1962-04-02

Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron) moved: that the sixth report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, presented to the house on Friday, March 30, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-81, respecting the Canada court of Indian claims.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: The purpose of this bill is to put into effect the unanimous recommendation of the joint Senate and House of Commons committee of last session that there be established a court of claims to deal specifically with the B.C. Indian land question and the Oka land question in Quebec, plus other matters.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who has been giving diligent attention to this particular matter, I feel bound to raise the question as to whether a bill of this sort can be introduced by a private member without involving an expenditure of public funds. I have not seen the bill, as will be obvious, but may I make this reservation now and indicate that our concurrence in leave to introduce this bill is subject to that reservation.


Frank Howard: If I may speak to the point of order raised by the minister, this bill does not involve a charge upon the crown because the court of Indian claims named is in reality the Exchequer Court of Canada. This bill would give additional powers to the exchequer court which it does not now have, in order that it may deal specifically with these problems.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the possible objection that might be taken to the bill is reserved for consideration when the bill comes up again.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, surely a point of order that goes to the root of the matter as to whether or not the bill is to be received and dealt with by this house on the motion of a private member is one that cannot be postponed. Surely there has to be a determination of that point of order before the bill can be introduced.
It seems to me, therefore, that the better procedure is to leave the motion on the order paper, deal with the point of order and then determine, after the point of order is decided, whether or not the hon. member may have leave to introduce his bill. If the point of order is well taken, then the bill ought not to be received.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member's suggestion points to the better course. I would think, offhand, that the bill could be introduced and read a first time without committing the house to reading it a second time if objection taken later revealed that the bill was not in accordance with the rules of the house. But I think the hon. member for Ottawa West is correct in saying that it would be preferable not to have the bill read the first time by the house if there is some objection to be taken to it in the matter of form.
Therefore I would think that as the bill has not been seen by hon. members of the house it would be preferable to stand the motion until tomorrow, to give hon. members who are interested an opportunity to look at the bill. I have not the bill before me either, and I am therefore in the same position as other hon. members of the house. In fact I could not proceed with the matter without having the bill. I therefore suggest that this motion stand until tomorrow.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may say with respect to this matter that it raises the all-important question as to how hon. gentlemen can see a bill before it is introduced.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, if I may add
a word, as I understand the point of order raised, concisely stated it is as to whether or not this proposed measure requires to be preceded by a motion on the part of the

Income Tax
government because it is a money bill, requiring the advice of the Governor General that he commends it to the house, under the provisions of section 54 of the British North America Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The point taken by the mover of the bill was that it would not be printed and in the hands of hon. members unless the house gave leave to introduce it. That, I think, has some force. First reading of the bill does give permission for the bill to be printed and distributed and, as I indicated earlier, I see no obstacle to taking exception to a bill after it has been read the first time and before it has proceeded to second reading.
If the hon. member has his bill, perhaps the most convenient course would be to allow him to introduce it and have it read for the first time, if the house is agreeable. Then it will be in the hands of hon. members, and if they feel further objection should be taken they will be able to pursue the matter.


George James McIlraith: I understood that the
procedure to be followed by a private member putting forward a bill was to take it up with the law clerk to see whether it was acceptable, whether it met the provisions of section 54 of the British North America Act and, presumably standing order No. 61 of our rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Presumably that has been done, and it has proceeded thus far. Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


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



INCOME TAX


Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-82 respecting income taxes.


Mr. Chevrier:: Explain.


Frank Howard: This is intended primarily to bring the Income Tax Act up to date.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce this bill? Carried.
Has the hon. member got the bill? May I have it?
The bill appears to be a very lengthy one involving a substantial amount of printing, but it does not seem to make any change in the act as far as my examination has gone. I daresay there are changes, however, and I think by leave of the house I should

like to reserve an opinion on this matter at the present stage and give it further consideration.


Frank Howard: I think, with respect, that would not be a correct course to follow. I do not see how a reservation of that nature could be made. Situations similar to this have occurred a number of times before.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree that the house has already authorized the hon. member to introduce his bill. I said "By leave of the house", and if the house does not give me leave I shall put the next question, which is that the bill be read the first time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Did I understand Your Honour to say that the house had already given leave? It seems to me that the leave the house might give would take into account the point raised by Your Honour, and if Your Honour feels that the bill should not be introduced until you have had a chance to look at it I doubt very much whether the house would be prepared to give its leave until you have had an opportunity to consider it further.


Lionel Chevrier: Your
Honour having decided on what seem to have been the facts in the first case, which are similar to those in this case, it seems to me that you are bound by the decision rendered with regard to the first case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The decision in the first case was altogether different. In that case I had entered a reservation with respect to whether or not the bill, entitled an act respecting the Canada court of Indian claims, could possibly be a measure which did not impose a burden on the public treasury. I felt we should not give first reading to a bill in that form without such a reservation; that we could make up our minds after we had had a chance to look at it.
With respect to this bill Your Honour has made simply a general reservation. I should think that Your Honour would like a chance to look at the bill before it is introduced into the house. This is, as Your Honour pointed out, by its appearance a bulky bill. We had experience last year, I recall, of a bill which purported to amend a statute and then did nothing of the sort; it merely re-enacted it. I do not know what the effect of this bill is. I raised the point at that time that such a bill was not properly before the house.
Your Honour has now said to us, on the basis of a quick look, that this bill does not appear to make any changes in the Income Tax Act. I certainly would not be prepared to give leave to the introduction of the bill about which Your Honour has expressed a

general reservation. Your Honour having expressed that reservation, I certainly think the house should wait until Your Honour reports back to us before deciding whether or not we are prepared to give leave.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed one word, I must respectfully disagree with what the Minister of Justice has said. The test is not whether the bill is bulky; the test is whether or not it imposes a charge upon the treasury. If it is a charge upon the treasury it seems to me it ought not to be introduced, and Your Honour having ruled in the first instance this seems to me to be a case where Your Honour has to follow the original ruling or upset the ruling in the other case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Speaker; with respect the hon. gentleman has missed the point. No one was raising a point of order on this bill with respect to whether or not it was a charge on the treasury. That point is not raised here. But as Your Honour, looking at it, has expressed a reservation whether or not the bill is, generally speaking, in proper form, since the leave of the house is not a matter which should be automatically given, I think the house would wish to take the position that we do not give our leave until Your Honour has had the opportunity to report to us further on the bill for which leave is now sought.


Mr. Speaker:: We have now proceeded past the stage of giving leave. The house has already given leave to introduce the bill. The house does not need to read the bill the first time. The subject matter is not debatable on the motion for first reading. The house has the option of accepting or rejecting the bill. This is rather a difficult choice for the house to make without having seen the bill.
Looking further at the papers submitted by the hon. member it appears to be a draft bill, as nearly as I can make out by a hasty examination, in appropriate form, with the Income Tax Act re-enacted with some changes here and there. In the circumstances I think I will do what has been said. I am obliged to proceed to the next stage and put the matter before the house by putting the motion.
Mr. Howard moves that the said bill be now read the first time.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, would you permit me to ask one question. When you speak about the bill making some changes in the act, does the bill purport to make changes in the rates of taxation? If so it must clearly be beyond the capacity of any private member to introduce.
Division


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Skeena could answer that question.


Frank Howard: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. It does not purport to make changes in the rates of taxation. I carefully examined into this question and as far as I am able to determine the bill does not offend any of the rules of the house and is in correct form.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ACT AMENDMENT TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS

Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-83, to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act (Canada highways).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; the motion is defective. There is no bill attached to the motion. The motion is not complete, as there is no bill for introduction except a pro forma bih.


Frank Howard: I have a copy of the bill here, sir. Its purpose is to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act so that it will speak in terms of plural highways, rather than in the singular, to enable additional agreements to be entered into if desired. It does not touch upon the present financial limit provided for in the Trans-Canada Highway Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FREIGHT RATES REDUCTION ACT


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee of the whole at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act to extend, but not beyond the 30th day of April, 1963, the period during which the revised rates under the said act shall be applicable and to increase the authorized expenditure under the act by an additional fifteen million dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Fisher: 1.	What is the purpose of the inquiry into the unemployment insurance commission being carried on by the firm of Urwick and Currie?

2.	What is the estimated cost of this inquiry, to what vote will it be charged, and on what date was its initiation approved by treasury board?
3.	Was any consideration given to having the organization and methods service of the civil service commission carry on the inquiry now being conducted by Urwick and Currie: and, if so, what were the reasons that ruled out the use of this government agency?


Mr. Starr:: The answer is lengthy and I would ask the permission of the house for it to be taken as read and inserted in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1.	The purposes of the inquiry are:
(1)	Take responsibility for the production of new time standards for measurable activities.
(2)	Appraise the department's program for devising staffing standards for non-measurable activities.
(3)	Train existing and newly acquired staff to produce work standards and carry out methods studies in the future.
(4)	Devise a system for the collection and analysis of work load figures for the use of management in assessing the effectiveness of the various components of the organization.
(5)	Advise on the role and size of the standards and methods division in the light of existing projects and on a suitable organizational framework within which to carry out this role.
2.	(a) $43,500; (b) Vote 50 of administration of Unemployment Insurance Act; (c) December 15, 1961.
3.	At the initial stage when the work to be done was considered, a representative of the civil service commission participated in the discussion. After exploring the situation it was decided that in view of previous commitments, the advisory services branch of the civil service commission could not make staff immediately available to undertake this task without jeopardizing the completion and success of other important projects.


*C.N.R. LETTER TO NON-OPERATING EMPLOYEES
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways issued to all its non-operating employees a letter expressing the company views on the breakdown in negotiations between the railway and the union representatives of the non-operating employees; and, if so, did the letter contain the statement that "no independent tribunal has ever endorsed the durable goods standard"; and what other comments may the letter have had on the durable goods standard?
2.	Has the C.N.R. studied the following reports: Kellock (1950), Kellock (1952), Kellock and Sloan (1954), Taylor (1956), Thomson (1958), and Milvain (I960); with a view to ascertaining what the position of these tribunals was on the durable

goods standard; and, if so, does the C.N.R. consider that the positions were not an endorsement of the durable goods standard?
3.	Did the C.N.R. put forward any standard in the recent negotiations; and, if so, what was the nature of this standard?


Léon Balcer: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1,	2 and 3. A conciliation board has been authorized by the Minister of Labour under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and the railway companies and unions have nominated their representatives on the board. When the board convenes the position of the Canadian National Railways will be stated.


T.C.A. LAY-OFF OF PILOTS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has Trans-Canada Air Lines laid oft any pilots or co-pilots during the past, two years (since March, 1960); and, if so, how many, on what basis, and for how long?
2.	Are any of the pilots now laid oil unlikely to be needed in the next five years by T.C.A.?
3.	What alternative employment plans or arrangements have been made by T.C.A. for any of these laid off pilots?
Answer by; Mr. Balcer:
The management of Trans-Canada Air Lines advise as follows:
1.	Yes; 98 pilots laid off indefinitely during 1961.
2.	This question cannot be answered categorically but there is a possibility that those who were laid off and are still unemployed might be needed in the future.
3.	Of those laid off, in substantial part because of the efforts of T.C.A., 47 have found employment with other air lines; 17 have been re-employed by T.C.A. in other capacities. It is also understood that 12 have found other employment and 16 have submitted outright resignations, while the status of the remaining 6 is unknown.


PERSONNEL, DRUG DISPENSARY, CAMP HILL HOSPITAL, HALIFAX
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	What was the number of staff personnel, with classifications, engaged in the drug dispensary at Camp Hill hospital, Halifax, N.S., in the year 1945?
2.	What were the costs of staff salaries, and other operating costs, in the year 1945?
3.	How many staff members are now engaged, and in what classifications, in the said dispensary; and what were the costs of staff salaries, and other operating costs, in the last year for which figures are available?
Answer by: Mr. Churchill:
Questions
Department of Veterans Affairs
1.	Staff
Classification	Number
Dispenser	 1
Packer and helper	 1
Clerk 2	 2
2.	Annual salaries of dispensary staff on March 31, 1945 totalled $5,304.
Other operating costs of dispensary for the year 1944-45 are not known.
3.	Fiscal year 1960-61.
Classification	Number
Pharmacist 3	 1
Pharmacist 2	 1
Packer and helper	 2
Clerk 3	 3
Dispensary staff salaries for the fiscal year totalled $29,849.
Other operating costs for the year were $2,655.
Note 1: In 1945, but not in 1960-61, the department had small dispensaries in the Cornwallis veterans hospital and the Cornwallis health and occupational centre.
Note 2: The hospital costing system at present in use in the department was not adopted until after 1945.


* WAR SERVICES OF NOVA SCOTIA PREMIER
Mr. Pickersgill: Did the Hon. Robert L. Stanfield, now Premier of Nova Scotia, serve the wartime prices and trade board or any other wartime agency during the late war; and, if so, in what capacity and for how long?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Robert L. Stanfield, now Premier of Nova Scotia, served on the wartime prices and trade board in the Halifax regional office from February 4, 1942 to November 13, 1945 first as rental officer, then as assistant enforcement counsel, and finally as enforcement counsel.


Mr. Pickersgill:: A bureaucrat.


CANADA AND GULF TERMINAL RAILWAY, QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 341
Mr. Fisher:: 1.	Has the Minister of Transport held conversations or other communications, written or oral, in 1962 with Mr. Jules Brillant of Quebecair and of Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway, with regard to transportation problems in Quebec, and more particularly, relating to Gaspe and the south shore of the St. Lawrence?
2.	If so, was any offer made or received by either regarding the sale or lease or rental of running rights of Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway?

Questions
3.	Did the minister give any undertaking to Mr. Brillant on when the government would be prepared to buy Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway or have the Canadian National Railways buy it?
Answer by: Mr. Balcer:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No.
*	EXTERNAL AID TEACHING ASSISTANCE, UNDER-


DEVELOPED COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
Mr. Fisher: Has the external aid office in hand, or under consideration, any program of teaching assistance for undeveloped countries of the commonwealth, which would centre on the use of Canadian secondary, vocational, and university teachers in a crash, summer program, taking advantage of holiday release in Canada: and, if not, why not?


Mr. Green:: The requests which have been received from the less developed commonwealth countries for assistance from Canada in the teaching field have all been for persons who are prepared to serve abroad for a year or more. The cost of sending teachers overseas for short periods would be very high in relation to the assistance they could render in a limited period, and Canadian teachers would probably require a disproportionate amount of time during a short assignment to become familiar with local conditions. For these reasons the external aid office is not contemplating at present a program of the kind referred to and it is considered that the funds available for this form of Canadian assistance can be more effectively used in meeting requests for teachers for longer assignments.
*	TEACHERS' APPLICATIONS, EXTERNAL AID OFFICE


Mr. Fisher: 1.	How many applications has the external aid office received from teachers in Canada for service abroad in undeveloped countries during the school year, 1962-63?
2.	What is the breakdown of applicants by subject and province?
3.	How many of the applicants are being placed abroad for the coming school year?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question contains a series of figures. Perhaps the answer could be printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the answer to this question be printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]

1. From 1st September, 1961 to the 15th March 1962, 337 applications have been received.
2.	Provinces
British Columbia	 68
Alberta	 49
Saskatchewan	 31
Manitoba	 18
Ontario	 68
Quebec	 86
New Brunswick	 6
Nova Scotia	 6
Prince Edward Island	  0
Newfoundland	 1
Northwest Territories	 4
Subjects
Mathematics and science	 112
Technical	 35
Elementary	 34
Teacher-trainers and Administrators	 18
Others including languages, social studies, commerce, history, physical education ... 138
3. As selection and placement is still in progress the total number to be sent abroad is not yet known.


CIVILIAN STAND-BY DUTY AND PAY GRIEVANCES, NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOTS
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Has the government given consideration to the grievance raised over the present system of standby duties and pay practices related thereto, of civilian duty officers at Canada's naval ammunition depots: and, if so, has a decision been reached?
2.	If no decision has been reached, when is it expected that a decision will be reached?
Answer by: Mr. Chambers:
1.	A thorough review is being conducted with regard to the present requirement for civilian duty officers at Canada's naval ammunition depots, together with the present system of stand-by duties and pay practices related thereto. No decision has been reached as of this date.
2.	A decision on this matter may be expected shortly.


* MINIMUM RATE CLAUSE, TENDERS FOR TRUCKING GRAVEL
Mr. McWilliam: Has the government given consideration to the inclusion of a minimum rate clause in federal

government, or federal crown company, public tenders, at rates now established by respective provincial governments, as it appertains to the trucking of gravel, or like material, by individually owned trucks engaged by the prime contractor, or subcontractor, in the trucking of gravel, or like material, owned or purchased by the prime contractor or subcontractor; and, if so, what decision has been reached?


Michael Starr: The answer is no, in so far as the Department of Labour is concerned.


*LOSS OF PRODUCTION TO PAPER MILLS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	In the consideration given by the government to measures which would improve the position of Canadian periodicals, as announced previously in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister, what estimates have been made on the probable loss of production to paper mills which now supply the requirements of Reader's Digest and Time magazine?
2.	Does the government consider that the loss of production will be balanced by increased use of paper by Canadian publications; and, if so, what is the period of time involved in which the government estimates that this adjustment will take place?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. 1, no loss of production has been anticipated. No. 2, not applicable.


LOT 18, JUNCTION GORE, GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 362
George James McIlraith: Was an independent valuation obtained by the national capital commission of part of lot 18, Junction gore, Gloucester township, which was sold to Principal Investments Limited, as appears in sessional paper 194, tabled February 14, 1962; and, if so, what firm or firms made the valuation, and what is the amount of such valuation and the date of its receipt by the department?
Answer by: Mr. Green:
No.


PUBLIC WHARF, YARMOUTH, N.S.
Mr. Pickersgill: Is a public wharf being built at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia; and, if so, (a) on what date is the work to be completed (b) how many men are employed on this undertaking (c) what categories of labour are employed, and at what rates of wage?
Answer by: Mr. Green:
Yes; (a) May 14, 1963; (b) 29; (c) Labourers, $0.95 per hour; Timbermen, $1.10 per hour; Machine operators, $1.50 per hour; Firemen, $1.50 per hour; Foremen, $75.00 per week; Welders (on piece work); 1 clerk (contractor not obliged to provide wage rate).


FEDERAL DRAINAGE AND ROAD EXPENDITURES, PARENT, QUE.
Mr. Herridge: 1.	What was the total cost to the federal government of all works connected with (a) drainage (b) roads, in the town of Parent, P.Q., in 1959?
2.	What was the nature of and reasons for the work?
Questions
3.	Has the corporation of the town of Parent reimbursed the federal government for any of this drainage and/or road work carried out in 1959?
Answer by: Mr. Chambers:
1.	(a) and (b) $42,792.92 of which the village of Parent is responsible under an agreement dated June 17, 1958 to contribute 25 per cent.
2.	The work involved reshaping and drainage improvement, compaction, and applications of a levelling course and cold mix asphalt to the approximately one mile of municipal roadway forming part of the access road to R.C.A.F. station Parent. The project was undertaken in recognition of the degree of usage attributable to the Department of National Defence and because of the inability of the municipality to assume the entire cost from its own resources.
3.	No.


