rise to a salary of $12,000.
I thought this was a very telling point in favour of a reconsideration of the present salary offered to county and district court judges in Ontario as presented yesterday by the hon. member for Ottawa West. It was pointed out in the Ontario house, I think, that all these judges would normally carry out surrogate court work and would receive a remuneration of $1,500 from the province, but there was considerable vagueness about some of these other opportunities to which the Minister of Justice referred yesterday. Because of this vagueness, and the suggestion that perhaps this was something that was available to all; because it was not specific and we have little idea of how it relates to some of the figures that I have specifically indicated, to which reference was made yesterday in only general terms in the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa West, I feel that perhaps there is some unfairness in the treatment of judges of the county and district courts of Ontario.
The minister indicated that this matter is under review, but I also read that these gentlemen had a spokesman about three weeks ago, Judge Cooper of Sudbury, who indicated that he thought they were very dissatisfied with their place in life. As I say, I merely wish to endorse in every way what the hon. member for Ottawa West said yesterday as to their importance in the judicial system. It is all the more important in areas such as the one I represent, where we have two district courts and where we very seldom, because of distance, have an opportunity to receive judicial decisions from a higher level such as the supreme court of Ontario. As a consequence litigants on both
Judges Act
sides consent to the hearing of civil actions by district court judges in our area. Indeed, this also applies to other actions which would normally be dealt with by supreme court judges where the counties are nearer Toronto.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister whether he has had an opportunity to check on the progress of the legislation being sought in the Ontario legislature to provide the requirement for these additional judges.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it has yet passed the Ontario house. I know that it has been introduced there, and I believe it has been referred to a committee in that house.


George James McIlraith: I just want to point out again, as I did yesterday, that the minister is coming before this house and this committee with legislation that is purely hypothetical in its nature, and is asking us to create the authority to appoint judges before there is any requirement for those judges and before the number required has been dealt with by the legislative body having jurisdiction. It seems to me that this is a most unusual course, and there has been no satisfactory explanation from the minister as to why he should seek to follow this unusual course.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With deference, there has been a satisfactory explanation given inasmuch as I have already pointed out that Mr. Justice Wilson has taken up his appointment in Cyprus, having been granted leave of absence without pay, and there is, as I think the hon. member for Ottawa West will agree, considerable urgency about a replacement for at least that position. In addition, as I think we are both in agreement, legislation is also required for the appointment of a further extra judge for the trial division of the high court of Ontario.
It therefore seems to me proper that we should introduce into this house the necessary legislation to enable the appointments to be made at the earliest possible date. The hon. gentleman suggested yesterday that we should carry on our business with expedition and dispatch. I do not expect either the house or the committee to deal with legislation without proper questioning, but I simply pointed out that no appointment can be made under this legislation until the necessary legislation is passed by the Ontario house. The length of time taken here is naturally dependant on hon. members opposite. If they

Judges Act
want to take all day on this, they can do so; that is their business. But there is now a need for extra judges in the high court of Ontario, and I suggest that is the sort of explanation the hon. member is seeking.


George James McIlraith: I think the minister is altogether unfair in his remarks. On the second reading of this bill the opposition did not take up any of the time of the house. It went through without debate. In the committee stage we have less than 20 minutes. Surely the minister cannot complain that the opposition has been taking up the time of this committee-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not complaining. I am merely answering.


George James McIlraith: I would point out that if the Ontario legislature does not pass this legislation, the present bill will be of no effect whatever.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are wrong.


George James McIlraith: I would point out also that my remarks are addressed to clause 2 of the bill, and I want to read that clause to the minister, because apparently he has not observed it:
2. Paragraph (a) of section 19 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(a) One chief judge and seventy eight judges and junior judges of the county and district courts, each $10,500.
The "said act" referred to is, of course, the Judges Act. My remarks had reference to the country court judges and the situation with respect to the changes in the county court judges' legislation in the province. The reference to the appointment of new high court judges is not applicable to that situation and has no relevance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall like to say a word on this point, since it has been raised. We have been lectured recently about holding up urgent legislation. So far as we know, this parliament is going on through a normal session. The legislature of Ontario has not done its part in this process, so the present legislation can by no stretch of imagination be regarded as urgent, since it cannot possibly come into effect until the Ontario legislation has been enacted. This bill would not take nearly as long if the legislature of Ontario had acted as it may now, because we would not have this additional subject of discussion.
Here we are told that urgent matters are being held up. At the same time we are having hypothetical questions placed before us which properly should not be brought before the federal parliament until the necessary provision has been made by the Ontario legislature. So unless the government

has some ulterior motive which it is not disclosing to this house the present legislation is not urgent at all.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: I should like to tell the hon. member for Ottawa West that there is no area in which this legislation is more urgently needed than in the area represented by the hon. member for Ottawa West and myself.


George James McIlraith: In reply to that remark let me say that the hon. member for Carle-ton knows perfectly well that the appointments cannot be made until the Ontario legislature has passed legislation dealing with this matter. The correct way to proceed is to have the Ontario legislation passed and then to take further steps here. We are now being asked to pass legislation which may well prove to be utterly useless, though I hope it will not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think there is any need to prolong this discussion. It seems to me the mere fact that over the 95 years since confederation it has been customary to wait until a provincial legislature has acted to create vacancies before we introduced a bill here to provide the salaries for the appointments does not necessarily mean we should slavishly follow that system every time, especially when it has been demonstrated, and agreed by the hon. member for Ottawa West, that there is urgency about making appointments. These judges are needed. I think we are entitled to take what I believe the courts would call judicial notice of the fact that a bill has been introduced in the Ontario legislature, and I think we are entitled to assume that the Ontario legislature may well pass that legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And may well not.


James Ross Fulton: As I pointed out yesterday, if the vacancies are not created there the appointments cannot be made, so we are not asking for any power which we can exercise regardless of whether or not we have the right to do so. A11 we are asking is that this house should place us in a position to make the appointments at the earliest possible moment when the vacancies are created, and in view of the urgent situation in the district courts here and in the county of Carleton I must say I am surprised to hear the hon. member for Ottawa West suggest we should have delayed the introduction of this bill.


George James McIlraith: I am not suggesting the minister should have delayed the introduction of this bill. I am suggesting that there should be greater competence on the part of the minister in the treatment of this house

when he is fulfilling his responsibility as a minister of the crown. He knows perfectly well that there undoubtedly is a need for the Ontario legislature to rearrange its judicial districts in the county court field and increase the numbers of judges.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course I do.


George James McIlraith: He knows perfectly well that the Ontario legislature has jurisdiction over the subject, and that until that legislature takes action the legislative body here cannot do anything effective about the appointments. This being the case, the minister has put this house in the position that if the Ontario legislative body does not complete the legislation now before it-as well it might not, if one reads the reports of certain inquiries going on in that province-


An hon. Member:: What has that got to do with the bill?


George James McIlraith: I will tell the hon. member if he will listen.


An hon. Member:: Make it perfectly clear, will you?


George James McIlraith: 1 would only wish to reply to a brilliant interjection like that in the very kindest of language. I must say that the brilliance of the interjection is not clear to all of us. It may be clear to some in the house. In any event, what this has to do with us in this committee can easily be explained. The minister, on his own admission, is aware that this legislation may never be used. If it is not used, then this government will be guilty of having taken the time of this house from business which it regards as of an urgent nature; supplementary estimates, for instance. It is also needlessly spending the taxpayer's money and wasting the time of parliament.


Richard Albert Bell: What amazes me, Mr. Chairman, is that my friend the hon. member for Ottawa West should be seeking to delay dealing with what is an emergency situation in the city of Ottawa and county of Carleton.


George James McIlraith: I wish to deal with that point, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Carleton is seeking to completely mislead the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And deliberately.


George James McIlraith: His charge is a serious charge to have made about me. The minister has referred to another situation which has nothing to do with this bill, is not remedied by this bill and is not dealt with by this bill. I think that should be pointed out in fairness to all concerned. This bill provides 26207-1-156
Judges Act
for an increase in the number of county court judges and can have effect only after the provincial legislation is enacted and becomes law, and not before then.
As to wasting time, I wish to draw attention to the arrogance of this government in dealing with the subject matter of delay and waste of time. Surely we have come to a sad state here if parliament cannot take 25 minutes to deal with the second reading and committee stages of a bill which is of significance dealing with additional appointments to the judiciary of this country. Surely the government and-what shall I call them?-its senior supporters have reached a strange state of arrogance if that is the position that is being taken, and if every time an opposition member rises to ask a question or to put forward a point of view on a bill he is met with that specious charge.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Precisely, Mr. Chairman. I realize it is no use striving for the last word because my hon. friends opposite are not amenable to arguments of logic. But Your Honour must recall, as the committee will recall, that the ones who raised this question of wasting time were those seated opposite. I have not accused them of wasting time. They have accused me of wasting the time of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Moore Benidickson: The Minister of Finance has also contributed to wasting the time of parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friends opposite did not wish to waste time they would wait until I have finished. This bill has taken in all, so far, certainly less than an hour. I do not think that is a waste of the time of this house in relation to a measure of this importance. I have not suggested that the time has been wasted. It is my hon. friends opposite who have contended that the government has been wasting time in introducing legislation, in this instance designed to facilitate the appointment of additional judges. The government has been accused of wasting time in introducing urgently needed legislation. If there has been any time wasted it has been that time wasted by my hon. friends opposite in taking the time of the house to advance futile arguments of that nature.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The argument is not futile at all, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact there is an important constitutional principle involved in the issue before us. This government has assumed that the equally arrogant government of Ontario-and I am just supplying the words for them-merely

Judges Act
because it introduced a bill into that legislature is necessarily going to be successful in having that bill passed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then why are we wasting the time of this parliament discussing a measure that cannot have effect until the Ontario legislature has passed the legislation introduced in that house?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who is wasting time? You are wasting time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the hon. gentleman a moment ago, when he asked not to be interrupted, suggested that these interruptions were a waste of time. I would remind the hon. gentleman of his own recipe.
As I was saying when I was interrupted by the Minister of Justice, this legislation cannot have any validity until the Ontario legislature has acted. We do not know how it is going to act. Indeed, in the present disturbed state of opinion in the province of Ontario it is quite possible that that legislature may be dissolved long before this parliament is, without any more legislation being passed, and therefore it is presumptuous of us to assume that that legislature will act. In doing so we are taking them for granted; we are assuming the legislature is going to do something it may never do.
I say, sir, that this bill should never have been introduced at all until the Ontario legislature had acted. This legislation could then have been introduced and it would have been passed very quickly, because there has never been any hold up on these bills once the legislature has acted. There is only one reason why the government is trying to slip this thing through at this stage. I can think of only one reason, but I will not seek to discuss it at this point because anyone can well imagine what it is. But the real point is that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the leader of the house have time after time said that the members of the opposition were obstructing and holding up urgent business in this house by debating the millions and millions and millions they are spending. They have said that in discussing the estimates we have been holding up urgent business. I say that is urgent business in this house; this is not urgent yet, until the Ontario legislature has acted.
When the government suspend the consideration of the expenditures for the last fiscal year, what urgent business do they bring before us? They present a hypothetical piece of legislation that can have no effect until the Ontario legislature has acted, if it decides to act. That is the most urgent thing they can think of to bring before this parliament

now, something that cannot possibly come into effect until the legislature has acted. For that they put off consideration of supply, consideration of the budget and consideration of measures over which this parliament has some control.
I think it needs to be underlined that this is the government's idea of what is urgent business. Now, what possible benefit can it be to the government to get this legislation passed now? It can only be of benefit if they want to be sure in case the Ontario legislature does act, which we do not know anything about until it has acted, that they have a little bit of patronage. That can be their only reason for trying to rush this thing through. If they have some intention of terminating the life of this parliament they might wish to get this legislation passed before the Ontario legislature has acted so they can have the patronage during the rest of their very short life as a government.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, if my hon. friend's arguments were not so pitiful they would be almost humorous. The hon. gentleman said we insisted upon interrupting the consideration of the final supplementary estimates. It became perfectly obvious some days ago that my hon. friends opposite were not prepared to deal seriously with supplementary estimates. They are the last persons who should make a charge of that kind. They are the most wrong persons in the world to claim that the supplementary estimates have been improperly set aside, because it was my hon. friends opposite who frustrated and interfered and day after day made it perfectly clear that they were not prepared to deal with the supplementary estimates in an efficient, orderly and proportionate manner; indeed, it was abundantly evident that they were not prepared to deal in that manner with anything we might bring before the house.
My hon. friend also said we are trying to slip this bill through.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So you are.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Again this is a matter which might be humorous were it not for the fact that it is so pitiful. It will be recalled that yesterday I took pains to point out to the house our position in this regard. At first I was in error in my recollection. I said the bill would come into effect only on proclamation; then I corrected myself and said we left out the provision concerning proclamation, and that this bill would go through but the appointments could be made only after the Ontario legislature acted to create the vacancies. For my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who prides himself on being a parliamentarian, to use words

like "slip through" and "improper haste" under those circumstances-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not use the phrase "improper haste".


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, my hon. friend has used every other phrase he could think of; apparently he simply did not think of that one. If he had, I am sure he would have wasted the time of the house by using it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is an impropriety.


Edmund Davie Fulton: For the hon. member to suggest we are slipping through something here demonstrates only the deviousness of my hon. friend's mind that he exercised so frequently when he was over here on this side of the chamber, even to the point that the people of Canada finally put him over there on the other side where he will remain a long time, certainly as long as he persists in indulging in the kind of tactics in which he is now indulging.
So far as the introduction of this bill now is concerned, we come back to two or three simple propositions. There is an urgent need for the appointment of extra district and county court judges in the city of Ottawa and county of Carleton. My friend the hon. member for Ottawa West who first raised this matter now looks embarrassed and wishes he had not raised it.


George James McIlraith: He does not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman fully appreciates that this is an urgent bill necessary to the due administration of justice in his own district. We on this side of the chamber have no apologies to make for introducing this bill, which is urgently needed, under which appointments will be made if and when the legislature of Ontario creates the vacancies, a course upon which that house is presently embarked. If for any reason the bill does not go through in the Ontario legislature, or if the bill is amended, we will nevertheless have authority to make such appointments as will then have been created in the district and county courts of Ontario.
Why my hon. friends, who claim to be wanting things to be done expeditiously, should insist that we follow an outdated, antidiluvian process every time when by a simple process such as that which we are now following, taking this house into our confidence as to what we are doing, we can place ourselves in a position to make appointments at the earliest possible moment, I am unable to say. Of course my hon. friends try to read into this all sorts of motives, and of course we are accustomed to that sort of thing.


An hon. Member:: Closure.
26207-1-1564
Judges Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: All I can say is that if the hon. member for Ottawa West and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate mean what they say when they say they want the house to get on with the business, they will stop this kind of futile argument and allow this bill to pass.


George James McIlraith: There is a point that I think should be dealt with, Mr. Chairman. I think better than anything we can say it points up what the situation is. The Minister of Justice of Canada, in seeking to deal with clause 2 of this bill at the committee stage, saw fit- and indeed was permitted to do so under the current practice of the last year or two in the house-to make personal references as to my looks and appearance. I refrain from any comment on that matter, other than to say this. When the Minister of Justice is obliged to resort to that kind of argument, as the Prime Minister does repeatedly, in order to deal with a matter like this, it is rather bad. For my part I refrain from any comment whatever as to the appearance of any hon. member of this House of Commons at any time. As far as I am concerned the looks or appearance of any member of the House of Commons who has been sent here by his constituents is perfectly fine and satisfactory for me. I think it is an irrelevancy. However, it shows the attitude of the current cabinet and the Minister of Justice, supported by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys with his repeated interjections.
The minister keeps pleading for urgency in getting this bill through. I do not know by what right he is continuously concerned with charging us with obstructing the bill because we assert a point of view on it. I do not know by what right he sought to bring in the situation in the county of Carleton, the district in which the constituency I have the honour to represent is located and in which the constituency the hon. member for Carleton has the honour to represent is situated. The situation in that county is not dealt with in any way by this bill, nor was that point raised. The minister cannot make additional appointments in that district or county until the Ontario legislature has taken the action it is required to take under our division of authority under our constitution. That was the point raised, and that is the point the minister seems to be unwilling to grant the propriety of raising. Then we have his reference, of course, to the quality of any arguments that differ from those of the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Puerile arguments.


