1962-04-06

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of an item which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of last evening, which states "Denies Liberal Protests". I am not going into it and waste the time of the house. It purports to suggest that I came out of a committee sitting in camera yesterday and disclosed what was going on in committee. I was called out of the committee, and all I said was that I did not know what the person who asked the question was talking about. I made no disclosure at any time, and I simply wished to set the record straight.



SUMMARY OF INDIRECT BENEFITS TO CANADA FROM U.S. TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table three copies, in English and French, of a document summarizing the tariff concessions of interest to Canada arising from the United States negotiations with countries other than Canada during the GATT tariff conference. On March 7, 1962 the Minister of Finance tabled the interim agreement between Canada and the United States. At that time he indicated that in addition to the agreement with Canada the United States had concluded negotiations with several other countries, and that the details of the indirect benefits accruing to Canada from these other arrangements would be made public when the results had been analysed.
This information will be found in the document I am tabling. In addition to direct United States concessions to Canada covering $65 million of Canadian trade, the United States made concessions to other countries on items affecting $85 million of Canadian exports to the United States in 1960, mostly manufactured articles. Moreover, concessions granted to the United States by the European economic community cover approximately 26207-1-163
$140 million of Canadian trade with the community. Canada will also benefit from a number of tariff concessions granted to the United States by Finland, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland and Peru.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the document tendered by him?


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



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the disastrous effects the pilots' strike might have on the Canadian economy, does the minister intend to call them to Ottawa immediately in order to consider the grievances they brought before him?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I asked the officials of my department today to get in touch with the pilots and the shipowners so that both parties might be brought together today. As hon. members know, requests were made by the pilots to the shipowners, and the latter will have to pay the costs. That is why I think that pilots and shipowners should get together.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Under the Canada Shipping Act, it is the Minister of Transport who is the authority with respect to pilotage in Canada. Therefore, I feel it is his duty to convene the pilots to Ottawa without delay.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, that first step will be taken to begin with.
(Text):


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has the minister received any communication or protests from the United States authorities in charge of shipping with regard to the strike, and if so what answer has been given to indicate to the United States authorities the likely duration of the strike?
2558	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Balcer: Mr. Speaker, when I left my office this morning I had not received any protest or any communication from United States shipping authorities.

(Translation):


Mr. J. P. Deschalelels (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: Mr. Speaker, is there any truth to the reports which appeared in this morning's papers to the effect that in order to reduce its expenses and following pressure from the treasury board, the Department of Transport has asked pilots to contribute part of their salaries to the purchase of aids to navigation for the maintenance of the St. Lawrence seaway?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, such a request was made about a month ago. We asked the pilots to consider the possibility of contributing to the purchase of a launch to carry the pilots from the wharf at Les Escoumains to the ships which pass at that place. That craft would be for the exclusive use of pilots. Officials of my department have inquired with the pilots as to the possibility of their contributing to the purchase of such a boat which would be for their exclusive use.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Did the officials of the department receive a reply from the pilots concerning that suggestion?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion was turned down by the pilots.
(Text):



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources because I have quite a number of constituents who have been waiting for this information. In view of the fact that my question No. 229, which asked for biographies and information on half a dozen members of the water resources branch of the minister's department, was passed as an order for return on March 12, as recorded on page 1694 of Hansard for that date, could the minister let me know the reasons for the delay in providing this information, and whether the apparent dam has anything to do with United States influence?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Norlhern Affairs and National Resources):: I can assure my hon. friend that very careful attention has been given to this matter. As a matter of fact the biographies of the personnel have been researched very carefully, so he can


assure his constituents they will have all the necessary information. I do not believe I should comment on the latter part of the question because I do not want to create an international incident.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, which was delayed because of the intrusion of this teachers' problem. Will I get the information I seek in time to use my frank in sending it out to my constituents?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I can assure the hon. member on that point. We should have it by next week, as a matter of fact.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I should like to reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. The hon. member drew my attention to an editorial entitled "Is This the Way to Campaign", which appeared in the March 15 issue of News of the North, a weekly paper published by one of the more prominent members of the Liberal party in the town of Yellowknife.
I have now had an opportunity to examine this editorial, and I think it is fair to say that the interpretation of the situation is a Liberal one and therefore somewhat distorted. It refers to a school teacher at Hay River and a welfare worker of my department at Fort Smith, who are seeking the Progressive Conservative nomination for the Northwest Territories. It suggests that the position of these two potential candidates would be quite different if they were seeking the Liberal nomination.
I do not want to make any obvious comment on that, and I will leave it to hon. members to draw their own conclusions. I can assure my hon. friends that my department has a single and consistent policy that is applied uniformly whenever it is found that a civil servant is engaged in partisan work. This policy is dictated by law under section 61 of the revised Civil Service Act, which provides that civil servants are not to engage in partisan work in connection with any federal or provincial election. Civil servants who are nominated or who are actively seeking nomination are asked to resign and, failing that, are subject to dismissal following a full and proper inquiry to protect them against unjust dismissal.

The civil servant in question, Mr. Eugene Rheaume, acted quite honourably and resigned of his own accord well before nomination day which, according to News of the North, has yet to be held.
The case of the school teacher, Mr. John Scott, is quite different. He is not a civil servant and therefore not subject to section 61 of the Civil Service Act. As my hon. friend knows, education in Canada is a provincial matter and teachers in the north, while recruited and paid by the federal government, are really carrying out a territorial responsibility.
There is a long established tradition in this country that school teachers in the provinces are free to seek election to federal or provincial office, and we have not wished to discriminate against territorial teachers by denying them any of the privileges enjoyed under the provincial school systems from which they are normally recruited. The house will recall that the rights of school teachers in this respect were championed in a long, uphill and eventually successful battle by a respected member of this house, the former leader of the C.C.F. party, Mr. M. J. Cold-well, one of the many school teachers who over the years have rendered distinguished service in this house.
However, Mr. Speaker, in order to be completely above suspicion I understand that the school teacher concerned in this instance is going to seek leave so that no aspersions or suspicions can be cast on his activities. I can only add, Mr. Speaker, that if either of these gentlemen is successful in obtaining the Progressive Conservative nomination-


Mr. Hellyer:: He will be sorry.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -he will be the next member of parliament for the Northwest Territories.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and ask the hon. lady whether the position with respect to teachers, which the minister of northern affairs has enunciated in the case of teachers in the territories, is also applicable to the teachers in the Indian schools under the hon. lady's jurisdiction.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I cannot give a definite answer to that because-


Mr. Mcllraith:: You sure cannot.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: What did the hon. member say?


George James McIlraith: I said you sure cannot.
26207-1-163i
Inquiries of the Ministry


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Perhaps the hon. member can wait until I have finished my remarks, instead of casting in his little asides. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate knows that all the teachers who teach Indian students are not employees of the department. Some of them are under the provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was only asking about those who are.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: But if they are civil servants they come under the regulations of the Civil Service Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I put a supplementary question to the minister of northern affairs and ask if he could say whether a government chartered aircraft, with welfare workers aboard, is making a tour of the eastern Arctic?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, this is not a supplementary to the question under consideration, and I have no knowledge of this situation. Was this reported in News of the North too?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, I am seeking information that has been raised as a result of the hon. gentleman's answer. I am abiding by the rules in seeking this ininformation. Would the minister find out whether this is correct?


Mr. Speaker:: Since the hon. member wishes to discuss the matter as a point of order, I agree that it was not a supplementary question. However, it has been asked, and if the minister wishes to answer it he is at liberty to do so.


Mr. Churchill:: Put it on the order paper.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my only further comment is that I was also seeking information-


George James McIlraith: You have no right to do so.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -because I would like to know the basis for this question.
(Translation):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Soulanges):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister tell us if he has received a reply from the provincial authorities, following the order in council passed by the
2560	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry federal government for the transfer of the Soulanges canal to the province of Quebec? If so, could he acquaint the house with the nature of that reply?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, on February 26, I wrote a letter to the Quebec government authorities in which I included a copy of the order in council transferring to the province of Quebec the ownership and administration of the Soulanges canal.
In that letter, I requested a copy of the order in council passed by the government of the province of Quebec to authorize the acceptance of the transfer, but I have yet to receive a reply.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask a supplementary question. How does the minister account for such negligence on the part of the provincial authorities in this matter?


Mr. Tremblay:: They have no money.