FEDERAL GRANTS TO SASKATCHEWAN, 1956-61
Mr. Herridge: What were the total federal government grants, broken down by categories, to the province of Saskatchewan in (a)	1956 (b) 1961?
Answer by: Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):
Federal government grants under conditional grant programs:
(a)	(b)
Preliminary
1956-57	1961-62
(in thousands of dollars)
Agriculture	$	30
Health	 2,095
Hospital insurance	
Welfare	 2,199
Vocational training, etc...	340
Highways and transportation 2,919 Resource development ....	49
Civil defence	 49
Municipal winter works ....
Other	 42
$	990
2,600 15,900 6,487 1,284 93 1,465 162 1,299
$7,723	$30,280


LOW RENTAL HOUSING, THOMPSON, MAN.
Mr. Herridge: Has the Prime Minister received a letter dated March 23 from Mr. Ken Woods, financial secretary of the Thompson and district mine, mill, smelter and refinery workers union asking that an immediate solution be found to the urgent requirement for low-rental housing in Thompson, Man.; and, if so, what answer has been given?
Answer by: Mr. Diefenbaker:
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part is, Mr. Woods was informed that the views of the membership of Thompson and district

Orders for Returns
mine, mill, smelter and refinery workers union were noted. I should point out that the letter has to do with certain apartment blocks which are owned by a private company, and as such any control over rental must necessarily be within provincial jurisdiction.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fisher: 1.	What support, if any, did the federal government give through any of its departments, corporations, etc., to the Canadian conference of the arts (1961)?
2.	What form did this support or aid take?
3.	What civil servants or officials attended the conference at government expense?


C.P.R. TRESTLE, FALSE CREEK, B.C.
Mr. Taylor: 1.	Has the Department of Transport requested the Canadian Pacific Railways to remove its trestle across False Creek in Vancouver, B.C.?
2.	Does the trestle impede navigation?
3.	What is the depth of water at the opening of the trestle at low-water mark?
4.	What would be the approximate cost of the removal of the trestle and the re-location of the railway lines to the easterly end of False Creek?
5.	Has the national harbours board made a study of the cost of removal and re-location?
6.	If the trestle impedes navigation, what can the national harbours board do about the matter?


*J. LOUIS LEVESQUE, C.N.R. DIRECTOR
Mr. Fisher: 1.	How long has Mr. J. Louis Levesque been a director of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	What are his educational qualifications?
3.	Has he any positions or directorships with any other companies or corporations; and, if so, what are they?


AIRPORT TERMINAL SERVICES FOR COMMERCIAL AIR LINES
Mr. Fisher: 1.	At how many, and what airports, in Canada does the Department of Transport provide terminal services for commercial air lines (including Trans-Canada Air Lines) ?
2.	What was the revenue at each of these airports in the fiscal years 1959-60 and 1960-61?
3.	How much of this revenue came from commercial air lines?
4.	What was the cost, where determinable, in these years at each of these airports to the government?
5.	How many employees of the department were employed at these airports in these years on work that has direct relationship to commercial air line operations?


* TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT BUSINESS WITH AIRCRAFT BUILDERS AND REPAIR COMPANIES
Mr. McMillan: 1.	Does the Department of Transport do business with aircraft builders and repair companies; and, if so, for what purposes?

2.	Are tenders called for this work?
3.	How many such companies did work for the department since 1957, what were their names, and in what amounts?
4.	Under what division of the department does such work fall, and who is the superintendent of this division?


* TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT PURCHASE OF PLANES
Mr. McMillan: 1.	Since 1957, how many planes were purchased by the Department of Transport at Ottawa, at what price, and what kind of aircraft?
2.	Did the Department of Transport purchase a new jet Star recently, and at what price?
3.	If it is not being used at the present time, why not?
4.	Were repairs made to it recently; and, if so, why were these repairs required, and in what amount?


LOCK SYSTEM, TRENT CANAL
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	What is the volume and classification of traffic that made use of the two locks in the Trent canal system at Fenelon Falls, Ontario, in 1961?
2.	What is the maximum and minimum drafts of the boats which made use of these locks in 1961?
3.	What is the total estimated cost of the lock now under construction to replace the two present locks?



COLUMBIA RIVER-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MEETING WITH B.C. PREMIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. First I would like to welcome him back to the house after his trip to the British Columbia coast. I would like to know whether the minister has a report to make concerning his love feast with the premier of British Columbia.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his somewhat dubious welcome back to the house. It is refreshing to note that when one is away for just two days his absence is so directly noted. I think that on the basis of this standard the hon. member's seatmate and some others deserve a roaring welcome.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But they may never be back.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have received from the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) a letter indicating his intention to ask me the following question this afternoon:
Has the minister a report to make to the house on his meeting last week with the premier of British Columbia concerning the Columbia?
I presume that these two questions relate to the same matter, although in one case the

meeting was described as a meeting and in the other case it was described by the hon. member opposite as a love feast. That is his expression.
I had a very good meeting indeed with Premier Bennett in Vancouver last Thursday afternoon. As in the case of the two meetings which we had held in Ottawa within the previous fortnight, the meeting was held in a very friendly atmosphere. We were discussing questions in relation to the development of the Columbia river.
I think I should not at this time go beyond saying that the premier and I plan further meetings, and also that the effort of the federal government in this matter is directed to do everything that it possibly can to get this great undertaking moving.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question. In the light of the answer which the minister has given, is the minister not able to give the house some further details of these discussions; because after all the premier of British Columbia and he greeted each other not so long ago with the words "Hail Columbia".


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is yes, I could.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Then why does not the minister do it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Concealment.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement by Mrs. A. F. W. Plumptre, national president of the Consumers Association of Canada, that the association will hold a consumers' conference at Queen's University, Kingston on June 18 and 19, and in view of the sessions that will be held on such important subjects as advertising, anti-combines legislation, consumer product testing, retail distribution and consumer protection, can the Prime Minister inform the house whether he will ensure that the government has observers at this important conference?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I doubt whether the question is of such paramount importance that it should be asked on the orders of the day. It has to do with the month of June, in which there has been considerable interest. The government will be able at that time to ascertain whether or not the consumers
Inquiries of the Ministry league and the subjects which will be discussed are of such importance as to require the presence of an observer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might direct a related question to the Minister of Agriculture, and ask him if he will arrange to have butter served at that conference.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is it the intention of the government to introduce at this session amendments to the Lord's Day Act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Representations on this subject have been received from time to time, and these representations indicate clearly that views as to what changes should be made vary very widely depending on the area from which they come and also on the traditions and background of the organization or individual from whom they are received. This whole question has been carefully considered, both in general and in the light of individual representations, and the conclusion is that it would not be appropriate or desirable to bring in amendments to the Lord's Day Act at the present session.


William Skoreyko: A supplementary question, if I may. Has any such consideration taken into account the question of coin operated laundries and other activities which are of vital importance on the eve of the opening of the 1962 tourist season?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, these considerations have taken into account the situation with regard to coin operated laundries and other activities. The scheme of the Lord's Day Act is that the basic law respecting Sunday observance is of general application but variations from the general law may be enacted by the provincial legislatures so as to reflect regional or local views and requirements in respect of particular activities. Thus the provincial legislatures may, under section 4 of the act, provide exemptions from the prohibition against the transaction of business on Sunday, and under section 6 provide exemptions from the prohibition against conducting games and performances where an admission fee is charged. The situation with regard to coin operated laundries and other coin operated machines would appear to be essentially one that can be more suitably dealt with on a local basis by

Inquiries of the Ministry the provincial legislatures, which are now all in session, without making an amendment of general application to the Lord's Day Act.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to inquire of the Minister of Veterans Affairs in his capacity as leader of the house if he is in a position to say whether or not legislation or ideas will be introduced at this session dealing with the question of parliamentary divorce reform.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Some consultations and discussion have been going on with regard to this matter. If and when I have an announcement to make I will let the hon. member know, and the house as well.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister please advise the house whether he has received requests for assistance by sending an icebreaker to penetrate the ice off the Labrador coast so the sealing ships may pick up the thousands of seals which have been killed and panned.


Léon Balcer: I am able to advise the house that one of the Canadian coastguard's large icebreakers is in the area to help sealing vessels get through the ice.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. While I have not given him notice, I think by reason of its timeliness he may have anticipated it. I wonder if it is the intention of the minister to introduce a budget during the present month.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would have been happy to be able to deal with that subject long before this, and I am sure I would have done so had there not been so much everlasting obstruction and delay on the part of hon. members opposite with regard to the supplementary estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Finance has repeatedly stated-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lionel Chevrier: -that there has been obstruction from this side of the house, and the point of privilege to which I have risen is this. I repeat what I have said before, namely that the obstruction has come from the other side of the house; because had they wanted to deal with the estimates they could have so indicated on Friday. But the leader of the house decided to deal with legislation today instead.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I fail to see any
question of privilege in the gratuitous observations just made by the hon. member. The fact is plain for everyone to see. If hon. members opposite had been satisfied with anything like the normal time for the review of supplementary estimates we should have been weeks further ahead with the government's program of legislation at this session than we are.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member does so, may I say that this discussion is very reminiscent of one that took place two days ago. There have been gratuitous observations in questions and gratuitous answers which naturally lead to these discussions. I think the hon. member should limit his question to the business of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to do so. That is what I had in mind. Is the minister aware that on Thursday of last week for a period of two hours this house discussed procedural points on a motion made by my hon. friend from Essex East to hold over the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, and the next day that request was granted by the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Laurier is asking a question to which all hon. members have the answer through the proceedings in the house and reports in Hansard. They can form their own conclusions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I comment on this?


Mr. Speaker:: Comment is unnecessary, as the question relates to transactions which are recorded in Hansard and which all hon. members can read for themselves.


Lionel Chevrier: The reason for the delay is the incompetence of the government.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I have a question to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In his absence may I direct it to the acting minister, who may take it as notice. Can the minister advise the house whether the secretary of the national energy board has recently tendered his resignation and, if so, what were the reasons for such action?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall take the question as notice.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to inform the house when the government is going to make general service band two-way radiotelephone communication available to the general public, which was to have been done months ago. And can the hon. gentleman explain the reason for this delay, which is causing hardship and confusion in the electronics industry?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, whenever an announcement can be made it will be made in the house.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, whichever one of them may prefer to reply, and inquire whether there has been any report on the investigation into the situation on the Indian reserve near Fort Nelson, British Columbia.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I indicated to the house that I had directed that an immediate investigation be made into the problems that were reportedly being faced on the Prophet river Indian reserve in British Columbia.
This morning my department received a telegram from the regional superintendent of Indian and northern health services in Vancouver. This stated that the provincial health
Inquiries of the Ministry officer in charge of the Peace river health unit, who acts for us by arrangement, had visited the reserve last Saturday. He found no evidence of starvation, and reported that the three persons placed in hospital with hepatitis two weeks ago were now home again.
The only evidence of more recent illness apparently involves a number of influenza cases. The health officer indicated that residents of the reserve were concerned over the publicity that had appeared, and felt that the situation had been greatly exaggerated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister quite satisfied that the situation is well in hand?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have just given the report which I received by telegram this morning, and I shall certainly continue to look into the situation.



CROP INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture based on a pamphlet issued by his department. In view of certain deficiencies in the present crop insurance scheme and in view of the necessity of providing over-all crop insurance for all farmers, has the minister considered bringing in amendments to the Crop Insurance Act to ensure that the plan may operate on a sound actuarial basis without undue burden on the provinces?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for being so courteous as to send me a copy of his question before the orders of the day.
The answer to the question is as follows. Discussions were held last year with several of the provinces concerning amendments to the Crop Insurance Act so as to help those provinces where crops were grown which might add to the liability of the province beyond their ability to pay. The results of those discussions have been brought together and a proposal is now before my colleagues in the government. When a decision is reached it will be announced.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Roy Tucker: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister advise whether the national employment office in Newfoundland has completed interviewing

Inquiries of the Ministry miners who were affected by the March 25 Dosco lay-off at Bell island? If so, is the minister in a position to make a statement on this subject?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in order to answer that question I will have to obtain a report from the unemployment insurance commission.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In the light of the legislation which he is introducing today I should like to ask the minister how much of the $50 million payment referred to in vote No. 590 of the supplementary estimates paid to the companies as defined in the Freight Rates Reduction Act is being paid to the railway companies in reduction of freight rates?


Mr. Speaker:: Have those estimates been called?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The question relates to the estimates. It is not usually the best practice to deal with information at this time of the day in an oral way when such information properly can be brought out on the estimates, particularly when the question asks for statistical information. I should think the hon. member could deal with that point more satisfactorily on the estimates or on the order paper.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering whether I would be out of order in dealing with it at a later date. Since it is an estimate which was passed prior to March 31, 1961, I thought perhaps if the minister were not able to answer it now he might take the question as notice and answer tomorrow.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker-


Lionel Chevrier: I think the minister was about to answer.


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Speaker. If I were to reply I would merely say that this is a question for the order paper if there ever was one.



CONSTITUTION OF PROPOSED RACE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to

the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, and ask the hon. gentleman whether he has ascertained, as he undertook to do when we were in committee, whether the proposed new race track in the neighbourhood of Ottawa had satisfied the government that it was properly constituted and had a proper charter?


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: I have had no report as yet, Mr. Speaker.



JUDGES ACT


Edmund Davie Fulton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide salaries for two additional judges of the trial division of the supreme court of Ontario and seven additional judges of the county and district courts of Ontario including one chief judge.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think I should say only a word in introducing the resolution, which is largely self-explanatory. I have satisfied myself by discussions with the attorney general of Ontario and reports I have received from him that there is a need for this measure increasing the number of judges in that province, a need with respect both to the trial division of the high court and the district and county courts of Ontario.
The provision for a chief judge is one which personally commends itself to me, and I think will commend itself to the house, as a measure which is being introduced into the administration of the system of courts in Ontario designed to further the better and more expeditious dispatch of business in those district and county courts. In Alberta, for instance, there is a similar provision which has been in existence for some time. There are, in fact, two chief judges there, one of the northern and one of the southern districts. They direct in general the operation of the courts within those districts, and the system has worked well and efficiently.
With respect to the trial division of the high court, hon. members will be aware, of course, of the recent appointment of Mr. Justice Wilson as chief justice of Cyprus, an appointment which brings honour and credit to Canada and its judiciary as well as to the judge himself. Mr. Justice Wilson has accordingly been granted leave of absence without pay. It is anticipated that his appointment will last for six years. This then leaves the high court short one judge for

that period, and this situation will be taken care of by one portion of the amendment now before the committee. In addition there is in my view need for a further judge, so that the amendment provides for two additional judges of the high court.
As hon. members will see when it is distributed, if the committee approves the resolution, the bill will be in the standard form of a bill for this purpose with the exception only that it will come into force on proclamation. The reason for this provision is that there is some urgency about this situation. I was advised by the attorney general of Ontario that they were in fact proceeding with the introduction of the necessary legislation into their house, and I was requested to make the necessary provision here as soon as possible. Normally we wait until the legislation has gone through the provincial legislature before introducing it here. In view of the representations I received and with which I concur as to the urgency of providing these additional appointments, I undertook to introduce our legislation at once on the basis that we would insert the provision for proclamation so that it would not go into effect until after the appropriate legislation has gone through the Ontario house.
That legislation has been introduced. I am not certain whether it has yet been carried, but I understand it is well on its way through the Ontario legislature.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I think hon. members will agree that with the growth in population of the province of Ontario and the accompanying increase in business and volume of litigation, it is necessary that there be some addition to the judiciary. Whether the figure should be two additional judges of the trial division of the supreme court of Ontario, or one or three or five, I would consider something that could be argued at great length and I do not propose to do that at the moment, because it would appear, at least on the surface, that two is a reasonable number as it relates to the present constitution of that court.
The additional judges being provided for the county and district courts of the province are required not only because of the growth to which I have referred but also because of the increase in jurisdiction of the county courts. To the extent that that increase in jurisdiction takes away work from the trial division of the supreme court it has a bearing on the number to be added to the trial division of the supreme court and, of course, on the number of county judges to be added.
The situation in the county court judiciary has not been a happy one for some years,
Judges Act
basically because of the fact that in some counties in which there is a large population the work load has increased rapidly, while in other counties the work load has remained static or has decreased. Not always has the rearrangement of the service of the county court judges and the making of them available to certain of the cities in which the increase has been large kept pace with the changes in the distribution of population within the province. A real problem exists there, but it is largely within the jurisdiction of the province. As far as the federal authority is concerned, it can merely provide the number of judges required by the province. Areal problem exists there but as I say, it is largely the concern of the provinces. However, it is one which perhaps needs more thorough attention than it is getting.
Basically, for the older part of Ontario, the boundaries of the counties are those which were set up some 114 years ago. There has been little significant change in them since that time. Hence some real problems exist. However, as I say, they are within the jurisdiction of the provinces and I therefore do not propose to develop a discussion on them other than to indicate the nature of the problem. I mention it here in the hope that it will receive more consideration than it has received in the past.
There is one other question that arises out of this resolution. I think all hon. members will agree that under our system of government, respect for the judiciary is of the utmost importance. By and large over the years our reputation in this country for having a competent, wholly impartial, hard working and fair judiciary is very good. I think all hon. members will agree that is the case by and large in the country. However, a situation is developing here which requires us to ask ourselves this question. What is the use of increasing the number of judges if the situation among them, by reason of inadequacy of pay, is such that we are not going to have the best persons available for appointment to fill these vacancies? That is a question on which I feel very strongly, and it is one that is germane to this particular resolution.
The county court judges' salaries have not been increased since 1955. They are substantially below those of most of the solicitors in the minister's own department, except the very junior ones. The legislation requires that a county court judge, to be eligible for appointment, must have 10 years' experience in practising his profession. Yet we pay him on a lower basis than that on which we pay his counterpart who enters the civil service as a junior out of law school. We may well

Judges Act
ask ourselves whether it is serving any useful purpose to increase the number of the judiciary if we are going to leave the other half of the problem undealt with and the situation such that the government cannot get the type of competent, experienced personnel required to accept these appointments.
The situation with respect to the trial division of the supreme court of Ontario is equally bad. It is now a case of a person appointed to this division having to take a reduction in earnings in order to accept the appointment. The pay level is such that if these persons have a family at a stage where they are seeking to educate them, it is impossible for them to take the appointment unless they have outside means.
That is not a desirable situation. It means that in considering persons for appointment the government have available to them only older men who are past the stage of active practice and are looking to the appointment as an end to their professional careers rather than as an opportunity for undertaking great new work which should be held in the highest repute in the profession, as indeed it is. That situation is one that causes a good deal of alarm at the present time.
I was happy to hear the minister make reference to the appointment of one of the members of the trial division of the supreme court of Ontario to the position of chief justice of Cyprus. That appointment tends to emphasize the high repute in which our judiciary have been held in the past in this country, and indicates the background of the general reputation of the judiciary in the province. I would hope that the minister would see fit to deal with this matter of the inadequacy of pay of the judiciary so that the high reputation which has been enjoyed up to the present time by our judiciary can be continued in the future and so that, by reason of inadequacy of pay, he will not be obliged to appoint persons with lesser qualifications than we would wish them to have.
It seems to me that respect for the judiciary is an inherent part of the effective function of our whole system of government. That being so we must by our legislation, and the government by its action, take all steps that will ensure that the judiciary will command that respect. If we are to continue the underpayment of the judiciary, as we are doing now, we are in danger of appointing persons who are less well qualified and who will not command that respect which the judiciary has always had.
I might add that I am somewhat at a loss to understand why this urgent problem has not been dealt with, particularly in view of the fact that at least two major upward revisions of public service salaries and pension

legislation have taken place since the judges' salaries were last examined. No explanation at all has been given as to why this deplorable omission has occurred. I ask the minister to explain, before the resolution carries, how he hopes to have a relatively wide choice of qualified persons for consideration for appointment on the present pay level. I would hope that he would give a thoroughgoing answer to that problem.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I should say another word on this because I find I inadvertently misled the committee when I said the bill will contain a provision for coming into effect on proclamation. This is what we had intended when the measure was first considered, but I had overlooked the fact that on giving it further thought we came to the conclusion, since no appointment could be made in any event until the legislation is introduced in the Ontario legislature, that it was not necessary to put in the provision for proclamation. I am sorry that I overlooked that fact when I spoke on introducing the measure.
I appreciate what the hon. member for Ottawa West has said both in respect of the quality of the judiciary and in respect of the problem in connection with salaries. Indeed, it gives me an opportunity to say that I am constantly amazed at the quality of those who are prepared to accept judicial office in view of the fact that the remuneration, as the hon. member has suggested, might well be reviewed at the appropriate time.
However, he is not quite correct in assuming, as he appeared to do, that county and district court judges of Ontario receive only the remuneration mentioned in the Judges Act. As the hon. member well knows, the fact is that they act as surrogate judges, and under various other headings they do receive supplementary remuneration bringing the general level of salaries to around $14,000 or $15,000. I am not for a moment pretending this is generous. Indeed, as my hon. friend knows, I have given consideration to and still have under consideration the question of judicial salaries. I feel, however, that this question should await the general revision of the Judges Act which I have in mind and upon which we are still working.
I do want to say, however, that I am quite confident that although I am giving consideration to the question of the revision of salaries and other revisions of the act, there need be no doubt as to our ability to secure first class men for appointment to these vacancies. It is a feature of the respect in which our judiciary is held and the tradition of our bar that-although I make no pretense of suggesting that those who accept appointment at

these salaries do not make substantial sacrifice in terms of their present income-there are well qualified persons who are prepared to accept these appointments. Sometimes they take some urging. I think the committee well knows that the question of the revision of salaries is under consideration, but it has not been possible at the present time to make any specific move in that direction.