George James McIlraith: "Puerile arguments" I think was the term used. Obviously the test in the minister's mind as to whether or not an argument is puerile is whether it is asserted

Judges Act
by a member of the government of the day now holding office or by one of its supporters. If the argument is asserted by anyone else it becomes puerile. When it is asserted by the government it is an important argument and an important matter. Surely that is too feeble an approach for any member of the House of Commons to use. However, it is an indication of the thinking of the Minister of Justice on this bill, and on this clause in the bill, that he should stoop to use that argument and the earlier one I mentioned instead of dealing with the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I recognize the hon. member for Greenwood.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the minister made a a certain personal reference I feel that I should be permitted to reply to it. The minister said that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and other members over here had demonstrated conclusively last Friday that they were not-


Edmund Davie Fulton: All last week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -prepared to pass the supplementary estimates. I have here a copy of Hansard for Friday.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All last week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman might perhaps allow me to reply without interruption. I did not interrupt him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Be accurate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am being accurate. Here we find that the estimates of nine departments of government were dealt with on Friday; I refer to the supplementary estimates of nine departments. Millions and millions of dollars were voted with, in most cases, relatively few questions. Hence a great deal of progress was made last Friday. There is not much doubt that if the government had gone on in a businesslike way these supplementary estimates would have been completed yesterday. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that likelihood, in view of what happened. It is true that difficulty appeared on Thursday evening because the government would not accede to a reasonable request which they acceded to on Friday. That prevented any progress from being made. On Friday they were willing to bring estimates before us with someone to give information about them, and they made good progress. But why do they adjourn this business? They do so in order to bring forward urgent legislation. If the legislation was genuinely urgent that would be one thing. However, this bill is hypothetical. The minister himself makes that admission. I did IMr. Mcllraith.]
not accuse the minister of trying to hide that fact. He admitted it yesterday.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member said we were trying to conceal it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I said you were trying to slip it through. I did not say you were trying to hide it. You were trying to put the pressure on and were suggesting that we were holding up an urgent piece of legislation. You were trying to create the impression that my friend the hon. member for Ottawa West in some way or other was preventing the courts in Carleton from functioning properly. If the situation in Carleton is so bad, the fault is that of the Ontario government and the Ontario legislature for not acting. It is not our fault. The attorney general of Ontario one can understand, has other preoccupations these days and may not be attorney general for very long. His successor may not have the same views as to how the courts should be organized. It would not surprise me if his views on many subjects were very different, whoever he may be.
I say that if this had been at the end of a normal session when there was a long recess ahead, there might have been some excuse for this action in bringing in this hypothetical bill. But when it is done in the middle of a session that is going to go on until the end of June, if we are going to do the normal business of the country, that is a different matter. There is no need to have it brought in now. It is not urgent. It cannot be urgent until after the Ontario legislature has acted. It is therefore just a confession that the government has no urgent business to bring before us.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will my hon. friend permit me to interrupt him?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


James Ross Fulton: May I say that I have just had a telephone message from the attorney general of Ontario saying that the bill has passed and has received royal assent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman had made his telephone call this morning, I think he could have saved an hour of the time of the House of Commons. I have now no reason for speaking any more.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 2 carry?


George James McIlraith: I just want to say that the minister's message now delivered to the house points up more clearly and more eloquently than anything that could be said by any hon. member here the impossible situation in which the Minister of Justice was putting us in this House of Commons. It indicates also that if he had acted properly and had held off the

presentation of this bill until he had that telegram, it probably would have gone through in a very few minutes.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 2
carry?


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question. Before doing so, however, I should like to make an observation. Under our system of government we have the legislative branch, namely parliament, the executive branch or government and also the judicial branch. I have always admired the ability of the members of the judicial branch to disregard past political affiliations upon being appointed to the bench. I believe we are one of the few countries in the world with a judiciary that is almost, if not completely, removed from political consideration. In my view this speaks most highly of those appointed to the bench in our country.
However, I have also noted over the years that appointment is usually based on political consideration, and as the bill now before us has to do with appointments to the judiciary in the county and district courts of Ontario I should like to ask the minister a question. In the light of the increasing number of Ontario lawyers who have expressed their willingness to be candidates for the New Democratic party and also the growing number of Ontario lawyers who have expressed a desire to see the Leader of the Opposition as the next prime minister of Canada, is the minister able to assure us that there are sufficient Conservative lawyers left in Ontario in order for him to be able to fill these vacancies?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can assure the hon. member that there are a vast number of Conservative lawyers in Ontario and in every other province and part of Canada whose friendship I am proud to claim and who undoubtedly, along with all the other citizens of Canada who will be voting for the present government, will see to it that the present government is re-elected in the next election. So my hon. friend need have no concern at all as to the number of lawyers of the Conservative faith in Canada or the number of Canadian people who have confidence in the present government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the Minister of Justice think it appropriate that he should take only Conservatives as potential candidates for the high office of judge in this country?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, may I point out that I made no reference to Conservatives as candidates or potential candidates.
Corporations and Labour Unions


Paul Joseph James Martin: You said they were the only people who could qualify.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said no such thing. My hon. friend, who for 22 years looked only to the Liberals with regard to appointments-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not so.
You know that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -seems to think that we do the same thing. I answered a simple question with regard to the number of Conservative lawyers in Canada. I made no reference to appointments to the bench. My hon. friend's guilty conscience betrays him.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: 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 Monday, April 2, 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 1-Short title.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question. Since Bill No. C-38 was introduced into the house and consequently was printed and became public property, has the minister received any representations with respect to it, and would he indicate the gist of those representations?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have received a number of representations from companies, chambers of commerce and the Canadian Labour Congress. The representations with respect to Bill No. C-38 are not nearly as lengthy or as critical as they were with respect to Bill No. C-70 last session, which I think indicates that we have done a pretty good job of improving the legislation.


Frank Howard: The minister has indicated that he has received representations and has

Corporations and Labour Unions said that they were not as critical as those received last year with respect to Bill No. C-70, but I asked the minister to give the committee an indication of what the representations were.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, they were such representations as, for instance, we have dealt with by the decision I announced yesterday, to provide that returns shall made in the first instance to the dominion bureau of statistics, and the other decision I announced that we would be amending the provision with respect to the method of handling the information once it is received. Therefore the bulk of the representations we have received in that respect have been dealt with by those two decisions.
With regard to other representations, those from the Canadian Labour Congress were discussed yesterday in the course of the debate on second reading and were dealt with by me in the course of my reply to the points that were made. The main criticism of the Canadian Labour Congress appears to be that by requiring corporations and trade unions in the same bill to make statistical returns we were somehow or other seeking to equate the conduct and activities of corporations and trade unions, a mistake which I assure you we would never make.


Frank Howard: The minister has mentioned companies and chambers of commerce. I took that to mean the national chamber of commerce, but perhaps he has received representations from individual chambers of commerce as well. He also referred to the Canadian Labour Congress. Has he received any representations with respect to this bill from people in the academic or legal fields?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The bulk have been from corporations, chambers of commerce and similar organizations, plus the Canadian Labour Congress. I understand that within the last few days a submission has been received from certain professors in the department of political science at Queen's University.


Frank Howard: Could the minister indicate what their representations were?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do I take it that my hon. friend has not also received a copy?


Frank Howard: Could the minister indicate what those representations were, in the same manner as he did with the C.L.C., the chambers of commerce and the corporations?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thought that since my hon. *friend has presumably received a copy we might save the time of the committee by not 'being required to read it. However, a summary is that the professors expressed their

support for the principle of the bill but they were concerned that the public, including academic researchers, were to be denied access to part of the information obtained under the bill, in particular the information contained in part B of the report made by corporations.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The minister spoke about the representations made by the Canadian Labour Congress, but he forgot to state that they said they had more extensive remarks to make if the bill were sent to a standing committee of the house. They said that in the last paragraph of the representations they made to the cabinet on March 14. That is why we asked yesterday to have the bill sent to the standing committee on industrial relations. Then everybody would know about it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but I invited the Canadian Labour Congress to submit their further representations to me. They have done so, and I can assure the hon. member that, on careful study of the representations so submitted, I find they have all already been taken into account.


Alexis Pierre Caron: In the bill as it stands?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the decisions which we arrived at, and on the basis of which we drafted the legislation or the changes which I indicated to the house yesterday. I do not say that the bill in its present form, or the changes we will propose, will meet all the points made by the Canadian Labour Congress. What I do say is that their representations have been carefully considered and are either met in the bill or have been decided not to be sufficiently soundly grounded as to warrant other changes in the legislation.


Frank Howard: With reference to the matter of sending this bill to a committee of the house for consideration, I can now see that regardless of the minister's statements yesterday as to how efficient he and his department are in drafting legislation and meeting the desires of the people affected by it, namely corporations and unions, he was in error. Perhaps he really did not want this to go to a committee. He has just made a number of comments, referring to the bulk of representations from chambers of commerce and the C.L.C. He also read part of a letter from what I believe is a department of Queen's University, and all these had proposed changes to Bill C-38.
The minister says some of these proposals have been met; but in denying the house the opportunity to send the bill to a committee the minister has kept these representations, ideas and thoughts with regard to changes in the bill, from being studied in a more formal way. He has also shown his

own opposition to the people affected by it, and has offered a great affront to the house.
It would have been much more in keeping with the dignity of the house had he explained on second reading yesterday that he had received representations, who the representations were from, and generally what they said. I believe he has admitted to this committee that in the first instance he did not want any great public scrutiny of the bill presently before us, and especially that he did not want to provide an opportunity to interested parties to appear before a standing committee, make known their views and be subject to cross-examination.


Mr, Fulton:: I had assumed, and I am sorry if I was in error, that in view of the recent liaison-or shall I put it, dictation relationship-between my hon. friend and the C.L.C., the views of the C.L.C. as expressed to me would be known to my hon. friend from Skeena. If therefore there was any dereliction or failure to bring those views before this house I cannot see that I can be charged with that responsibility. All I have said is that the views of the Canadian Labour Congress were made known to me, and apparently in spite of all that has been said the liaison between the C.L.C. and my hon. friend is not as perfect as the country had been led to believe.


Frank Howard: The minister, in his usual nasty way, has deigned not to answer the question.


James Ross Fulton: You did not ask one.


Frank Howard: Well, he has not deigned to answer the representations and suggestions I made. Instead he has taken a roundabout and very nasty way of making accusations, which are unfounded and untrue, against members of the New Democratic party. Yesterday the hon. member for Hull and the hon. member for Vancouver South read into the record extracts from what I took to be the annual submission of the Canadian Labour Congress to the cabinet, which pleaded for certain things. I followed that very closely and it is my opinion, as an individual, that I must disagree with the people who prepared, drafted and submitted that submission. This does not represent any dictation, and may I say further that the minister's accusation that this party is under some dictation by a group of people is entirely untrue and unfounded.
It is true that we have a relationship with individual local unions which may desire to become related to us, but we are not like the minister's party which goes around by the back door and gleans its campaign funds from people who want special privileges,
Corporations and Labour Unions consideration and rights, and who get them from this government. We are not like the hon. gentleman who makes special arrangements for tax evasion situations for individual friends of his on the west coast. We are not that sort of party. We are the sort of party who are prepared to come out flat footed in public and explain our relationship with any group of people or any individual in this country.
Were I to engage in kind, and make a general reference to the low type of accusation which he has made against myself and my party, I would probably run foul of the rules of the house, and I certainly would not want to do that. Having listened to him I say that his accusations against myself and my party are unfounded and untrue, but perhaps they explain why he is not prepared to give us the details of the submissions made. This is another indication of the type of party to which the minister belongs. This is another of the smear type of accusations which he is wont to make on every occasion possible, and which he made only a while ago against the members of the official opposition. The public should know the type of party to which the minister belongs, and should know some of the things he has done, cloaked in secrecy, with reference to developments in British Columbia.


James Ross Fulton: I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member is hard put to it to restrain his venom; therefore I make no comment in kind. I simply point out that this bill has been public knowledge since January 22 and I should have thought therefore, as I was indicating earlier, that views with respect thereto have had plenty of time to be made known. They have certainly been made known to me. They have all been carefully considered, and we have placed our proposals before the house and do not intend to be sidetracked from those proposals by the venting of the spleen of the hon. member for Skeena, to which we are all, unfortunately, becoming accustomed.


Frank Howard: You deserve it, too.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, the minister just said that he has received a number of briefs and representations. That is all right; we admit that he has and that he has studied them and tried to do what is best with all the representations he received. But the other members of parliament did not have any knowledge of them. If this bill had been referred to the industrial relations committee instead of to committee of the whole, then we could have looked at those representations and perhaps we would have been in a better position to suggest amelioration of the present bill. Even if we accept the principle of the

Corporations and Labour Unions bill, we suggest that there may be a way to ameliorate it. In this situation we have only the minister's word that the government have tried to comply with all the information and representations which have been made to them. We do not have that information; we did not receive any of those briefs; we do not know anything about what was said to the minister in this regard, either against or in favour of the bill. That is why I was suggesting that it should have been sent to the industrial relations committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I can only say that I have given my reasons for not referring it to the committee. Of course I am not one to judge of the desirability of persons making their representations more widely known than they have done already. It certainly has been my impression that the representations which have been made to me have been made known to other people; perhaps not to my hon. friend from Hull, but I am under the impression that they have been made known generally to-


Alexis Pierre Caron: They have not been made known to the official opposition,


Edmund Davie Fulton: -persons on the other side of the chamber.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Not at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not, of course, in a position to prove that. In any event, I can only repeat that we have given the most complete consideration to these representations and no one that I know of, except the Canadian Labour Congress, has suggested that the bill should be referred to a committee in order that they might appear there and make their representations.
I am prepared to discuss here in committee of the whole-as of course it is my duty to do-every point of view that may be advanced. I assure my hon. friends in the committee that points of view which have merit will be entertained on that basis. I think this is the place to consider the bill and the suggestions which have been advanced.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I can tell the minister that outside of the memorandum which was placed before the cabinet on March 14 of this year by the Canadian Labour Congress, none of these briefs have been sent to the official opposition.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 1 carry?
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, at this stage in our discussion, I have but a few remarks to make.
The minister was saying a while ago that there was a great difference between this


bill and the one introduced last year, under No. C-70. In fact, they are as different as night and day.
Nevertheless, the bill as it now stands, while acceptable in principle, could be substantially improved in many ways.
That being the case, I should like to make a suggestion through which the administration of the act would become more practical, more efficient and less discriminatory toward the majority of the companies concerned, these companies which already submit innumerable statistical and other reports to the various government departments.
A brief submitted to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, on February 8, 1962, stated as follows:
(Text):
That consideration be given to specific exclusions in the bill of those corporations reporting similar information pursuant to the Companies Act and other statutes provided that such companies might be required to furnish additional information as is specified under the present bill.
(Translation):
I agree with that point of view, and I know that all corporations affected by part I of this bill also agree.
We must avoid any duplication of information and returns to be supplied by Canadian corporations.
I think that without realizing it, because of a mass of information asked from those firms, we have reached the point of saturation where many companies now need a considerable staff just to supply that information which involves absolutely unnecessary duplication.
We should be practical and, to that end, I would ask the minister to take into consideration the proposal which was made to him on February 8 by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce concerning the duplication of those returns.
Could it be that one of the amendments he has in mind will eliminate that useless duplication?
In my opinion, there is room for much improvement there.
Most Canadian companies comply readily with everything we ask them to do, but we could save them a considerable amount of work.
Would the minister be kind enough to comment on that part of the suggestion the Canadian Chamber of Commerce made to him last February 8 with regard to the duplication of returns?
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to find from what the hon. member has just said that, contrary to what the hon. member

for Hull said a moment ago, copies of the submissions made by various organizations are in fact in the hands of hon. members opposite.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Not officially. It is his personal affair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont just referred in some detail to the submission made by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I take no objection to that; I am just glad to point out-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that that is the fact.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont has risen on a question of privilege.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I point out to the minister that I was reading from personal correspondence that I received which relates to only a few lines of a brief submitted to the minister. I am not at all aware of the submissions in the brief presented by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, but I am aware of this part of their suggestions which a few minutes ago I asked the minister to consider.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to consider it. There was a suggestion made that the bill should be altered so as to eliminate the duplication of reporting under this bill and under the Companies Act and other statutes. We considered that suggestion but came to the conclusion that the kind of statistics that were wanted here went far beyond what was contained in the returns required to be made under the Companies Act.
With respect to the kind of return that might be made under the Statistics Act, I think it could be argued, although I did not look into this personally and did not do so for a very good reason, that much of the information we are asking for here is contained in the returns made under the Statistics Act. But I have already referred to the reputation, tradition and feeling of confidence that exists between the bureau of statistics and those who make returns to the bureau under the Statistics Act, and the respect that is given to the tradition of confidentiality in connection with those returns. Since it is required here, and is required as a matter of policy, that there be public access to a portion of these returns, the part A returns at least, as well as a condensation and a report made of the analysis of the information contained in part B, we felt it was not
3, 1962
Corporations and Labour Unions appropriate to use for this purpose the information contained in the returns made under the Statistics Act.
We came to the conclusion, therefore, that however much we might wish to avoid placing upon businesses and unions the necessity for filing additional returns, the exigencies of the purpose we had in mind required new and separate returns to be made. That purpose was to place the government in possession of the detailed information which we needed, and in a position to use that information to the end which we intended, that is, the formulation of policy. I did point, however, in my speech on second reading that with respect to some portions of the return, particularly the summarized financial statement, a duplicate of the kind of statement which is filed with the Department of National Revenue would suffice. So wherever possible we have introduced provisions which will eliminate extra work, though we have felt it essential to require separate returns under this bill.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: There is no doubt that, as far as duplication is concerned, corporations, and unions as well, will probably have to hire additional staff. I do not know whether the minister intended to solve the unemployment problem that way, but I may say, as I said during the debate on second reading, that if the minister had deemed it proper to append to his bill, as it may be done normally, a copy of the questions that might be asked, we would be in a position to determine whether that procedure would involve additional work and higher expenses on the part of those who have to answer those questions. But, unfortunately, the questionnaire will be drawn up only when the bill is approved, and the questions will be known only later, when it will be useless to protest because they will have been submitted already to the people concerned.
That is why I asked yesterday-and I hope the minister will be able to do so before the end of the study of the bill in committee-that the type of questionnaire which is to be addressed to corporations, unions and individuals, be produced.
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the answer to the hon. member's comments is that the bill itself details the information which will be required. In that respect I think perhaps this statute is unique. I must say it has been drafted with the greatest of care in order to make sure it will speak for itself as to
2446	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions the information which is required from corporations and trade unions. For this reason no questionnaire remains to be drawn up by the government.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: The minister will certainly admit that the list in clause 4, referring to the series of particulars which are to be asked, does not clearly show the number of questions which may be added to it. A series of questions can be set out. For instance:
(Text):
(B) interest, classified according to the kinds of obligations on which and currencies in which such interest was payable.
(Translation):