Mr. Johnson:: They are bankrupt.
(Text):



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF MEETING OF PRIME MINISTERS On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has received an invitation from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to a commonwealth prime ministers' conference on September 10, or some other date in September; and if so, what reply he has given to that invitation?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there have been communications between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the various prime ministers of the commonwealth asking their opinions on the subject of a date for a prime ministers' conference and also asking whether, having regard to various circumstances, and in particular to the fact that discussions with relation to the common market application of the United Kingdom will under normal circumstances not be completed before late summer, a date in September would be satisfactory.
The attitude taken by the Canadian government is that, having had from the government of the United Kingdom the assurance that no final decision in connection with their application will be determined by the United Kingdom government until such time as a commonwealth prime ministers' conference has had the opportunity of looking 

into the matter, considering its implications in general and hearing the views of the United Kingdom government, the date would be satisfactory.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the Prime Minister not think that if the conference is to be held in September he should consult with his successor before replying to the invitation?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, hope springs eternal in the breast of the opposition. My experience in the last two days has been that the hon. member's expectations are not going to be realized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, but before asking it perhaps the house would permit me to draw to its attention the presence in the gallery of members of the young Progressive Conservative association of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it that the hon. member is not spying strangers, and I shall not have to put the question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, surely you should not permit this kind of obstruction of the work of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Jones:: They certainly stand between you and office, anyway.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he received a request from the acting premier of Newfoundland seeking the co-operation of the federal government in appraising the very serious situation existing at Bell island as a result of the lay-offs there by Dosco, with a view to the provision of federal assistance? If so, is the Prime Minister in a position to report at this time?


John George Diefenbaker: There was a communication in that regard and Mr. Roy MacCuish, assistant director of the vocational training branch of the Department of Labour, will go to Newfoundland to discuss with officials of the government of Newfoundland possible solutions to the situation at Bell island.



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER    GOVERNMENT ACTION IN DISPUTE RESPECTING PILOTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him what action his department is taking to bring about a settlement of the dispute between the shipping federation of Canada and the St. Lawrence river pilots?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this matter does not come under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.



TEXTILES-REPORTED INCREASE IN JAPANESE QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him if it is a fact that Canada has agreed to a moderate increase in the voluntary export quotas which Japan will impose on shipments of textiles to Canada this year.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: No, there has been no agreement yet. These matters have been under discussion for several months, and when there is a determination of the question it will be made public.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I wonder if I could ask the Acting Minister of Public Works if he is now in a position to answer the question I put to him on Wednesday, in which I asked that the greatest possible use of wood should be made when putting up government buildings in Ottawa.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Minister of Public Works):: I thought I had dealt with that question the other day. However, the suggestion made by the hon. member has already been considered by the Department of Public Works, and I believe that Canadian wood will be used to the maximum possible extent.


Mr. Paul Tardif (Russell):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Forestry. Did the minister take any action to satisfy the demands or the protests of the lumber industry of Canada in connection with the proposed forest products research building being built
Inquiries of the Ministry on Montreal road and designed almost entirely devoid of lumber? Would the minister assure the house and the lumber industry that this state of affairs will be rectified?


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Minister of Forestry):: The representations which have been made by the lumber industry concerning the building in question have been given the utmost consideration. There are various technical features in connection with this building, however, which must also be taken into consideration by the Department of Public Works. The hon. member may be sure, though, that the representations which have been made have received the greatest degree of consideration as far as the Department of Forestry is concerned.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether she has yet received a report from Indian commissioner Boys in British Columbia with respect to the situation at the Prophet river reserve north of Nelson.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: A report has not yet been received, but we are expecting one any day now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I direct a related question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and ask if he saw a report in last night's Ottawa Journal to the effect that Dr. Cunningham, who was sent by his department to investigate this situation, had not gone on from Prophet River to Fort Nelson to inspect the records there of the doctor who had given the first assistance to the Indians who were ill on the reserve, and if he can say whether that report is correct?


Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I did see the report referred to. As I indicated to the house the other day, the doctor who acts on behalf of the department in the area did visit the reserve last Saturday and his report, which I gave to the house, was reassuring. Dr. Barclay, head of the Pacific region of Indian and northern health services, has been very concerned about this matter and is keeping a close watch on the situation.

Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



REPORTED EXCESS OF VITAMIN D IN FOODS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jay Waldo Monteith: On Tuesday last the hon. member for Skeena asked for my comments on statements attributed to Dr. William Cochrane, of Dalhousie University, concerning the amounts of vitamin D in foods. This subject has been under discussion in my department for some time, and consideration is being given to the possibility of amending the regulations under the Food and Drugs Act to limit the addition of vitamin D to certain specified foods.
In connection with the possibility of excess vitamin D being taken by individuals in foods and medicines, the regulations under the Food and Drugs Act were amended last year to reduce the amount of vitamin D in medicinal vitamin preparations to one half the previous level. In view of the concern over the indiscriminate addition of vitamin D to foods, the matter is under current discussion with the Canadian council on nutrition.


Frank Howard: Can the minister say whether the same concern is being exhibited by his department with respect to the so-called multiple vitamins which are on sale, and which are equally detrimental?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The department is studying all these questions continuously.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration based on an article which appeared in the Hamilton Spectator of April 4. Was the minister correctly reported as having said that the current Immigration Act is a patchwork affair which she would like to see completely revised? If so, was she speaking personally or on behalf of the government?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is precisely what I said.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then I wonder if the minister would explain why, if she has felt that way since at least April 22, 1959-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest the hon. member take that up when the estimates are called.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Could I put the question directly? Can the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
seems-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to raise a point of order with respect to my hon. friend's question. If I understand Your Honour correctly, there was a suggestion that this be taken up on the estimates. We have no assurance that there will be any opportunity to take this up on the estimates, and it is surely an urgent matter if the minister expresses the view that the law is completely unsatisfactory, as the hon. lady did in Hamilton. It is surely competent for us to ask her why, in four years, she has done nothing about it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In the first place I must take exception to the hon. member's words. I did not say the law was completely unsatisfactory.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, largely unsatisfactory. I will amend my proposition.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Maybe your confrere will hand you the article so you can read it yourself. At the time I brought in the new regulations I stated that I was not satisfied with the act. I have said that on many occasions, and I have also stated that after the regulations have had an opportunity to work the act will be revised.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the minister propose to submit an amendment to the act this session?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The point of order was before the house, not the question. I expressed an opinion which, notwithstanding the views of a very experienced member of the house, I still think it is correct. This subject is more properly one for debate. If the estimates are not appropriate perhaps the hon. member for Trinity will find another suitable time to discuss the matter.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conceplion):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works or, in his absence, to the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary. Would the acting minister advise the house if the tunnel now under construction between the west block and the centre block will be completed before the dissolution of the present parliament, or before the opening of the sixth session of the twenty-fourth parliament?


Howard Charles Green: I think that depends on when parliament is dissolved.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government has officially conveyed to the United States government the views which have recently and publicly been expressed by both my hon. friend and the Prime Minister, namely that the United States should not resume nuclear testing?


Howard Charles Green: I dealt with this
question in my first speech at the disarmament conference in Geneva, when I said this:
Canada deeply regretted that the Soviet union last August broke a three year moratorium on testing, for we are opposed to all nuclear weapon tests. In this we share the view of most other countries. Indeed, the major nuclear powers themselves have stated at this very conference that they would like to see all tests stopped. However, they now find themselves unable to reach final accord owing to disagreement on inspection. Is there no alternative to another series of tests with all the harmful consequences that such action could bring? Is it not possible, within the framework of this committee, to make the further effort which is required to break the deadlock? In my opinion, such an effort must be made, for otherwise the prospects of this conference itself could be seriously threatened.
As the Leader of the Opposition will know, they are still working on this problem at the conference in Geneva.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport this question now that the small boat season is upon us. Why has the Department of Transport not proceeded with the licensing and disciplining of small craft, as was indicated last session was likely?


Léon Balcer: I am sorry, but I must ask my hon. friend to repeat his question.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder why the Department of Transport has not proceeded with the policy of the licensing and disciplining of small craft as was indicated last session as likely for this year.


Léon Balcer: We have had a small boat conference this year. It is a yearly conference. The matter was discussed with people interested in this problem and also with representatives of the provinces. The matter has
Inquiries of the Ministry been studied at length, and we are still in negotiation and discussion with the various interested parties.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether a public opinion poll was held at this year's conference as was done at last year's conference? If so, what was the result of the poll?