George James McIlraith: There are two points arising out of the minister's reply with which I should like to concern myself. The first has to do with other employment of the judiciary. It is quite correct to say that county court judges supplement their income by taking other employment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not believe those were the words I used. I said there was remuneration in the capacity of surrogate judges and similar capacities in addition to the salary provided under the Judges Act.


George James McIlraith: I am most anxious to use the language the minister used because I do not wish to interpret his language in any other way than it was intended to be interpreted. The point is that today many of the county court judges supplement their income by other means than the additional salaries some of them get from the provinces for acting as surrogate court judges, police commissioners in certain cities along with the mayor of the city and chief magistrate, and so on. Many of them receive additional income from outside employment by acting as arbitrators or in other employment under the various labour legislation provisions. This takes them away from their judicial work, and a very nice question arises as to whether county judges should be encouraged to do that sort of thing in order to earn a living.
It is not desirable, from the point of view of judicial work, that they be taken from that judicial work to perform these other duties which, in the main, are connected with labour disputes but may relate to other types of arbitration as well. As a matter of fact I believe the trade unions call this practice of having two jobs moonlighting. I do not believe this practice is helpful in maintaining the kind of standard in the profession that it is desirable and indeed necessary to maintain. I interpret the minister's explanation as an additional reason for dealing with the question of judicial salaries promptly.
I thank the minister for his explanation about proclaiming the act, which I take it from his remarks will come into force upon receiving royal assent rather than at a date to be set by proclamation. This raises a very interesting proposition. It means that the minister is coming before this committee and
Judges Act
asking us to pass legislation that may never be required. In other words he is dealing with this legislation in quite a different manner than the accepted practice. The accepted practice has been for the province to pass the necessary provincial legislation setting up the requirement for additional judges; then the federal authority makes provision for the appointment of those judges. The minister wants now to reverse the practice without an adequate reason.
There are a great many conjectures one could make as to his reasons for adopting an improper practice of this type and taking up the time of the committee in passing legislation that may never be required. This government has been raising at all times recently and even earlier today, the question of wasting time in this house, so I feel it exceeding strange that the minister should be making this request. Perhaps the minister should plead guilty at once to wasting the time of the house by presenting the legislation that may never be required.
Be that as it may, I think a more practical reason for the introduction of this measure in this unusual way is that the minister fears dissolution of the house, and would like to make the appointments before dissolution knowing that the government will be changed. If I make more assumptions on that subject I may be ruled out of order by the Chair; however, I suggest perhaps that is the real reason for the minister proceeding in this improper way. I must say that this is one of the best examples we have had of a government, which complains about the time of the house being taken up improperly, taking up the time of the house improperly itself. The minister, having made his explanation, now may wish to defer the bill until after the provincial legislation has been passed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That, I think, would have been to waste the time of the house improperly. I might add that the fear does not reside on this side of the house; it is over there.


George James McIlraith: Not fear; we welcome it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one point which deserves to be underlined. It was the last point made by the hon. member for Ottawa West. The opposition has been attempting, although I confess not very successfully, to keep down expenditures in this country by its efforts in this house, but here we are instead dealing with a hypothetical measure about which the legislature will do something sometime.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

Corporations and Labour Unions
Mr. Fulton thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-84, to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS


Edmund Davie Fulton: the second reading 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.
He said: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is "to provide for the reporting of financial and other statistics relating to the affairs of corporations and labour unions carrying on activities in Canada." The speech from the throne mentioned that parliament would be asked to consider legislation on this subject during the present session.
This is an extremely important bill, and it forms an integral part of the government's national policy. Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of their nationhood and of the importance of developing to the full the cultural, social and economic resources of this country. This bill is directly related to the efforts the government has been making in such fields as the domiciling of our constitution in Canada, and also to the numerous steps the government has already taken, and is taking, to encourage the development of the nation's resources, their control by Canadians and their use primarily for the benefit of Canada.
This bill, then, is not a manifestation of any narrow nationalism, nor is it anti-American. It represents the determination of the government to understand fully the operation of our economy, the extent of foreign control of various units operating within that economy, and the effects of that control; and our desire to see that the Canadian people are made aware, in general terms, of these facts and their implications. This is the duty of any responsible government, and this is the basis on which the bill has been drawn up.
The right hon. Prime Minister, as leader of the opposition, on February 11, 1957 when moving the adoption by this house of a natural resources development policy, spoke of the need at that time for:
-a national policy: not a policy of nationalism but one whereby Canada in the days ahead will remain an independent Canada and will not inexorably drift into economic continentalism; one whereby Canada will maintain her economic independence and her sovereignty; a policy that will provide national development for a greater Canada in which growth and prosperity will not

be purchased at the expense of our economic independence and our effective national sovereignty.
The Prime Minister and other ministers have emphasized on many occasions that this national policy is not designed to hamper in any way those investors outside Canada who may wish to devote their capital to the development of Canadian resources and industries. This country needs foreign capital, and will continue to welcome it as long as its activities in Canada are compatible with Canada's national interest.
In this connection the Prime Minister, addressing the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Great Britain, stated succinctly what the government, and indeed Canadians generally, expect of business organizations controlled from outside Canada. He said:
We have made it clear that we expect foreign concerns operating in Canada, or Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies, to carry on operations as Canadian businesses. We expect them to make available a fair portion of their equity securities for purchase by Canadians; to include Canadians on their boards of directors; to make proper disclosure of their Canadian operations; to employ competent Canadians in senior management and technical positions; to conduct a fair share of their research in Canada; to purchase their requirements within Canada if those are available on competitive terms; and not to be denied by those in control a fair opportunity to sell their Canadian products in export markets.
One reason for the fundamental importance of this proposed legislation is the extent of foreign investment in the Canadian economy. Total non-resident investment in Canada as of 1959 amounted to no less than $20.7 billion. In December, 1957, the most recent date for which these figures are available, more than half of all Canadian manufacturing industry- 56 per cent to be precise-was under nonresident control, as were 76 per cent of Canada's petroleum and natural gas industry and 61 per cent of our mining and smelting industry. Altogether there are an estimated 6,500 foreign controlled companies in Canada.
Obviously any sovereign nation must have access to financial information on the operations of industry within its borders. Foreign investment in Canada is so extensive and has such a far reaching effect upon the national economy that information on its activities is essential to the conduct of public affairs. We cordially invite foreign capital to help us with the development of our great natural resources, and we invite foreign investors to derive a profit from this development. Is it not reasonable, therefore, that we should ask them to tell us something about their activities and finances? The proposed legislation seeks, among its various objectives, to fill this gap.

The legislation is also important to the individual Canadian citizen. The government has been urging Canadians to invest their savings in the economic development of their country. But the freedom to buy shares in a developmental or industrial enterprise may be of little value to the private citizen unless he knows something of the nature of the enterprise and of its corporate structure and ownership. He already has access to this information for dominion public companies. He may or may not have access to a company's prospectus filed with a stock exchange. The proposed legislation would make general background data available on all kinds of companies operating in Canada.
Up to this point I have been speaking of corporations, but similar considerations apply to international labour unions. In a sovereign nation it is only to be expected that foreign controlled labour organizations should also divulge general information on their affairs in this country.
Members of the house will recall that last year a bill to provide for returns from corporations and labour unions received first reading.
Following its introduction various representations were received from both companies and unions. For example, it was suggested that the original bill was discriminatory as between various kinds of companies. To remedy this, some suggested that the coverage of the bill should be more restricted, and others that it should be made to apply to all companies. Similarly as related to labour unions, some urged the broadening and others the narrowing of the coverage. It was also stated by some that the original bill would have required companies to lay bare their confidential company affairs before the eyes of their competitors.
Perhaps it was not surprising that representations should have been received or that some of the suggested changes were directly in conflict with others. After all, the bill was the first attempt at legislation in a new and exceedingly complex field. The government therefore welcomed the expression of views by representatives of companies and unions, and these views were very carefully and exhaustively studied and taken into account in the preparation of the new bill.
The measure now proposed, Mr. Speaker, is similar to its predecessor in most respects, but there are five important differences. First, the reporting requirement in the new bill will in general apply to all companies, whether owned or controlled in Canada or abroad, and whether public or private. The bill makes a number of specific exclusions, principally small companies and companies already reporting similar information to the government 26207-1-153
Corporations and Labour Unions under some other statute. Second, all labour unions will be required to make returns whether or not their headquarters are situated outside Canada. Third, the range of information to be reported has been considerably extended as compared with that in the previous bill, in order to give a clearer picture of the extent and particularly the effect of foreign control. Fourth, the information is segregated into two clearly defined classes. The first class will include information that will be available to the public; the second class, which will be for government use only, will include those items whose public disclosure could be damaging to companies competitively. I shall return to this point. Fifth, the initial year for reporting will be 1962 instead of 1960, as in the previous bill. This change should make it appreciably easier for companies and unions to prepare their first returns.
As to the form of the legislation, one possible course might have been to amend the dominion Companies Act. The government, after all, already receives periodic returns from all public companies incorporated under that act, including both Canadian controlled and foreign controlled companies. These reports are filed with the Department of the Secretary of State. It was decided not to use the dominion Companies Act for the present purpose because that act applies only to enterprises incorporated under federal charter and does not cover, for example, the many companies incorporated under provincial charter or licensed by a province, nor does it cover labour unions. The scope of the reporting would therefore have been much too fragmentary.
Instead it was decided that new legislation should be drafted under the authority of head 6 of section 91 of the British North America Act, which authorizes the parliament of Canada to make laws in relation to "the census and statistics", so as to permit the collection of financial information pertaining to all firms whether incorporated under federal or other authority, and also of all labour unions.
I have already mentioned that the second question, "Who should be required to report?" presented some difficulty. One possibility might have been to exempt Canadian owned and controlled companies and unions from the reporting requirement. This, however, was felt to be impractical. After all, there are many different means and degrees of control, and it was not considered realistic to single
In the drafting of this legislation the principal questions to be determined were first, ^ the general form of the legislation; second, early- who should be required to report; and third, what information should be reported.
2398	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions out for exception general classes of corporations such as all private companies or all Canadian owned companies.
Furthermore, on the matter of share ownership for example, the government is interested not only in those corporations having, say 51 per cent of their shares held outside Canada, but also in those having smaller percentages owned abroad; because it is quite possible that effective control may be exercised by the holding of less than 50 per cent of the shares. Similar considerations apply to the various other criteria of control. I should add that information on an across the board basis may be expected to provide useful data to enable comparisons to be made between foreign controlled and Canadian controlled companies, as a broad factual background for the consideration of policy problems that may arise from time to time in this field.
For administrative reasons the reporting requirement will not apply to corporations whose gross revenue during a reporting period was not over $500,000 and whose assets did not exceed $250,000. Companies operating under the authority of such statutes as the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, the Trust Companies Act, the Loan Companies Act, the Small Loans Act, the Radio Act and the Railway Act will also be exempted so as to avoid duplication of returns in cases where already substantially the same kind of information is being obtained under other federal legislation.
In much the same way the legislation would apply to every labour union in Canada having 100 or more members resident in Canada. This requirement to make returns to a public authority is not a new obligation for international unions. The labour management reporting and disclosure act of 1959 in the United States requires all labour organizations to file annual financial reports, a copy of their constitution and various other particulars. Also for some years all union headquarters in Canada have voluntarily given certain information to the Department of Labour, including items such as the names of their officers and the extent of their Canadian membership. This information is published annually by that department in its booklet "Labour Organization in Canada". The returns required by this bill will amplify this information in important respects.
On this third question, "What information should be reported?", the government considered that the requirement should call for only such information as is necessary to give a clear picture of operations in Canada and of the nature of management, ownership and


financial affairs. It is believed that corporations and unions will find the terms of the requirement to be reasonable and no more onerous than is necessary.
One important thing that I would like to emphasize is that the bill is designed to produce factual or statistical replies, rather than value judgments, from respondents. It is a fact finding bill. Questions calling for statements of opinion are avoided. No questions are asked relating to contractual arrangements through which control may be exercised, because of the intangible nature and infinite possible gradations of such control. There are no direct questions concerning company procurement policy, personnel policy, investment policy or export policy. The bill does not ask companies to identify their "beneficial" shareholders, because it is recognized that in many cases this information is not available to the companies themselves. The government is concerned primarily with the incidence and extent of foreign ownership and with the effects of foreign ownership on a factual basis, and intends through this bill to provide a basis on which further studies may be made, as may be necessary, on particular aspects of such ownership or control.
I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that the returns will be divided into confidential and non-confidential sections. The non-confidential items to be reported by corporations will include information as to how and when they were incorporated, the amount of their authorized share capital, the number of shares held by persons having addresses of record within Canada or elsewhere, the name and address of any corporation holding 10 per cent or more of any class of share, the total amount of debentures issued and outstanding, and the name, address and nationality of each director and officer.
Section B, the confidential part of the return, will include financial statements and an itemized statement showing separately certain payments made by the corporation in the reporting period to persons not resident in Canada. This will include remittances abroad covering such items as dividends, interest, rent, royalties, fees, salaries and other charges as against the operation in Canada. It will be appreciated, therefore, on examination of the bill, that section B can be said generally to be devoted to producing information designed to give in a factual way an idea as to the effect on the operation within Canada of the foreign control, whereas section A of the return is designed to give us factual information as to the physical extent of the foreign control of those corporations operating within Canada, and the same with respect to

labour unions. It will be appreciated, therefore, that with respect to part B the very nature of the information desired indicates it to be of a confidential nature and, further, that it might be of immense value to competitors who would find it for the first time.
Labour unions affected by the legislation will be required to provide similar kinds of information, also divided into the two parts. In section A they will furnish a copy of their constitution, name and address of each local union or branch in Canada, information on trusteeships, a list of employers in Canada with whom they have a collective agreement; and the name, address and nationality of each officer and employee of the union resident in Canada-with the obvious exception of clerks and stenographers-together with information on the manner of selection or appointment of these persons. Section B, the confidential part of the return, will include the union's financial statements and a classified statement showing separately the amounts paid to a union with headquarters outside Canada by members resident in Canada on account of initiation fees, membership dues, health and welfare assessments, death benefit assessments, strike benefit assessments, fines and work permits.
In preparing the legislation, particular care has been taken to ensure that unnecessary information is not being requested, and that the burden of reporting will not be relatively more onerous for labour unions than for corporations, or vice versa, having regard to the differences in their functions. As a further means of facilitating the preparation of the reports, it is contemplated that corporations will be permitted to file financial statements in the same form and at the same time as those supplied to the Department of National Revenue for income tax purposes. This relates only to the general statements such as the balance sheet, statement of income and expenditure, and statement of surplus; copies of the detailed and confidential schedules filed for income tax purposes will not be required by this bill. As still another means of simplification, the bill contains a special provision whereby certain information will not have to be filed year after year.
I have spoken of the kinds of information to be obtained, and I should like now to turn to the use to be made of it. The bill provides that the non-confidential part-section A- of the return filed by each corporation shall be kept on record in an office of the Department of the Secretary of State, and that section A of the return by each union shall be held by the Department of Labour. Any person will be permitted to inspect these reports upon payment of a nominal fee not exceeding 26207-1-153J
Corporations and Labour Unions $1 in respect of any one corporation or union. This fee is intended merely to cover the government's costs of recording and indexing the returns and of providing facilities for their inspection by the interested persons.
Section B of any return filed by either a corporation or a union will be privileged information, and will not be available to any person other than an official or authorized person, nor for any purpose except a purpose relating to the administration of this act.
At this point, I think I should indicate certain changes which will be proposed in the detailed operation of this legislation. These changes arise largely from the consideration we have given to a number of representations we have received since this bill was introduced.
First, it was suggested that since it is im- 1 portant that the confidential parts of the reports be kept strictly confidential, they should not be required to be filed with the Departments of the Secretary of State and of Labour respectively, but with an organization which, from the very nature of its operations and functions, is accustomed to the receipt and custody of confidential statistics.
It was represented to us that industry and business, as well as unions, are anxious to co-operate with the government in carrying out the purposes of this bill, and that the business segment especially would find it much more acceptable from this point of view if the returns were to be filed with the dominion bureau of statistics, which has established an enviable reputation, and has the trust and confidence of all those who are required to furnish returns to it.
I may say that in my view, and that of the government, the fears expressed by those who made those representations to us as to the dangers that the confidential parts of the returns might get into unauthorized hands and be used for unauthorized purposes under the bill as drafted, were, to say the least, somewhat exaggerated. However, the bill is to some extent experimental and it is, indeed, as I myself recognize, a first step. Certainly, its successful operation does depend upon good relations and mutual confidence between the government and those who are filing returns if we are to get the full and frank disclosure which is desirable. Therefore, we felt that in view of these considerations no harm, certainly, would be done by giving effect to these representations which we had received.
Accordingly, it has been decided that all returns, both part A and part B, should be made in the first instance to the dominion statistician. The dominion statistician will in
2400	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions turn forward one copy of part A of the company returns to the Secretary of State, and one copy of part A of the union returns to the Minister of Labour. Those portions of the returns will be available for inspection in those respective departments in the same manner and circumstances as is now provided in the bill. Part B of the returns will remain in the control and custody of the dominion statistician.
With respect to part B of the returns, the use to be made of them will remain, in general, as now provided, subject to the observations I shall make in a few moments. That is to say, the details may not be made public at any time, but they will be processed and analysed in the bureau and the general effect and conclusions to be drawn therefrom will be published in the form of an annual report for the information of the public, but framed in such a manner that individual statistics and information cannot be identified or related to any individual corporation or union making returns.
I should emphasize that this new obligation imposed on the bureau of statistics, and the method of dealing with the returns received, does not imply any departure from the rules and procedures now applying with respect to returns received under the Statistics Act.
Next, it has been suggested that there is a danger, as the bill is presently drawn, that confidential information contained in the returns will somehow fall into the hands of persons by whom it will be used for purposes not connected with the bill.
Suspicion has even fallen on the Minister of Justice for no better reason, apparently, than that he has the carriage of the bill through the house, although no return will ever be made to him under the bill. Here again we feel that these fears are somewhat exaggerated, to say the least. The provisions of the act now carefully define who is an authorized person and limit the uses that such persons may make of any information received. To act in the manner that some have suggested would be done would clearly be a breach of the statute. However, once again we recognize that it is essential that there be co-operation and confidence, if there is to be full disclosure and advantage from the legislation.
I would have been prepared, therefore, in any event, if there appeared in this house to be any feeling that it would be desirable to amend the bill to make it even more abundantly clear that information could not be communicated or used as suggested, to accept an appropriate amendment to clause 14, As it is, now that it has been decided in any event to use the bureau of statistics, and