Edmund Davie Fulton: I beg your pardon-
(Text):
On a point of order, I wonder whether we could refer this kind of discussion until we reach clause 2, when I shall be prepared to answer in detail. I understand that we are on clause 1 at the moment. Would the hon. member be good enough to wait?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I was citing that part of clause 4 by way of example. The bill goes on to ask 10 or 20 questions to clarify this situation, and these requirements would create a lot more work for any corporation or union or individual who had to establish clearly what the government wants to know. If we had before us a measure along the lines I have indicated we should have the information enabling us to know exactly what trouble and expenditure it would cause the companies and the unions to fulfil the requirements of the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer is that there is no such power given to the government or to any agency thereof to ask supplementary questions. The bill requires that corporations and trade unions should furnish certain information. If they do furnish that information, that is the end of their obligation. It is only when they furnish inaccurate information, or if they fail to make a return at all, that there is any breach of the statute. No power is given to the government to go around asking a lot of supplementary questions.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Does the minister mean that unions, corporations or individuals will decide for themselves what answers they are to give to the government or will they have to fill in a form, as it is done for income tax or statistics purposes, when we receive forms upon forms asking for information? Is the minister saying that the people from whom this information is required will make


their own decision concerning the nature of the information, without having to fill in a form prepared by the department? (Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, there will not be a formula prepared by the department. The bill itself contains in precise detail the requirements as to the information which corporations and trade unions are obliged to furnish. The only exception is with regard to the financial statement, the statement of income and expenditure and the statement of surplus. Only with respect to that part of the return is there any power to prescribe by regulation the detail which must be shown. What will happen in this field is that regulations will be promulgated after the bill has become law and they, again, will say precisely what information is required to be furnished in the financial statement. The purpose will be to standardize the information in the financial statement. So between the statute on the one hand and the regulations on the other, the precise detail in which companies and corporations are bound to make their returns will be set out. There are no supplementary questions or follow-ups to be made. The only query that will arise is (a) is the information accurate or (b) has the return been furnished at all?
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat surprised to see that the minister seems to think that everything is clearly defined in his bill and that people will have to supply, on their own accord and under this bill, whatever information they feel justified in submitting to the government.
In every department, whether it be the dominion bureau of statistics or any other agency-if it was not so at the start, it has now become the normal practice-quite a number of questions are prepared in advance, for the enlightenment of the heads of the branches concerned. As a matter of fact, I would scarcely be surprised if the same course were followed, when information is required under the legislation now before us. Otherwise, I would be unable to understand it. (Text):


Erhart Regier: should not have taken the government four or five years to introduce legislation that does absolutely nothing to restore the control of our economy to Canadians but seeks only information which may or may not lead to legislative measures and other action that will help restore control over our economic destiny to the Canadian people. I remind the government that it was elected on the basic promise of restoring this control to Canadians.
I regard this bill merely as so much window dressing. It is a last ditch, desperate attempt on the part of the government to apologize for the fact that it has not only failed to implement this basic election pledge but also now faces the reality of the fact that the economy of Canada today is even more under the control of outsiders than it was at the time the government was initially elected in 1957. I do not think I have ever seen a bill that contains more eyewash than the legislation before us. It took the government four or five years to get around to introducing a bill under which authority is sought to gather basic information, with the ostensible end in view that after having obtained the necessary information measures might be undertaken to fulfil the election promise made in 1957 and repeated in 1958.
My real reason for rising, however, was the allegation, if not indeed the imputation, made by the minister when he spoke. I can report to the minister that contrary to his expectations I have received in connection with the bill now before us no representations in any form from the Canadian congress of labour. I am not under the dictation nor will I ever be of any group in Canada, be it the Canadian congress of labour or any other Canadian organization. However, let me assure the minister of this. Had that body made representations to me I would have considered them seriously because they would have represented the considered opinion of a large segment of the Canadian population. Those opinions would have weighed much more heavily with me than any representations that have been made by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce or the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. It is my contention that I am not now and never will be under the domination of the Canadian congress of labour or any other group, but if need be I would rather be under their domination than under that of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce or the Canadian Manufacturers' Association as I am sure the Liberal and Conservative parties have been over the years in this country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I could give a harsh answer to my friend the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam but I know him to be a sincere member who is much concerned
3,	1962
Corporations and Labour Unions about these matters, so I will refrain from doing that. I shall endeavour to deal with these points seriatim. It is true I suggested that in my anticipation the hon. members of the New Democratic party would have been provided with copies of the submissions made-
I do not mean only those made to cabinet but made to me-by the Canadian congress of labour. I did not think there was anything wrong in that assumption or suggestion. I simply anticipated that in the nature of things that would be done. As I say, I was not criticizing it but was merely voicing my own expectation or understanding of what would be the fact. I am informed that is not the fact, and that I accept. I accept it one hundred per cent because the hon. member assures me he has not received that submission.
I can only repeat that as a result of an exchange of telegrams between the president of the Canadian congress of labour and myself I did receive submissions enlarging upon the contents of the Canadian congress of labour brief to cabinet. All the points contained in that submission have been carefully considered. Some of them, I believe, have been met; others, I believe, are not well taken; and with respect to others, I am simply unable to agree because they seem to me to arise from a fundamental misinterpretation of the purpose of this legislation.
With respect to the other point my hon. friend made, that this bill has been long delayed, especially as he put it, by a government which had as one of its basic tenets the bringing under effective Canadian control of the Canadian economy, I certainly cannot deny it has taken us four and a half years to design and bring in this legislation. However, let me point out two things. First, this is not the only measure we have taken in this field. I do not wish, Mr. Chairman, to lay the foundation for a discussion which would be out of order so I will be careful in what I say.
My hon. friend suggested this was the only step we have taken in this field. May I remind him it is by no means the only thing we have undertaken in this area. I remind the hon. gentleman of amendments introduced by this government to the oil and gas regulations in the Northwest Territories under which now you must be a Canadian citizen or a company must be under Canadian control if a permit is to be granted. That had not been done before. That affects vast areas of Canadian resources, and the measure was introduced by this government. I could also mention a number of other things this government has done to encourage and ensure effective Canadian participation in the development of the Canadian economy; but I think I would be out of
2448	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions order if I got into that field. So let me come to the second point I wish to make in answer to the criticism that has been made.
It is true that it has taken four and a half years to bring this bill before the house. I only ask my hon. friend if he has ever tried to draft legislation dealing with such a prickly, thorny subject as this? Already I recognize it is not a complete excuse to plead difficulties and obstacles. Although that may not be a complete answer let me point out to my hon. friend that we have been making progress in this field. Our attention was directed first to matters such as I have mentioned, the partnership program with the provinces in enabling us to open up Canadian resources and the oil and gas regulations that I mentioned. Then our attention became focused on this aspect of it and it was, as it were, with increasing clarity we realized we really did not have the information to enable us to draw up specific measures dealing, for instance, with such matters as compelling or inducing Canadian subsidiaries of foreign owned companies to open their share registers to purchases of shares by Canadians.
We did not know what would be required to do that. So we found then that it would be necessary to obtain the information on which to base such a policy or such legislation. We therefore set to work to draft such legislation. I can assure my hon. friend that it was not just last year, although last year we introduced the bill. It is my recollection that it was at least a year previous to that time that we began to discuss in departments and between departments what it would be necessary to include in legislation such as that which we have here. These discussions advanced to the point where last year we were able to bring a bill into the house. Then the hon. member will recall the criticism-I do not know that it is exaggerating to call it the storm of criticism-with which the bill was met.
As I said yesterday in my speech on second reading, this criticism was quite understandable. We were experimenting in a new field altogether. I wish we had been able to devise a perfect bill the first time. However,
I really do not think that I am obliged to apologize very profoundly for the fact that we were not able to devise a perfect bill the first time. We therefore let that bill stand for a while. We assessed the extensive criticisms we received from those companies and trade unions. We analysed and collated those criticisms. It was necessary to review the policy and then come up with a fresh approach which is now incorporated in the bill before the committee. Hence, it is a fact that it is four and a half years before this 

bill comes forward, but I can assure the hon. member that does not mean that we have been idle in the meantime.


Murdo William Martin: The minister has just told us that the stopping of foreign control is only one of many things for which the bill is designed. He listed a couple of other matters. It seems to me that he tried to create the impression that the situation is better since this government took office.


James Ross Fulton: And so it is better. The situation has improved.


Murdo William Martin: That is just another step along the road to distortion of actual facts. In spite of the steps that have been taken by this government, the fact remains that the situation is worse now than it was when they took office. I do not think the minister should get away with trying to create another impression in this House of Commons.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause I carry?


Miss LaMarsh:: In his rejoinder to the last
speaker, does the minister suggest that what has been announced, as has frequently been said in the public press, is not a fact, namely that there is more United States ownership of Canada now than there was five years ago?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Niagara Falls is a well known statistical expert, Mr. Chairman, and I should not care to get into that kind of argument with her.


Mr. Malheson:: May I indicate to the minister that not very many days ago I asked a question of the government with respect to foreign ownership of assets in Canada. I am not at the moment able to put my finger on the answer. However, it clearly indicated that up to the last date available the amount of foreign ownership since this government took office has been substantially greater than it was when they formed the government. That is one of the things that leads us to make comments on this bill. We think that the bill in many respects is designed to give the impression that the government is doing something about the situation, or cares to do something about it. I do not think that the bill does anything of the kind.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 1 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before it carries I might say that I think the Minister of Justice in this matter has shown discretion which might well have been shown by his colleague the Minister of Public Works on a television show the other day. The Minister of Justice at least has not said, in respect of dominion bureau of statistics figures that were produced in the house, what his colleague said about them namely, "Well, you may believe them; nobody else would do so". We all remember

that clownlike performance on television not so long ago which we on this side of the chamber are hoping to have repeated on some suitable occasion. However, in view of the rather broad play the minister has made without any kind of evidence to support it, it seems to me that the evidence which has been produced in the house should be put on the record before we go any further with this matter. These figures were given in the house the other day-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then why repeat them?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -in reply to a question by the hon. member for Leeds, and they are on the record. In order that our proceedings should give a faithful reflection of what has been happening in this matter it seems to me that we should take the time necessary to do this, notwithstanding the extreme urgency of passing this bill. We all appreciate how urgent this bill is, how frightfully important it is that it should be passed before five o'clock and how greatly the passage of this bill is going to affect the fortunes of every Canadian.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Repetition is not in order, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We all appreciate how the country was going to be saved by these disclosures.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is the hon. member who has been saved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We remember in times gone by that great crusade to liberate Canada from the economic slavery into which the country was driven in the days of long ago and which was changed on June 10, 1957.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe my hon. friend from Leeds is now able to put on the record the information which shows just exactly the extent and character of this liberation which has been brought about or is going to be brought about by this bill. As my hon. friend still seems to be engaged in his researches, I think the minister himself ought to tell us what he is able to give us from his own notes of the extent to which United States concerns have been bought out by Canadians and the extent to which the investment in Canadian companies has been reduced in the last four years so that we may have the basis on which the minister made his statement.


James Ross Fulton: I am not going to get into that sort of statistical battle with the hon. member. I made a statement that this is not the only front upon which we have been attacking this problem of Canadian control of Canadian resources. I referred to other areas such as the oil and gas regulations in the north.
Corporations and Labour Unions I particularly pointed out that I did not wish to be tempted into getting this discussion out of order. We are discussing here a bill for the disclosure of corporation and trade union statistics. My hon. friend has made certain assertions which he regards as being relevant. I am not sure that they are relevant, but it seems to me that it is up to my hon. friend to follow up that assertion and to relate it to the purposes of this bill. I would imagine that for every statistic quoted one way, another statistic could be quoted another way. However, it seems to me that what has been said so far indicates what I believe to be the case, namely that this House of Commons reflects the attitude of the country, namely, that we are concerned about the question of Canadian control of the Canadian economy.
I am glad to find that we are all concerned about that matter. I would therefore expect that hon. members of the opposition might be more concerned to look at this bill and examine it from the point of view of whether it does the job it is supposed to do, namely to make it possible for us to get information about the extent and effects of that control, rather than to indulge in this, may I suggest, rather fruitless statistical battle. I am quite prepared-indeed it is a premise upon which the bill is based-to admit that there is such a degree of foreign control of our economy today as to give us concern. I am not going to get into a statistical battle as to whether it be 60 per cent or 62 per cent nor am I going to get into a statistical battle as to whether it is 1.5 per cent or 2 per cent more than it was in 1957. It was enough in 1957 for us to be concerned about. It is still enough today to be concerned about. That is why we are introducing this bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may say one word, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Leeds now has the statistics but I should like to say one word-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I might well intercede at this point to suggest that the implications of the remarks that immediately preceded those of the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate tend to take us out of the realm of relevancy. I have been extremely tolerant all afternoon with the idea of moving along the business of the house and I hope I have not spoiled my day by doing so. I was going to point out to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that I recognized the hon. member for Skeena before he rose and I think he might perhaps defer to him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, I think Your Honour was not in the chair the other day when we were discussing a very similar question having to do with continuity

Corporations and Labour Unions in discussing a particular point. If the hon. member for Skeena is going to speak on this specific point then I defer at once, but if he is introducing a new subject I am sure he will be very glad to yield.


Frank Howard: My remarks are precisely along this line. With deference to your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that possibly we are getting out of order, I would point out that yesterday the minister himself made a very bloodcurdling, flag-waving speech in which the precise reason he gave for introducing the bill was the degree of foreign control. I might mention in passing that even on the amendment we moved the minister's argument was that it was out of order because the bill dealt with foreign control, percentages, statistics and degrees of foreign control. We know the minister likes to have two policies, one for the government side and one for the opposition; but his main theme yesterday was that the reason for introducing the bill was the degree of foreign control and the desire to know all the facts about it. Surely he cannot expect you now, Mr. Chairman, to put yourself into the unwise and unfortunate position of agreeing with him because he does not wish to have members follow up at this stage of the bill what he said yesterday. That is exactly the point with which we should be dealing because the degree of foreign control was the precise reason the minister gave yesterday.
I point out again, as I did yesterday, that certainly the degree of foreign control increased from 1957 to 1959. I put those figures on the record yesterday. Under this government foreign control of the manufacturing, petroleum and natural gas and mining industries increased from 61 per cent to 63 per cent in the period from 1957 to 1959. Far be it from me to attempt to support the government's point of view but I would point out that from 1954 to 1957 when we had a Liberal government foreign control increased from 55 per cent to 61 per cent, or 6 per cent in three years compared with an increase of 2 per cent from 1957 to 1959. Perhaps the minister can come to the conclusion that the increase has been less rapid under the present government than under the former, but we all know that one can take statistics and juggle them this way or that to suit one's convenience.
The fact is that there has been an increase. I cannot quote the minister's exact words of yesterday, but the fact is that in his opening remarks he said that 1957 was the last year for which statistics of this kind were available. He referred to foreign control of the mining and smelting industry to the extent of 61 per cent and also pointed out

that the manufacturing industry was under non-resident control to the extent of 56 per cent. He said that 1957 was the last year for which statistics were available, but that is not the case. The same kind of statistics from which the minister quoted are available now for the year 1959 and were available even before the minister's speech was prepared. I will place them on the record.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege, would my hon. friend permit me to say something? I admit that what he says is in part correct. My speech was prepared shortly after the bill was given first reading. At that time the last figures available were those for 1957. I admit to an oversight in not having realized that subsequent figures were published about 10 days ago, I believe. I had grown rather out of touch with the subject as I was not sure when the bill was going to come on so I am afraid I was not aware of that fact. I did not mean to mislead the house. The figures I had at the time I prepared my speech were the last available figures.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, it is delightfully refreshing to see the degree of frankness with which the minister approaches the question, and as a change it is very commendable. I commend his example to other ministers. I am glad I was able to assist the minister in rewriting his speech and bringing it up to date by my introduction of these statistics. The point is that over the years up to 1959 there has been an increase in activity with regard to the ownership, control and operation of Canadian industry and the Canadian economy by people outside of Canada. This has taken place both under the Liberals and the Tories and there has been an increase not only percentagewise but in total absolute dollar volume. I wonder whether I could call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not five o'clock.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Clause 1 stands.
Progress reported.