Léon Balcer: I have not the result of the poll about which my hon. friend is talking. I am sorry, but I cannot give that result now.


TELEVISION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked if I would ascertain the date on which a licence was granted to the satellite television station at Stranraer. A licence in the form of an authorization to operate was given by telegram on April 4, 1962. In due course this will be confirmed by a formal document.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister whether that telegram had been sent before the minister answered the questions in the house on that date?


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Speaker.


SUGGESTED STONE CARVINGS OF MEMBERS OF PRESS GALLERY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting Minister of Public Works. It is based on my long campaign for the proper and permanent recognition of the role of the fourth estate in parliament and in our democracy.
In view of the fact that a new parliamentary stone carver, Miss Eleanor Milne, has recently been appointed, would the minister consider taking advantage of this opportunity to mark the new Elizabethan age by recommending the enshrinement in stone, as decorative gargoyles, of the heads of members of the fourth estate whose Celtic, Roman and Elizabethan features would be most appropriate for this purpose?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what kind of gargoyles the members of the press gallery would make. However, I am

Inquiries of the Ministry certain that my old friend the hon. member for Kootenay West would make an excellent one.

(Translation):


USE OP TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT PLANES FOR ELECTION PURPOSES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Transport?
What amount is paid to the Department of Transport by the Conservative party for the use of its airplanes for election purposes?


Léon Balcer: Nothing at all, Mr. Speaker.


Alexis Pierre Caron: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there an agreement between the Conservative party and the Department of Transport concerning those fights?


Léon Balcer: Absolutely not.
(Text):


INCOME TAX
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice Whether he has received a copy of Bill No. C-82.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-82 is not before me.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the minister was whether he had received it from the Clerk of the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If Bill No. C-82 is the one which the hon. member attempted by ruse to get before the house the other day, I have not received it.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware that the Quebec provincial government, out of the taxpayers' money, is paying for advertisements in the papers and over television and radio stations under the pretext of informing the population on the operation of hospital insurance in Quebec, in such a way as to give the people the impression that the government of the province of Quebec alone is paying the cost of that joint federal-provincial program?
[Mr. Green.)


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am not aware of such advertising, Mr. Speaker. However, if such advertising were being done it would be entirely incorrect, as the federal government pays approximately 50 per cent of all hospitalization costs in the province.



CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, April 5, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-38, to provide for the reporting of financial and other statistics relating to the affairs of corporations and labour unions carrying on activities in Canada-Mr. Fulton-Mr. Marti-neau in the chair.
On clause 14-Privileged information; prohibition against communication.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last night we were considering clause 14 of the bill and the amendment thereto moved by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Shall this amendment carry?
(Translation):


Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, before the house took recess last night, the committee had decided to study this clause, paragraph by paragraph, as it has been doing so far.
I have a few remarks to make with regard to subsection 1 of clause 14 which is one of the important clauses of this bill, because it informs us that section B of the return that the corporations or the unions must file is secret, confidential or privileged.
This clause also indicates the guarantees provided by the act to the corporations or unions which will have to divulge to the government their financial structure, in particular.
As stipulated in this clause, authorized officials are the only ones who may divulge certain details of the returns to other authorized persons or officials.
Under this clause we must guarantee adequate protection to these corporations and unions. To that effect, I feel that clause 14, subsection 1, should be amended by eliminating the word "knowingly", which is found on page 10, line 12.

Normally, under the Criminal Code, the prosecution has to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. It is the British tradition and only in very special cases can we waive that principle under which the burden of proof rests with the prosecution.
In this case, I am very reluctant to make the suggestion I have in mind, but I feel that corporations and unions which have to file returns with the government should be given the utmost protection. If officials are in a position to communicate certain information to other people, companies must absolutely be protected.
An excellent means of protection, in addition to legal proceedings, would lighten the onus of proof or, inversely, make defence more difficult.
I do hope that the Minister of Justice has been able to follow my remarks, if not directly, then through simultaneous translation.
I also hope that he, as well as the committee, will take into consideration the amendment I am about to introduce, because I sincerely believe that it will afford still greater protection to corporations and unions which will be required to file these returns. (Text):
I move, Mr. Chairman:
That clause 14, section 1, be amended by striking from line 12 thereof the word "knowingly". (Translation):


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think the committee is now considering an amendment which was submitted last night by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill). Therefore, we should dispose of this amendment before we can entertain the amendment of the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge).


Alexis Pierre Caron: I believe the minister admitted last night-
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I suggest with leave of the committee that the amendment last night amends subparagraphs 3 and 4 and substi-stutes new subparagraphs 3, 4 and 5. I had it moved last night in order that it might be available to the committee for study and consideration. Unless you see some reason against it, sir, I personally would have no objection to dealing with subparagraphs 1 and 2 and any amendments it may be wished to move there, and when we come to subparagraph 3 perhaps we could then consider directly the amendment moved last night.


Paul Raymond Martineau: That would be quite all right. We will defer study of the previous amendment and will consider subclauses 1 and 2. Therefore I put before the committee the amendment that has been proposed by the hon. member for Megantic.
26207-1-164
6,	1962
Corporations and Labour Unions


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I find some difficulty in accepting this amendment, because it seems to me that to delete the word "knowingly" would be to remove the element of mens rea which must be proven in any charge of a criminal nature. When I say "remove" it, perhaps that is going too far, but it would certainly leave that matter open to question. We feel that by the decision to have the dominion bureau of statistics as the initial repository of all returns and the permanent repository of part B returns, plus the changes which have now been suggested in subclauses 3 and 4 of this clause, we have adequately safeguarded the confidentiality of part B returns. I should hesitate very much indeed to create an offence of this nature which would not be affected by the use of the word "knowingly". I would have very real doubts whether to do that would not take away from the person who might be accused of such an action the ordinary defences that he would have with respect to a charge of a criminal nature.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the legal knowledge of the minister, but it would seem to me that if we are going to make certain information as privileged as we are doing under section B in each part of the bill, then we certainly want to ensure that those people in the public service who have access to that privileged information have every right to protect themselves. It would seem that with the word "knowingly" we are placing a great onus upon the individual to prove his innocence rather than having the prosecution prove his guilt.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I admit that where the word "knowingly" is used the opinion, thought or intention must be proven. It is then more difficult for a civil servant to defend himself. On the other hand, we must recognize that the object of this subclause is to safeguard confidential returns filed with the department.
And because of the word "knowingly" the government's counsel position is made much more difficult. It would be just as hard to prove that it was done knowingly than to prove perjury, because you would have to prove an intention.
It is only by way of an exception that we ask that the word "knowingly" be struck out of that clause, because we sincerely think that the accused must be protected.

Corporations and Labour Unions
But in the case of officials of a department, people who have heavy responsibilities, since they have access to the returns, and who are conscious of those responsibilities, I believe that we should be more strict with such persons than with somebody from the outside.
That is why we insist on the striking out, in paragraph 1, of the word "knowingly", or "sciemment" in the French version.
(Text):


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the remarks made by the Minister of Justice when he said that the element of mens rea should be present in a criminal offence. With that I agree. This is the general principle on which our Criminal Code is based. However, I wish to reaffirm what I said before and what the hon. member for Hull has just said in French, that this bill is quite exceptional in that it more or less infringes on the liberty of companies and unions in the sense that the law is going to force these bodies to report to the government on their financial structures and this information is made confidential by virtue of clause 14.
If this were an ordinary bill I would not make such a request, but the full rights of the defence are deeply imbedded in our hearts in Canada. I feel that in this case, where people are forced by law to give this information, they must receive the fullest possible protection. I believe that in this way we will more fully protect the companies and the unions that are obliged to give this information to the government. It is in that sense that I should like the minister to think over the matter and accept the amendment to strike out the word "knowingly".