in view of the desirability of preserving intact the tradition of non-disclosure to unauthorized persons or for unauthorized purposes of any information the bureau has received, I believe it would be advisable to modify clause 14 to reflect absolutely this position. Accordingly, at the appropriate stage, I shall ask one of my colleagues to move the appropriate amendments. There will be a fair number of consequential amendments arising from the foregoing decisions which I shall also ask one of my colleagues to move at the appropriate points in committee of the whole.
I should like to emphasize again, Mr. Speaker, that the financial information in section B of the individual reports which might affect the relationship between competitors will remain strictly confidential. It is to be used only for the purposes of this act and may not be used, for example, as a cross check for the purposes of other acts such as the Income Tax Act or the Combines Investigation Act.
The bill makes provision, also, for any necessary regulations, and for penalties for failure to file a return for a reporting period as required by the act, or for improperly divulging confidential information.
This legislation will provide the government and the citizens with basic information on corporations and labour unions operating in this country supplementing the limited data heretofore available. We hope that companies and unions, whether controlled in Canada or abroad, will act like good Canadian citizens. Indeed, as a government, we have no hesitation in saying that many do so now.
I should like to conclude with a few remarks as to the policy of the bill. In the first place, as I have already stated, it is in a sense a first step. Second, it is designed to enable the government to understand the operations of the Canadian economy, an economy which admittedly owes much and will continue to owe much to foreign investment. However, no nation which calls itself sovereign can be careless of the extent of results of foreign control of vital segments of its economy. It is essential that we should at least understand careless of the extent or results of foreign control so that we may be able sensibly to determine the policies which should be followed in order to direct our own affairs as Canadians in the kind of world in which we live.
The bill, therefore, is designed to give us two kinds of information. The information contained in part A of the returns will give us a clear picture of the extent of foreign control of the Canadian economy in both the business and the labour field. Part B of the returns will provide us with information as

to the effects of this control. It will provide to the government a picture of these effects in precise detail. The publication of the annual reports will enable the public to assess the effects at least in general outline, and so for the first time in our history, the ground will have been laid for the formulation of policy on the basis of all the facts rather than only part of them.
This brings me to the third policy consideration behind the bill. It remains a basic tenet of the Conservative party under the direction of our Prime Minister that Canadian resources should be developed and used primarily for the benefit of Canadians, and that Canadians should participate effectively in the policies which direct our economic development in order that the well-being of this and future generations of Canadians may be ensured.
We are on the threshold of exciting and challenging opportunities for Canada. We have been through difficult times and decisions. We will face equally difficult times and decisions. But surely, we as Canadians, even if we are only 18 million people, are not afraid to measure up to the challenges of new opportunities and decisions affecting our economy. What better way can we measure up to new opportunities than by formulating our policies on the basis of information as to where we now stand in reality.
This bill, then, reflects no narrow nationalistic policy. This government recognizes that we are living in a world of increasing interdependence both in terms of defence and development. We believe, however, that Canadians have a Canadian point of view to bring to bear upon that world and those developments. We believe, therefore, we can make our most effective contribution when the Canadian economy is under the effective control and direction of Canadians. We have as our objective, therefore, to co-operate with our friends both in world development as well as in national development. We expect to benefit from both spheres just as we expect them to benefit; but while we invite them to participate with us and to benefit with us in both the corporation and labour fields we do not expect them to control us; and so we intend over the years to follow policies which will have as a result the objectives set by the Prime Minister whose words I again repeat when he pronounced in the speech to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Great Britain in 1960:
We have made it clear that we expect foreign concerns operating in Canada, or Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies, to carry on operations as Canadian businesses. We expect them to make available a fair portion of their equity securities for purchase by Canadians; to include Canadians on their boards of directors; to make proper disclosure of their Canadian operations;
2, 1962	2401
Corporations and Labour Unions
to employ competent Canadians in senior management and technical positions; to conduct a fair share of their research in Canada; to purchase their requirements within Canada if those are available on competitive terms; and Canadians expect not to be denied by those in control a fair opportunity to sell their Canadian products in export markets.
These policies, Mr. Speaker, we shall be able to further on the sound basis of the information that this bill will provide.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, will the
minister allow a question. Is it the intention of the government after second reading to send the bill to the standing committee on industrial relations?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, that will depend to some extent upon the progress made here and the views expressed, but I do not see any compelling reason that would indicate that course. We think we can have complete, full and frank discussions in committee of the whole here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not think it might expedite the business of the house if this bill could be sent to the committee so that the house at the same time could get on with some of that urgent business about which the government has been telling us?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In our view this is extremely important business, as important as any-


John Whitney Pickersgill: "Urgent" was the word.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -or as urgent as any that could come before the committee of the whole. I am confident that as my hon. friends study further, as they will, the carefully drawn legislation, together with the amendments I will be introducing in committee of the whole, they will agree there is not much reason for holding it in committee of the whole very long. I anticipate it will go through with a substantial degree of unanimity.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, the minister said a while ago, and he repeated it in the last words he used, that this was one of the most important bills the government would bring forward at this present session. This must be so if the government took the view that the supplementary estimates we were considering last Friday should be put aside in order to bring the bill before us at the present time.
The minister said it is an important measure, and it is. Hon. gentlemen opposite knew in 1957 that they intended to bring forward a bill of this nature and one wonders why there has been this delay. The minister said in his opening remarks that the Prime Minister when speaking of national policy in 1957
2402	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions expressed his intention of bringing forward a bill of this kind. In England in 1960 he said what Canadians expected from foreign companies. They wait until the end of the session and the end of a parliament to bring it to the House of Commons when they could have brought it forward in 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960 or even 1961. However, they did not do that. They said it was too important to do that. I will admit that in 1961 the government brought in Bill No. C-70 which was similar to this one but with a big difference.


An hon. Member:: Are you opposing it?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I will answer those questions when I am through and hon. members will know what I think of the bill when I am through. They brought in Bill No. C-70 last year but they did not proceed with it. It was one of the worst pieces of legislation that we ever heard of. It was the kind of legislation that creates animosity. It was one of the worst blunders the government ever presented to the house. That bill was creating discrimination between Canadian companies and foreign companies. This year they have brought in a bill which is a good deal better than the one they brought in last year. Bill No. C-38 is different. All companies, Canadian and foreign, are forced to bring in a report to the Minister of Labour or to the Secretary of State showing their balance sheets and other information for which the government may ask. We think that in the back of their minds they still have the same opinion. I followed the minister a while ago when he said he did not wish any distinctions to be made in this matter. However, we think they still have the same opinion. They have an eye on United States companies dealing in Canada just as they have an eye on United States unions dealing in Canada. I think it is just as bad as the 15 per cent trade diversion which the Prime Minister talked about when he came back from his first trip to England after election as prime minister, something which is not creating Canadian good will among other nations. As the minister said, we need foreign capital. In order that we can develop a country as big as Canada, we need that foreign capital. If we need it, we should not discourage it before we start. We have to ask them for information and that is perfectly all right. We have no quarrel with the principle of the bill. The government has the right to know about investments in Canada, especially United States investments, as people from that country are the ones who have invested more in Canada than have those in any other country. It is perfectly natural that the government should ask for such information. However, if we in general accept the principle of the bill, there are in it a few parts that I certainly cannot support and 

these we shall have an opportunity to discuss when we come to the committee stage.
I was surprised a while ago to hear the minister say that he does not think it is necessary to send the bill to the industrial relations committee. He was the first one to say when he was speaking that they will bring in amendments to the bill when we come to the committee stage. They intend to bring in amendments a few weeks after they present the bill. Hence they admit that some changes can be made. 1 met some industrialists a few weeks ago and they expressed surprise that the bill was coming back this year. They had not heard about it and they had had no chance to study it. I think they would want to go to the committee or at least to send a brief to the committee, in order to indicate exactly what they think of it. That would give the members of the house a chance to learn what outsiders think of that bill, and more particularly the unions. When they presented a memorandum to the government on March 14, 1962, this is what they said at pages 19, 20, 21 and 22.
The labour unions report that the introduction of Bill C-38 raises once again the objection taken when a similar bill, C-70, was submitted last year. They object principally to a bill that gives the impression that cooperatives and trade unions are institutions so similar in character as to be governed by the same legislation. They say that there is a profound difference in the structure, the line of authority and objectives of a corporation and those of a trade union. Further on they say that the trade union on the contrary is a voluntary association of workers, that the right to vote is equally distributed among its members and elected officers are responsible to them; and that in short unions are associations of individuals formed for collective action in an employer-employee relationship. They further say that in the case of trade unions it is safe to say that no other institutions in Canada operate so much in the full blaze of public security. They further say that labour agrees that Bill C-38 is likely to have two effects, neither of which is desirable. They say that it will on the one hand create trouble and nuisance with respect to the provision of information, some of which is already available in one form or another and a good deal of which is of only questionable value.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would it be convenient to interrupt the hon. member at this point as it is now five o'clock.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Yes.


Mr. Broome:: Before the hon. member takes his seat may I ask him, when he continues his quotation, that he also quote paragraph 2 on page 21.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It is five o'clock also for the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Well said.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. members will be able to pursue the matter in due course. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions.



FINANCE


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke) moved:: That in the opinion of this house, consideration should be given to the advisability of referring the recommendations of the tariff board on textiles to the standing committee on banking and commerce for the purpose of examining and reporting on the problems of the textile industry, more particularly in connection with foreign imports.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether there would be unanimous consent in the house to allowing the hon. member to come and sit in one of the front row or second row seats a little bit nearer to most of us in the house. I think there are many members who would like to hear him speak and it is a bit difficult to do so from back where he is.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to take advantage of the suggestion to which apparently the house would agree?


Maurice Allard: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member may be heard from the seat he now occupies?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Translation):


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, the textile industry plays an important role in Canada, and indeed constitutes an economic factor of primary importance to central Canada.
In the province of Quebec, there are 417 firms employing 35,879 persons, which puts this industry in the fourth rank among Quebec manufacturing industries. A noteworthy fact is that 33.4 per cent of textile employees are female.
The principal plants are located in Sherbrooke, Magog, Drummondville, Granby,
2, 1962	2403
Tariff Board Recommendations on Textiles Shawinigan, Grand'Mere, Joliette, Three Rivers, Montmorency, Sorel, Montreal, Cow-ansville, Lachute and St. Hyacinthe.
This industry has a long history of constant progress. In 1667, Jean Talon, administrator of New France, took pride in being able to find in this country whatever garments he required. It will be recalled that, at the time, spinning and weaving were done at home.
On March 29, 1845, the first limited company in Canada started its operations at Sherbrooke, in my own constituency. That company was incorporated under the name Sherbrooke Cotton Factory.
The importance of the Canadian textile industry is revealed by the extent of Canadian investments, amounting to 80 per cent. It is therefore one of the few Canadian industries financed chiefly by Canadian capital.
Therefore, if we wish to add to our economic independence, we must protect this industry with particular care.
But especially since 1951, our textile industry has had to face many problems. I might point out that from 1951 to 1958, in the province of Quebec, the number of people it employed decreased by 10,974 and that, in the field of employment, the industry dropped from first to fifth place, all within the space of seven years. Across Canada, during the same period, 23,000 workers lost their jobs and almost 80 manufacturers had to shut down. The Canadian production of textiles, which stood at 468 million yards in 1950, had dropped to 349 million yards in 1958.
The causes of these difficulties are many and well known. Canadian production has suffered from international competition on the part of the United States and Asian countries. In 1948, 1949 and 1951, tariff reductions granted by a Liberal administration opened the door too wide to foreign products. Thus it was that, from 1950 to 1958, our textile industries lost 16 per cent of the domestic market.
Our textile products can no longer meet foreign competition, our production costs and salaries being comparatively much higher. To illustrate, here are the hourly wages in different countries: Japan, 25 cents; Italy, 51 cents; Belgium, 60 cents; Western Germany, 67 cents; United Kingdom, 80 cents; Norway and France, 86 cents; Canada, $1.34; United States, $2.
It should be noted that, while the hourly wage in the United States is $2, our neighbour, with its population of 180 million, has an enormous market, something which our 18 million people cannot provide.
2404	HOUSE OF
Tariff Board Recommendations on Textiles
When the present Progressive Conservative government came to power in the middle of 1957, the situation was already quite serious. Our textile industry was clearly on its last legs because the former Liberal government had done absolutely nothing to help it and had even taken several measures calculated to destroy it; facts and figures prove it.
To mention only a few examples, I would point out that, from 1951 to 1958, textile imports from Hong Kong increased fivefold and that those from Japan increased tenfold. In fact, the figures from the dominion bureau of statistics confirm that serious unconcern of the Liberals. In 1951, these imports from Hong Kong totalled $560,000 and from Japan, $2,555,000. In 1958, they had reached $2,597,000 and $24,023,000 respectively.
When I was elected member for Sherbrooke in 1958, I undertook, as was known to my party, to lead an active fight to restore our Canadian industry.
It is very difficult to restore to health a dying body which has too long been left without care.
But this government did tackle the task and, unlike the Liberals who had not done anything since 1945, took action in favour of our textile industry on 19 different occasions. Let me list them:
1. In 1957, the tariff board was asked to proceed with a survey and make recommendations with regard to tariffs on textiles.
2.	In 1958, the government increased the British preferential tariff on woollens and worsteds listed under item 554b of the customs tariff.
3. In 1959, the government raised the most favoured nation tariff with regard to section 554b in order to reinstate the British preferential margin.
4.	In 1958, this government substantially modified the definition of the word "dumping" for the purpose of the act.
5.	The government appointed additional assessors and provided for more detailed bills with attached samples.
6.	The government is applying measures concerning special groups of goods, on the recommendations of the tariff board, and within our international agreements.
7.	At the GATT meetings in Geneva in 1959, the government started negotiations with regard to a certain number of textiles. This action was repeated in 1960 and in 1961.


8.	The government was officially authorized to pursue those negotiations with regard to all consolidated textile items under tariff board reference No. 125.
9.	At the request of the Conservative government in August 1959, imports of textiles from Japan were temporarily stopped.
10.	On March 31, 1960, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) made his budget speech and introduced four resolutions providing for a tariff raise averaging 15 per cent on foreign textile products, and especially on cotton goods.
11.	In 1960, 1961 and 1962, as requested by the Conservative government, the Japanese limited their textile exports to Canada through voluntarily applied quotas.
12.	In 1960, Mr. Fleming asked the United States to withdraw their subsidies on textile exports, but his request met with refusal.
13.	The government sought to increase the membership of the tariff board, in order that two groups may meet separately and conduct two hearings and two appeals simultaneously.
14.	In 1961, there was a new definition, in the customs tariff, of goods of a class or kind manufactured in Canada. This was to avoid undue delays in the rulings of the tariff board.
Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to point out, incidentally, that the Liberal majority in the Senate blocked those last two initiatives of the present government.
15.	In the June 20, 1961 budget, the Conservative government announced new negotiations to protect the following textile products: hosiery, narrow fabrics, lace, woollen clothing and manufactured woollen goods.
16.	In October 1961, a one year treaty was
signed following the Geneva conference, in order to balance the trade in certain textile goods, while protecting our national market.
17.	The devaluation of the Canadian dollar in 1961.
18.	In 1962, our government negotiated a long term treaty providing for a better distribution of textile products throughout the world, while protecting the Canadian textile industry.
19.	In March 1962, and more especially last week, during the visit in Ottawa of the minister of economy from Hong Kong, the Canadian government prevailed upon Hong Kong to voluntarily set restrictions on certain textile goods exported to Canada.
Those 19 measures have helped to stave off a disaster and to improve the situation. In fact, foreign imports were down in 1961, and

our Canadian textile industry is picking up. A recent article on pages 1 and 2 of the Financial Post of March 17, 1962, witness to that. Here are a few extracts from this article: (Text):
There's a strong new note of optimism running through Canada's long-harassed textile industry.
Production and employment are at the highest level in five years with earnings on the rise for every major company in the industry. Several companies have just moved into the black for the first time in several years.
(Translation) :
And a little farther on, the article adds: (Text):
Some textile officials now are forecasting an industry production gain for the year of around 10 per cent.
Competition from imports still is keen but the lower discount on our dollar-running around 6 per cent lower than this time last year-is strengthening the competitive position of local mills particularly vis-d-vis U.S. imports.
(Translation):
The article concludes as follows:
(Text):
A more sympathetic treatment by government trade authorities, which have been checking up more vigorously on alleged dumping infractions, is starting to bear fruit.
(Translation):
Page 12 of the March 29, 1962 issue of the Montreal Gazette deals with this year's report of the Dominion Textile Limited. Here is what it says:
(Text):
Sales of Dominion Textile Co. Ltd. for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, will be in excess of $120 million, according to F. R. Daniels, president and managing director. This would represent a gain of perhaps 20 per cent over the $103,185,000 reported for the previous year.
Dominion Textile-*
(Translation):
A little further, the article says this: (Text):
-recently declared a "final" dividend of 35 cents for the last quarter of the fiscal year bringing total payments for the year to 80 cents compared with 70 cents last year when the final payment was 25 cents.
(Translation):
So, Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the situation is improving and that this Conservative government has done a lot to bring about an economic recovery.
However, I feel that additional steps should be taken to better set our textile industry on the road to security and prosperity. I therefore wish to offer nine suggestions to that effect:
The government should consider applying whenever necessary the provisions of section 6A of the Customs Tariff to United States subsidized cotton textiles, since Washington gave a negative answer to the request of the Canadian Minister of Finance.
Section 6A of the Customs Tariff reads as follows:
26207-1-154
Tariff Board Recommendations on Textiles Where in the opinion of the governor in council subsidized goods of a class or kind made or produced in Canada have been or may be directly or indirectly imported into Canada, he may declare such goods to be subject to an additional duty on their importation equal to the amount of the subsidy on those goods as determined by him.
Japan should be asked to make public at the beginning of each year the details of its voluntary quotas thus enabling our Canadian industry to determine its production ahead of time. Moreover, those Japanese quotas should include additional items and their quantities should be reduced so as to leave a greater share for Canadian products.
Before any other delivery of grain to red China, we should ascertain that they will not try to pay us back with textile products.
The Minister of Finance should grant our textile industry certain tax concessions in order to encourage it to convert part of its production.
Section XIX of GATT should be applied, if need be, in emergencies concerning particular products.
The new definition of dumping should also be applied wherever necessary.
The government should seriously consider setting up a value for duty that would permit fairer competition between Canadian and foreign producers with respect to consumer sales.
The time has come also to set up values for duty in the case of fishing nets and Japanese-made netting.
Finally, as far as the next long term international agreement is concerned, Canada should not endorse the principle of systematic increased imports, but should strive to have the retaliation measures defined more clearly with respect to the flooding of markets by foreign products.
Those are the problems and solutions which the banking and commerce committee should consider.
That is the spirit of the resolution I have the privilege to introduce. Consequently, I would ask hon. members to express their views as to the desirability of having the said committee examine the recommendations contained in the tariff board's reports. I am speaking of the ten reports submitted by the board concerning reference 125, following the inquiry on our textile products.
Those ten reports are included in a table I have prepared. That table also shows the date on which the board's reports were completed and tabled in the House of Commons and the date of the budget in which those reports were put into effect.
With the consent of the house, I should like to have that table printed in Hansard after the remarks it has been my pleasure to make in the house this afternoon.
2406	HOUSE OF
Tariff Board Recommendations on Textiles (Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: I wonder if the hon. member would advise the house how long the table is so that we can better appreciate how to handle it?
(Translation):


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, the table has several divisions: dates on which the reports were published, dates on which they were tabled in the House of Commons as well as consideration which the government may have given to them on the occasion of the various budgets, especially in 1958.
I thought it would be tedious to quote the dates and references in the case of each product, and that it would be more convenient to ask the house to give consent to the printing of this table in Hansard following my remarks.