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



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-ll, respecting the governing council of the Salvation Army, Canada east, and the governing council of the Salvation Army, Canada west-Mr. Wratten.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-13, to incorporate Polaris Pipe Lines-Mr. Baldwin-Mr. Chown in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Directors.
Frank Howard: I wish to make only one brief remark about this clause. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that during the last session we had a lengthy debate on a bill to incorporate Aurora Pipe Lines. We spent many days debating it and one of the key points which we in the New Democratic party-then the C.C.F.-were trying to establish was that Canadians should be on the board of directors and that there should be Canadian control of that company, at least from the directors' point of view. Parliament agreed with us and an amendment was made in committee providing for that.
I am glad to see that that principle, for which we were primarily responsible in establishing at the last session, has been carried forward to a degree in the present bill to incorporate Polaris Pipe Lines, at least to the extent that this clause requires that the majority of the directors of the company "shall, at all times, be persons resident in Canada and Canadian citizens." Should the government believe in dealing with these things by steps, then we think this is one of the concepts that should be promoted as an additional step towards ensuring that there is control of the operations of corporations in Canada, at least to the extent of having Canadian citizens on the board of directors. It seems to me we should establish a requirement in our private bills rules that all such bills in future have a clause similar to this. In fact I believe we should have a provision to that effect respecting all companies incorporated under the Companies Act. This would be a statutory indication of public policy by the government and parliament, and it would be much better than pious statements from the government without any concrete action being taken to accomplish what they say.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Private Bills

Mr. Murray Smith (Winnipeg North, for Mr. Lafreniere) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-12, respecting the Reliance Insurance Company of Canada.
He said: The sole purpose of this bill is to add a French version to the name of the Reliance Insurance Company of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-16, respecting the United Church of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should give one word of explanation. At the present time the United Church of Canada Act limits the investment in common stock to 15 per cent of the ledger assets of the corporation, which in turn limits the corporation pension fund. The purpose of the amendment is to remove this restriction.
When the basic act of the United Church of Canada was passed in 1924 the investment powers were very much restricted. There was an amendment to the act in 1951, which set out the investments to be limited in accordance with the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, chapter 31 of the revised statutes of 1952, as they are now cited. At that time it restricted the type of investments, and also restricted investment in common stock to 15 per cent of the funds. This act hopes to remove that limitation so that they can invest more than 15 per cent of their funds in common stock. At the present time there is about 12.5 per cent of their funds invested in such stock.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate the relatively low income of the members of the clergy of all denominations in Canada, and I subscribe to the good intentions of parishioners who want to provide adequately for the retired clergy to their respective religious denominations.
However I cannot fail to record once again that not too many centuries have passed since the practice of usury was a cause for expulsion from the Christian community. I have no intention of opposing the bill now before us, but I do hope that the religious communities of Canada do not become overburdened in beginning to engage in playing the stock markets, regardless of how worthy the cause may be. I intend to support the bill because I know that the cause it espouses is a worthy one. Even though 99 per cent of the time I agree with any request that is

Private Bills
made of the public and parliament by the United Church of Canada, I know the United Church would be the first to understand the particular warning that I am intending to sound at the present time.
Many religious communities in the world today are among the most unscrupulous landlords in existence. I know this does not apply to the United church. I do not intend to oppose this bill, but I do feel that we should not neglect to take note of what is happening in this field.


Mr. McGee:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member care to elaborate on the rather unsavoury suggestion he put forward and tell us what he had in mind when he was making that suggestion.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I leave it to the hon. member to do his own research.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid I cannot accept the invitation to elaborate on what seemed to me to be largely irrelevant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-18, to incorporate Greymac Mortgage Corporation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to authorize the incorporation under the Loan Companies Act of a mortgage company with a capital stock of $1 million, a subscription of $500,000 before a general meeting of the shareholders may be called, and providing for $200,000 to be paid into the treasury before the company can commence business. The head office is to be in the city of Hamilton.
A mortgage corporation of this character cannot, under the provisions of section 4 of the act to which I have referred-that is, the Loan Companies Act-be incorporated by letters patent; it must be incorporated by act of parliament. It may be of interest to the house to learn that this will be the third such company, as I understand it, to be incorporated under the Loan Companies Act. The act requires that one of the steps in incorporating is that a model bill be drafted as prescribed by the act. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is in the form so prescribed.
There is a need for a company to supply additional mortgage money under the National Housing Act and this company is being formed for that very laudable purpose. The mortgage funds available across the country will be increased upon the commencement of business by this corporation, and it is intended that it will be able to provide both National Housing Act loans and conventional loans.

The powers of a company incorporated under the Loan Companies Act are found in sections 60 and 62. Section 60 provides the power to lend money on the security of mortgages, but the amount of the loan is restricted by subsection 1 (f) in that they can lend on the security of such mortgages only to two thirds of the value of the security. This is the conventional mortgage loan, and I am sure those hon. members who are lawyers will be familiar with it and the ceiling placed on it.
Under the National Housing Act, however, a company of this nature may become an approved lender by applying to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and having acquired this status such companies may lend a much higher percentage of the value of the security; in some cases as high as 90 per cent. We know how much this additional lending power or the raising of the ceiling means to young people particularly, who may not have too much money laid aside but none the less wish to own their own homes. Moreover, these loans under the National Housing Act are fully insured, so that trust funds can be invested in such mortgages.
I think I have indicated that the applicants intend to enter both the conventional mortgage field and the National Housing Act field. It is also intended to utilize the provisions of section 62 of the act to which I referred, whereby a company incorporated under that act is permitted to act as agent for other companies or individuals supplying money for the purposes of lending upon the security of mortgages.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member goes further, would it not be more appropriate for him to introduce this matter in committee? The bill itself does not contain anything about the company's intentions; it simply gives the company capacity to undertake mortgage business. I think it would be irrelevant to indicate now what the company proposes to do after it is incorporated.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then perhaps I could close my remarks very quickly in connection with this bill by indicating that to my knowledge two other companies have been incorporated under special act. For the interest of the house, they are Gillespie Mortgage Corporation, with its head office in Vancouver, incorporated in 1955 by special act; and General Mortgage Service Corporation, with its head office in Toronto. I believe the application by this corporation is currently being considered by parliament.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would only like to mention that I hope the committee, of which I am not a member, to

which this bill will be sent will explore the possibility of making an amendment to the bill which will require that the directors of the company, as occurred with Polaris Pipe Lines and Aurora Pipe Lines last year, will be composed either entirely or by a majority of people who are Canadian citizens and resident in Canada, akin to what we have done with other bills in the past.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must inform the hon. member that if he speaks now he will close the debate.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps I could set at rest the mind of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) by assuring him that the five incorporators of the company and the shareholders will be Canadians. I understand that it is a possibility that United States money will be used by the company to put into home building in Canada. This would not be in the nature of a United States shareholding interest but rather for loans.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. R. D. C. Stewart (Charlotte) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-17, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company and certain wholly owned subsidiaries.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to vest in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company the railways and undertakings of three wholly owned subsidiaries.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-35, to amend the Aeronautics Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman could move from British Columbia to somewhere in the centre of the country so that we may hear him a little more easily.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member, I would like very much to do so, but it has been tried several times and I have a distinct recollection of the interpretation of the rules which confine me to this corner.
Aeronautics Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure there would be unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is interested in unanimous consent being obtained,
I shall inquire. Is the house agreeable to the hon. member moving to a seat more centrally located for the purpose of presenting his argument?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mr. Pallet!: Provided he does not cross the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: The unanimous consent, I may say, is limited to this occasion only.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Do not make any announcements for the government like your predecessor did.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: This is probably the closest I shall get to the cabinet this session, but I certainly appreciate the honour and the suggestion of the hon. member.
This bill dealing with a central aircraft registry is one which I introduced during the past session as Bill No. C-37. It is a matter of considerable importance to the people in the aviation industry and because it is a measure of a somewhat technical nature I propose at this time to supplement the remarks I made on that occasion. I should like to refer any hon. member who is interested in this subject, and who wishes to look back, to the remarks I made then as recorded in Hansard, volume 7 at pages 7337-7343.
The purpose and principle of the bill is relatively simple, namely the establishment of a central aircraft registry to record title to and charges against Canadian civil aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers and spare parts. One of the most important aspects of the bill deals with the financing of aircraft, which is related to the degree of title protection which a finance agency may obtain on the security of an aircraft. In order to supplement the remarks I made in my previous speech on this subject, I should like to refer to a draft brief which has, I understand, been submitted informally to the Department of Transport and which was drawn up by Mr. Frank Kennerley, a lawyer who specializes in aeronautical matters and who has had a great deal of experience in aviation law. The brief will require the approval of the Canadian Bar Association, the air industries and transport association of Canada and of the industrial development bank, but I propose to refer to some of the factual historical background which is provided very concisely in the brief. This, I think, will be of interest to hon. members and also to the Minister of Transport.

Aeronautics Act
In this brief Mr. Kennerley says:
The certificate of registration for a Canadian aircraft issued by the Department of Transport is misleading to the uninformed and does not mean that the "owner" thereon named has clear legal title to the aircraft.
I think this is important, because I wrote to all of the provincial attorneys general and in the reply from the province of Quebec, I believe it was, it was indicated there was already a registration procedure established. That is correct, but it deals only with the registration of aircraft and has nothing to do with encumbrances. I continue to read:
In fact, the purchaser under a conditional sales contract, who has no legal title to the aircraft, is named on the certificate of registration as the "owner" and is so defined in the air regulations.
The finance agency must, after it is satisfied that the aircraft title is clear, also protect its prior claim in the aircraft title from subsequent purchasers, mortgagees and creditors of the owner.
The interest of title to an aircraft is therefore twofold. First, those persons who are concerned with what, if any, prior liens or encumbrances in the form of chattel mortgages, conditional sales contracts, and so on affect the title to the aircraft. Second, those persons who are concerned with the registration or giving notice to subsequent purchasers, mortgagees or creditors of prior interest in the title to the aircraft.
These interested parties must search in all common law provinces of Canada where the aircraft may have been for any registered encumbrances against the aircraft. The log book of the aircraft is of some assistance in determining where to search, but log books are not always accurate, and if a fraud is to be perpetrated, the fraudulent person is unlikely to disclose in the log book that the aircraft was ever located at the place where the encumbrance is registered. A proper search for encumbrances would involve searching every country where the aircraft may have been in every common law province that did not have a central registry. The search would be somewhat easier in those common law provinces where a central registry was located. Failure to make such a complete search may result in the aircraft landing at a distant airport only to be repossessed or seized under an encumbrance registered in the county or province where the airport is located. It is obvious that great time and expense is involved in making such a proper search. Even after completing such an exhaustive and expensive title search, the aircraft title may still be affected by an encumbrance in Quebec that is not required to be registered.
How may a finance agency protect its interest, as secured by a chattel mortgage or conditional sales contract, in a Canadian aircraft against the rights of subsequent purchasers, mortgagees or creditors?
Each of the nine common law provinces of Canada has by legislation provided for the registration of chattel mortgages and conditional sales contracts. In some provinces registration is made in the county where the aircraft is situate at the time and must be made within a limited time after the date of the transaction. This registration is effective notice to subsequent purchasers, mortgagees and, in some instances, creditors of the person in possession of the aircraft, provided the aircraft is not moved out of the county where the registration was made.

I emphasize the word "provided".
The common law provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta have established one central registry for the province to include aircraft so that the registration of the encumbrance is similarly protected, provided the aircraft does not leave the province. Newfoundland is in a similar position as there is only one registry for encumbrances for the whole of the province.
All of the common law provinces have legislative provisions for the reregistration of chattel mortgages and conditional sales contracts when the aircraft is moved. In some cases where there is not a central provincial registry, from one county to another in the same province, and in all cases where the aircraft is moved from one province to another. The time limit for such reregistration varies from 20 days to two months, and in some provinces the time runs from when the mortgagee or conditional seller receives notice of the removal of the aircraft; in other provinces the time for reregistration runs from the time the aircraft is moved notwithstanding the mortgagee or conditional seller did not know about the move.
The province of Quebec, although not a common law province, has provision for registration locally throughout that province for encumbrances in certain instances. In other instances there is no provision for registration and the rights of the holder of the encumbrance against a third party are not impaired if the aircraft is purchased by the third party without notice of the prior encumbrance.
The finance agency, to protect its interest in the aircraft secured by a chattel mortgage or conditional sales contract, must follow the movement of the aircraft and register its security in accordance with the particular laws of the province where the aircraft is from time to time located. Failure to do so may result in loss of its interest in the aircraft.
A further difficulty is encountered in that the registration of chattel mortgages and conditional sales contracts must be renewed after periods varying from one to three years depending on the province of registration.
An example of the present situation in Canada would be if an aircraft is sold to an operator based at Malton airport, the seller taking a chattel mortgage from the purchaser as security, and registers the chattel mortgage in the county of Peel where Malton airport is located. Unknown to the conditional seller, the aircraft is moved to Toronto island airport and remains there for a few months during which time the purchaser goes into bankruptcy. The Toronto island airport is situate in the county of York and the relevant law of Ontario requires that the chattel mortgage must be registered in the county of York within two months after the aircraft is moved there. The failure to reregister in the county of York results in the seller who held the chattel mortgage losing that security and only being able to claim in the bankruptcy as an unsecured creditor.
Another example that has actually occurred recently was the case of an aircraft based at Winnipeg that was flown to Ontario and left in Ontario as security for charter services rendered. About three months after the aircraft had arrived in Ontario the finance agency, which held a chattel mortgage registered in Winnipeg, discovered that the aircraft had been moved to Ontario, at which time it was too late to reregister the chattel mortgage in Ontario. The finance agency, as a result, lost its security in the aircraft.
I should like to point out, as I did in the speech I made last June, that the suggestions I make with regard to this proposed central

aircraft registry have the approval of the Canadian bar. I believe there were resolutions in 1956, 1957 and 1958 to this effect.


Frank Charles McGee: Would the hon. member permit a question at this point?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I would prefer to get everything on the record if I could. I should like to answer questions at the end.
During the last part of my speech on June 30 of last year I spoke of a letter I had sent to the various provincial attorneys general based on my opinion that this matter was purely one of federal jurisdiction; but there was some possibility, since it dealt with encumbrances and chattel mortgages within the provinces, that it might come within the purview of provincial rights. Therefore I directed a letter to each of the attorneys general of the ten provinces drawing attention to the bill I was introducing and asking for their comments. On June 30 last as reported in Hansard of that date I read out in complete detail the replies I received from British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.
Subsequent to my bill being discussed in the house on June 30 last I have received two further replies and following my procedure of endeavouring to put the matter on the record in as complete form as possible I wish now to read the replies received from Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. I might point out that in the correspondence reference is made to Bill No. C-37 as it was known in the previous session. The same measure is now known as Bill No. C-35.
The first is a letter from Hon. R. A. Walker, attorney general of Saskatchewan under date of June 28, 1961:
Dear Mr. Drysdale:
Re: Bill C-37
I have been considering your proposed amendment to the Aeronautics Act.
In so far as this is a matter relating to aeronautics, it falls outside the responsibility of this government and I would prefer not to make any comment.
It does appear to me, however, that if this bill is enacted it might conflict with provincial legislation governing conditional sales, bills of sale, chattel mortgages and the registration of these documents. As your bill lacks a number of the provisions presently existing in provincial legislation with respect to such matters it would not cover the area as comprehensively. I would therefore be pleased to have your views as to whether your amendment would override provincial legislation presently in force affecting instruments of title to aircraft. If you consider that it would so override, I would invite you to consider the legislation of the various provinces on this subject with a view to incorporating some of the provisions not found in your amendment.
Yours sincerely,
R. A. Walker, Attorney General.
Aeronautics Act
Under date of July 4, 1961 I received the following reply from Hon. R. A. Donahoe, attorney general of Nova Scotia:
Dear Sir:
Re Bill C-37
I have your letter of the 6th June, and had previously received your letter of the 6th April which had been referred to the departmental staff for their consideration and recommendation.
In fact, we have no provision in Nova Scotia for the registration of aircraft, and there has been no proposal that we should institute legislation providing for such registration or for the registration of encumbrances against aircraft as such. In the absence of such specific legislation, I presume that in appropriate circumstances our bills of sale act or conditional sales act would apply to aircraft.
Further to the above, I can only add that I am personally in sympathy with the general concept of a central registry for aircraft and encumbrances against aircraft, and I am confident that any request from the federal government for legislation complementary to any federal enactment would be well received in this province.
Yours very truly,
R. A. Donahoe
I should point out too, Mr. Speaker, that up to the present time I have not received a reply from Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland, but with the two replies I have just read I have now received replies from the other eight provinces.
After I made my comments in the previous debate the hon. member for Laurier, the former minister of transport in the Liberal government, offered some very constructive criticism of the proposed legislation. I wish to place on the record a comment made by the hon. member for Laurier as reported at page 7344 of volume 7 of Hansard for the 1960-61 session. The hon. gentleman stated:
That is why I think we should have two things so far as this bill is concerned. First, as is customary we should have the opinion of the minister. What does the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) think about this legislation? Second, we should be informed whether or not the Minister of Transport has submitted the bill to the Department of Justice to ascertain whether or not it is an infringement of property and civil rights.
I put on the record in the previous debate a considerable amount of material and the hon. member for Laurier said he had some difficulty following it. I should like to refer to the fact that the letter dated April 15, 1959 from the former minister of transport, the hon. member for Broadview, is to be found at page 7339 of the same volume of Hansard. With respect to the jurisdictional aspect he said that in relying on an opinion from the Department of Justice the legislation was within the jurisdiction of parliament.
Supplementing these observations I wish now to read an exchange of correspondence between myself and the Minister of Justice