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, if I were convinced that the removal of the word "knowingly" protected the companies and the unions more fully I might be disposed, to a greater extent than I find myself at the moment, to consider the amendment favourably. After all, what is the protection we want? The protection that the companies and unions want is not to see the civil servant prosecuted; they just do not want the information communicated at all. I cannot really see that taking out the word "knowingly" would give them increased protection because frankly, Mr. Chairman, I have enough confidence in the public service that when a statute contains a clear prohibition like this, they are going to be scrupulous to see to it that they do not act in breach of that prohibition.
What we do want, however, is a provision that if one wilfully, and that is imported by the word "knowingly", does so act then he should be liable to a heavy penalty. I do not believe that the removal of the word

"knowingly" is going to make the ordinary public servant much more careful. I do not believe it will deter the unscrupulous public servant, in the very rare case where he exists, whether or not we have the word "knowingly" in here. I do not know, therefore, that the removal of the word increases the protection. I think it might expose to a penalty a person who acted entirely accidentally and who had allowed this information to be communicated.
I am impressed by the fact that in none of the representations I received-and I received a number of them expressing concern with regard to the confidentiality of the information-was there a reference to the use of the word "knowingly". None of them requested the removal of the word "knowingly". I have just sent out for the Statistics Act, and it has now been placed before me. As is well known, the Statistics Act contains very strict safeguards with regard to the confidentiality of the information received under it. The bureau, under the Statistics Act, as I said before has built up an enviable reputation and an excellent relationship with those who file returns on the basis that they know the information will remain confidential. Section 39 of the Statistics Act reads:
Every person employed under this act who (a) wilfully discloses or makes known directly or indirectly to any person not entitled under this act or any regulation to receive the same, any information obtained by him in the course of his employment-
The Statistics Act, while it does not use the word "knowingly" does use the word "wilfully". I would hope, therefore, the hon. member would consider we would be justified in leaving the word "knowingly" in here.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 9; nays, 37.
Subclause 1 of clause 14 agreed to.
Subclause 2 of clause 14 agreed to.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Subclause 3 is the one under which the amendment proposed last night by the Minister of Veterans Affairs may be discussed.
On subclause 3.


Frank Howard: If this amendment carries, will it then dispose of all the clauses? Does it not delete the rest of the subclauses?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; the amendment does call for some renumbering. I would think, in accordance with the arrangement we have been following, when the three specific subparagraphs in the amendment have been carried, we would go on to deal with the other subparagraph separately, presently numbered 5 which would become No. 7.

(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I think that this clause is too wide, in that it allows too many persons to look into these confidential documents. The clause reads as follows:
(Text):
An official who is an officer or other person employed in the execution of any duty under the Statistics Act or any regulation thereunder may (a) communicate or allow to be communicated-
(Translation):
I think that is too comprehensive. Under this clause, all employees of a department, where there are thousands of them, could go through confidential returns. In this way the government puts some of them in a situation where they can use their status of employees to get the information they need.
I feel that is a bit too comprehensive, and I i i suggest that we should strike out the words "other persons".
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: Without this amendment in new subparagraph 4 we would have a situation which would, in effect, stultify altogether the processing of the information which is being returned. We have now provided that the returns will be filed with the dominion bureau of statistics. They will be received by an official in the bureau of statistics. These returns obviously have to be processed in the bureau; they have to be passed from person to person in the bureau in order that they may be dealt with and processed. If we did not insert this provision (4>(a) which allows one official in the bureau of statistics to communicate with another official, then the return would stay in the mail clerk's hands and could not be passed along because of the operation of subparagraph 1 of this clause.
That is the simple reason. This is to avoid freezing it in one place with the person who first opened the mail. We had to provide the freedom to allow this information to be communicated from one official to another, but within the bureau the confidential parts will remain entirely confidential and will not be disclosed except in accordance with subparagraph 1 of this clause.


Frank Howard: Perhaps the minister should accept the idea advanced with respect to this matter of communicating information. This would then leave the person who opens the mail free to dispose of the information in the wastepaper basket, which is as good a place as any for some of the useless information.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I admit that the minister is quite right, that the one who is called upon to open the mail may know of something in it, but as the clause is written it states "may communicate or allow to be communicated to an official or authorized person any priv-26207-1-164J
Corporations and Labour Unions ileged information obtained." It is generally the case that the one who opens the mail communicates the information. I really believe the provision is too wide for the protection of those who will be sending confidential reports to the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Unfortunately, from the point of view put forward by the hon. member, we are in the position that the act of manually passing documents from one person to another is an act of communication. Communication need not only be oral, and we would be literally freezing documents in the hands of the person who first received them unless we put in this provision removing that restriction.
i Amendment agreed to.
On renumbered subsection 7-Offence.


Alexis Pierre Caron: That includes subclauses 3, 4, 5, and 6, does it?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Yes.


Alexis Pierre Caron: This would be the four subclauses moved last night?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is right.


Alexis Pierre Caron: In the other part of the bill we provided for a fine not exceeding $50, but I think in this clause we should provide for the protection of those who file confidential reports, stipulating a minimum fine and a minimum prison term. For this reason I move the following amendment:
After the word conviction in the third line "to a fine not less than one hundred dollars and not exceeding one thousand dollars or an imprisonment of a term of not less than one week and not exceeding three months, or both such fine and imprisonment."


Edmund Davie Fulton: I regret if the necessity of opposing this amendment makes me seem indisposed to consider these matters, but personally I feel very strongly that the philosophy now prevailing against the fixing of minimum sentences and penalties is the correct philosophy. Having provided the maximum that parliament wants to set, I believe punishment should be adjusted in accordance with the seriousness of the offence at the discretion of the court. Parliament is here providing quite substantial penalties, a fine of up to $1,000 and imprisonment for up to three months. Therefore parliament is indicating that a person who knowingly communicates this information is, in our view, guilty of a potentially serious offence. I do not think we should further tie the hands of the courts in assessing all the factors that are relevant and in imposing the appropriate penalties.
I do not oppose the amendment just because it is advanced by the hon. member for Hull. It is just because I find the principle involved in the amendment contrary to what I believe is sound in regard to penalties.
2568	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions Mr. Howard: I agree with the minister in his contention about minimum sentences. That should be no concern of ours. A maximum sentence should be stipulated by parliament and the courts should be left free to impose sentences up to that maximum. However, before proceeding further perhaps the minister could indicate what penalties are contained in the Statistics Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Statistics Act contains a provision that a person who wilfully discloses or uses any information for the purpose of speculating in any product or article-there are two offences here-is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or a prison term not exceeding five years, or to both. It is pretty fierce.


Frank Howard: I am more partial to what the minister is proposing in this bill. I think the penalty provided in the Statistics Act is overstringent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is pretty fierce.


Frank Howard: Then if it is pretty fierce perhaps the minister will talk to his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and influence him with his opinions about penology matters so that we can revise the Statistics Act sometime later.


Mr. Matheson:: I am sure all of us are sympathetic to what the minister said about criminology, but I wonder whether the government and the country really understand the extent to which information of a very special nature is now being placed in certain hands. A person who is able to gather highly secretive information may find it has a valuable sale value in unscrupulous areas.
Here we have the government peeking in on corporations and unions, and certain civil servants will be able to apprise themselves of many of the secrets of corporations and unions that heretofore have been in other hands. It would be a very simple and easy thing for this information to be gathered together and used in a completely unscrupulous way. As I said previously, we on this side of the house ask what is the purpose in this; because the gathering of this information in a special way is something new in our approach to legislation. Here we are no longer dealing with one or two ministers; we are really dealing with three. Now we have government with its eyes on the secret affairs of a great many corporations and unions, and it could be tremendously damaging to either for some information to be disclosed.
I wonder whether the minister cannot think of some other way in which there could be more effective teeth put in the bill to protect the secrecy, the privileged character of clause 14. Everything he has said we understand, 

and it makes sense, yet surely the effect of it is to permit highly confidential material to get out in a way which would damage those people interested.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment will please rise.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is subclause 7?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Yes, this is renumbered subclause 7 and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hull.
Amendment (Mr. Caron) negatived: Yeas, 11; nays, 29.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I declare the amendment lost. Shall renumbered subclause 7 carry?
Renumbered subclause 7 as amended agreed to.
On renumbered subsection 8-Definitions. "Official"-"Authorized person".


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I think this is the worst clause in the bill. We see here:
"official" means any person employed in, or occupying a position of responsibility in, the service of Her Majesty, and includes any person formerly so employed or formerly occupying such a position,
The other paragraph of this subclause reads:
"authorized person" means any person engaged or employed, or formerly engaged or employed, by or on behalf of Her Majesty for any purpose relating to the administration or enforcement of this act.
So the bill goes as far as saying that anybody formerly employed by any department of the government comes within the provisions of this subclause, because it does not say "formerly employed only in the department of statistics". I think this is going much too far, because most of the people in the country could come in and ask to see what there is in most of these reports, and they could see them. Therefore it is really dangerous, and I cannot understand how the Minister of Justice could let this pass without asking that the clause be rephrased so as to provide greater protection for those who submit reports.
I do not want to make a long debate of this matter, but I move that the subclause be amended as follows:
(a)	"official" means any person employed in, or occupying a position of responsibility, authorized by the minister or deputy minister.
(b)	"authorized person" means any person employed by or on behalf of Her Majesty, authorized by the minister or the deputy minister for any purpose relating to the administration or enforcement of this act.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Moved by the hon. member for Hull that renumbered subclause 8 be amended as follows:
(a) "official" means any person employed in, or occupying a position of responsibility, authorized by the minister or deputy minister.