(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Will the house give consent to the printing of this table as suggested by the hon. member, not as part of his speech but as an appendix to his speech in Hansard?


George James McIlraith: As I understand the request -and I am subject to some handicaps in understanding it-it was that it be printed at the end of his speech as part of his speech. If I am correct in that, then I am quite agreeable he should have leave.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Will the house therefore give unanimous consent to having this table printed at the end of the hon. member's speech as part of his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows:]
(Translation):
Report
Published on
Tabled on
Date of budget through which reports were put into force
Wool fabrics
March 5, 1958 June 5, 1958
554b-June 17, 1958 554b-April 9, 1959
Textile waste (all fibres); Slivers, etc. (wool or hair); Yarns, rovings (wool
or hair)	
Cotton and related
products	
Silk, synthetic fibres and
manufactures thereof	
Hosiery	
Slivers, lace, embroideries
fire hoses	
Manufactures of wool and hair, and related
products	
Miscellaneous fabrics	
Wadding, batting and fabrics,
coated or impregnated	
Hats, caps and related products	
April 2, 1958
December 3, 1958
March 10, 1959 November 16, 1959
June 30, 1960
September 12, 1960 February 22, 1961
April 13, 1961
June 28, 1961
July 1, 1958
February 11, 1959
June 12, 1959 January 27, 1960
November 29, 1960
November 29, 1960 September 7, 1961
January 22, 1962
January 22, 1962
Remainder-
March 31, 1960
March 31, 1960
March 31, 1960
March 31, 1960 June 20, 1961
June 20, 1961 June 20, 1961
Note: The report concerning hats, caps and related products is the last one of this series and completes the examination by the tariff board under reference No. 125.
(Text):


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it will be seen that the motion is for a decision that in the opinion of the house consideration should be given to the advisability of referring the recommendations of

the tariff board on textiles to the standing committee on banking and commerce for the purpose of examining and reporting on the problems of the textile industry, more particularly in connection with foreign imports.

The hon. member, I take it from the purport of his remarks, intends that all the reports made by the tariff board pursuant to reference No. 125 be referred to the standing committee. If I am not correct in that, I would ask him to correct me, because the motion is not explicit in its language; but I take it that it was his intention that all the reports made on tariff board reference 125 were to be referred. On that assumption I am proceeding to discuss the matter.
I quite agree with the hon. member when he speaks about the importance of the industry in the economy of the country and when he goes on to point out the number of employees it has and the direct bearing that has on our general economy. I of course do not agree with him as to the causes or cures for the difficulties in which the industry finds itself, but I think we are on common ground that the industry has been through a very difficult period and is still in a very difficult period, and that there should be a thorough examination of those difficulties and appropriate corrective action taken to assist the industry.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) will I think agree with me on that point at least. We will, as I continue my remarks, find ourselves in disagreement, I think, as to the causes of some of the difficulties and possibly as to some of the methods of curing them. For instance, the hon. member gave certain statistics as to production in Canada and the number of employees from the year 1951 on. I have every reason to believe that his figures are correct. If they are not correct, I am not aware of any inaccuracies in them. I accept them. But he then attributed certain causes to the facts revealed by the figures. He did not, for instance, tell us that at the conclusion of the Korean war there was quite a sharp drop in the activities of the textile industry in the production of war material. That is one of the factors that slightly upsets his argument. I merely point out by way of illustrating the difficulty in choosing an arbitrary date such as 1951, when the textile industry was completing certain war production, taking that as an arbitrary date and using that figure for a comparative purpose. The point I wish to make there is that using the figures in the way he has used them does not support the arguments he made.
Then his attempt to attribute all the blame in this matter to the former government and none of the blame to the present government is just not sufficiently mature treatment of this subject and is not the kind of treatment the subject deserves. For instance, he did 26207-1-154J
2, 1962	2407
Tariff Board Recommendations on Textiles not deal with the action of the present government in the last five years in stopping, and indeed reversing, the reductions in taxation that had been forthcoming every year previously. Heavy taxation is undoubtedly a cost factor in the production of goods, and the failure to continue that reduction undoubtedly hurt the textile industry.
There are other factors like that which must be considered. The hon. gentleman stated that one of the factors in the present difficulty was international competition, and he was quite correct in stating that; but it is not good enough, having stated that, to blandly go on and say that the action of the government in the 12 years following the conclusion of the war in reducing taxation every year did nothing for the industry, and the action of the present government in increasing the cost of production continuously in the last five years was a great boon to the industry. That kind of argument does not treat of the subject at all. It may be listened to from some platforms, but surely it does not help in analysing the problem.
Notwithstanding what I have said on that score, I think the motion is a good one because the banking and commerce committee, if permitted to examine and report on the problems of the textile industry, could examine each one of the facets of the problem he has mentioned and the one or two I have pointed out and see exactly what effect they have had on this industry and what remedial action should be taken. The hon. member's bland assumption that tariffs are the cure-all or cause-all, depending which side of the picture you are arguing at any given moment, of these problems is just not adequate at all. Tariffs are undoubtedly a factor in this subject, and a very important factor, but they do not either cure or cause all the difficulties.
Such things as even the increase in the contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Act have a considerable effect on adding to the cost of production of textiles. The 10 per cent increase this government put on the sales tax has a great deal to do with it. The failure of the government, when these other countries the hon. member mentioned strengthened their own competitive machinery and their own economies and became strong international competitors, to recognize that and to bring our corporation tax into line with the rate of corporation tax paid by the other countries who are competitors, to examine our corporation tax, to grant larger allowances for modernization of machinery and equipment, to grant depreciation to meet that kind of problem, are all factors that are very important.
2408	HOUSE OF
Tariff Board Recommendations on Textiles
I have the impression myself-but these things would want to be examined in a more precise and detailed way-that the relief the industry needs, or a great part of it, should come out of a complete examination of our corporate tax structure, which has not been revised and is a problem that has not been faced by this government in the last five years, although these other countries with whom we compete internationally have become much more competitive in the last five years as they have built up their own economies. I think that an examination into that subject and appropriate action taken when the examination revealed, as I am sure it would, that changes are needed would do more to help this industry than any other single thing.
In any event, the point I wish to make here is that this is the kind of problem that can best be examined in a committee with witnesses in a carefully conducted hearing with an examination and, if necessary, crossexamination of those witnesses. It will be seen at once, for instance, that the administrative practices under our present corporation tax legislation are such that they do not lend themselves to easy discussion in the house in a general debate, but they would lend themselves to the most minute examination in a standing committee such as is indicated in the motion, namely the banking and commerce committee. We would see how many of these administrative practices do, in fact, unnecessarily and improperly increase the burden placed on this industry. The same comment applies to the method of computing depreciation allowances under the rules provided by the income tax legislation, as well as the legislation fixing the rates of taxation itself.
There are, of course, many problems here. It was interesting for instance, to hear the hon. member point out that one of our main competitors in this industry was the United States. Then a few moments later in his interesting remarks he drew attention to the fact that the highest hourly wage rate paid in the industry was paid in the United States, the very country which provides us with such strong competition. The wage rate there per hour is eight times the wage rate paid in the industry in Japan and it is something like 50 per cent higher than the rate paid in Canada. The rate varies widely, of course in various countries. In West Germany, for instance, it is about one third of that paid in the United States. Questions of this kind could be examined in committee to see what these different wage rates have to do with the problem and to what extent there should be compensatory legislation to protect


the high standard of living in this country which I think all hon. members wish to see protected.
The point I wish to make out of all this is
that in my view this is a problem which should go to a committee of members for examination. I believe the banking and commerce committee is the appropriate committee. I think the condition of the industry is such that remedial action is needed. As a matter of fact, if I were to follow that part of the hon. member's contribution in which he was making a political speech I would be critical of the government for not having taken remedial action sooner. This problem is an urgent one and it should be dealt with now. I wish to make it clear, therefore that I should like to see this motion carried and, when it has been carried, see an appropriate motion put on the order paper to refer the subject to the committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: rise to express the support of this group for the purpose of the motion because, like many others in this house, we are very concerned with the problems of the textile industry. However, I must emphasize that we certainly do not agree with many of the statements and arguments put forward by the proposer in support of this motion.
Indeed, it was very interesting to hear him list the protective measures which the present government has taken to date in order to protect the industry. We think that what is required is a fuller understanding of the problems of the industry, and the only way to get that understanding is to have representatives of the industry, representatives of the labour organizations connected with the industry, together with economists and persons who can contribute to the information of hon. members, come before the banking and commerce committee, tell their story and offer their suggestions.
For that reason we support the purpose of the motion. Before resuming my seat I should like to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Ottawa West with respect to the desirability of an additional motion to refer the matter to the committee. We have heard a great deal of discussion with respect to the textile industry. I know all members have received resolutions from various sections of the industry, from the manufacturers, from the trade unions concerned and, in some instances, from municipalities who are directly concerned with the prosperity, or lack of prosperity, of the industry. It is our opinion always in this group that before you can take effective action of any kind you must be informed.
I notice that is sinking into the minds of hon. members who are listening at the

present time. The way to be informed is to listen to those who have knowledge of the subject. For that reason, members of this group support the motion and trust there will be no delay in passing the resolution and referring the subject to the banking and commerce committee, so that the resolution will be effective shortly.
(Translation):


Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, this measure was introduced by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) in order to improve the lot of our textile workers. Though he did commit the error of not mentioning the fine city of St. Hyacinthe when listing localities where this industry is established, I shall nevertheless, commend him.
I will only take a few minutes to tell the house why this measure deserves our support.
However, before doing so, I should like to remind hon. members that, since we came to power, the Conservative government, as my hon. friend from Sherbrooke said, took action on 19 separate occasions to improve the situation of our textile industry. We, of the Conservative party, have all reason to rejoice that the textile industry did not decline under this administration, but rather under the former administration.
Since we took over, the textile industry tends to improve. Today, if we take a close look at the forecasts by people in the industry, we see that they certainly have more confidence in the future than when they operated under our predecessors. And, in order to illustrate my point, here are some facts as I ascertained them myself in the summer and fall of last year.
Mr. Speaker, you will remember that, during the summer and fall of last year, our friends opposite were trying to sow seeds of confusion among the people, by making a great fuss about the alarming unemployment situation at the time. Therefore, being interested to know the exact working conditions in our local industries, I took it upon myself to visit the various plants in the city of St. Hyacinthe. Among the 25 plants I visited, about 10 were connected with the textile industry.
Of course, the first plant I wanted to visit was the one where I worked for 24 years,
2. 1362	2409
Tariff Board Recommendations on Textiles that is to say the Goodyear Cotton Company of Canada Limited. I am very glad to say here, Mr. Speaker, that not only conditions there have improved substantially, but that the progress made by that company in the course of the last few years is incredible. While during the 1939-45 war, our friends opposite were saying that we had full employment, a sort of golden age, the Goodyear Cotton employed at the maximum 824 persons, whereas that St. Hyacinthe plant is now operating full time, on a three-shift basis, with 925 persons.
Each week I have the opportunity of meeting employees both from that plant and others, and I am happy to note that everywhere working conditions are improving.
At Penmans Limited, for instance, as a result of a contract worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, from the Department of Defence Production, the employees enjoy practically a regular working week. The 550 employees of this plant are very happy to realize that a dynamic government is the successor of a government which had done nothing, or just about nothing, to save this very important industry which contributed enormously to stabilize the economy in the city of St. Hyacinthe.
At Consolidated Textiles, another very prosperous company in St. Hyacinthe, it was somewhat difficult to find the necessary workers to form a third shift.
At Donahue Corporation, the situation is also very good. And it is the same at Yamaska Shirt.
At the beginning, Megantic Knitting had about 50 employees. According to the information that the manager himself gave me, this plant should increase the number of its employees to nearly a hundred in a few months time.
Lefebvre Garment, which normally employs 35 people, would be glad to find some fifteen more trained workers, whom it could hire at once.
As far as Canadian Corduroy is concerned, its 40 employees work a regular work week and everything is fine.
To show you the climate prevailing in St. Hyacinthe, I am going to quote from a report published in Le Courrier de Saint-Hyacinthe entitled:
Prospects for four new industries in St. Hyacinthe.
The subtitle reads:
If nothing should frustrate the projects under consideration, St. Hyacinthe should have in a matter of a few months four new industries which together would occupy 300 workers, most of them men.
2410	HOUSE OF
Tariff Board Recommendations on Textiles
Presently, they are erecting a building for a new industry which is to be established at St. Hyacinthe and which is called Smith Textile Limited.
This shows, Mr. Speaker, that under the present Tory government, far from suffering setbacks as under the previous government, the textile industry is going forward.
I should like to put on the record some figures to prove my point. According to the Quebec Industrial Review, employment which, in 1951, stood at 98,000 in the primary textile industry, had fallen to 81,000 in 1956.
In 1956, there were, in the province of Quebec, 218 communities with textile plants. For their operations, these industries were buying $240 million worth of Canadian products.
Imports from the United States, Great Britain and Japan increased from 94 million lineal yards in 1930 to 286 million lineal yards in 1955.
It is also somewhat surprising to see our friends opposite claim that we could have done more for the textile industry. They really have a high opinion of us to say that, in only four years, we could have done more than they were able to do during the 22 years they were in power.
In 1930, the textile industry in Canada supplied 71 per cent of the domestic market, whereas in 1956, under the Liberal government that was in power before us, that proportion had fallen to 57 per cent.
During 1956 only, Mr. Speaker, imports of woollen fabrics from Italy increased by 140 per cent.
It seems to me that our Liberal friends should have been able to do something for the textile industry at that time.
I refer now, Mr. Speaker, to the speech made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion) some time ago at Drummondville, a city where the textile industry is flourishing, and which is represented here by my good friend from Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger).


Maurice Allard: He is not here.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It would not be proper for me to name him; but that would not make much difference since he is absent today.


Mr. Pigeon:: Like the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier).


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I refer to the report which was published in La Parole, of Drummond-vi'lle, and in which the Secretary of State is quoted as saying:


Mr. Pickersgill has emphasized that the textile industry would not be a native industry because in many cases raw materials and machinery that are used are imported. It may be true, said Mr. Dorion, that the textile industry is not a native industry, but is that sufficient reason to throw it out of the country? If other countries were to use the same argument what would happen to their industries using the raw materials we sell them?
And during that conference, the Secretary of State-
(Text):


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member permit a question. He has attributed certain remarks to an hon. member of this house. Would he give the authority for those remarks?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If the hon. member will look at Hansard he will see the reference. I do not have the proper page of Hansard. This statement will be found in Hansard of last year when we were studying the relevant tariff item. I have not had time to do my homework on this but I will privately inform the hon. member as to which page of Hansard contains this statement.


George James McIlraith: I am sure the hon. member did not quote the words from Hansard and I feel he misconstrued them in repeating them.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I was quoting the words of the Secretary of State who himself took the information from Hansard.


George James McIlraith: He has misconstrued the words of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I am sure if the hon. member will read Hansard he will find the statement is just as I quoted it. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this problem of the textile industry does not greatly interest the Liberal opposition, if you look at the number who are in the house now. I think they should be a little bit more cautious in what they are saying.


George James McIlraith: All the ministers are absent from the house at the moment.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I have the floor. I am referring to an article in the magazine Canadian Textile Journal of January 5, 1962. I should like to quote a few remarks made by Mr. Gerald L. Bruck, chairman, Primary Textiles Institute. He states as follows:
The past year has been one of the most important periods on record for Canada's vital primary textiles industry, and, for the first time in nearly a decade, the future looks bright.
Three factors have helped mark 1961 as an important year. They are:

1.	A general pick-up in national economic activity, which has had a considerable influence in the area of softgoods demand;
2.	Devaluation of the Canadian dollar, which has made imports less attractive (though they still remain a major threat);
3.	And emergence of discount outlets, which have resulted in an increase in total demand for merchandise.
Then he goes on to say this:
Combined with an increase in home production and a halt to annual employment reductions, they have given Canadian manufacturers a long-awaited oportunity for real hope for the future. If continued during 1962, the present trend could have only beneficial results.
(Translation):
Well, Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, some of my colleagues would like to say a few words. I could go on and on and prove to you that the industry is still expanding but in order to give others a chance to express their views, I shall resume my seat immediately.