Aeronautics Act
and the Minister of Transport. I regret having to put on the record so much correspondence and detail but I feel it is the most constructive way of providing for the utmost circulation of the material I am about to present at this time.
Under date of June 30, 1961, I received the following letter from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada:
Dear John:
I acknowledge with thanks your letter of May 20th forwarding to me a copy of a letter you have received from the attorney general of Ontario, Mr. Roberts, suggesting that your Bill C-37, entitled an act to amend the Aeronautics Act, be placed by me on the agenda of the commissioners on uniformity of legislation for discussion this summer.
This group was meeting, I believe, in Winnipeg, just prior to the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association. I continue:
As I understand your bill its intention is to provide for a central registry for the recording of title to, and encumbrances on, aircraft registered in Canada. The establishment of such a registry would seem to me to be a matter within the jurisdiction of parliament and not of the provincial legislatures, and I would therefore suggest that you discuss with my colleague the Minister of Transport the feasibility of his department establishing such a central registry for aircraft.
So far as the commissioners on uniformity of legislation are concerned, the principal function of that body is to recommend uniform provincial legislation, and under the rules of procedure adopted by the commissioners a few years ago matters are not ordinarily placed on the agenda unless there is reasonable likelihood that any model act prepared by the commissioners will be adopted by at least three provinces. Since the subject matter of the bill under discussion falls within federal rather than provincial jurisdiction, it would not seem to be appropriate to refer this to the commissioners.
Yours sincerely,
Davie Fulton
I received that letter on July 13. Under date of July 14, 1961 I wrote to the Minister of Justice as follows:
Dear Davie,
Thank you very much for your letter of 30 June 1961 concerning the central aircraft registry. You are quite correct that the matter is within federal jurisdiction or competence. However, the registration of encumbrances on aircraft is within provincial jurisdiction also, and it appeared to me that it would be extremely valuable to have provincial government reaction or comments on such a registry before it was established because they can insist on continuing provincial registration requirements. In fact, there would have to be legislation passed in each province stating specifically that registration in the central aircraft registry was sufficient and that registration in provincial registries was no longer necessary.
It is for the reason of notifying the provincial attorneys general that I thought this matter should be placed before the uniformity commissioners, in order to get their reaction and the necessary

provincial co-operation. Would it be possible, therefore, to bring this matter before the commissioners to obtain provincial reaction to the central aircraft registry?
Yours sincerely,
John A. W. Drysdale.
On August 3, 1961 the Minister of Justice replied to my letter as follows:
Dear John:
Thank you for your letter of July 14th setting forth your further views as to why you feel your Bill C-37, entitled an act to amend the Aeronautics Act, should be placed before the commissioners on the uniformity of legislation this summer.
It is my understanding that apart from possibly the conditional sales acts there are no statutes in the provinces providing at present for the registration of aircraft or of personal property in general. Any amendments required to the conditional sales acts would be to remove aircraft from the kinds of property that might be registered under these acts. In any event, if the legislation as passed by parliament to establish a central aircraft registry was framed so as to be legislation in relation to aeronautics and not in relation to property, I am of opinion that complementary provincial legislation would not be required in order to make it effective.
As I mentioned in my letter of June 30th to you under the rules of procedure of the conference matters are not placed on the agenda unless there is a reasonable likelihood that any model act prepared by the conference will be adopted by at least three provinces. As no provincial legislation apart from possible amendments to the conditional sales act would appear to be required in order to make a central aircraft registry effective in Canada I do not feel any useful purpose would be served in referring this matter to the conference at this time.
Yours sincerely,
Davie Fulton.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman finished? If not I might ask the house whether it would give him a minute or two more to finish his reading.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should think it is just a minute or two. We do not wish to exalt the hon. gentleman too much.


Frank Charles McGee: On the point that has been raised, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. In discussions prior to the making of arrangements which are now in force concerning time limits during private members hour, I think perhaps this was one of the kinds of bills or one of the situations in which we anticipated unanimous consent would be allowed to the mover in order to complete his presentation of a rather complicated and complex subject.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think then that, subject to the limitation of being only a matter of two or three minutes, the hon. member has the consent of the house.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should also like to thank the house for the courtesy extended to me. I had perhaps not paced myself too well. Perhaps all I can say is

that the Minister of Transport confirmed basically the opinion that was expressed in this letter to the Minister of Justice. I think that would help to dispose of the jurisdictional question raised by the hon. member for Laurier.
In view of the fact that you want a very brief summation, Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I should say this. I have tried to indicate as clearly as possible the foundation namely, first of all that the federal government has jurisdiction and second, the necessity for such a central registry. The positive suggestions I should like to make at the present time would be first, to recommend to the Minister of Transport that D.O.T. officials and representatives of Canadian aviation be sent down to Oklahoma city in the United States where the present central registry is located, in order to inspect and subsequently to report on this registry. Second, I would recommend that the Minister of Transport have the department investigate present Canadian registration procedure and see what steps would be required in addition for a central aircraft registry.
Third, I would propose that draft legislation should subsequently be drawn and submitted to a committee of the house and that representations should be requested from the provinces and interested aviation people. I think the growth of air transportation brings me to my final recommendation, and that is something that has been emphasized. In Montreal there is ICAO, the international civil aeronautic organization which is the U.N. central air organization. We have IATA, the international air transport association as world headquarters. In McGill University we have the McGill institute of air and space law. I would suggest that, in conjunction with the recommendations that I have made, it would seem suitable that consideration should be given by the government to uniting all the functions dealing with aeronautics and, I would suggest also, all the functions dealing with outer space-I believe this year Canada will be using a United States vehicle in order to launch her own satellite-and to creating a ministry of air and space which would take in all these functions. The space aspect might perhaps seem to be a little bit premature. However, it should be remembered that Canada has been an active participant in the U.N. committee dealing with outer space and has been one since 1958.
I should like to thank the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate for being able to get me within shooting range, and I should also like to thank the house for providing me with this extra time.
Aeronautics Act


Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Burn-aby-Richmond and I should like to congratulate him on the thoroughness with which he prepared the statement to which we have just listened. As for myself, may I say that I have a great interest in this matter for a number of reasons. However, I hasten to add that if I am long on interest, I am short on technical knowledge. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to accept my interest as a reason for my making these remarks rather than my ability to make any profound suggestions with respect to the matter before the house.
There are several reasons for my interest. One is that I come from a province in which air transport is an ever growing necessity. To speak specifically, I may say that my riding is the centre of the aircraft industry in Newfoundland. I refer to Gander. There is no need for me to elaborate, nor is this the time at which to do so, on Gander's place historically in aviation and where it stands today. I might also mention Goose Bay and Labrador. However, the thought to which I should like to give expression is that aircraft are being used more and more in an ever increasing number of fields of endeavour in Newfoundland. The medical health services of the province and the department of health use aircraft. The international Grenfell association needs them. In Labrador they are essential in these respects. Mail is delivered by aircraft in wintertime. Then there is the ordinary conventional use to which aircraft are being put in Newfoundland. I might mention fisheries in particular. There is a growing need for the increased use of aircraft for various purposes. I might add that our province was made for the use of aircraft and that we should like to see aircraft used even more to the betterment of the people.
Those few remarks probably explain the basis of my interest, apart from the personal interest which I have in the use of smaller aircraft. I think of my own personal interest in the flying club association, for instance. However, the fact of the matter is that in the world in which we are living aircraft are being used more and more by governments, corporations and individuals.
I think perhaps the comparison made of aircraft with ships is a fair one or the suggestion that a central registry is needed for aircraft in the same way as one is needed for shipping. Despite the increasing use of aircraft by individuals, by the very nature of their use they still resemble ships more closely than they resemble motor cars. In saying that I am not thinking of the fact that some alight on the land and some on the water. I am thinking of the whole concept

Aeronautics Act
of flying, the use to which aircraft are put and the distance which even the smaller aircraft of today is expected to cover.
As they grow in number the problems which the hon. member seeks to meet through his bill are certainly becoming more acute. We are not dealing with just a few aircraft in an occasional place or in few areas. We are dealing now with a vehicle which is in widespread use throughout the length and breadth of Canada and which promises to come into ever greater use as time goes by. As I say, I think the idea seems to be a sound one in what it wishes to avoid and what it wishes to bring about. However, I must admit that I am speaking as a layman with regard to this problem. At first glance, I think that a central registry for aircraft seems to be a good idea. If I now appear to condemn by faint praise, that does not mean at all that I am against the bill. One or two matters which were raised-and incidentally I may say they were raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond when he sought to answer them this afternoon-have not been answered quite to my satisfaction, although it is quite possible that I did not follow him carefully enough or that I misunderstood some of what he said. I think he did very well in pacing himself to keep within his time.
As I said, this matter is a technical one. Last year the hon. member for Laurier raised one objection which the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond sought to answer today. That is the question of whether or not the bill infringes provincial rights. In listening to the hon. member I gathered that he has not yet had replies from one or two provinces, including Newfoundland. I may be mistaken in my interpretation of what he said but it did not seem to me that the arguments he advanced completely met the problem of whether or not the bill is in conflict with provincial jurisdiction. I do not know either, but I think it is one matter that should be thoroughly investigated so that we will know the answer beyond any shadow of doubt before any move is made. Before the bill becomes law and a part of the aeronautics legislation of Canada I think parliament ought to be sure that it is clearly within federal jurisdiction without any conflict whatsoever with provincial rights.
The other suggestion that was made last year was that the bill should go to a committee for complete examination. I believe the hon. member has conceded that point and has said that this should be done. It is quite likely that the objection I have raised as to the possibility of the bill being in conflict with provincial jurisdiction would be dealt with right in that committee. As a matter of

fact, I would assume that a committee studying the bill would make very sure that it was clearly a federal matter. As the hon. member has already suggested that a committee should examine the bill, I believe the criticism I have raised with respect to possible infringement of provincial jurisdiction would be dealt with at that time.
Other than making these two points and emphasizing again the importance of legislation regarding aircraft, there is not much more I wish to say. I would point out that the use of aircraft is growing and unquestionably will continue to grow. Aircraft of various sizes are becoming a common sight in the skies of Canada. There is an increase in private flying which in itself makes this legislation very interesting and legislation to which serious consideration certainly should be given.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not intend to talk out the bill but on behalf of the members of this group I wish to say that we appreciate the intent of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond to bring law and order to bear with regard to this problem. I should also like to endorse the remarks just made by the previous speaker with regard to jurisdiction. In the light of the replies that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has already received from eight attorneys general, I too would hope that the bill might be submitted to the scrutiny of a committee and I believe that point could be explored at that time. Our group certainly intends to support the bill.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond on his imaginative and well arranged discourse in introducing this bill. As a matter of fact, when he spoke last year I was not inclined to agree with him, but it would appear that he has profited from the criticisms directed against the measure last time and also because of his temporary change of venue this afternoon. I am sure those hon. members who have been in the house longer than I will appreciate that a move of a very few feet in the place from which one speaks sometimes makes considerable difference in the measure of authority with which one addresses the house.
The bill is a good one, the principle is fine and I support it. The issue as to its constitutionality which was raised and discussed is not one which can be easily determined in the comparatively short time in which I am permitted to discuss the bill. Judging from the course of conduct of the house over the last few days, I would assume that the bill may well come up for discussion again at some future time before the session ends.

From my study during the time I have been able to give to an examination of the constitutional issue it is my opinion that the bill is a valid one. The only two provisions that I think may involve a constitutional issue are found in subsections 3 and 4 of section 26. Having in mind that this matter is the responsibility of the federal government and that under the ancillary rule a matter once assigned to the federal government may be pursued by ancillary measures, I am inclined to the view that this is valid legislation. May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The house will now revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS


[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. McGee in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 1 carry?


Neil Alexander Matheson: According to the Minister of Justice this is an extremely important bill. He said it forms an integral part of the government's national policy. He also spoke of the importance of nationhood in economic matters, which reminds us of the type of comment we were accustomed to hear in 1957.
I refer to the Winnipeg Free Press of April 25, 1957, in which the then leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister of Canada, was reported as speaking about the growing dominance of foreign owned business. He said:
Foreign investment was to be welcomed and should be treated fairly "but a sense of national destiny for Canada calls for it being directed to the maximum benefit of Canada."
At Halifax, on April 26, 1957, he spoke of preserving for Canadians "the control of our economic destiny". Therefore we can presume what basically the government and the minister have in mind when he talks about this being an extremely important bill. It was for that reason that question No. 164 was asked by me, as recorded at page 1241 of Hansard tor February 26, 1962. I asked:
3. 1962
Corporations and Labour Unions
What is the percentage of foreign investment control in the years 1956 and 1961 in (a) the resource industries (b) the manufacturing industries?
The answer given was that the percentage of foreign investment control of the mining and smelting industry increased from 58 per cent in 1956 to 61 per cent in 1959, and that no further figures were available with respect to subsequent years. The answer also stated that the percentage of foreign investment control of manufacturing industries increased from 52 per cent in 1956 to 57 per cent in 1959. Therefore from the figures disclosed by this government it would seem that the policy of 1957 has not been fulfilled. In fact this matter, which the government complained of, has considerably worsened.
Having spoken of this bill as being an extremely important one, the minister went on to say, as reported at page 2399 of Hansard:
-the bill is to some extent experimental and it is, indeed, as I myself recognize, a first step.
We are interested in where this step is going, and what is the purpose of grouping together a corporation and a union in this extraordinary fashion. Is one simply a saw off against the other? Is this simply a propaganda bill which appears to indicate activism on the part of the government in an area where it has already demonstrated marked failure? Is it a case of taking one section of the economy and dealing with it in one section of the bill, and then taking unions and dealing with them in another section, thereby trying to give the appearance of some sort of fair saw off to two elements in our economic society?
It would appear that there is nothing in the bill to indicate to what end the information will be obtained and, as we go through all its clauses, I think we can fairly contend that all the important information is already available to the government or, if it is not, it could be very easily obtained by minor alterations in present requirements. I believe information could easily be obtained by one minister from corporations and by another minister from unions, and that this information would disclose all that was necessary. In fact when he spoke yesterday the minister did not indicate what particular gaps existed in information.
The changes which have taken place in the drafting of this bill in past months have resulted in the presentation of an emasculated bill which is now so innocuous that it will do nothing helpful, nothing indeed except cause obstruction, expense, delay, inconvenience and perhaps some small measure of insult to people endeavouring to carry on business in Canada from the corporate or union standpoint.

Corporations and Labour Unions
I have taken the trouble to discuss it with Mr. Andy Andras of the Canadian Labour Congress and I thought his approach to it was extremely fair. He said there were some minor particulars in which information might be useful, even to the unions themselves, but added that this could be easily obtained in another way.
What is the new intention of the government in taking this first step and where does the second step come in? I invited some opinion on the bill from people who are attached to a school of business administration. One head of a department said that this legislation inserts into the record of parliament a new type of legislation, namely a recordkeeping function that smacks of Hitler. This may sound strange, but hon. members will recall that some years ago Hitler, for reasons that were not very clearly disclosed at that time, required a certain ethnic group to register. What is the reason why these unions must register?
I looked into the records in the parliamentary library and found that there is published by the Department of Labour a pamphlet covering labour organizations in Canada for each year, in very complete detail. I find, on looking through this information, that it is fully documented. I do not think there are any secrets which cause the Minister of Labour any embarrassment in not knowing what are the important unions and who are their executive heads from time to time.
Of course it is a problem to keep completely up to date with respect to unions of a hundred members. In fact, surely no recordkeeping function of the government is ever going to permit this to be completely up to date. It will always be out of date. But the information is always available if the government needs it. In fact it is nearly all available in the publications now printed by the Department of Labour.
What, then, are the mysteries with respect to corporations, or is this simply another indication of fear and displeasure that people who have some relationship outside this country happen to, and are pleased to, come and do business in Canada, either from the management or the labour side? If that is all it is, I think there is much reason for speaking against this bill. It seems to me that this administration has managed to do quite a bit since 1957 to simply discourage investment generally.
A few days ago I was looking at a publication printed by the Bank of Canada for the year 1961 and I found, as I looked at the graphs that appear on page 25 of Mr. Rasminsky's report, that the business fixed capital formation has substantially declined since 1957; that construction is substantially
[Mr. Matheson.I
down; that machinery and equipment is down. Surely this is not the time for us to insert new, picayune legislation which has no real purpose, which the minister himself said is experimental, the first step; but he does not tell us what the second, third or fourth steps really are. We have no idea where this thing is going or what it seeks to accomplish.
Is there a real problem of corporate control? Certainly if we read the press today and project what appears to be the trend, we find in such industries as mining and smelting and manufacturing that there has been a very substantially increased United States ownership in Canada since the year 1959. There have been prognoses by such people as Earle McLaughlin and others who have been interested in certain specialized parts of our economy, such as the monetary and fiscal techniques which have been employed by this government since, for instance, December, 1960 which seem to indicate that the situation has substantially worsened since the baby budget.
If the government does in fact know that their policy in the fiscal or monetary field has tended to bring a good deal more foreign control into our industries, I think the minister should disclose that information. We are vitally interested; that is why we asked the kind of question we did in No. 164: What is the percentage of foreign investment? Does this government have anything further beyond 1959? If it does not, is it alarmed by the substantial increase of foreign investment and control that appeared between 1959 and 1956? Is this government really concerned about increased control from outside this country in labour organization?
We have had no evidence from the minister that this is a fact. We have to bear in mind that as we take this step with Bill C-38 it is certainly a step towards nationalism. In some of his remarks the minister would appear to have indicated that this is not really the purpose; it is not really nationalism. If it is not, I would like to know what it is, because surely we are moving into a time in the world where the tendency among enlightened modern countries who are uplifting their economies is to work together and not against one another. The implements and techniques of national limitation and control are completely contrary to the tempo of development that we see demonstrated, for instance in Europe, Great Britain and the United States, and certainly in Latin America.
Is this just another indication that we are going to go it alone; that we are going to cut off our outside connections which in many ways have elevated not only Canadian development, industry and expansion, particularly