(b) "authorized person'' means any person employed by or on behalf of Her Majesty, authorized by the minister or the deputy minister for any purpose relating to the administration or enforcement of this act.
The question is on the amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the reason it is necessary to put in this definition subclause which we are now considering, referring to persons employed in or formerly occupying such a position, is in order to avoid the possibility that an official who received information while he was employed, and therefore being an official or person subject to the limitations as to disclosure contained in this bill, would by resigning no longer be an official and subject to the limitations contained herein and would be free to communicate that information or to use it for stock market purposes, and so on.
In other words, if we do not put in some provision such as this to ensure that the burden of secrecy shall continue to apply to a person even after he resigns from the public service, then by the mere fact of resignation such a person would be out from under the responsibility to maintain confidentiality with respect to information he received while a member of the public service. So the inclusion of the words "person formerly so employed", far from enlarging the possibility of improper disclosure, narrows that possibility by reason of the fact I have just mentioned.
You have to read this subclause in context with the operative subclauses 3, 4 and 5, which together make it clear that the only purpose for which information obtained under this act can be communicated to anyone is for a purpose relating to the determination of policy in connection with the formulation of any law of Canada or the ascertaining of any matter necessarily incidental thereto. That means that senior officials may discuss together and with members of the government information that has come to their attention and the implications thereof, and advise and consult mutually as to policies that should be devised and implemented to take care of the situations thus disclosed. That is the only purpose for which the information can be communicated even by an official or authorized person.
When such a person ceases to be a member of the public service he has no right, obviously, to disclose that information under those terms; he cannot disclose it to outside persons for such purposes. But he would no longer be subject to the limitation contained therein unless he were brought under it by the inclusion in the definition of "official" as a person formerly so employed.
Corporations and Labour Unions


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I admit that it might be wise to have protection in respect of those who might leave the department after being employed by the government, but I do not think this is the way it should be done. I think there should be a special subclause dealing with those persons so employed in the past. It could easily be put in subclause 5 renumbered 7 before the word "official". This subclause would then read: "...being an ex-official or authorized person". But I think it would have been much clearer to put in a special subclause dealing specifically with those who might have been employed by the department and who had left the department to go and work for somebody else. This would have made the law much clearer, and it would have afforded greater protection for those who with confidence place their reports before the department of statistics.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, with regard to my first question to the hon. member for Hull when he moved the amendment, I thought I understood his objections to it, but listening to him just now I find that in fact he is speaking against his own amendment. You either have a prohibition in there against former officials or employees, or you do not. The amendment of the Liberal party is designed to take out that prohibition. You cannot argue both ways if you want to make any sense out of it. Keeping in mind the general concept of employer-employee relationships I feel that once a person ceases to be employed he is a free agent and on his own; I do not think we should hound such individuals with strictures once they have left their employment.
I would be prepared to support the amendment put forward by the hon. member on that basis, but not on the basis that he really does not mean this but means something altogether different. Perhaps we could find out more clearly what the Liberal party means in this regard before we go further.


Alexis Pierre Caron: When I said it could be placed in that other subsection, that was just to tell the minister we do not accept it the way it is. We are not here to try to kill the bill; we are just trying to make it better than it is. The amendment stands if they do not intend to change it. We intend to keep the amendment the way it is so that those reporting to the government will be protected.


Mr. Malheson:: This is illustrative of poor drafting. This bill will be of interest to a great many people in Canada, to a great many corporations and to a great many unions with small memberships. Surely this committee should produce something which ordinary business people and ordinary labour

Corporations and Labour Unions people with ordinary lawyers can understand. It was only after discussion with his civil servants that the Minister of Justice was able to explain the significance of this clause, and even then certainly not to my satisfaction or to the satisfaction of this side. Cannot the minister do something to make intelligible and clear what is intended by this clause?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think it is perfectly clear now. This is a definition of officials and authorized persons. This simply says that both are persons formerly engaged or employed in the public service. I do not think other members of the committee find that difficult to understand.


Frank Howard: The only thing which in my opinion might make it clearer is this. We talk about an authorized person as one whose activities are related to the administration or enforcement of this act, and we talk about an official being anybody else in the public service, whether he has anything to do with this particular act or not. It is my understanding that the only people who would have any knowledge of the administration or enforcement of this act would be those employed in the bureau of statistics or the Department of Trade and Commerce. If confidential information about any one company is to be disseminated far and wide among all the departments of government, this is not what we originally understood the situation to be. Perhaps the minister would care to comment on this aspect.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the obvious differentiation is this. An authorized person would be, for example, an agent of the Minister of Justice who might be retained to prosecute in respect of an alleged offence rising out of the act. Such persons would be authorized persons and would be subject to the limitation of confidentiality with respect to information given to them. An official, on the other hand, would be a person engaged in the administration of the act such as a statistician in the dominion bureau of statistics or a senior official engaged in considering the information within the context of subparagraph 5; that is, the determination of policy.


Frank Howard: Why in addition do you not say that an official is one whose duties, for any purpose, relate to the enforcements of this act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Because subparagraph 5 states the only situation in which this information may be communicated even as between officials. There can be communication between officials of the government only for a purpose related to the determination of policy in connection with the formulation of any law of Canada or the ascertainment of any matter


necessarily incidental thereto. They cannot, for example, go gossiping among themselves saying that an interesting piece of information is contained in such and such a return.
Amendment (Mr. Caron) negatived: Yeas, 9; nays, 30.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 15-Certificate as evidence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On clause 15 I would ask my colleague to move an amendment affecting lines 12 and 13. The amendment would have the effect of making it clear that it is the dominion statistician who will sign the certificate as to whether or not a return has been received. This is made necessary by the fact that returns are all to be made in the first place to the dominion statistician.


Michael Starr: I move:
That the said bill be further amended by striking out lines 12 and 13 on page 11 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
'a certificate purporting to be signed by the dominion statistician or any person authorized by him in writing in that behalf that a return was not filed with the dominion statistician by any corporation,'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 16-Annual report.
Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask my colleague the Minister of Labour to move an amendment which will have the effect of striking out in lines 17 and 18 the works "Secretary of State and the" and the words "of Labour". So it will just read "the minister shall as soon as possible..."


Michael Starr: I move:
That the said bill be further amended by striking out lines 17 and 18 on page 11 and substituting therefor the following:
'16. (1) The minister shall, as soon as possible after the end of each year,'
, - Amendment agreed to.
On clause 16 as amended.


Frank Howard: On the amendment or on the clause as amended, it does not matter-


Paul Raymond Martineau: On the clause as amended.


Frank Howard: -I just wish to inquire what is meant when they say "at the end of each year". Does that mean the calendar year? The minister says, "As soon as possible after the end of each year". Is that the calendar year or the fiscal year of the government?


Edmund Davie Fulton: By virtue of the Interpretation Act that would be the calendar year.
Clause as amended agreed to.

On clause 17-Regulations.