Mr. Habel:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot.
How can the hon. member explain to this house that we need a committee to study the situation if everything is as fine as the hon. member just said it was in his constituency?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: So that it remains so.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: First, Mr. Speaker, it is in order to see the extent to which the previous government has overlooked the situation. Second, in order that appropriate steps be taken so that such recessions no longer occur in the future in the textile industry.
(Text):


Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on this motion, and I should not like to be the one who would talk it out. However, I must congratulate the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) who has brought it to our attention. I should like to say that I certainly approve of the principle of this motion. I should also like to say that I am not opposed to the tariff board or the manner in which they are set up

an unbiased board-to be the referee between industry and the consumer and to hear both sides of requests for the raising or lowering of tariffs. However, I am not satisfied with the manner in which the recommendations from the tariff board are sometimes finalized.
I feel that private members should have more opportunity to discuss the recommendations of the tariff board before they are incorporated in the budget or in some other form of legislation. I understand that the recommendations from the tariff board generally go
2, 1962
Corporations and Labour Unions to the Minister of Finance. Some of these recommendations must be negotiated through GATT. In such cases a private member does not have the opportunity to express his opinion on them until they are incorporated in the budget. In other cases the changes recommended by the tariff board are brought to the house by the Minister of Finance in resolution form and private members do not have much of an opportunity to discuss them either.
I fully agree with the hon. member who sponsored this bill that those matters should be referred to a standing committee of some kind so that we may have an opportunity to give them some consideration.
I might say that the textile industry was once a very important industry in my riding but prior to 1957 we lost some five fine industries. For that reason, this is an important matter as far as we are concerned. When a decision from the tariff board hurts an industry and sometimes puts it out of business, it is not the tariff board that gets the blame; it is the local member. For those reasons I feel that in the future we as private members should have a greater opportunity to discuss those recommendations of the tariff board before they are put into effect.


George James McIlraith: Carried.


John Smith: I agree that the banking and commerce committee would be a good committee to deal with tariff matters. I was hoping to deal briefly with the matter of sales tax and excise tax, a matter which is also sometimes dealt with by the tariff board. However, I observe that I do not have time in which to do so now.


George James McIlraith: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fulton for the second reading 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.
2412	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions (Translation):
Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock, when I had to interrupt my remarks, I was saying that the unions are not at all satisfied with the bill in its present form.
I understand that they did not strongly oppose this bill, but they did oppose it clearly enough, and that opposition is worth mentioning. Mr. Speaker, I will say frankly that I did not mention all the things that the brief contains about this Bill C-38 because it would have taken too much time.
I see, in the last part, the following:
(Text):
There is none the less a good deal of detailed criticism of the bill which the congress would like to make and feels it should have the right to make, but this is not the appropriate place or occasion. We strongly urge that the congress and other interested parties be given an opportunity to make formal representations, either to a parliamentary committee or otherwise, before the bill is enacted.
(Translation):
That was just what we were asking for, and what the unions are asking at this time. And I am convinced that a number of corporations only want, as do the unions, to have an opportunity of explaining their position and stating clearly what they disapprove in this bill.
As I said in my opening remarks, the basic principle of the bill is not bad, but it was badly prepared. It is a bill with several faulty sections. We should be given the opportunity of discussing them in committee.
No need to be a lawyer to realize at a glance that the bill needs improving. Indeed, the minister himself said that "We prepared several amendments which will be submitted by my colleagues." Since he introduced the bill in the house, he discovered the need for some improvement, it means he admits that, in principle, the bill is imperfect and incomplete.
Now, in agreement with the Canadian congress of labour, as well as with others I had the opportunity of meeting, we want to ask the minister to avoid all excessive hurry when discussing the bill, and to refer it rather to the standing committee on industrial relations, so that people who have some information to give, or objection to raise, may do so. As a matter of fact, that is the only democratic way to proceed, but that is not the policy of this government.
If the people concerned have not been advised beforehand, how can they express
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown).]

their views in the house since in the committee of the whole, nobody but a member may rise and speak? Therefore, this is done at the expense of those primarily concerned.
I believe a staff of experts should be appointed who would see to the preparing of reports and have an opportunity of enlightening the house. How many experts on this matter are there here? Not many, I would say.
Now, that is the reason why we need the help of those who are more particularly affected by the bill.
We might hear experts on constitutional matters who would tell us how they interpret the bill. We might also have representatives of corporations who would state what form they would like the bill to have to be of any help to them. And, finally, we could have experts in industrial relations who would explain the various ways to deal with labour matters.
Besides, the bill itself should not have been introduced as one bill; there should have been two different bills: one for corporations and one for labour unions. In fact, if we examine the situation closely, it is easy to see that the views, purposes and even wishes of corporations differ from those of labour unions. Consequently, the two should always be dealt with separately.
But, to speed things up before the election, the minister has introduced a bill which is incomplete and ill-conceived, as will be shown at the committee stage.
I suggest that the bill is a dangerous one.
The minister stated a while ago that the bill was divided in two parts, one having to do with statistical and non-confidential information, the other with confidential information.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how the minister can still believe that by virtue of some provision of this bill, secrecy cannot be violated, after he has prepared it himself or with his experts.
You only need to read it to know that secrecy cannot be safeguarded, since according to the definitions in it, any person who is or has been employed by the government could ask for and obtain information, and nobody could prevent him from getting it. Besides, a former employee of a company could come today and ask for information and you could not turn him down, according to the wording of this bill.

Now, we claim that there have been and still may be some people so interested in money that they could sell themselves to a company in order to obtain some information about a competitor. Such people could obtain information which they could sell or give away.
Some will say: They are federal civil servants and you usually defend them. That is true but there might be some among them in whom you could not place your confidence. We might find some odd individuals willing to sell information available to them. That does not mean that the civil service is bad. Indeed, Christ had one Judas among his twelve apostles and you would not say that the others did not deserve his confidence.
Mr. Speaker, this bill contains numerous provisions which could not be accepted before they have been considered by a standing committee of the house where experts could advise us on how to improve them.
For example, somewhere in the bill provision is made for a maximum term of imprisonment and a maximum fine, but no minimum is stated. In short, if the judge is lenient, he could sentence the accused to a five cent fine or an hour in jail.
That is why I tell you that it is too late to introduce this bill in the house, the more so because it is impossible to study it in full and adequately.
A while ago the minister said that the bill is introduced under section 91 of the British North America Act. Well, I ask the minister to find, in Bill No. C-38 that he is introducing today, a section that says clearly that this measure is introduced under section 91 of the British North America Act.
I am convinced that this bill represents a constitutional hazard.
Can companies or unions of a purely provincial nature be forced to answer questions for any purpose other than taxation? If they refuse to do so, how can the minister compel them to answer?
Besides, I do not regard that provision as very important, for the corporations and even the unions will be able to defend themselves when the time comes. Nevertheless, there is always a danger. If the minister had really wanted the bill to be in accordance with clause 91 of the British North America Act, he should have prepared a preamble in which he would have specified it. It should have been not only stated, but written.
We are being asked to accept and sign a blank cheque. We are simply being asked to allow civil servants to ask all the questions they like, without those questions having been submitted to the house.
2, 1962
Corporations and Labour Unions
Had the minister wanted to make this bill more complete, he should have added to it an appendix giving a form, a sample of the questions, so as to show which questions will be asked.
Now, I will be told that a certain part of those things are defined in the bill. But what we want to know is the nature of the questionnaires which will be sent to the industrialists, the representatives of the corporations, of the trade unions, in short, to whoever information will be sought from.
In my opinion, as long as we do not have these forms, it is wrong to ask the house to approve such an incomplete bill.
I could have introduced an amendment to have the bill referred to a standing committee of this house, but it would have killed it. It would have been a non-confidence motion. But that is not our purpose; we want the bill to be studied further.
We feel that the government is entitled to ask information from all corporations operating in Canada; it has the right to know how the union funds are used. But to that end, we believe that the bill should be referred to a committee in order to make it a complete and acceptable bill.
This bill is not too bad, but the drafting is poor. It comes too late, at the end of a session, at the end of a parliament.
We know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) have had that project in mind for quite a while, because it was mentioned as early as 1957.
In 1960, the Prime Minister made a statement to that effect in England.
Well, if they were thinking about it at the time, why wait until April 1962, at the end of a session, at the end of a parliament, when we know quite well that even if that measure is adopted it will have no effect for some time, because they will need time to gather information.
If the bill had been introduced two months later, that would have made no difference, save that the public could have had the time to prepare itself.
Therefore, I once again urge the minister to kindly refer the bill to the standing committee on industrial relations, in order that the people concerned may democratically exercise their right to express their views, to submit briefs and evidence, which would also permit us to have before the committee economists who could enlighten us on the

Corporations and Labour Unions various phases oi this bill because it includes several sections we shall have to consider. Furthermore, I would ask him to grant the request made by the Canadian congress of labour in its brief dated March 14, 1962.
Once again, I would ask the minister to refer the bill to the standing committee on industrial relations in order that it may be seriously considered, so that, at least, when it is returned to the house, it might be clear enough for the corporations, as well as the unions, to know what they have to offer and what the government expects from them.
In that way, I believe everyone in Canada will be happy, and even the minister, if he agrees to our wishes, will perhaps feel better. (Text):


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: The house, and indeed the whole country, has waited for the present bill somewhat in a similar fashion to that in which the western world waited for Colonel Glenn's flight. This bill was hanging over our heads throughout the last session, and finally died on the order paper at the end of the longest session parliament has ever known in Canada. We now have it before us, or rather an anaemic version of the one which hung over our heads last session. But I would say that it is only in the day to day expectation which we experienced that there is any similarity between the bill and the flight of Colonel Glenn because, while that flight was a complete and total success, this bill, at least in its present form, is pretty much of a fizzle.
When introducing the bill the minister said it was to bring to fruition some of the pronouncements of the right hon. Prime Minister about repatriating our constitution, our resources and so forth; but I am afraid that, like so many of his pronouncements, this bill is going to fall very far short of its purpose. In fact it is something like the great pronouncement about the abolition of closure, where we abolish closure one week and then the following week the government uses its huge and misbegotten majority to kill the first reading of a bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member should not discuss a matter which the house has recently referred to a committee for study.


Murdo William Martin: Very well, Mr. Speaker. There was another thing I thought rather strange about the minister's introduction of the bill. No recognition was given to the fact that during the last four years private bills sponsored by members of his own party were discussed on a number of occasions in this house.


There are a number of good items in the bill, but I shall not spend much time dealing with them. After all, there are 208 government members in the house and I am sure that if there is any good in the measure they will be perfectly willing to talk about its good points.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Murdo William Martin: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did I understand him to say there are 208 Tory members in the house? Where are they?


Mr. Brunsden:: Where are the Liberals?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has asked a very good question and I will have to take it as notice. I would like to deal this evening with some of my main objections to this bill. The first and most important objection is the one that has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Hull. It is the one that is spoken of in the brief which the Canadian Labour Congress presented to the government a couple of weeks ago. I refer to the attempt in this bill to lump together as one class and kind, to use a favourite expression of the government, and as being the same or similar, corporations, co-operatives and trade unions; trying to create in the public mind the image that these are all one and the same thing.
I would like to say that this cannot be done by the mere passing of a bill. Certainly with the majority this government possesses at the present time they could pass a bill saying that moose and wolves were the same, but that would not make it so. The same thing applies to this bill. If and when the bill is passed, it certainly is not going to make corporations, trade unions and co-operatives one and the same thing. Corporations and trade unions are not the same; they cannot be the same, and they will not be the same even when this bill passes and becomes law.
I would like to deal briefly with some of the reasons why this is so. Apparently government members do not realize this or they would not be trying to lump them together under one umbrella in this bill. Corporations have one motive and one motive only. It is clearcut and it is simple. Their motive is to make money. They are not benevolent societies; they would not be in business if they were. Corporations long ago realized that for their present and future benefit they should take political action. This they have done for many years in connection with the two old line parties. This is something that the trade unions are only now learning, and it is something the co-operatives have still to learn.


Edwin William Brunsden: They are not very apt students.


Murdo William Martin: After all, the political party which is in power and forms the government makes the laws which govern this country. Laws are much easier to follow if you make them yourself.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is an interesting argument.


Murdo William Martin: That is why the
corporations have in the past proceeded to take control of both the Liberal and Conservative parties


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Murdo William Martin: -on the simple theory that if you have both horses in the race, you cannot be a loser.


Mr. Slogan:: What about union leaders?


Murdo William Martin: I am sure the hon. gentleman will have ample time and opportunity to make his own speech when I have finished.


Edwin William Brunsden: I hope he does better than you.


Murdo William Martin: I think that if we check back through history we will find that no law that has ever been passed by a Liberal or Conservative government has interfered too much with corporations.
Co-operatives, on the other hand, are slightly more complicated. They are groups of people with certain common interests, working together-I almost said "collectively", but that is a bad word; that is one of the words that unfortunately the communists have banished from our dictionaries-but working together for the common good; they combine the basic motive of gain of the corporation with the basic motive of protection from exploitation which is common in the trade unions.
I am not discussing the merits of these various things but I would just like to point out the differences between them and the reason why we should not try and group them all together, as is being done in this bill.
Trade unions, on the other hand, are much more complicated than the other two. First of all their main motive is protection, and the only reason they came about was to protect themselves from the exploitation by the corporations. So they cannot be one and the same thing. I am one of those who think that we have in this country far too much of trade unions versus management, instead of trade unions with management. I think that before we can ever hope for a rosy future we have to take a different look from that which we
2, 1962	2415
Corporations and Labour Unions have taken in the past in considering just how we are going about it. I certainly have no quick solution.
Trade unions, the same as any other group in our society, are subject to our laws. After all, labour laws, like all laws, were written by governments, which I have already stated have in the main been responsible to the corporations. They are the only government we have ever had in this country.
Trade unions also have the motive of personal gain. In this respect only are they like corporations. They also have something in common with co-operatives, because through their efforts benefits accrue not only to themselves but to society as a whole. Trade unions were built by two different kinds of people. You have the idealists, people who work all their lives for something in which they believe, and you have the professionals who work for something for which they are paid. Originally they were all idealists, but unfortunately the trade union movement found that it was up against a loaded deck. It is pretty difficult to fight with a bunch of idealists on one side and a bunch of professionals on the other, and therefore the trade unions have had to turn more and more to professions in order to meet them. After all, the only reason we have a Jimmy Hoffa is because the transport management drove their employees to turn to a man like him to lead them. Hal Banks, the most famous-if you want to call him famous-


Edwin William Brunsden: Infamous.


Murdo William Martin: -or perhaps
"notorious" is the word, trade union leader in Canada was not brought in by trade unionists, but by management. I think we found in that case that the cure was almost as bad as the disease. In fact, our whole past history has shown that corporations have in the main refused to deal with responsible trade union leaders; they would only deal with them when they had to, when they were faced with a law that compelled them to do so.
However, after trying to equate trade unions and corporations let us look at this bill and see the difference in the measures that are applied to each. For example, there are the exemptions under this bill. The only exemption as far as trade unions are concerned is that locals with less than 100 members are exempt from the provisions of the bill. However, when we look at the corporations we find there are 27 different classes exempted by this bill-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Where do you get that?


Murdo William Martin: -and the last two classes, Nos. 26 and 27 are very interesting, because as I read the bill I find that No. 26
2416	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions takes in almost exeryone that is designated by the minister and No. 27 refers to any other corporation which the minister may deem in his wisdom to exclude from the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member tell me from where he gets 27 classes of corporations.


Murdo William Martin: I think you will find it in the schedule, if you read it over.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: What page is that?


Murdo William Martin: This is at the back of the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I read 17 in the schedule and some of them are co-operative credit societies.


Murdo William Martin: I checked this bill over and I believe there are some 157 sections and subsections in it. It is really a Jim Dandy.
I should like to point out another disparity in the treatment afforded to these two different groups which are thrown together in this way. We find that the penalties, fines, prison terms and so on are equal for each side. In other words, they are identical. But I should like to compare the gross revenues involved for each of these two groups. As one example, I should like to take a case with which I am familiar-the Hollinger gold mine. There are about 800 men in the bargaining unit and at a current rate of $5 a month union dues, if the members were all paying dues, which they are not, this would amount to a gross of $48,000 a year. In 1959, the mine produced 205,727 ounces of gold. If we use the round figure of $35 an ounce, that amounts to some $7,200,465. In the same year the company received emergency gold mining assistance amounting to $817,663, making a total gross revenue of $8,018,128. So we find a gross of more than $8 million on one hand versus a maximum of $48,000 on the other. Nevertheless the penalties for the infringement of this bill are identical in both cases. This certainly is the case of the stew with the one horse and one rabbit in equal parts.
One aspect of this bill could, I feel, be very dangerous, particularly in areas such as the one from which I come, where there is no union security and no check-off of dues. In a situation like this one has to run pretty well as a bluff for most of the year, and in many cases if the operators or the companies were to realize how low the membership might drop in a trade union at a given period when there is no check-off of dues it might lead to all kinds of trouble.
A further aspect of the bill with which I nust find fault is its discriminatory aspects. Why is nationality rather than citizenship asked for in this bill? Why, when a report on 

membership is given, must there be discrimination between male and female members? Surely a union member is a union member regardless of sex or nationality. There is another part of this bill which I find amusing. It puzzled me for a while but finally I have found a solution. In his little book entitled "An Uninhibited History of Canada", the author, Professor Eric Nicol, refers to the bill of rights as follows:
Included in the bill of rights are all the freedoms that Canadians hold precious, except freedom from under-arm perspiration. It states that everybody is entitled to a lawyer unless it is perfectly obvious that he is guilty (e.g. communists, sex fiends, Liberals, C.C.F. and off-duty postal clerks).
I think we could add a couple more classifications to that. I think we could add corporations and trade unions, because in certain provisions of this bill we find words to the effect that if they are guilty of an offence the penalties will apply regardless of whether they have been tried or convicted. I think this would fit very well into Professor Nicol's description of our bill of rights.
I have spent a good deal more time dealing with the bad points in this bill than I have with the good points but, as I have said before, my experience in this house is that supporters of the government have always been oblivious to the bad points and therefore these need greater stress.
Just before he ended his remarks, the minister mentioned something about the fact that the government wanted to gather all the information it could with regard to corporations and trade unions. But he has completely ignored something which is of vital concern to this country. In the last two or three years we have heard a great deal of criticism, especially by the newspapers and by members on the government side of this house regarding trade union support of the New Democratic party. We have also heard criticism from time to time about political support of the two old line parties by corporations. If we really want to know all the facts, taking the minister at his word that he really wishes to have all the information that is available, I am surprised that this aspect was not considered when the bill was being prepared. To help the minister get all the facts I should like to close my remarks by moving an amendment, seconded by my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:	"this house
declines to proceed with a bill the provisions of which do not provide that corporations and unions be required to make public the amounts of money which they contribute to political parties and candidates for public office."


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not yet had an opportunity to look up the citations but I think one

would be bound to call Your Honour's attention to the rule of relevancy with regard to this amendment. It might be interesting tc know the nature and extent of the contributions of corporations and labour unions to political parties. It might be interesting to know a lot of other things about the activities of these corporations and labour unions. However, the purpose of this bill and the principle behind it are related to acquiring information about the effect and extent of foreign control on corporations and trade unions. That has no bearing whatsoever on their contributions to political parties if, indeed, such contributions are made as the hon. member has asserted.
So the point I make is that the amendment is entirely irrelevant to the purpose of the legislation. If, in connection with the elections act some such amendment were moved, it might be relevant; I do not know. But it is certainly not relevant to the principle of this bill which relates entirely to the incidence and effects of foreign control.