in the speculative areas of our economy, but have also done a good deal, surely, in the labour area? Are we moving alone in this field, having regard to the direction of enlightened progress elsewhere?
I say that reading sympathetically and carefully the obviously very carefully prepared remarks of the minister we do not know where this is going, or why; we do not really have any vice to be corrected; if so the minister has not indicated what it is. If it is to implement what the Prime Minister appeared to indicate to be his policy in 1957, would the minister give us some more facts? Would he tell us the extent to which this government during the last two or three years has really found itself the victim of foreign control and investment. It seems to me manifestly clear, by all the financial statements we can look at, that Canadians are not now of a mind to invest very generously in their own country. It seems to me that in certain areas-and this is certainly true in the mining and smelting industry and Canadian secondary manufacturing-Canadians have not been quick to step forward in recent months to invest in Canada.
What does the minister really mean by "first step"? Surely we are entitled to know something beyond this. We would like to have some idea of what the second step might mean. Does it mean, to cut out foreign investment; does it mean to curtail, limit or prevent the activities of international unions in Canada? If this is the purpose of the government, surely we should know what the government is thinking of as the second or third step phase, because if the second or third step phase is something that tends to be contrary to the trend of progressive development, this is something germane to our discussions at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions-"Minister".
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on clause 2 I am required to ask my colleague, the Solicitor General, if he would be kind enough to move one of the consequential amendments which results from the decision that I announced last evening, the effect of which will be to change the definition of "minister" to "Minister of Trade and Commerce". The amendment would read:
That Bill C-38 be amended by striking out paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 2 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
(a)	"Minister" means the Minister of Trade and Commerce;
I would ask my colleague, the Solicitor General to move accordingly.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Chairman, I beg to so move.
26207-1-157
3,	1962	2461
Corporations and Labour Unions


Gordon Campbell Chown: Moved by Mr. I Browne (St. John's West):
That Bill No. C-38, 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, be amended by striking out paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 2 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
(a) "Minister" means the Minister of Trade and Commerce;


Alexis Pierre Caron: That means it falls under one
minister instead of two ministers?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It was under the Secretary of State and the Minister of Labour before; now it is coming under the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Frank Howard: To get this clear, this is because the dominion bureau of statistics is under the Minister of Trade and Commerce and eventually it will be the d.b.s. which will collect and compile all this information.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct.


Frank Howard: I would just make the comment in passing that we have had three ministers involved in this bill up to now-the Secretary of State, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, yet we find the Minister of Justice piloting this bill through the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think at this point we should have an assurance from the minister that the information which is supposed to be kept secret is, indeed, to be kept secret and that nothing will happen such as happened January 20, 1958, when confidential information in the hands of the Department of Trade and Commerce was made public, because we have some unhappy recollections of what happened then to that kind of information.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to. (2)
Frank Howard: I wonder if we might now consider the procedure to be followed with regard to this clause and, certainly, subsequent clauses. Clause 4 for example takes up to almost three and a half pages to print, and I thought we might consider proceeding by subclauses in order that we might be more orderly in our approach. Perhaps this comment does not particularly apply to clause 2, although it could. It would certainly apply to clauses 4 and 6.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that is a good
idea.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Perhaps the hon. member would make that suggestion when we come to clause 4.
2462	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions


James Ross Fulton: I shall be glad to respond on that occasion.


Frank Howard: On clause 2 I merely want to make an observation and an inquiry to see whether my concept of what this means is the same as that held by the minister. I refer to paragraph (c) of subclause (1) which says:
"union" or "labour union" means any organization of employees formed for the purpose of regulating relations between employers and employees.
In other legislation such as labour relations legislation dealing with collective bargaining and so on, such a definition is normally taken to apply to company unions also, that is, unions such as that existing in Atlas Steel, the president of which company is also the president of the productivity council. That is considered to be a company union, and I wonder whether it is the minister's opinion that the definition would apply in such cases.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The fact is that the definition appearing here is the definition appearing in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act which, the hon. member will appreciate, is the best definition that the Minister of Justice can find of a union or labour union.


William Moore Benidickson: On that point, I see some exemptions here with respect to crown companies both provincial and federal. We are talking here of any organization of employees formed for the purpose of regulating relations between employers and employees. What about our joint council representing senior civil servants and employees here in Ottawa? What about the civil service federation? What about the organization within the postal service? What about those who are organized within the civil service as professional workers, who apparently do not work with some of the other people but who are organized for the purpose of regulating relations between employers and employees? Are these civil servants exempted? What about firemen in municipalities, and what about other municipal workers who have organized themselves? Are these groups to be considered unions inasmuch as they are formed for the purpose of regulating relations between employers and employees? What about policemen and those in similar bodies which have formed an organization to work in concert for the purpose of talking to an employer?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If they come within the definition here they will be expected and required to report.
Clause as amended agreed to.
[The Deputy Chairman.]

On clause 3-Application of part I.


Frank Howard: I wish to make some general remarks on this clause. I think they will be in order, because clause 3 sets out certain exemptions with respect to what shall constitute corporations for the purpose of this bill. The first exception is, of course, with respect to a corporation to which part II applies. The second is a corporation described in the schedule. I should like to make a reference to the schedule to indicate not only what corporations are exempted but to ask the minister the reason for such exemptions. Why, for instance, should a chartered bank or a bank to which the Bank Act applies, be exempted? Why, also, should a bank to which the Quebec Savings Bank Act applies be exempt from the provisions of the bill? I think we could go right down the line noting all the other types of institution which are exempted, such as insurance companies, trust companies licensed under the Loan Companies Act, corporations licensed under the Small Loans Act, and so on, and ask why they should be given exemption. Why should corporations of this sort which deal in finance, not be required to comply with the terms of this bill? It seems to me they have a greater impact on our economy and a greater degree of control over it than the manufacturing companies.
I should like to pass on this question to the minister first of all and, perhaps, make a comment or two later, depending upon his reply.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The committee will recall that one of the criticisms made by hon. members earlier was that the bill might require duplication in reporting. We are conscious of that criticism and we have eliminated the basis for it to the maximum extent consistent with obtaining information required to fill the gaps in our knowledge. One of the ways in which we eliminated it was by making sure that corporations and other organizations which are already required to report under other statutes information which is substantially the same as is called for in this bill would not be required to duplicate their returns. So the schedule was carefully drawn up with this object in view, and organizations will not be required to make duplicate reports, whether they are corporations or trade unions or co-operative credit societies-and the hon. member will see one referred to in paragraph 6. I am advised that, with respect to all those corporations listed in the schedule, substantially the same information as called for under this bill is required now to be filed by them under the respective acts under which they carry on their business; and that

indeed not only substantially the same information as is called for here must be filed by them, but in most cases a good deal more information as well. Therefore it would only be creating duplication of returns to require them to file. That is the reason why they are exempted in the schedule.
If we find, as we accumulate experience under this bill as it operates, that some of these corporations under their acts as enumerated do not give the information we want here, then their respective acts can be amended to require that information.


Frank Howard: I take it that the returns of the companies to which the minister refers are not filed with the dominion bureau of statistics as is anticipated in this case, but are returns filed with the Department of Finance or perhaps the insurance branch of that department. Also, some of this information filed by these companies is public. For instance, under the Bank Act there is tabled in parliament every year information listing the names and addresses of everyone owning more than 500 shares, I believe it is, in a private chartered bank.
If it is desired to compile information about the control of corporations this information should be forwarded to one place, namely, as the minister indicated, the dominion bureau of statistics in order that all the facts and statistics about the operation and control of the corporations mentioned in the schedule will be in one place, and the statisticians will have full knowledge of the facts in drawing their conclusions based on these statistics.
The minister said this information is substantially the same as required by the bill. I understood him to say that under the Bank Act, the Trust Companies Act and other measures companies are required to file information about their operations. If the government is going into the field of duplication of information such as corporate names and the addresses of head offices and the like, which information I understand is in many instances filed under the Companies Act, it would not be too much to ask a company such as the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce to make a carbon copy of whatever statistics were being compiled so that they could be filed with the dominion bureau of statistics.
Part 16 of the schedule exempts a corporation if it has a gross revenue not exceeding $500,000 and if the assets in Canada of the corporation as of the last day of the reporting period involved, determined as prescribed by the regulation, do not exceed $250,000. That is a rather high ceiling to establish before a corporation is put in the position of having to file information.
26207-1-1574
3,	1962
Corporations and Labour Unions
I take particular exception to part 17 of the schedule which reads:
Any other corporation of a class prescribed by the regulations to be a class of corporations the filing of returns in respect of which is not essential to the securing of effective compliance with part I.
In my opinion it is asking too much that those referred to in the schedule, plus heaven knows what else the cabinet may desire to have excluded as a class or group, be exempt. If we make exemptions they should be made, not on the basis of whether or not these private corporations are organized under another act of parliament but on the basis of whether or not they are corporations coming under the public domain, such as municipalities. The references in the schedule in this regard are quite correct.
Although the minister referred to it, I also see no reason for exempting co-operative societies if they wish statistical information.
If we are going to exempt corporations from the application of this bill the exemptions should be set out in the measure and not by way of the schedule. We should eliminate the blank cheque the government requests in asking that it be given authority to exempt anyone else it desires to exempt from this measure.
I wish to propose a formal amendment. It is rather lengthy because it includes parts of the schedule and perhaps it would be desirable to distribute it before it is read so that hon. members may follow it.
I move:
That clause 3 be amended by deleting therefrom, in lines 4 and 5, the following: "and (b) a corporation described in the schedule," and by substituting therefor the following:
(b)	a corporation that is an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province or is named in Schedule D to the Financial Administration Act,-
That is drawn from part 7 of the schedule. I continue:
(c)	a municipality in Canada or a municipal or other public body performing a function of government in Canada,
That comes from part 8 of the schedule. I continue:
(d)	a corporation not less than 90 per cent of the shares or capital of which are owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province or by a municipality in Canada,
That is the language of part 9 of the schedule. I continue:
(e)	a corporation that is an agent of the government of a country other than Canada,
That is the wording of part 10 of the schedule. I continue:
(f)	a corporation not less than 90 per cent of the shares or capital of which are owned by the government of a country other than Canada,
2464	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions
That is drawn from part 11 of the schedule. I continue:
(g)	a corporation having as its object the furtherance of any religious or other charitable purposes,-
I do not know whether or not that applies to the Liberal party.
-no part of the income of which is payable to or otherwise available for the personal gain or benefit of any proprietor, member or shareholder thereof, and
(h)	any corporation, for any reporting period of the corporation in respect of which it can be established that
(a)	the gross revenue of the corporation for that reporting period from the business carried on by it in Canada, determined as prescribed by the regulations, did not exceed one hundred thousand dollars,-
This proposes an alteration from the present requirement of $500,000 bringing it closer into line with what the government is attempting to do. I continue:
-and
(b)	the assets in Canada of the corporation as of the last day of that reporting period, determined as prescribed by the regulations, did not exceed fifty thousand dollars, except any such corporation that is one of two or more corporations that, by reason of inter-relationship of management, ownership or financial affairs, are designated by the minister to be related corporations and that would not, if considered as a single corporation, qualify as a corporation described in this item.
If accepted by the committee the deletion of the schedule would be required because the references in the schedule which I think should be in the measure are contained in this amendment to clause 3. It would leave us provided corporations which would require to submit the statistics under this act, including banks under the Bank Act or the Quebec Savings Banks Act, an insurance company or a fraternal benefit society registered under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act or the Foreign Insurance Companies Act; trust companies; loan companies; small loans companies; a co-operative credit society; a corporation that is an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada; a corporation licensed under the Radio Act to establish a broadcasting station; a transcontinental air carrier; a railway, telegraph, telephone or express company or a carrier by water in respect of which returns are made in pursuance of sections 384 to 389 of the Railway Act and a corporation which did not have gross revenue of more than $100,000 or assets of more than $50,000. I think this would be more in keeping with the desire expressed by the minister to have under one agency a complete understanding of all of the facts relating to the operation and control of our economy.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall I dispense with the reading of the amendment? Is it agreed that I dispense with the reading of it?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is there any discussion on the amendment?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Campbell Chown: I should point out that I have some doubt as to the admissibility of the amendment, if that is of any help.


William Moore Benidickson: If there is argument in so far as the point of order is concerned I will defer my remarks as they would apply to basic clause 3 as it now stands.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I should point out to the committee that my concern is that the amendment enlarges the scope of the clause which is amended and thereby goes beyond the scope of the bill itself. That is a matter on which I should like to have some assistance from the committee, if I may.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point of order is a technical one. Far be it from me to avoid points of order by which Your Honour seeks to apply the rules. However, I must say that if the amendment were to be accepted, it would greatly increase the number of returns that would be required to be filed under this act. But whether or not it goes outside the scope of the bill or the clause is a question upon which I find it difficult to pass judgment. May I put the matter in this way. The two questions, namely whether or not it goes beyond the scope of the clause and whether or not it is desirable on the merits, seem to me to be very closely interrelated. Without prejudice to the point of order which Your Honour has raised, I would prefer to put my objection on the merits. I have indicated that the corporations of the class described in the schedule are all corporations which are required to report very completely under the acts under which they have their authority. I am also advised that with the possible exception


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may interrupt the minister for just a second, I should like to get one matter clear. Am I to take it that the minister is arguing that we should consider this amendment on its merits and should not trouble further about the point of order that has been raised? If not, I think it would be just as well to get from the Chair a ruling on the point of order. I take it that the minister did not himself wish to make an issue of the point, and I think that would be the view on our side. After all, this amendment would appear merely to restrict the number of

exemptions in a slightly different way and I would think we ought to consider it on its merits.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I say, Mr. Chairman, you have raised a point of order. I think the point of order is well taken. However, if Your Honour would not feel it to be a violation of the rules, I am prepared to deal with the amendment on its merits.


Frank Howard: Certainly I am prepared to deal with it on its merits. However, it seems strange to me that the minister now says that the point of order you took, Mr. Chairman, is well taken but that a moment ago he felt hard pressed to argue the point.


Gordon Campbell Chown: If I may, I should like hurriedly to point out to the committee- and I do not want to delay the proceedings- that in looking over the amendment I was immediately concerned with subsection (c), for example, which brings in a municipality in Canada. However, I am quite prepared to leave aside the ruling and to hear the case for the amendment on its merits.


James Ross Fulton: What the amendment proposes to do, in my opinion, is not to introduce new exemptions but rather to delete certain of the exemptions established under the schedule. If I may do so, I should like to point out with respect that clause (c) does not introduce a new heading. It reproduces paragraph 8 of the schedule. As I appreciate the amendment, what it would do if it were carried would be to delete heads 1 to 6 of the schedule as well as heads 14 and 15, to modify head 16 and to delete head 17. However, I do not think it would introduce anything new. I therefore take it that the committee would wish to deal with it on its merits rather than under a point of order.
As I said a moment ago, all the corporations exempted under the schedule are corporations which are required, under the acts by which they have their authority, to report all of the information which this bill calls for, and indeed in most cases more. I can therefore see no purpose in deleting any of the exemptions established by the schedule. Indeed, if the objection of the hon. member be that this information is not available to the public may I say this. I am told that, for instance, under the Bank Act, the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, the Trust Companies Act and the Loan Companies Act the information filed by the companies subject thereto is available without legal barrier not only to the government but indeed to publication in annual reports and information of that kind. Hence there is no
3, 1962	2465
Corporations and Labour Unions purpose whatsoever in requiring these corporations to duplicate the returns they already make under the acts by which they have their authority. There is therefore no purpose to the amendment which seeks to remove the exemption of those classes of corporations contained in the schedule.
With respect to paragraph 16 which the amendment would modify by decreasing the limit from $500,000 to $100,000 and $250,000 to $50,000 respectively, may I say this. I am told that the number of corporations that would be included as a result of that change would not appreciably affect the picture as to the effect on the Canadian economy of foreign control, although it would vastly increase the number of corporations from whom reports would be required. I am advised that under the limits now established by virtue of clause 16 of the schedule some 25,000 corporations will be required to report. I do not know whether the members of the New Democratic party are entirely careless of the volume of work that is entailed. We are prepared to ask civil servants to do the work that this bill will entail but if you consider that the limits of $500,000 and $250,000 respectively as the lower limits for the reporting requirement produce a requirement to report by 25,000 corporations, you can imagine the vast increase in that number that would take place if those limits were lowered.
I must say, sir, that I think it is surely an obvious proposition that to require corporations with a gross revenue of less than $500,000 and assets of less than $250,000 to make these reports would not add greatly to the knowledge of the government as to the effects of foreign ownership upon the Canadian economy. I am told that it might well mean that you would require returns from another 75,000 corporations.
Certainly the general pattern is that it is not the small corporation that one is concerned with here. The exercise and incidence of foreign control are generally apparent from the larger corporation, and it is in that sphere that there occur the effects with which we are concerned.
With regard to the suggestion that paragraph 17 of the schedule be deleted, this I am entirely unable to accept. The committee will observe that paragraph 17 does not give the government the right to exempt a specific corporation from the requirement to report. It only gives the right to exempt classes of corporations, so that if we find as we gain experience under this legislation that some of those who are reporting under it are in fact duplicating reports they already make we can then exempt that class of corporation.
Furthermore, any regulation made hereunder would require to be tabled and would

Corporations and Labour Unions become public knowledge, and if anyone had the dark and rather exaggerated suspicions, if I may so describe them, of the hon. member for Skeena, he could, of course, question the propriety of exempting that class of corporation. It will not be possible for the government to single out a particular corporation for any reason whatsoever and exempt it by regulation. It will have to be a corporation falling within a class. So, Mr. Chairman, for these reasons I am unable to accept the amendment.