Frank Howard: This is the clause which authorizes the cabinet-although it says the governor in council it is in fact the cabinet- to make regulations. In many instances I have discovered that regulations are drafted and come into effect which give perhaps a different meaning to the statute from that which was originally understood by parliament when it was dealing with the bill. For argument's sake I may say that the regulations under the Immigration Act, to which reference was made today, are a prime example of legislating by way of order in council. We are all opposed to this degree of secrecy which exists and to giving the cabinet in fact a blank cheque to play around within this sort of thing, and to work out regulations which do other than that which was intended by the bill itself.
Under clause 9 we have adopted a requirement that the unions file certain information in such form and containing such particulars and other information relating to the financial position of the union as may be prescribed by the regulations. The same is true with respect to companies. Under clause 4 companies are required to file certain financial and statistical information in such form and containing such particulars and other information relating to the financial position of the corporation as may be prescribed by the regulations.
If the draftsmen and the minister were able to place in one clause which covers almost four whole pages a great deal of detail such as numbers of shares, the amounts paid for architectural fees, dividends, interest, amounts received from royalties and so on, surely it is going a bit too far, having regard to the requirements for corporations shown on page 4, for them to come along and say they now want other information that will be contained in the regulations.
I suppose we all need regulations of sorts in order to put things into effect. However, it seems to me that what the minister is doing here is asking for a sort of blanket permission for the cabinet to adjust its requirements in order to meet its needs and desires as the occasion may demand, and so that it can set out in all sorts of fantastic detail the financial information which it requires both from corporations and from unions. It seems odd that a government could spend five years concerning itself about the economy of the nation; could in those five years prepare a bill which goes most extensively into the type of statistical information it requires, ranging all the way from accounting, auditing and consulting fees to
6,	1962
Corporations and Labour Unions salaries to directors, the numbers of shares and the like, scattered over some four pages; and then could come along and say "Well, we did not quite cover it all there. We want a blank cheque for the governor in council to juggle and adjust these things and to require even more information than we disclosed to parliament we really wanted".
It would perhaps have been more correct to raise this matter in the first instance when we came to it under clause 4 and again under clause 9. However, I felt that the raising of such objection should perhaps be saved until we reached the particular clause we now have before us, as this is the one which gives authority to make such requirements. It indicates again to me the relative worthlessness of the bill.
The minister says "We spent years concerning ourselves with this matter. We now wish to find out in precise detail all we can about everybody in the country, and we have been able to include this in a bill going into the minutest detail". Then he comes along and says "We really did not know what we were doing when we drafted this bill; we wish to have additional powers so that we can ask for even more information to be stacked up in the dominion bureau of statistics offices." Before we proceed much further I think the minister owes us some explanation-he will not be drafting the regulations but he will be participating in them-as to what is in his mind with respect to the type of additional statistical information required relating both to companies and to unions under this bill.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall clause 17 carry?


John Ross Matheson: If this government wished to lay the foundation for a successor that was fascist or communist, could it do better than to end up with this catch-all phrase after a bill of this kind? It is a bill that is poking its nose into the private business of labour and management to an extent that we have not seen previously, and then ending up in the way that has been suggested by the hon. member for Skeena with a new catch-all phrase that gives this government or the government of Canada power to do anything else it likes, to go into either business or management. I remember some years ago talking to a number of Italians and a number of Germans who were suggesting that there was really not a great deal of difference between fascism and democracy as it prevailed in those days in the United States. They indicated that actually fascism was only an extension of government control. We seem to think that so is socialism a case where government is going to take over, to

Corporations and Labour Unions supervise, to direct and to continue to direct piecemeal what it wishes done with respect to the business of the country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This bill does not give us any control at all. It merely gives us information.


John Ross Matheson: Yes, but we do not even know what information.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, yes.


John Ross Matheson: At the beginning of this matter the minister told us that this legislation was for a purpose that was very ill defined. All he could tell us was that this was stage one. He could not tell us why this bill was introduced, because he did not frankly indicate to the committee that the real problem was that foreign ownership has been increasing since this government has taken over. All he indicated was that in some sort of vague way there was a problem, that he did not quite know what it was, but in order to determine what it was he was going to find out, and this was stage one. He did not indicate what stage two and stage three were to be.
We on this side of the chamber are very much concerned about liberty and the freedom of people to run their own affairs. When we add particularly the clause which was called, namely clause 17, I wonder how any businessman or labour man can with any kind of security at all hope to proceed, to carry on and do the things which he must do secretly and privately because that is the way in which, in a competitive world, he is going to do things well. He is not going to tell his neighbour. Yet this government wish to know everything, and wish to know more than they have been able to think out in all these previous clauses of the bill. It is a bill that is hard to understand. Maybe I am not as bright as some of my friends over here from British Columbia-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Ross Matheson: -but let me say to the committee that a lot of lawyers across the country with better training than my two friends are going to be trying to understand what all this means, and when they start to figure it out they are going to be concerned about the lack of clarity. The draftmanship is poor, and this clause is simply evidence that even at this late date in the session, right before a general election, the government has not clarified its own thinking in this matter and therefore it has included this clause in order to catch anything it has not already thought of.


Mr. Palleli:: Will the hon. member name two lawyers who could not understand this, other than himself and maybe the hon. member for Essex East.


John Ross Matheson: The only reply I would make-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, this furor has taken place over a relatively unimportant and certainly perfectly straightforward clause which provides that the governor in council may make regulations prescribing anything that by this act may be prescribed by the regulations. That has been described as a catch-all clause and very uncomplimentary adjectives have been applied to it, I suppose for the sake of making newspaper headlines. My hon. friends do not have any valid criticisms of the bill, but if you use certain words you can often get a newspaper headline. It does not take a Liberal very long to find that out, and the hon. member for Leeds has been under good tutelage in that regard.
What are the things we can make regulations about by virtue of this clause which is such an anathema to the hon. member for Leeds? He says that the bill is hard to understand. Apparently it is to him, because he has not appreciated that there are only three areas outlined by the bill within which regulations may be made. Those three areas are spelled out in the bill, and this clause says that we can make regulations in those areas where the bill gives us authority to make regulations. Is that a frightful catch-all clause?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I put a simple question to the minister?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will finish first and perhaps the question will then be unnecessary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no, it will not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The three areas where it is provided that the details will be spelled out by regulations are, first, with respect to the details of the annual financial statements to be filed by both unions and corporations, that is, that portion of the return where the annual financial statement is contained; second, the amount to be fixed as a fee for inspection, the maximum being $1, so there is not very much power in the governor in council there to hurt people very much. We can prescribe a fee up to $1. Maybe it will be 10 cents. If it was fixed in the bill at $1 there would be no power to lower it. The third area where we can prescribe by regulation is with respect to classes of companies, in addition to those named in the schedule, who will be relieved of the obligation to report under this legislation.


Those are the three areas where we may make regulations. They are all clearly spelled out in the bill. I certainly cannot see that there is anything there giving the governor in council power to do anything more than sensible persons would agree should be covered by regulations. The reason for providing that the portion of the part B return comprising the annual financial statement should be spelled out in the regulations is that there will be such a multitude of classes and types of corporations reporting. There will be loan companies, investment companies, trust companies, manufacturing companies of different types, steel fabricators, cement fabricators and so on. The service industries will be reporting. There will be as many different types and classes of companies as one can think of and as exist in the Canadian economy, all of whom, by virtue of the different kinds of operations they carry on, must of necessity make up their annual financial statements in different ways.
I think it would be quite impossible to envisage in advance the permutations and combinations that it would be necessary to write out if you were going to prescribe in the legislation the precise details that you want in the financial statement portion. I am not objecting to the physical difficulty, though I think it would certainly take a mass of pages to do it. But I do not think you could say with certainty then that you had covered every possible case. Therefore it seemed only sensible that with respect to this one area, not the whole of the legislation but just this one area, namely the annual financial statement in the section B return, we should reserve the right to prescribe by regulation the precise manner of presenting the information that it is desired to have. I do not think that the other two areas where we may make regulations need much further explanation.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, may I reply to the minister-


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman-


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member for
Skeena.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, surely after the hon. member for Leeds has been attacked personally he is going to be allowed to reply.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, if he was attacked personally I would point out that he was not the only one in the line of fire, because the Minister of Labour started out by saying that we have offered no valid criticisms of the bill. That is precisely what we
6,	1962
Corporations and Labour Unions have been doing in the last few days, offering criticism of the bill because it is subject to criticism, and proposing alternatives.


Michael Starr: On a question of privilege, Mr, Chairman, I think the hon. member did not mean to refer to the Minister of Labour. I think it was an error on his part.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just one of the many errors.


Frank Howard: If I did I apologize. Perhaps I did so because the minister who has been piloting the bill through the house has done so with such inefficiency that one wonders at him being Minister of Justice. Perhaps it was just a blank spot in my mind because the actions of the Minister of Justice had led me to believe that he might have resigned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: There is a blank spot over there.


Frank Howard: Now that we have got the chorus going, Mr. Chairman, perhaps hon. members would like to relax and have lunch. Would you call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I had almost
completed my remarks at one o'clock because we made our views known when this clause was called in the first instance. I only want to say again that when the minister states there was no valid criticism offered, he is incorrect. We have been attempting throughout the committee stage of this bill to improve it and make it a worth-while piece of legislation so that it would have some value in enabling the government to obtain information upon which future legislation could be based. We have been unable to convince hon. members opposite of the justness of our case. I think, therefore, when the minister says no valid criticisms have been forthcoming, he is most inaccurate.