Frank Howard: This is the first time I have heard that foreign control is related to the sex of trade union members, which is part of the information sought in this bill. Surely we should be just as concerned about certain elements having control over the parties in the House of Commons as we should be regarding their control of other institutions within our country. These questions are relevant to each other and the minister is simply arguing with his tongue in his cheek when he approaches the question from the point of view he has chosen to adopt.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker to May's sixteenth edition at page 573 which is a continuation of the paragraph headed "Inadmissible Amendments". Subsection 2 indicates that an amendment is inadmissible if its effect would be to negative the bill which I think is intented by this amendment and which states, in part, "the house declines to proceed with the bill," which it is stated does not do certain things the hon. member would like to have done. In other words, it negatives the bill completely. At page 554 of the same edition, May states:
An amendment which is out of order on any of the following grounds cannot be proposed from the Chair:
(1) An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill-
I think Your Honour might take that under consideration. This amendment is beyond the scope of the bill and endeavours to deal with matters which are not within the bill. It attempts, as I see it, to do two things: to go beyond the scope of the bill-and in those
Corporations and Labour Unions circumstances the hon. member would then agree that the bill should be accepted-and, second, it attempts simply to negative the bill and for that reason should be ruled out of order.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, before you rise, may I draw your attention to one other fact. Both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Veterans Affairs have made reference to this being beyond the scope of the bill, the bill relating only to foreign control of corporations and unions. I point out that the title of the bill makes reference to no type of control, foreign or otherwise. It is entitled:
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.
I submit the amendment deals specifically with the reporting of financial and other statistics, namely those relating to contributions to political parties. I think you will find the argument, being irrelevant, is not a valid one.
With respect to the argument about negativing the bill, I think this is what is called a reasoned amendment not dealing particularly with anything contained within the bill but with something perfectly within the ambit of it.


Mr. Speaker:: The amendment which has been submitted by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) is framed as a reasoned amendment which is quite admissible on second reading of the bill.
Citation 382 of Beauchesne's fourth edition reads:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress: or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees-
-and so on. The amendment appears to be of that type, on its face. The bill is one which will require corporations and trade unions to submit information. The reasoned amendment is that the bill does not require certain information to be submitted. The question I am to decide is whether that is a declaration of a principle contrary to the bill or whether, as is argued, it goes so completely outside the bill as not to be related to it.
It is a fact that we have on the order paper two propositions about contributions to political parties and candidates for public office, but dealing with the making of contributions rather than the making of returns

Corporations and Labour Unions with respect to contributions. This amendment refers only to the making of returns or to the giving of public information.
I think the subject matter introduced, that of contributions to political parties, is in reality entirely unrelated to the bill, but it is introduced in a way that gives a semblance of connection to the bill in that it is related to the giving of information. With ingenuity one could think of a great many kinds of information that might be required of any corporation or union and thereby be made the subject of returns and consequently the subject of an amendment in this bill.
On the whole, I think the subject matter of the proposed public information is unrelated to the bill. It is another kind of problem. It is the problem of contributions to political parties rather than the constitution of the corporation or union and therefore is not a subject matter entirely germane to the bill, even though it has the semblance of being related to the bill, because it is related to the giving of information. On that ground I think I would be disposed to rule the amendment out of order, although not without some doubt, and I declare the amendment out of order.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, as one who has had a private member's bill on the order paper for the last three or four years dealing with financial disclosure by Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies I am naturally interested in this bill. I must give the government full marks for having gone much further than my bill in certain respects, in that the government has included in this measure all companies in Canada both public and private, whether operating under federal or provincial charter; and labour unions are also brought in under this umbrella. I was rather surprised that the minister did not refer to previous debates in this house on my bill because I think those debates were quite informative and would have been of assistance to the minister's staff in the drafting of this measure.
Frankly, I have somewhat mixed feelings about this bill. It represents a step forward but it does not seem to me to go far enough. It appears to me that the information contained in part A is the type of information which, although it cannot be described as inconsequential, does not amount to very much. It is not the type of information that varies from year to year.
Why there should be a fee for this information I do not know. I think the fee might well be removed. It is supposed to cover the cost of indexing and that sort of thing. There will have to be facilities set up to do this if we are to receive tables and reports, and so

this cost is there from the beginning. It might be good policy to eliminate the fee.
I was interested in the statement made by the minister with regard to outside control of Canadian industry. This was brought out in previous discussions in the bill to which I referred. It is an amazing fact that a highly developed industrial nation like Canada stands in the position it does. It stands in that position because we have had to have massive imports of foreign capital to develop this country. We needed and wanted this capital; it has been welcome. As the minister said, capital has certain responsibilities to this country, as well as rights. We offer a stable political climate, except perhaps in the province of British Columbia, where capital can develop, where capital can gain the advantages of development in our resource industries. We offer good markets. We offer an access, up to now anyway, to commonwealth markets. We have many advantages for foreign capital and foreign capital comes here not to do us a favour but because it is a good climate for foreign capital. In this respect I take strong exception to what was said by the hon. member for Hull who seems to think that the favour is being done to us when foreign capital comes here. It is a favour on both sides. The extent of this capital is well illustrated in "The Canadian Balance of International Payments, 1960," put out by the dominion bureau of statistics. On page 60, statement 32, "Ownership and Control of Selected Canadian Industries," we find here that, with respect to the rubber industry, in 1959, 98 per cent of it was under foreign control; pulp and paper in 1959, 49 per cent under foreign control; agricultural machinery, 55 per cent; automobiles and parts, 97 per cent; transportation equipment, 73 per cent; electrical apparatus, 81 per cent; chemicals, 77 per cent.
I should like also to refer to the autumn issue of Queen's Quarterly for 1958 in which is found an article by Professor J. E. Smyth entitled "Financial Disclosures by Subsidiaries". This is what Professor Smyth had to say about this matter, and this has to do with what is properly secret information and what is properly public information. I quote:
But the concept of what information is private is somehow related to the concept of what property is private. Those who are sensitive about their property rights are likely also to have precise ideas about what business is their own and no one else's. The ownership of property implies the right to exclude all others from a knowledge of its use (as long as the use is lawful) and of the results of its use. The problem today, however, is to decide in what sense the property of large business is private, and if it is private, who is entitled to the amenities of such privacy. The assets of large corporations are financed by shareholders and by creditors (including employees who must wait

for payment until they have rendered their services) . Public relations programs are designed to convince the consumer that he too has a stake in the corporation.
And so it goes on. In referring to disclosure of information, at pages 404 and 405 Professor Smyth had this to say:
What we have in Canada today is a distracting unevenness in the publication of financial information.
He states:
It is when some businesses disclose their financial affairs and condition with candour and others (equally large) are allowed to maintain an inscrutable silence that we can never know where we stand, and that some businesses may enjoy, unfairly, such advantage as there may be in secrecy.
The minister made quite a play on that point. He mentioned that this disclosure could be damaging competitively, that it could be of immense value to competitors. What is the minister talking about? The minister is talking about foreign owned subsidiaries in competition with Canadian companies. This is the way I read it. So we want to perpetuate this advantage, if there is an advantage in secrecy, to the foreign company as compared with the Canadian company. What are these foreign companies? I can give a short list of some of them. They include such companies as the Borden Company, Bristol Myers of Canada, Campbell Soup, Canadian International Paper, Chrysler Corporation, Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, General Foods, General Mills, General Motors, H. J. Heinz, International Harvester, Irone Ore Company of Canada, Kellogg Company, Kraft Foods, Nabisco Foods, and National Cash Register. There is a whole galaxy of major corporations across this country, with one exception.
I mentioned International Harvester. In one session when my bill was being debated and I mentioned the name of International Harvester Company, I received a letter from the president of International Harvester stating that although International Harvester was a fully owned subsidiary of a United States company, they felt it their duty to their customers and to their employees in Canada to make full and complete disclosure of the Canadian operations and they were putting out a balance sheet, profit and loss statements and all the rest of the financial papers which are supposed to be put out by a public company in Canada. They said they were doing this so they would take the people of Canada into their confidence as to what they were doing. I say that this is an enlightened management when that sort of thing is done. But that is not done too often.
What are we asking for, or what were we asking for before this bill was amended? Again, according to Professor Smyth at page 408:
2, 1982
Corporations and Labour Unions
A point of interest is that even were the Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies required to publish their financial information according to the most stringent requirements for disclosure presently prevailing under any companies legislation in Canada, the disclosure would be considerably less in detail than that required of the parent company in the United States by the securities and exchange commission.
That is what we are asking for, or rather that is what we were asking for, namely, that the subsidiary of this company would give to the Canadian public the same information the parent company is obliged to give to the United States public. Last week out of the Financial Post I cut out two little clippings. They are not very big. One reads as follows:
CTS of Canada Ltd., Streetsville, Ont., steadily expanded its production of variable resistors during 1961, according to annual report of parent CTS Corp., Elkhart, Indiana.
Then down below it states as follows:
Results of the Canadian firm are not published.
Again there is this clipping with the heading "Flintkote Doing Well in Canada". Again the Financial Post bases its report on information put out by the parent company and in the second paragraph in brackets we find the following statement:
(Financial statements of the Canadian operations are not published.)
I say that this bill certainly is a big step forward. It is necessary. However, I do not think it fulfils exactly what the Prime Minister said when he was quoted by the Minister of Justice. For one thing we desire a fair portion of their equity sold in Canada, or Canadian participation in ownership of these subsidiary companies. This is fine. But if there is an advantage in secrecy, then why should they do this? This would take away the advantage of secrecy. They would come under the public companies section of the Companies Act. I have on the order paper another bill with regard to directors. The Prime Minister said that these companies should have Canadians on their boards of directors. My bill simply provides that the majority of directors of any company incorporated under a federal charter should live in Canada. Canadian nationality was not a requirement; but it would get away from absentee management.
The third point made by the Prime Minister was proper disclosure. I fail to see why information which the parent company puts out in the United States-and we are talking mainly about United States subsidiaries as they have the great bulk of investment in this country-or financial statements should be in part B. I can see good reason for much of the information being asked for being in part B.

Corporations and Labour Unions However, as far as the standard financial statements put out by the companies are concerned, I can see no good reason for it. As I said before, if there is a valid reason why this must be considered as giving an advantage, then we are saying to foreign companies, "The best way for you to operate in Canada is through 100 per cent owned and controlled subsidiaries; keep Canadians out of participation because otherwise you may have to be put on a fair basis with competing Canadian companies. You may have to let Canadian people know what you are doing in this country, the same as Canadian companies have to do."
I say that, to me, this does not appear to be carrying out what the Prime Minister and the leading members of the government have said time and again in this country and in the United States. This bill does not implement those statements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Another broken promise.


Ernest James Broome: It is all right; the hon. member for Hull thought even this bill was going too far. If it was left to a Liberal government to do anything along these lines we would wait 100 years. You do not stand up for anything Canadian, you never have and you never will. You never had any confidence in this country. You are afraid that if you stand up for Canada and Canadians or Canadian interests you are going to frighten off a dollar of investment. This is not so.
In so far as union disclosures are concerned, I did ask the hon. member for Hull to read one paragraph of the brief. I listened intently, but I do not believe he did read it so I will read this paragraph from page 21:
Notwithstanding our criticism of Bill C-38, a criticism by no means exhaustive, we refrain from voicing further objections to it here. We are prepared to live with it because we have nothing to hide. We would assume that the legislation will not, either in its provisions or regulations, require the publication of information which will damage a union's collective bargaining status, but apart from that we are prepared to co-operate in every way and to waive confidentiality. To the extent that the public are interested in data as to membership, finances and so on, they are welcome to it.
I contend that is a much more realistic attitude on the part of the Canadian Labour Congress this year than they showed last year.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Will the hon. member permit a question? Would he read the last paragraph? This is the point I was trying to make.


Ernest James Broome: Yes, I know the last paragraph, and I will read it.
There is none the less a good deal of detailed criticism of the bill which the congress would like to make and feels it should have the right
[Mr. Broome.!
to make, but this is not the appropriate place or occasion. We strongly urge that the congress and other interested parties be given an opportunity to make formal representations, either to a parliamentary committee or otherwise, before the bill is enacted.
The hon. member for Hull read that paragraph, I believe, and I did too. Actually, there is no substance to this argument. The point is, are they willing to agree that this information should be disclosed or do they wish to keep it secret? They cannot, in all honesty, take the position that they do not want this information disclosed, otherwise they will be saying to their members, "We don't want you to know what is happening to the finances of this union." This attitude would not be acceptable. The Canadian Labour Congress has taken the proper attitude that not only their members but the Canadian public are entitled to this information.
It is well to recall that they are only talking about the bill as it is now, part A and part B, which does not require the disclosure of too much information. The congress says the public of Canada is welcome to this information. I do not know what kind of tables the dominion bureau of statistics will bring out eventually to let us know about the operations of foreign subsidiaries in Canada. I go back to Professor Smyth, Mr. Speaker, where he says:
One of the unfortunate by-products of the present situation, quite apart from its larger implications, is that research in the field of business finance in Canada is stymied at many points because of the large blind spots in our knowledge of what is taking palce in the Canadian economy. The incidence of the operations of subsidiaries upon the Canadian economy is so great that one can never be sure that such published financial statements as we do receive give a typical picture of economic trends and financial developments in Canada. Until about four years ago the Bank of Canada compiled and published financial data from a sample of Canadian companies; it has since abandoned the series. One of the important limitations of these data was that they were drawn entirely from published financial statements, and that the proportion of Canadian economic activity which was affected by large private companies, for which no statements were available, was so significant as to invalidate any conclusions which might be drawn from the published figures.
In other words, we did not even know where our economy was going because there were so many blind spots. Well, we will not have these blind spots in the future, that is if our civil servants can work out the proper tables and ascertain the type of information to which we are entitled. Even when an industry is 98 per cent foreign owned, Mr. Speaker, and there are only three companies in the field, I suppose they will develop tables which will not disclose anything because some smart person may be able to figure out what one of these companies is doing. This would be a terrible thing. Perhaps these civil

servants have the godlike quality of being able to say what is good for the Canadian people to know and what is bad for them to know.
All I know is that I like the bill and that it embraces the whole field, labour unions and companies. I like the approach. It is a big step forward, but I feel that the bill lacks this one essential, and that is keeping normal financial statements in the secret part of the bill instead of putting them into the public disclosure part of the bill.


Frank Howard: I listened with a great deal of interest to what the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) had to say because we know he has a particular interest in this subject and related matters. In fact, he has had, and has now, bills on the order paper dealing with somewhat the same sort of thing. I would have thought that the minister, in his introductory remarks, and especially in view of the fact both hon. gentlemen are from the same province, might have carried out the normal British Columbia courtesies by making some reference to this fact. However, such was not the case. Perhaps it just slipped his mind in his own desire to speak about what he claims are the principal reasons behind the submission of the bill to the house.
Last year a bill was introduced dealing with substantially the same sort of thing, but was deliberately not proceeded with and a number of representations were made during the course of the session. These pieces of correspondence in respect of Bill No. C-70, as I believe it was called last year, were tabled. I have had an opportunity of perusing them and one thing has become quite clear. Most of the representations to the government about the structure of the bill last year were from corporations or interests operating on behalf of corporations, and the bill before us now implements most of their suggestions. I might be unfair if I were to say that the minister knuckled under to these representations. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say this is what he wanted to do in the first place, but he did not know how to have the bill drafted so it would meet the desires of the corporations in this country.
I do not think the minister dealt with the bill itself to any great extent because his remarks were interlarded with references to economic independence and to the development of a Canadian identity so far as corporation and union structures were concerned. He made quite a few references to national development, to ownership, control and utilization of our own resources, all of which are very commendable ideals and are very worthwhile things for the minister to express, but
Corporations and Labour Unions these are not the things which the bill specifies. It does not deal with these questions at all. It deals entirely and exclusively with the filing of statistics about the operations of corporations and unions, albeit arising from that information someone will discover the degree to which corporations and unions have international affiliations or have international controls exercised over them.
Apparently the bill is based upon a speech made by the Prime Minister to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Great Britain, during which he made reference to a number of things he would like to see existing in Canada with regard to foreign controls and foreign concerns. The Prime Minister said:
We expect to make available a fair portion of their equity securities for purchase by Canadians:
This is something highly commendable. We would all like to see more opportunities provided for Canadian financiers to participate in the operation and formation of companies, be they foreign or otherwise; but the bill says nothing about that. The bill, which has been lauded by the Minister of Justice and the government as the last stepping stone to full economic development, does not say a word about that at all.
The Prime Minister also said that we expect them "to include Canadians on their boards of directors". However there is no reference in this bill to Canadians or anybody else being included on boards of directors. It makes no requirement that Canadians be appointed to boards of directors. Are we to balance that statement of the Prime Minister, which stated one of his great national goals was to have Canadians on boards of directors, against this piece of legislation? Were we to do that we could say that we do not believe the Prime Minister because the bill does not propose to carry out what the Prime Minister hoped would be effected.
Your Honour will remember that last session we spent hour after hour after hour until finally, after what seemed an interminably long time, we were able to get one small pipe line company, Aurora pipe lines, in the position of having Canadians as its directors. We had to put up a long battle to achieve that objective, an objective which was in concert with the attitude expressed by the Prime Minister. However the bill before us does not cover that point at all.
The Prime Minister also said he wanted foreign concerns "to make proper disclosure of their Canadian operations." The hon. member for Vancouver South, who has just spoken, said this bill does not allow for the making of proper disclosures. It allows for the making of certain disclosures but, as pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver South, who has studied this question

Corporations and Labour Unions at great length, the bill is worthless in that regard because it does not provide tor the making of proper disclosure.
The Prime Minister also said he wants foreign companies "to employ competent Canadians in senior management and technical positions." Again that is a very worthwhile ideal but there is nothing about it in the bill. The Prime Minister also talked about foreign concerns conducting a fair share of their research in Canada, but under this government in recent years we have issued patents galore to United States parent companies in the pharmaceutical industry which have subsidiaries here in Canada. These two things do not add up; they do not balance the scale.
The Minister of Justice made some reference to the percentages of foreign ownership and control, stating that 1957 was the last year for which such statistics were available. I do not know whether the minister just did not know there were statistics available for 1959, or whether he deliberately left them out because they painted a much more difficult picture. According to statistics issued by the dominion bureau of statistics foreign control in our petroleum, natural gas and mining industries was 61 per cent in 1957-the same figure as the minister gave for foreign control of our mining industry in 1957-while two years later the percentage had risen to 63 per cent under the present government.
The minister now comes forward with this half-baked piece of legislation and says the government wants to reverse that trend and is seeking Canadian control. However this measure is not going to accomplish that aim. The minister wants to reverse a trend which has been accelerating during the term of his own administration. I cannot see how he will do that merely by requiring the filing of returns, merely by enacting a sort of national snooping law into the businesses of others. The government wants to stick its snoopy nose into everybody's business, for example, to find out how many male and female members a union has, and their nationalities. Maybe it is desirable to know this sort of thing but we would like to have some guarantee or assurance that this will produce a beneficial result towards the goal outlined by the government. I submit the bill does not do that. It merely requires unions and corporations-but not all corporations, there are those which the government thinks should not have to file returns, in fact 27 types in all-to file a list containing certain information, some of which will be public and some of which will be kept secret. In connection with the latter I understand the minister has some amendments to propose

so that the secret information filed will become more secret. At any rate I gather that was the intent of his remarks.
I would like to know how this filing of statistics by businessmen and unions, already overburdened with demands for statistics from the government and the d.b.s., is going to move us towards economic independence. How is it going to reverse the trend of more foreign control, of the greater absentee landlordism and ownership which has been increasing under the present government? How is it going to reverse the trend of give-away programs in many provinces with respect to natural resources? How is it going to promote national development, as mentioned by the minister? How is it going to make businesses carry on in the way we would like Canadian businesses to operate? I do not believe it will have one iota of effect at all.
The minister made reference to the fact that he wants the Canadian people to be made aware of what is taking place in the operations of corporations and unions, but then he turns around and says he does not want them to be made aware of everything, that he wants certain things to be kept secret. I ask, is this bill going to allow the government to collect statistics, juggle them around to suit its own need, and then publish what it sees fit? The minister would be far better off to take the advice of the hon. member for Vancouver South who has studied the implications of this and other related matters, someone who is an expert in this field, someone who-


Mr. Argue:: Order.