William Moore Benidickson: Did I understand the Minister of Justice to say that there are now caught in this net 25,000 corporations that will be asked to submit reports under the terms of the legislation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the estimate, yes.


William Moore Benidickson: And did the minister indicate that if the amendment were accepted the number of corporations that would be liable to report would be increased considerably?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Very considerably.


William Moore Benidickson: Irrespective of the amendment, I was going to ask that question at the appropriate time before we proceeded very far. I was suspicious in the first place that this was rather half-baked legislation and I am more satisfied as we proceed that it is really nothing but political window dressing. I doubt that the minister himself has his heart in it. It is certainly very empty compared with what was presented last year. Not many people are objecting to it at this time, but I do not think they realize the consequences of a relatively petty nature that are involved, though in the aggregate they are not petty.
If 25,000 corporations are asked to provide information that has been so watered down that it is of little value to anybody, I imagine they will have to hire professional services, accountants and lawyers, and that the minimum expense for each corporation will be $200. That is a total amount of $5 million that will have been imposed upon these corporations across the country. Even taking the expense at $100 for each corporation, and I doubt that the minister would want to provide all this information from his office for that amount, the total would be $2J million. But that is not particularly my point.
I indicated that I intend to speak on clause 3 as it was originally drafted, but having in mind the point I wish to advance I can do so equally well on the amendment. I feel that the minister should give us greater assurance than he has that what we are avoiding in this wide list of exemptions in the schedule


is duplication. I am not satisfied to hear from the minister that those corporations listed in the schedule now submit returns that are susbtantially the same. At another time he said "very completely the same". There are obligations here with regard to annual presentation.
I think we are entitled to receive the assurance from the minister that he has examined the schedule and is satisfied that there is no discrimination against those corporations that will be required to go to the expense of doing all this paper work, compared with the long list of corporations in the schedule that are exempt. I am not concerned that the minister is satisfied that the reports are very much or substantially the same. I want to know about some of the onerous requirements set forth here. They are not onerous from the point of view of public information but they are onerous from the point of view of red tape and from the point of view of adding to the cost of our civil service and the expenses of corporations. I have suggested a minimum of $200 for the compilation of the information required as set forth in clause 4.
The minister has indicated that there are public reports in connection with the companies referred to in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the schedule and I am not sure whether he mentioned paragraph 6. Information concerning them is available to the public in printed reports of government departments. Let us accept that. I will ask him about paragraph 6 to which I do not think he referred. He did not make any reference to paragraphs 13 or 14. I am rather interested in paragraph 15 of the schedule which refers to those corporations that receive their charters under the Railway Act. This would include the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Bell Telephone Company and other mammoth corporations in this country in which we naturally have a great deal of pride. If it is a matter of interest whether or not there is an undue proportion of foreign ownership in these corporations, I wonder why they are particularly exempted in the bill. In the case of the Bell Telephone Company it is rather common knowledge that there is some form of pertinent and essential control of this very large Canadian corporation by the American Telegraph and Telephone Company which is, of course, a mammoth United States corporation. I am told that irrespective of share holdings there is a royalty or subsidy, or something in the nature of an over-all commission on receipts, that has to be paid by this corporation to its parent company in the United States. Is there anything in the Railway Act which

provides for the giving of that information to the public, and is it available on an annual basis?
Do the Bell Telephone Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have to subscribe in every feature referred to in the next clause, clause 4, in so far as making returns, such as are specified there, available not only to the government but to the public? In other words, could I go over to the board of transport commissioners and, if I were curious about whether or not anybody owned more than 10 per cent of the Bell Telephone Company's capital stock, could I pay a dollar to find that out and be satisfied? Could I ascertain the nationality of each individual who holds stock in that company? Can I do that in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company?
So far as the banks are concerned, it is true they are required to submit a certain report annually to a government department, but without looking through that statute and comparing it very carefully with this document which has only been in our hands 24 hours


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is that?


William Moore Benidickson: This document has only been in our hands a short period.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has been in your hands since January 22, and if you did not read it-


William Moore Benidickson: I read it yesterday.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not my fault. You have had it since January 22.


William Moore Benidickson: With the great advice available to him the minister should be able to assure us that we have not here something which is substantially the same, something which is actually the same in so far as duplication is concerned on behalf of the corporations that are referred to in the schedule. As I indicated in connection with the banks, I am familiar in a broad way with the return they make annually to parliament; but in the next section, section B, those corporations which are not exempt, such as a commercial bank, are required to provide a statement of surplus.
Now we have all heard about the inner reserves of the commercial banks of Canada. So far as I know that is an item about which a person cannot get information by paying a dollar at any government office. I hope that it is not the feeling of the minister that such a type of reserve, which is related to surplus, might not be disclosed by those corporations which, under this bill, will be required to make an annual return. These are all matters about which the minister should
3,	1962
Corporations and Labour Unions satisfy us because there are these subsequent paragraphs that involve not only a very particularized list of information that has to be provided, but also there are certain other public privileges involved in the bill with respect to examination of those documents.
I wonder, can the minister assure us with respect to all of these types of corporations to which I have referred, and to which he did not refer himself when he spoke about the amendment. Can he tell us whether or not these are more than just similar, but are really the same, and that the information provided by them would be a duplicate of what is required by this statute?
In so far as the amendment is concerned, I take it this deals with the type of corporation the minister has in mind in connection with paragraph 17 of the schedule.


Edmund Davie Fulton: To deal with the last question first, we have of course no type of corporation or class of corporation in mind with respect to paragraph 17, or else we would have listed them under the preceding paragraphs. However we think there may be some classes of corporations with respect to which duplication can be avoided as experience is developed, and therefore we want the right to exempt them. As my hon. friend has claimed with a loud voice, we think we should avoid imposing unnecessary expense on corporations and trade unions and therefore we have reserved to ourselves the power to make regulations exempting classes of corporations.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River made a number of general observations, not one of which I am afraid I can recall in detail, but most of which I am sure he would not have made had he read the bill with the care he might have devoted to it in the light of the fact that it has been in his hands since January 22, and not just the last 48 hours as he suggested.
I can say to him very generally, but without reservation in answer to his observations, that the classes of corporations listed in the schedule are classes of corporations with respect to which we are satisfied that they already report, in a manner that is available not only to the government but to the public, substantially the same kind of information as this bill will call upon the balance of corporations to provide when it goes into effect. Therefore we have no hesitation in saying that those corporations listed in the schedule should be exempted from the requirement of filing duplicate returns under this bill.


William Moore Benidickson: What is the Canadian Pacific Railway required to report to the government?

Corporations and Labour Unions


Edmund Davie Fulton: Under the Railway Act it is required to report extremely detailed information with respect to-


William Moore Benidickson: Share holdings?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes; assets, liabilities, capitalization, revenues and working expenditure, and of course further extremely detailed information with respect to tariffs and rates.


William Moore Benidickson: What about the residence of the owners of the shares, and so on?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, it is known under the provisions of the Railway Act that, for instance, there are certain requirements as to qualifications of residence, if I recall that act correctly.


William Moore Benidickson: But there are Britons and Americans on the board of directors.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But their residence has to be listed. Indeed one can go and look at the annual report of the Canadian Pacific and read it. However I doubt if my hon. friend has seen it. It lists the names and addresses of the directors of the Canadian Pacific. I cannot say that the information required to be filed by the Canadian Pacific is precisely the same in every detail as the information that will be required to be filed under this bill, but if we find there are important gaps in that respect then we can always delete paragraph 15. My information is that substantially the information we are after here with respect to the extent and effects of foreign ownership of railway companies, telephone and telegraph companies, is already available under the other act.


Frank Howard: I would like to make some comment about remarks which the minister made earlier following the introduction of the amendment. I gather that the minister said with respect to lowering the ceiling to $100,000 revenue and $50,000 assets, in so far as the returns to be filed under the amendment are concerned, that it would not appreciably affect the picture in so far as government knowledge of foreign control was involved.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The effect of it-yes.


Frank Howard: I gather he said it would not affect the picture one would get from assessing these returns, but it seems to me very important that yesterday the minister spent a great deal of time explaining how necessary this information was so that the government could have a clear picture.
Now he turns around and says, "We know what the picture will be, because these new or additional returns that might come in will not affect the picture". He cannot argue both ways; he cannot argue that the government wants all this statistical information on the


one hand, and that is why we need the bill, and then turn around in rejecting my amendment and say, "We do not want this sort of information because it will not affect the picture we are going to get anyway".
I think this is a rather specious argument on the part of the minister in rejecting the amendment. I think the minister used the words, "We are not entirely careless about the number of returns that will be filed". If he is going to argue on that basis, he can perhaps argue with some validity, but he cannot argue two points of view at once, one yesterday on second reading and one today in rejecting the proposal we made.
The minister said a moment ago-I jotted down his words here and I think I have them correct, although my shorthand is not as good as that of the gentleman in the centre of the chamber-that in respect of these corporations named in the schedule and which under my proposed amendment would be required to file returns, namely banks, trust and loan companies and the like, not only do they make that information available to the government as required in this bill, but it is available to the public. If the information that banks, trust companies, loan companies, small loan companies, companies under the Radio Act, the Railway Act and the like, make available is the same as the government requires under this bill, and that information is made available to the public, then why the secrecy provision under section B of the bill with respect to other corporations; why the discrimination?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think there must be a misunderstanding here. I will have to check my words, but what I intended to say, and certainly what I should have said, was that the information from those corporations listed in the schedule, and certainly in the first six classes, is available without legal barrier to the government and is available in summary in statistical or report form to the public, in almost precisely the same way as the information under part B of the returns under this bill will be available in detail to the government and in report form to the public.


Frank Howard: That clarifies that point. The minister has twice used the word "precisely". He used it once a second ago, and once in his earlier remarks. In his earlier remarks he put it the other way around and said that the information required to be filed by companies and corporations mentioned in the schedule is not precisely the same as that required under this bill. But is not this exactly the point we are trying to get at? The minister made a great to-do on second reading, and

again today, about the government wanting to know everything possible in order to have the exact picture with respect to the economy.
If the Bank of Nova Scotia, for argument's sake, is required under the Bank Act to file all of the information in precisely the same detail and precisely the same form as is required for other corporations under the proposed clause 4, this answers the question; and if that information will be made available to the dominion bureau of statistics so that they can interweave it, this perhaps overcomes one of the reasons for proposing the amendment.
I would like to ask the minister a specific question. Is a bank to which the Bank Act applies required to file with the government- and if so, which branch of it-precisely all the information and details which are going to be required of other corporations under clause 4?


James Ross Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman, not in precisely the same form. I have made this clear, I think, on two previous occasions. The banks to which the Bank Act applies are required to file with the inspector general of banks, by virtue of the Bank Act, complete information with respect to their shareholdings, their financial operations, and so on; information as complete, although not precisely in the same form, as the returns that would be required under this bill.
Indeed, I am informed that there is a great deal more information required by the inspector general of banks than is called for under this bill. All that information, then, is available to the government; all that information is available to the dominion bureau of statistics for inclusion in or comparison with the annual report that will be published with respect to the corporations that are covered by this bill. Since, therefore, all those corporations covered in the schedule-that is to say, exempted from the requirement of reporting under this bill-report in as much or more detail, although not in precisely similar form as those which are required to report under this bill, we have felt it would be foolish, ridiculous and unnecessary repetition and an unnecessary expense and burden to require them to report under this bill.
The hon. member might say to me, "Why do you not standardize the return?" I suppose one might say, "That is a good question". But I think the committee will appreciate that we are not-certainly I am not-responsible for the form in which the Bank Act now exists, nor am I responsible for the form in which the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act exists, or the form in which the Trust Companies Act exists. They are all for different purposes;
26207-1-158
3,	1962
Corporations and Labour Unions they all relate to different kinds of operations. It would be a Herculean job to go through all these acts with a fine-tooth comb and standardize the financial return that should be made under them. Indeed, I am not sure that to do it would not be a disservice to the country, because as I said they deal with different kinds of companies, with different kinds of operations, and it might very well be unwise to try to introduce a standard form for them. But we do find that as a result of the requirements in those individual acts all the information of the type that we want is available. Why, then, should we require those corporations to go through the process of filing an additional form that will not give us any more information?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the minister went on at some great length after he posed a hypothetical question that I might ask. Then he proceeded to beat down that question he thought I might ask him. He went into great length in talking about something that I would not suggest in the first place, without really answering the question I posed to him.
Could I ask the minister this question. For argument sake, is a corporation licensed under the Radio Act to establish a broadcasting station required, first to file its annuities, pensions and similar payments to or in respect of officers and directors, including former officers and directors, and, second persons holding more than 5 per cent each of the total number of issued shares of the corporation or of the total number of issued shares thereof of any class, respectively? Is a corporation under the Radio Act required to file that information?


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to broadcasting companies, a summary of the requirements is that they must file certain information with the board of broadcast governors, including copies of their letters patent, initial share distribution, information as to any dealings in shares by the company or its shareholders, and an annual balance sheet and profit and loss statement. The initial share distribution is made public upon the hearing of an application for a licence, and all transfers of shares are listed in the board's annual report to parliament.
The board requires a public hearing of any application to transfer shares where the transfer would result in the shares of the corporation being held in a foreign country, and the board is prohibited from granting a licence to a licensee unless it is in effect Canadian controlled. Generally speaking, the kind of information required here is now available to the board and is known to or can be obtained by the public.

Corporations and Labour Unions Mr. Howard: That is not an answer to the question I asked. I asked the minister whether a corporation that is licensed under the Radio Act to establish a broadcasting station is required to file information relating to annuities, pensions and similar payments to or in respect of first, officers and directors including former officers and directors, and, second, persons holding more than 5 per cent each of the total number of issued shares of the corporation or of the total number of issued shares thereof of any class, respectively. Is that information required?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, it is not, but it is of no interest or concern because a company holding a broadcasting licence in Canada cannot be foreign controlled.


Frank Howard: This is the point. This is not supposed to differentiate between those companies which are foreign controlled and those which are not. The bill requires all corporations except those exempted in the schedule to file the information which I have just read out relating to annuities, pensions and similar payments whether a corporation is entirely Canadian owned or whether it is owned in Britain or in Hong Kong. That does not matter as far as the requirement in this act is concerned. Now the minister says radio companies need not file that information but others must. Well, how is one going to get a clear picture if some companies are obliged to file this information and others are not? This is precisely why I think the amendment should carry. This information should be made available to this one authority so that when we compare things we may compare the right things and not be comparing apples and oranges and saying they are the same because they are both fruit.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the hon. member's interest in this, but what we are after here is information which will enable us to assess the extent and effects of foreign control of Canadian corporations. With respect to the other companies which will be covered by the bill we do not know in advance whether or not they are foreign controlled so we require them all to report. With respect to broadcasting companies we know by virtue of the provisions of the Broadcasting Act that they cannot be foreign controlled. We have adequate information about them already under that act and for that reason we have exempted them from the requirement to report.


Frank Howard: Can the Canadian Pacific Railway be foreign controlled? What about a railway, telegraph, telephone or express company or a carrier by water in respect of which returns are made to the board of 

transport commissioners for Canada under the Railway Act? What is their position with respect to the requirement which I read out a while ago relating to annuities, pensions and similar payments?


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to those companies, we have sufficient information under the terms of the Railway Act to assess the extent and the effects of such foreign control as may exist in those cases. Therefore, we do not require them to report under this bill.


Frank Howard: Yes. Surely, what this bill should be seeking to do is precisely that, and not giving us all this mumbo-jumbo about salaries, fees and other remuneration to officers and directors and, more particularly, inquiring into the sex of union members and so on. What does that matter, if all the minister is concerned about is foreign control? Why is he concerned about management and administrative fees and charges? Why is he concerned about annuities, pensions and similar payments to officers and directors if he says with respect to these other companies mentioned in the schedule that they do not have to file this information?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Because we know about them now.