John Ross Matheson: I will not reply in kind to the Minister of Justice. The minister's courtesy is well known to us and I think he was somewhat testy today. I do not believe we are trying to be inflammatory or look for headlines when we point to what we regard as legitimate weaknesses in legislation that is presented at the end of a session such as this, particularly when we are dealing with legislation that has no clear purpose, no declared aims. We feel that the provisions of this legislation should be clear and unequivocal
2574	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions because it will affect a large segment of industry and of labour. The very fact that the government is going to see what heretofore has been of a confidential character is fresh and new. We believe, therefore, that the bill before this committee should be as easily understood by business folk and labour folk as it is possible to make it.
Many of the submissions that have been put forward by this group have not been put forward by us alone. We have sought assistance of people who have been teaching business administration and who have been specialists in the labour movement, people who are interested in good legislation in this field. With respect to the minister, therefore, who has certainly shown many courtesies to us on this side in the past by believing that we have been trying to improve rather than impede legislation, may I respectfully suggest an amendment. I move:
To strike out lines 35 and 36 and "(b) generally," in line 37.
The clause would then read:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this act.
Now, sir, I feel this provision is a good deal simpler. If it represents any real difference from what is now in the legislation, I would be grateful if the Minister of Justice would indicate wherein it differs.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have always felt a little bit sensitive on this question of regulations and the power to make regulations, both when I was on that side of the house and since I have been on this side of the house. I have tried conscientiously to carry that sensitivity into effect over here by looking carefully at provisions in statutes that we submit to the house which give the governor in council the power to make regulations. I say quite genuinely, therefore, that I appreciate the purpose the hon. member for Leeds has in mind, particularly as he puts it this afternoon.
I must say I have some reservations about what he proposes. On the basis of a quick look at his specific amendment, I think it could perhaps be accepted without too much risk. The reservation I have goes to the question of deleting subparagraph (a) of this clause 17 which says:
The governor in council may make regulations
(a)	prescribing anything that by this act may be prescribed by the regulations;
You will note, Mr. Chairman, that the provision at the top of page 4, for instance, where it is dealing with the form of the annual financial statement says it shall be "in such form and containing such particulars relating to the financial position of the corporation as may be prescribed by the regulations."


What I want to avoid is the risk that in the clause covering the regulation making powers we should not take sufficient power to pass regulations prescribing certain things because, if we cannot prescribe the things that are to be prescribed, then there will be serious gaps in the effectiveness of the law. However I am advised that there is an argument which can be made that if you take a general power to make regulations to carry into effect the purposes and the provisions of the act, then you could support an argument that you have power to make regulations prescribing certain things that are to be done.
You see, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that regulation making powers are interpreted strictly, and the governor in council cannot take power or cannot do by regulation those things which are beyond the purview of the act. If the bill uses certain specific words with respect to those things to be done by regulation and then the regulation-making powers do not repeat those specific words, the question arises whether you can rely on a general power to give this necessary authority. But it is a technical argument and, as I said previously, the bill in a sense is experimental.
I would be prepared therefore, on balance, to rest content with the power in effect given in subparagraph (b), and to rely upon that for the authority to make regulations prescribing all the things which the bill says must be prescribed by regulation. If we find that it is challenged and we have deprived ourselves of that power, then of course we could amend the act. We might be challenged and then it would be a question of finding out which way the decision would fall. Should it fall against us then we would have to introduce an amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the matter is determined I wish to say that we all appreciate the spirit in which the minister has accepted the proposed amendment of my hon. friend from Leeds, but I would point out that if you leave out the words "the purposes and", then it would read "for carrying into effect the provisions of this act." The particular instance which the minister gave was precisely to carry out one of the provisions of the act, and it seems to me that unless there is some purpose in paragraph (a), which has not been exposed to us, then what the hon. member for Leeds has suggested would meet the purpose, as the minister indicated. We very much appreciate the position taken by the minister in this matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would be prepared to accept the amendment, Mr. Chairman.


Frank Howard: It is clear, whether the amendment is accepted or not, that the minister

intends to carry out making the regulations as he intended in the first place.
(g, Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 18-Coming into force.


Gabriel Roberge: Is the minister able to give some indication to the committee as to the possible date of proclamation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Did the hon. member say the possible date of proclamation or prorogation?
I want to be quite clear which question I am answering.


Gabriel Roberge: I said proclamation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is staying within the rules.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The only answer I can give is that such time as will be necessary to draw up the regulations must be allowed before proclamation. It will be proclaimed as soon as possible in the light of the things we have to do in that regard. I would think it would be at least a couple of months.


Alexis Pierre Caron: If this bill is of very great importance then I think it should be implemented as fast as possible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It will be.


Alexis Pierre Caron: If it is important then I move the following amendment:
That clause 18 be struck out and replaced by the following: "This act shall come into effect on July 1, 1962."


Frank Howard: An amendment which we could support would be one which would read that the act come into effect on July 1, 2062. However, in keeping with the results which are to come from the bill, if we leave it up to the governor in council to proclaim when the bill will come into force perhaps he will forget about it in the meantime and it will never come into force.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have explained to the hon. member for Megantic that I am not able to set a precise date as to when we shall have the regulations drawn, and therefore I am really unable to accept the deadline contained in the amendment.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The question is on the amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I might just complete my answer; it might be sooner than July 1, 1962, and then it would be unfortunate if we had to wait for that date.


Alexis Pierre Caron: We want to give you time enough.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the amendment is put I might say that we have learned during
Corporations and Labour Unions the last four years that "immediately," "soon," "very soon," and "in the very near future" have a very different meaning coming from the present treasury benches than they have when used by the rest of the population of the country.
Since we have taken a lot of time putting this bill through the house and giving it the most careful scrutiny, and since we are supporting the bill because we want to see whether it will do any good, even though we are rather sceptical about that, we think parliament ought to be sure that it will come into force and not be postponed like many of those other 80 promises that have not been fulfilled.
Amendment (Mr. Caron) negatived: Yeas, 11; Nays, 43.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On the schedule.
Frank Howard: We spent a considerable amount of time dealing with an amendment which we proposed to clause 3 of the bill, dealing with those matters contained within the schedule. We see no reason, of course, to reiterate those reasons and arguments now in any detailed way or in a formal way by way of amendment, except to say that we object strenuously to the inclusion in the schedule, and thereby the exemption, of certain corporations from reporting under this act, namely those mentioned in paragraphs Nos. 1 to 6 and 13 to 15, and in particular paragraph No. 17, which gives another blank cheque to the government to exclude any other class or group of corporations that it may desire to exclude in the future. We are opposed to this.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the schedule carry?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, when we were discussing clause 3 it was understood that when we came to the schedule the minister might be in a position to answer my questions. My first question was this: are the subsidiary companies of the Bell Telephone Company mentioned in the annual report which they have to submit to the board of transport commissioners? My second question was: how many telephone companies report to the board of transport commissioners? Is the minister in a position to answer those questions?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I understand that a perusal of the latest annual report available from the Bell Telephone Company shows that the only subsidiary reported on formally is Northern Electric Company. I am informed, however, that this is the main subsidiary of Bell Telephone Company and that the report says that Northern Electric
2576	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions is owned approximately 90 per cent by Bell Telephone Company and approximately 10 per cent by Western Electric.
As I pointed out a couple of days ago at an earlier stage of this bill, the Bell Telephone Company's own figures indicate that they are owned 92 per cent by Canadians. The detailed figure is that of the 178,126 shareholders, 97 per cent reside in Canada and they own 92 per cent of the total stock. Going on from there, again, as I say, on the basis of Bell Telephone's own figures 92 per cent is owned by Canadians, who in turn own 90 per cent of Northern Electric, the main subsidiary of Bell Telephone.