Frank Howard: in my opinion might be able to advise the Minister of Justice how this particular piece of legislation should be drafted. If the minister would take that advice, accept those suggestions and agree to put them into effect when the bill reaches the committee stage, perhaps we would be less critical of its effect. If the minister would earnestly say to us now that he meant all these things he spoke about, including understanding our economy, economic independence, and so on, but they really had nothing to do with the bill, then the house might have a better appreciation of whether to vote for or against the bill. At the moment, until I hear some clear indication from the minister when he closes the debate as to what is the real purpose of the bill, I am afraid I will be unable to make up my mind.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if no one else has anything to say I will say just a few words. I do not really intend to speak on the bill itself, but

very briefly to make an appeal to the minister about the procedure to be followed with relation to the bill. Having listened to the debate, having listened to the minister's own statement that he himself has already come to the conclusion that it would be desirable to propose certain amendments to the bill, having heard the thoughtful suggestions made by my hon. friend from Hull, having heard the views expressed by the hon. member for Timmins, the queries raised by the hon. member for Skeena, and the very thoughtful and thought-provoking observations about the limitations of the bill and the anaemic character of the bill expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver South, I believe that the government would save the time of the house, which they profess to be very anxious to do, and would be able to get on with other urgent business by sending this bill to a standing committee.
It could be sent to the committee on industrial relations, or if the government thought some other committee more appropriate I am sure we would be quite agreeable to sending it to whatever committee they suggest. In the committee these amendments could be carefully considered; time could be taken on them. I feel that if this course were followed, when the bill came back to the house after that kind of consideration it would probably take almost no time at all in committee of the whole. Meanwhile it is now only 25 minutes past nine o'clock and we could probably dispose of at least one more piece of legislation in the house this evening. The government knows how anxious we are, and have been all along, to get on with the essential business-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and to do it as rapidly as we can consistent with a proper consideration of the expenditure of the vast sums of money we are being asked to approve.


An hon. Member:: Peanuts?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I make this suggestion, that instead of continuing the rest of this evening in committee of the whole on a bill that, if it were carefully considered in a special committee could probably be disposed of on some other day in a very few minutes, we follow this course and try to get on with the other urgent business that the government is seeking to put before us.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much indeed the interest in this bill that has been evidenced
Corporations and Labour Unions by those who have spoken and by such helpful suggestions as have been made in the course of this debate on second reading. Perhaps in closing the debate I could deal at once with the suggestion repeated by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who has urged that we refer this bill to one of the standing committees for consideration. The hon. member based his suggestion on the idea that by so doing it would enable the house to get on with other urgent business. I would like to say just two or three things about that.
First I should say that in view of the interest and the encouraging degree of unanimity so far expressed with respect to this bill in the debate on second reading, I am satisfied that the committee of the whole house could scarcely be better occupied than in processing this bill through its various stages. I am also satisfied that this stage will not take too long and that the amendments which we have in mind, and which I outlined quite fully in my opening remarks, will generally be approved.		
I must say that I do not find myself very much taken in by the other suggestion of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, which was that members of the official opposition are really anxious to get on with the essential business that is before the house for this session. This and other bills have been on the order paper since the early days of the session. Hon. members opposite have known full well precisely what was the legislative bill of fare had to be passed, and at no time so far have they shown the slightest disposition to give these matters a proper sense of proportion or expedite the business of this house.


Miss LaMarsh:: Shame.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a very good way to get business through.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate says, "A very good way of getting business through". Sir, nothing at this session has sufficed to persuade the opposition that they should get business through, neither co-operation on our part nor occasionally a frank and bald statement as to what was the situation; nothing has so far persuaded the opposition that they should cease their obstructionist tactics. We have tried everything, and I think we must now just let matters take their course.
The proper way to proceed with bills, in my submission, is for them to be given second reading and then consideration in committee of the whole. That is the procedure we intend to follow and I can assure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, as well as all

Corporations and Labour Unions other hon. members of the house, that such amendments as we propose we hope to have adequately considered in committee of the whole. It will not be our intention to rush them through. We hope that each clause of the bill will be adequately considered, with a sense of proportion, and that the arguments advanced will be relevant. That may be a forlorn hope but we hope it will be the attitude shown, because this is important, and in our view sensible, legislation.
With regard to the various points raised by hon. members opposite, I will try to deal with them in the order in which they were raised. The hon. member for Hull suggested that we have brought in this bill too late at the end of the session, and at the end of this parliament. Well, sir, he may be better informed than I am with respect to the end of the session. That question seems to trouble him a little. All I can say, however, is that this bill has been on the order paper since the beginning of the session and if my hon. friends had made it possible for us to bring it on for debate at an earlier time, we should have been very glad to do so. However, we are not asking them to rush it now; they can take all the time they wish, because we regard this as important legislation which should be adequately considered. If, therefore, there is at any time any suggestion that there is not adequate time to consider this bill, the house and the country will know where the responsibility lies: it lies squarely on the shoulders of the hon. member who made this suggestion, and his colleagues.
The hon. member for Timmins made an interesting observation at the opening of his remarks. He said that the house and the country have waited for the opening of the debate on Bill No. C-38 in somewhat the same way that the world waited for Colonel Glenn's flight in space. That suggested to my mind an interesting parallel. There are occasions, it is true, when persons go into orbit and we have been observing the gyrations of the new party, or the New Democratic party to which the hon. member belongs. If he was seeking to create or suggest a parallel between this bill and Colonel Glenn's flight, I can only suggest a parallel or similarity between Colonel Glenn's flight and the activities of his own party which seem to me to be even more striking, especially when one stops to reflect that although both have been in orbit, the significant difference is that whereas Colonel Glenn made a successful landing the hon. member's party is still away out in space.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So is that figure of speech.


Hazen Robert Argue: That took five minutes.


Mr. Fulion:: That is not nearly as long as it will take the former party of the hon. member for Assiniboia to make a successful landing, and it is even a conspicuously shorter space of time than it will take the hon. gentleman's present party to make a successful landing. Even though he has found a temporary refuge 1 can assure him he is far from having made a safe landing.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well.


James Ross Fulton: The suggestion has been made that the bill is defective because somehow or other it seeks to equate the corporations and the trade unions. I can only say that anyone who studies the bill will realize how ill founded is this criticism. Of course, it is not the purpose or the effect of this bill to make them the same; the sole purpose is to require both to report statistics. There is no other purpose, and I cannot see, on the basis of the arguments so far advanced, how anyone can suggest that there is anything improper in requiring the two types of organization to make returns in the one piece of legislation. That does not seem to me to indicate in any way that we are trying to equate the operations of trade unions and corporations. One has heard suggestions that we should get on with the business of the session. With that, I quite agree. Yet hon. members on the other side seem to suggest that instead of doing this thing efficiently and expeditiously by providing in the same piece of legislation for these returns, we should take further time in the house by introducing two separate pieces of legislation.
Further, the suggestion was made that the bill was defective in that the penalties provided for infringement are the same in respect to both corporations and unions. This criticism, again, surprised me. I can only point out in answer that this is a universal principle with respect to legislation. The principle is that penalties for the breach of a statute should be the same no matter who commits that breach. Does the hon. member who made that criticism really mean to imply what is inherent in his criticism, namely that there should be one law for the powerful and another for the weak? Certainly that has never been in my opinion a proper basis on which to found any provision setting forth a penalty for breach of statute.
The fact is that what we desire to acquire is information about the activities of those who control from outside certain elements of the Canadian economy, whether that control be exercised in the field of corporation activity or of trade union activity. So we have provided without discrimination that

both segments of the economy should be required to make returns and be subject to the same penalty if there is any breach of the statute.
My hon. friend from Vancouver South made an interesting and constructive speech. It was pointed out by him that he has had bills on the order paper in previous sessions having as their object a similar purpose to that of this bill. That is true, and I should like to express my appreciation to him both for his interest in the subject and the contribution and studies he has made of it, also for the fact that he reminded me that I did not refer to those efforts in my introductory remarks. If there be any omission for which I should be blamed, I accept the criticism gladly. I had thought, however, that his interest in and his contribution to the subject was too well known to need specific reference by me. Indeed I thought it might even have been obvious without my saying so, that we, as a government, have profited by the contribution which he made to this subject himself and by the contributions to knowledge and thought on this subject made during those debates in the past.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Rather belated, but we are glad to hear it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know what the hon. member for Kootenay West regards as belated, my tribute to the hon. member for Vancouver South or his own, but I am glad he now realizes that his recognition has been belated.
The hon. member for Vancouver South put on record a number of statistics with respect to the extent of foreign ownership and I am sure he will agree with me that these reinforce the arguments in favour of this bill, arguments which suggest that it is timely now that we should take steps to determine the effect and extent of this foreign ownership. I appreciate that the hon. gentleman feels the bill is defective, in that it provides that much of the financial information to be submitted in the returns should be kept confidential. This is because as a result of the consideration we gave after Bill No. C-70 was introduced last session we decided that the representations made with respect to the discriminatory aspects of that bill were well founded. Accordingly, we decided that in the new bill introduced this session we should require the same kind of information to be filed, but by all companies whether private or public and whether Canadian owned or foreign controlled. Having made that decision, the point my hon. friend makes that it preserves somehow the competitive advantage of foreign companies to keep that information confidential is, I submit, not well taken. If
Corporations and Labour Unions my hon. friend will give due weight to the effect of what this bill requires, he will realize that all companies are now required to report. This includes, for instance, Canadian private companies, and these private companies are required to make returns under this bill which they are not otherwise required to make available to the public. Therefore, for us to have allowed that these returns might become public knowledge would have had the effect that information regarding the operations of Canadian private companies, to single out this one group, would have been available to their competitors, including foreign owned United States competitors, to the great advantage of those competitors.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, no one would suggest that we should take any action which would increase what my hon. friend has said is a competitive advantage already existing in favour of foreign owned companies. No, our conclusion was that because it is desirable that the government should obtain this information from all companies, including Canadian owned as well as foreign controlled, and private as well as public companies, that consideration outweighed the consideration in favour of making this information available in detail to the public; because to do so would place Canadian companies which now have the benefit of privacy with respect to certain of their operations at a disadvantage; would place that information at the disposal of their competitors who are controlled from outside the country and thus give their competitors an advantage which at the moment they do not have. We do not feel that these details of the operation of Canadian companies in the category I have mentioned should be exposed to their United States competitors.
As I said in opening the debate on second reading, we recognize that the bill is to an extent experimental, that this is a first step. It is a step that has never been taken before. As a result of this bill, the government, for the first time in our history, will be in possession of all the facts as to the operation of our economy, the influence on that economy of control of important segments exercised from outside the country; and by having the advantage of the information with respect to both Canadian owned and controlled organizations as well as the foreign owned and controlled organizations we can compare the facts and see the full impact on our economy of these foreign controlled operations, whether it be in the corporation or the union field. We can then, as a result of that information, assess the situation and base specific policies, either administrative or legislative, which we will present in the future, upon an intelligent

Corporations and Labour Unions appreciation of all the facts instead of upon conjecture, prejudice or only a partial appreciation of the facts.
This bill will enable us to develop policy in the field of ensuring effective Canadian control of the Canadian economy and, of course, the information it places at our disposal will also enable us to remedy any defects which may be disclosed as time goes on. In other words, we recognize this as an important step, but a first step, an experimental measure which time and experience may indicate requires certain amendments or modifications. We will be prepared to introduce those modifications on the basis of experience. I am convinced, however, that this step is so important that it is well justified in spite of any uncertainties or risks. Let me make clear that we are not uncertain as to our policy; I mean uncertainty only as to the very best and final way to go about implementing it. Nevertheless the objective to be accomplished in terms of ensuring control by Canadians of the Canadian economy is so important that any risks are well justified. I feel experience will show that this is one of the most important and far reaching steps, in terms of true national development and national policy, that any government has yet taken.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: that the house go into committee of the whole on the said bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deplore once again the fact that the minister would not refer this bill to the standing committee on industrial relations where, I am convinced, it could have been improved so as to satisfy everybody, because the opposition wants the bill to prove as useful as it is designed to be.
Unfortunately, this was refused. We are in no position to impose our views; we would be defeated by the majority. We shall abide by this decision, even though we were unable to obtain the information we were entitled to get.
The minister says himself that this bill is important. Therefore, it would have been worth while to enable the public to express

their views and objections, as was done for other bills. Those concerned should have been allowed to submit a brief likely to enlighten all hon. members. I am convinced that a great number of members on both sides of the house are far from being experts on that matter. We need the advice of experts to explain the principle of the causes we wish to defend.
Now, in the standing committee on industrial relations, we have the right to call experts in constitutional law. Some of them have greatly helped us in the past when they gave us their opinions. We could also have heard industrialists, successful businessmen. Those people could certainly have given us the information we need and which the government has not yet given us.
We could also have heard representatives of the Canadian Congress of Labour and other labour unions; indeed, those people could have enlightened us on the very nature of the principle of the bill. They could even have suggested amendments to make the bill more acceptable. The minister himself recognized that it is not entirely acceptable, since he intends to have his colleagues introduce amendments to improve it?
The most surprising point of all is that even though the government has been studying this bill since 1957, and has introduced Bill No. C-70 last year, we are presented this year with legislation which seems to have been prepared at the last minute.
We did not want to move any amendment during the debate on second reading because that would have resulted in a vote of nonconfidence.
Once again I say that the principle of the bill is a good one and that the government is entitled to the information it is seeking. Now, what is the best way to go about obtaining it. That, we do not know.
Besides, the minister said that he introduced this bill under the authority of section 91 of the British North America Act. I have that section here, which, under subsection 1, paragraph 2, reads:
The regulation of trade and commerce.
However, if we look at the rights reserved to the provinces, we find that provinces also have the exclusive right to regulate trade.
Consequently, there seems to be some conflict, which could have been avoided if the minister had included in his bill a preamble in these words; "This bill has been drawn up under the authority of section 91, subsection 1, paragraph 2, of the British North America Act".

I think that would have made it much more acceptable from a constitutional point of view.
As it is, I am of those who believe that strictly provincial corporations and unions will have only one thing to do: refuse to give out the information asked for. It will then be up to the government to take legal action and the courts will decide whether it is really constitutional, as the minister claims it is.
Why compel corporations and unions to take such a stand when everyone would be ready to co-operate if the bill had been prepared properly. But it was not. Now, in some provinces, we might see provincial corporations and unions refuse to give out information and then, the courts may say later that the bill is anti-constitutional in this part.
That is why we ask once again the minister-which he seems to ignore-why he does not prepare a bill in which it would be clearly indicated that the bill is based on section 91, subsection 1, paragraph 2 of the British North America Act. We would then see clearly that the information concerns trade and commerce.
Consequently, the act would become much clearer, much more precise, much more acceptable.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to go over the discussion we had previously because when we come to certain sentences we will undoubtedly have some remarks to make; for the time being, I ask the minister to explain the preamble further, which would make this bill more in keeping with provincial laws.
Now, if the minister refuses to accept this suggestion-I know that there are not nearly enough of us to oppose it-we will bow to the demands of a government which does not want to listen to reason.
(Text):


Frank Howard: I do not wish to make any general comments, Mr. Chairman. However, in opening the debate on second reading the minister indicated that one of his colleagues, if one was available at that time, would move an amendment to clause 14 and that there would also be some consequential amendments to other parts of the bill. I wonder whether the minister would be disposed to make available either to the committee-although this procedure may be a bit irregular-or perhaps in a more private way to representatives of both the official opposition and ourselves the amendments which he proposes to have moved, in order that over the evening and tomorrow morning we
Corporations and Labour Unions may be able to look at them and associate them with the rest of the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before I reply to the last suggestion, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could deal briefly with the remarks of the hon. member for Hull. I think he missed the point of my remarks in opening the debate on second reading when I said that we relied primarily upon subheading 6 of section 91 of the British North America Act as the constitutional authority for this bill. I am confident that there may be other heads of section 91 upon which we could rely for such authority. It seems to me that this is an answer to the hon. member's suggestion that we should insert a preamble defining, as I understood him to say, precisely the provision upon which we rely. Certainly we do not rely precisely or exclusively on the trade and commerce heading. As I said, heading 6 appeals to us. However, I think there are others. There are also general provisions upon which we rely with respect to federal jurisdiction. I think it would be extremely unwise in a bill of this sort to attempt to define with particularity precisely the constitutional grounds upon which we rely as to the validity of the legislation. In saying that I do not mean to imply that we have not examined the point with precision and particularity. We have done so and we are satisfied that this bill is within the constitutional authority of parliament.
With regard to the amendments referred to by the hon. member for Skeena may I say that the consequential amendments, while they may be fairly numerous, are minor in nature. I can give him and the committee that assurance. They are changes in the designation of the minister and of officials holding responsibility arising largely out of the decision to entrust the dominion bureau of statistics with responsibility for the reception in the first place of these returns, and the custody of part B. The amendments to all the other portions of the act arise out of the major amendments to clause 14. The amendment to clause 14 affects the definition of official persons and their conduct in connection with the custody of information that comes to them. It does not in itself have very many consequential amendments. The consequential amendments derive mainly from the decision to give the bureau of statistics custody, as I have said. I therefore do not really think there is any necessity for anticipating the amendment to clause 14 at this stage.


Edwin William Brunsden: Ten o'clock.
Clause 1 stands.
Progress reported.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the house leader could indicate the urgent and important business the government proposes to bring before us tomorrow and each succeeding day of this week so that the opposition will be well prepared to expedite that business.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I welcome the change of heart.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no change of heart whatever.


Gordon Minto Churchill: All government business is important. May I stress that fact. Of course it is also urgent. Otherwise it would not be before hon. members. The first item tomorrow will be the bill based on the resolution which was passed today dealing with amendments to the Judges Act and then we will carry on in the committee stage with Bill No. C-38 which we have just been considering. Then we will follow with the resolution
in the name of the Prime Minister dealing with the electoral boundaries commission. Then we shall take second reading of Bill No. S-19, to amend the Canada Grain Act. That appears to be the order in which these items will be taken tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the house leader if we can be reasonably sure there will not be a change of program, that the Prime Minister will proceed with the resolution, and that this indication of urgency would mean that redistribution is to take place before there is an election?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There are far too many questions here. However, in view of the tremendous burdens which fall upon a prime minister, I am sure the house would be perfectly agreeable to any shift in the order of business to accommodate him. It is just normal.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 3, 1962