Frank Howard: Because the minister knows about them in some other way-by looking at a crystal ball, for instance?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; not the crystal ball. That went out with Mackenzie King. We know about them because of the requirements of the acts under which they operate. With respect to the other corporations which we expect to be covered by this bill, they operate under no such specific acts and therefore we have set out in this bill the kind of information which we think is necessary to give us a full picture of the extent and effects of such foreign control which may be exercised. But with respect to the companies enumerated in the schedule or the classes of companies set out in the schedule it is our view that by virtue of the acts under which they operate and under which they are already required to report we have the information which will enable us to assess the extent and effects of any foreign control which may be present.


Frank Howard: That is not what the minister
said a moment ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is precisely what I said a moment ago. It is what I have tried to say three times without success.


Frank Howard: I directed my questions
specifically to that point. I read the paragraph

on page 5 of the bill about annuities, pensions and payments to directors; about persons holding more than 5 per cent of the shares, and so on. The minister stated that in each instance it was not a requirement either of the Broadcasting Act or of the Railway Act that this information should be given. Perhaps I should ask the minister whether it would be necessary to file that information if a corporation is a transcontinental air carrier which has been designated by the air transport board for financial and other reporting purposes as a group one carrier. Is a corporation of that kind required to file the information which I read out regarding annuities, pensions and similar payments? Is it required to disclose management and similar fees and charges or fees and charges for professional services showing separately fees and charges for each of the following services, namely: engineering, architectural, legal, accounting, auditing, and consulting fees and charges? Is it required to file that sort of information as well as all the other information sought in this bill?


William Moore Benidickson: While the minister is
getting advice on the question just raised I wish to pursue the question I raised with respect to two of our largest corporations. They are corporations against which I have no animosity, but they are exempted in the schedule. I am sure the minister does not want to recommend a bill which is discriminatory and which will involve the smaller corporations in a lot of work which will not be required from the others.
The minister asked the question: why should there be an additional form? Surely, if this information is to go to the dominion bureau of statistics where the results are to be assessed; if the government is to examine these returns and benefit in any way from this information, then the information must be forthcoming on a comparable basis. I have referred to two of our largest corporations. They are the Bell Telephone Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company which I assume are incorporated under the Railway Act. Under that act, as far as annual returns are concerned, I read section 384 and it says that every railway, telegraph, telephone and express company, and so on, shall annually prepare returns in accordance with forms and classifications for the time being required by the board of transport commissioners of their assets, liabilities, capitalization, revenues, working expenditures and traffic. Another section-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I read that all out.


William Moore Benidickson: -section 444 refers to statistics and returns. I take it that the essence
26207-1-158i
3,	1962
Corporations and Labour Unions of this bill is to provide this country with information about foreign ownership. Where, with respect to the Railway Act do we get anything comparable with what we find in the provisions here which require other corporations which are not exempt, to report with regard to holdings of more than 5 per cent each of the total number of issued shares of the corporation?
Then, on page 3 of the bill appears subparagraph (vii) calling for particulars with respect to the ownership of more than 50 per cent of the shares of a subsidiary. I thought from the debate that this was of the essence of the information we were going to get in connection with our national establishments and, particularly, our corporations. If we are to exempt the big corporations, what earthly use is all this paraphernalia that is being established here? I am reminded that not only is our second largest railway, the C.P.R. exempted; there are a number of others almost equally important. In the case of the C.P.R. it may be that in its annual report-it is not obligatory, as far as I can tell, to submit it-we would be given the names of the directors. One might get a box number where they receive their mail, but I do not think there is anything in the Railway Act that makes it necessary for the directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway to state not just their address-not Sir Someone in London-but actually his nationality whether British, Australian or some other nationality that might entitle him to the knighthood, and his address outside Canada.
Every other corporation has to show not only the address of the individual but the individual's nationality. Why the exemption in connection with these important corporations, where there is a substantial amount of foreign ownership?
Even the directors of the government owned railway, the C.N.R., would be exempt according to the schedule. I recall sitting on the standing committee of this house during two sessions when we examined officers of the Canadian National Railways. While I was not one who pressed for this information, two hon. members of the Conservative party pressed the officers of the railway for information as to whether or not they had obtained control of some trucking companies. It was declared that it was not in the public interest that that information should be provided even to a parliamentary committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the hon. member alleging that the Canadian National Railways is foreign controlled?
2472	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions


William Moore Benidickson: No, Mr. Chairman. I was referring back to subparagraph VII and the requirement that all corporations indicate ownership of subsidiaries where their stock interest exceeds 50 per cent. It was not possible to obtain that information even in the parliamentary committee with respect to certain subsidiaries of the C.N.R.
Does the C.P.R. under the Railway Act give some government body information containing their ownership of other companies- and they own quite a number under different names-where they hold more than 50 per cent of the issued shares? I do not see that that is required trader the Railway Act as it would be required of corporations under this measure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I can only say again that with respect to these companies they have been investigated on numerous occasions by royal commissions and other organizations. I do not think there can be any question but that their corporate structure and the extent and effects of that foreign ownership or control is well understood. I think if I go on I will merely be repeating myself. Perhaps the only way to leave the matter is to let my hon. friend take responsibility for saying which of the classes of exemptions he would delete.


Walter George Pitman: This is a serious matter, Mr. Chairman. Throughout the debate the minister has said we are seeking information. There is a concern among Canadians and especially among small businessmen that they are required to complete too many forms for forwarding to the dominion bureau of statistics. Government bodies are always concerned that this information is in usable form. I often meet small businessmen and municipal authorities who wonder whether they are sending too many forms containing duplicate information to various levels of government.
Despite what the minister has said I am not convinced that the information that will be sent by the corporations in the schedule to various government bodies will find its way to the dominion bureau of statistics in usable form so that it can be compared and correlated and given some meaning and significance. I must agree with the hon. member for Skeena when he refers to the information available from insurance, trust and loan companies. The minister may say that information with respect to foreign control is available, but it is important that it be correlated so statisticians can work with it and some pattern can be achieved. I would assume we are not simply putting legislation on the statute books of this country merely to create more forms and more bother for the businessman of this nation.


William Moore Benidickson: And the unions.


Walter George Pitman: We have to justify it.


Mr. Matheson:: And the unions.


Walter George Pitman: Yes, and the unions. We have to justify it to the extent that from the information we receive we can take legislative or other action to effectively organize and develop our economy so that foreign control will not increase. I am not convinced with regard to the segments of our economy referred to in the schedule that we will be able to correlate the information and obtain the kind of picture which could form the basis for the legislative action which we would hope would stem from information of this nature.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to review the entire discussion which has taken place. It proves, however, that this measure is not sufficiently clear to satisfy the committee and the country.
I think we could go along with the amendment offered by the hon. member for Skeena, but may I be permitted to suggest a change to paragraph (h). There are a large number of small companies who would be called upon to file reports if the hon. member's amendment were adopted because the figures established by the amendment are really too low when you consider the economy of this country. I suggest that $100,000 is a very low ceiling. Many companies with a gross revenue of more than $100,000 are considered small businesses. If the hon. gentleman would increase the figures so the small companies would not be subjected to the application of this measure, I think I would be very glad to support the amendment. I urge the hon. gentleman to put the ceiling a little higher.


Frank Howard: I am the most agreeable person in the committee this evening. I do not object to raising the limit. Among the hon. member for Hull, the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Skeena we might amicably agree on a figure of less than $500,000 and unanimously support the amendment. I am in the awkward position of being restricted by the rules from amending my own amendment and that would have to be done by someone else.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Would $300,000 suit the hon. member?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I am not in the
business of auctioning.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We might put up the hon. member for Assiniboia and the bid could be raised to $400,000.


Frank Howard: Not as far as I am concerned.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The hon. member for Hull has the opportunity of placing a subamendment before the committee if he is prepared to write it out.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I will put it back to the original figure, Mr. Chairman. I move that paragraph (h) be deleted and replaced with the following which contains the original figures:
(h) any corporation, for any reporting period of the corporation in respect of which it can be established that
(a)	the gross revenue of the corporation for that reporting period from the business carried on by it in Canada, determined as prescribed by the regulations, did not exceed five hundred thousand dollars, and
(b)	the assets in Canada of the corporation as of the last day of that reporting period, determined as prescribed by the regulation, did not exceed two hundred and fifty thousand dollars,
except any such corporation that is one of two or more corporations that, by reason of inter-relationship of management, ownership or financial affairs, are designated by the minister to be related corporations and that would not, if considered as a single corporation, qualify as a corporation described in this item.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The subamendment reads that paragraph (h) be deleted and replaced by the wording the hon. member has suggested, and it goes on to change the figures from $100,000 to $500,000 in subclause (a) and from $50,000 to $250,000, in subclause (b).


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, would it not be simpler-just to show how co-operative we are here- if my friend the hon. member for Hull wishes to move an amendment, were he merely to move to delete paragraph (h) of the amendment? That would restore the original provision, I believe.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It would not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it would, Mr. Chairman, because the original amendment strikes out the whole of the schedule so there would be nothing left then and all these corporations would be affected if the suggestion of the Minister of Justice were adopted.
I should like to say a word about the amendment moved by my hon. friend. While I can well understand in the original amendment the reason for this, I think the rather compelling observations made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River about putting an unnecessary charge upon small corporations to provide this information is something that will appeal to everybody in the committee. I think there has been unanimity almost to the point of competition, if unanimity can reach that point, to show that we in the committee are all friends of small business. No person has professed a greater
Corporations and Labour Unions interest in small business than has the leader of the N.D.P. I am sure he could just turn around to his group and suggest to them that we should not seek to penalize small business in an amendment which otherwise is seeking to make great corporations like the Bell Telephone Company and the C.P.R. subject to the law to which the middle size corporations will be subject. I think it would make it a great deal easier to get more support for the amendment if the subamendment commended itself to the leader of the N.D.P. and his followers.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: If I may interrupt the hon. gentleman for a moment, I simply wish to say that we are delighted to see what an influence we are having on the official opposition on a matter such as this one. I wish to correct him in one respect. I wish he would refer to me as parliamentary leader.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should be happy to make a bargain with the hon. gentleman since we are in the business of bargaining at the moment. If the hon. gentleman will stop referring to the Leader of the Opposition by an incorrect designation and will call him the Leader of the Opposition, I shall be very glad to call the hon. gentleman almost anything he would like to be called, except leader of the opposition.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Caron) negatived: yeas, 22; nays, 41.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I declare the
subamendment lost.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may I should like to say a word before the amendment is put. Notwithstanding the fact that our subamendment has been lost because small business appears to have no friends in the Tory party any more-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -it seems to me that the major aim of the amendment to bring certain of these huge corporations under the same law as that under which ordinary business is put, is the transcendent part. We would have been happier to have it in better form. However, in the circumstances, I would hope that my friends in the chamber would join with me in supporting the amendment.


An hon. Member:: You have not too many of them.
1,

Corporations and Labour Unions


Frank Howard: I do not know whether I was included among those to whom the hon. member referred as his friends.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not in a political sense.


Frank Howard: That feeling is mutual, in any event. I remember reading some time ago parts out of May's Parliamentary Practice which stated that if an amendment was defeated the original thereby stands. I imagine therefore that we have now voted in favour of the $100,000 and the $50,000 and perhaps we should delete that in putting that amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend by that remark indicates the same knowledge of parliamentary procedure which allowed him yesterday to attempt to mislead the house. I do not think he will succeed in misleading the committee. Now that the opening bargaining and bidding process between the members of the Liberal opposition and the members of the N.D.P. opposition is complete, perhaps we can settle the matter of the amendment on its merits.


John Whitney Pickersgill: By brute force.


Edmund Davie Fulton: By this bill we include those giant corporations which have foreign control and about the effect of whose foreign control we know nothing. We exempt only those about whose foreign control we already know.


William Moore Benidickson: You do not know about some of the big ones.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In spite of the fact that for many years he was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, my friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River must have occupied his time in that capacity in such a way as to give him none of the information which he could have obtained. However, I can assure him that those to whom the information is available are able to profit by it.


William Moore Benidickson: I was familiar with items 1 to 6 every year while I was there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Precisely. However, my hon. friend does not seem to have put his familiarization to any good purpose. The point I make is that any further explanation would only be repetition on the ears of those who are not prepared to profit by the information. I therefore suggest that we might take the sense of the committee on the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot allow to pass without comment the reflections made by the minister on my colleague the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. From a minister who was obliged to confess earlier this evening

that he had not read his speech since January and that it had egregious errors in it, it seems to me the suggestion comes with ill grace that some other hon. member has not read every document he might have read before coming into the chamber.


Frank Howard: I would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, if henceforth the Minister of Justice would refer to us here as the effective opposition. He would then be more nearly correct. However, I would point out this, if I could inferentially make reference to that about which the minister spoke and also to something which was attempted yesterday. My interpretation of the rules is that it succeeded. I am not one of those, as was the minister last year, who deliberately refuses to carry out his obligations under an act of parliament merely because he disagrees with what the results might be.
The Depuiy Chairman: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Howard) negatived: yeas, 23; nays, 45.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, before you put clause 3 to a vote, I would point out that while the bill was given second reading without a division and it might therefore be said that it was supported unanimously, nevertheless it is a type of bill in which there is a mixture of goodness and badness. Members are often put in the position in dealing with bills of agreeing to second reading in the hope that in the committee stage the forcefulness of their arguments will have some effect on the minister involved from the point of view of increasing the effectiveness of the bill and improving upon it. With clause 3 as it now stands I will only say in passing that if we are unable to effect any alterations in the schedule when we are dealing with it paragraph by paragraph I am in serious doubt what my action will be on third reading. At the present moment my feeling is that I will not be able to support the bill on third reading if it reaches that stage in the same form it is now.


Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, when we come to clause 4 of the bill we will see-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are we on clause 4?


Gabriel Roberge: No; I am simply referring to it in connection with the question I am going to ask. When we come to that clause we will see that there are two sections to the return that is going to be required. In the schedule there are a number of types of companies listed. Under the statutes under which these companies operate are they

obliged to make returns in two parts, one part confidential and the other part not confidential?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think that would vary from case to case. Perhaps my hon. friend would ask me about particular cases. Generally speaking, however, the corporations enumerated in the first six paragraphs of the schedule report in very great detail. I am advised, for instance, that each insurance company reports in a great thick volume to the superintendent of insurance. The superintendent of insurance in turn, in the same way as the dominion statistician will do here with respect to part B returns, publishes his annual report summarizing the effects of the various individual reports he has had from the insurance companies in Canada. It is very much the same sort of system as will be followed under this bill.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Is there any part of the reports now being made to the transport commission or other bodies which is comparable to the section B confidential reports we are asking these other companies to make?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, indeed, Mr. Chairman. All the financial statements of the banks, insurance companies, trust companies, loan companies and so on, required to be filed with the respective officers detailed in the statutes under which they operate, are very much comparable to the financial information that will be required to be filed under this part.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Are they considered as confidential now?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, I understand that the details of the returns are confidential generally speaking in the case of the officers with whom they are filed, just as the details of the returns under part B will be confidential; but an analysis is made and a report summarizing the effects of all the information received is made by, for instance, the superintendent of insurance, just as a report compiled by the dominion bureau of statistics will be made in this case.


Alexis Pierre Caron: As it stands now, the small loans companies report to the Department of Finance under the Small Loans Act. Is there a part of their reports which is now considered confidential under the statute?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed that the details of financial statements, in such detail as is required under the Small Loans Act, that are filed with the Department of Finance would not be made available in detail to the public, but that there is no statutory or other bar to the revealing of that information in detail to the government in order that the government
Business of the House
may decide upon the policy that should be followed with respect to small loans companies.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Who decides which part should be confidential and which part should not be confidential?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That would be determined, I think, by virtue of the act under which the companies report. This bill will determine which parts of the report are confidential and which are not.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Then why are we asking more from other companies than we are asking from those included in the schedule? That is another reason why they should all be under the same act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Again I say I am advised that in the case of the insurance companies particularly, and most of the companies in the first six paragraphs of the schedule, they report a great deal more detail than the companies under this bill will be required to report.


Alexis Pierre Caron: But there is nothing in the law
which says that part of it shall be confidential. It is only the department which decides which part shall be confidential.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I have just pointed out that according to my understanding it is the respective statutes under which they report which determine what and to what extent confidentiality will be preserved.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I was told a while ago that in
the case of the small loans companies the department decides what should be confidential and that there is nothing in the statute in that regard.


Gabriel Roberge: If I understood correctly, the minister said earlier that the returns of those companies that are exempt under this legislation because they report somewhere else will be available to the bureau of statistics.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, yes. There is no bar whatsoever on the conveying of information within the government.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 3 carry?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Ten o'clock.
Clause 3 stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before I ask the minister what the government is going to do tomorrow, may I express my sympathy to him for the error of judgment that was

Business of the House
made in not sending the bill we have just been considering to a special committee of the house. We would have made a lot more progress if that had been done. Perhaps the minister might consider deferring this item, which seems to be taking a long time, and getting on with something urgent. Could he indicate what the government is going to do?


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, the expression of opinion yesterday that the opposition
wanted to get on with the business expeditiously encouraged me to recommend the bill for study today and I do the same for tomorrow, followed by the amendments to the Veterans' Land Act. The third item would be Bill No. S-19, to amend the Canada Grain Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What else?


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 4, 1962