Alexis Pierre Caron: This does not give the board of transport commissioners the names of the subsidiary companies. The report says that one company, Northern Electric, is included; but in their report they show subsidiary company assets of $26,815,101, so it appears that there is more than one subsidiary. They should at least report that to the board of transport commissioners, if we are to have a full report of their assets and liabilities. This is one of the reasons why we thought that some of those companies should not be exempted, because then the department would ask them for those details which they do not furnish with their report.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the subsidiaries of the Bell Telephone Company in themselves are not exempt from reporting under this bill. The only companies that are exempt are those named specifically in the schedule. When we come to this group we find that the companies that are exempted are railway, telegraph, telephone or express companies, or a carrier by water in respect of which returns are made to the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada.
If the subsidiary company, then, of the Bell Telephone is not itself a telephone company which reports to the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, it is not exempt from reporting under this bill that we are now considering.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Not knowing the subsidiary companies, we do not know if they have to report. We would know if we had the names of those subsidiaries. As it is, we do not know.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can answer that question, or the suggestion. Unless it is a telephone company which already reports to the board of transport commissioners, they must report under this bill. Therefore the Bell Telephone and all its subsidiaries will report in one place or the other. I can tell the hon. member what telephone companies are required to report to the board of transport commissioners, and 

from that he will know whether the subsidiaries of Bell Telephone Company are included, and I am satisfied that they are not. Therefore ipso facto those subsidiaries will be required to report under this bill that we are now considering.
The telephone companies required to report under the Railway Act to the board of transport commissioners are, first, the Bell Telephone Company operating in Ontario and Quebec; second, the B.C. Telephone Company; third, Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone Company; fourth, the telephone operations of C.N.R.; fifth, the Yellowknife Telephone Company, a subsidiary of C.N.R. These companies are listed as I have given them in order of size.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not the Maritime Telephone Company?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am advised that the Maritime Telephone Company does not report to the board of transport commissioners because it is a provincial incorporation. Indeed I am advised that the telephone companies which do not report to the board of transport commissioners include the provincially owned telephone systems such as the Manitoba Telephone Company, the Avalon Telephone Company in Newfoundland, and the Quebec Telephone Company in Quebec. In some provinces there are some telephone companies which come under provincial regulatory boards; these companies are provincially incorporated and are almost invariably very small.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Could we have the number of telephone companies reporting to the board of transport commissioners, and the number which do not report? Just the number, not the names.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have just given the number reporting; they are five.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Five reporting?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Five reporting. All other telephone companies do not report, and therefore unless they are provincially owned telephone companies they would be required to report under this bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the minister would not consider, since there are only five of these companies anyway, taking telephone companies out. It does seem rather ridiculous that the Bell Telephone Company should not have to report under this act and the Maritime Telephone Company, which is a very big company, should have to report. We have never been told just what it is they have to report to the board of transport commissioners, whether indeed it is precisely the same information as they have to report here. I am amazed, for example-and this is a confession

of ignorance, I admit; but the minister also was ignorant until he got the report-at the suggestion that the Bell Telephone Company is mainly owned in Canada by Canadian shareholders. I think the popular impression is that there is some sort of connection between the Bell Telephone Company and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. We would like to know something about the nature of that connection, because they certainly are not independent of one another.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, this raises a point on which there has already been considerable discussion and perhaps I should restate the position so that it may be perfectly clear. The position that I have taken, as I have already informed the committee, is that the government is able to obtain, in respect of companies described under heads 1 to 6 and 13 to 15 of the schedule, information that will clearly reveal the extent of foreign ownership, if any, in these organizations and its effect. At this time I would like to assure the committee that the government intends to collate the returns to be received under this bill with the information relating to these classes of corporations in the schedule.
It is the intention, also, to make summarized information available to the public on the extent of foreign ownership both with respect to the 25,000 companies included in the bill and also the exempted categories in the schedule. On the basis of this statement of the position and of what the result will be I would hope that hon. members would not feel it necessary to take away any of the exemptions so far given with respect to telephone companies, especially in the light of the fact that they are already subject to a heavy burden of reporting to a federal authority. It is precisely because they already report to a federal authority which is able to obtain all the kinds of information that we want that, we have exempted them from the provisions of this bill in order to avoid imposing the burden of making a duplicate report. Companies which do not already report to a federal authority will have to report under this bill, so between the two we shall be in a position to obtain and analyse information from the whole field.


Mr. Regier:: I wonder if the minister could tell us exactly what information the B.C. Telephone Company has to supply to the board of transport commissioners. According to my findings the board of transport commissioners, who are supposed to be responsible for supervising the activities of the B.C. Telephone Company is, in this particular regard, being a mere scapegoat, and it is the opinion of many in British Columbia that supervision of this telephone company by
Corporations and Labour Unions the board means absolutely nothing-that the board is not even equipped to handle this particular assignment. I should like to know exactly what the B.C. Telephone Company does have to report to the board of transport commissioners.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is very extensive information. I do not want to read the whole of it into the proceedings here but I shall do my best to summarize, and I shall try to summarize fairly. Section 385 of the Railway Act says:
Every railway, telegraph, telephone and express company and every carrier by water, if required by the board so to do, shall prepare monthly returns of its revenues, working expenditure and traffic and all other information that may be required.


Erhart Regier: If required.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. Such returns must be in acordance with the forms required by the board.
Then section 388 says that every railway, telegraph, telephone and express company and every carrier by water shall, annually, or more often if the board so requires, make a true and particular return of all accidents and casualties.
That does not seem to be very relevant to what we are discussing now.
Section 391 provides that the board may from time to time, by notice served upon a railway, telegraph, telephone or express company require a written statement showing in such detail as the board requires:
(a)	the assets and liabilities of such company;
(b)	the amount of its stock issued and outstanding, and the date at which any such stock was so issued;
(c)	the amount and nature of the consideration received by such company for such issue-
(d)	the gross earnings or receipts or expenditure by such company during any periods specified by the board, and the purposes for which such expenditure was made;
(e)	the amount and nature of any bonus, gift, or subsidy, received by such company from any source whatsoever; and the source from which, and the time when, and the circumstances under which, the same was so received or given;
(f)	the bonds issued at any time by such company, and what portion of the same are outstanding and what portion, if any, have been redeemed;
(g)	the amount and nature of the consideration received by such company for the issue of such bonds;
(h)	the character and extent of any liabilities outstanding chargeable upon the property or undertaking of such company, or any part thereof, and the consideration received by such company for any such liabilities, and the circumstances under which the same were created;
(i)	the cost of construction of such company's railway or other works or any part thereof;
(j)	the amount and nature of the consideration paid or given by such company for any property acquired by it;
(k)	the particulars of any lease, contract or arrangement entered into, or at any time having been entered into, and the particulars of any financial or business relations relevant to any matter within the jurisdiction of the board existing,

Corporations and Labour Unions or at any time having existed between such company and any other company or person; and
(1)	generally, the extent, nature, value and particulars of the property, earnings and business of such company.
Further, the board has power to require the attendance before it of officers of the company to be examined in relation to any matter which in the opinion of the board is relevant to the returns I have enumerated.
Then, as the committee knows, every time one of these companies makes an application with respect to its rates there are extensive requirements as to the information which must be furnished. This is why there is now available, or can be made available under the acts which are mentioned in the schedule, as full information as it is desired to obtain under this bill. These companies already report to the board of transport commissioners and we did not think it would be sensible to include them under this bill. If we find, when the matter has been looked into further, that particular information we may need is not received as a matter of course by the board of transport commissioners, that omission can be taken care of under the authority already existing in the Kailway Act.
I recognize that to an extent this becomes a matter of judgment. In our judgment, in view of the extensive powers that now exist with respect to the opportunity of obtaining information under the other acts, and the extensive burden already placed upon the companies named in the schedule to report to the federal authority, it would be unwise to insist that they duplicate that reporting burden.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The burden placed upon these companies will be the same as that placed on anybody else. The burden placed upon the smaller companies will be just as big as that placed on the larger companies, because the smaller companies have fewer employees to undertake this work.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The difference is that the telephone companies, for example, already report to the board of transport commissioners while the others do not. If we required these companies to report here as well, they would have to report to two different places. That is where the duplication comes in.


Alexis Pierre Caron: But they do not necessarily give all the details which are included in this bill. We see in the report of the Bell Telephone Company for the year ending December 31, 1961 what a marked decline there has been in the number of telephone companies. We see that in 1954 there were 741 of these companies but that by 1961 the number had been reduced to 483. Some people are under the impression that a kind of combine is being created-that the small

companies are being forced to sell. It would be very interesting to have statistics to show exactly what is going on in Canada in this respect. That is why I think even the Bell Telephone Company should be obliged to report as the other companies are.


Erhart Regier: I certainly would like to support the contention of the hon. member for Hull. However, if an appeal is possible, I should like to appeal to the hon. member for Hull to investigate the make-up of the B.C. Telephone Company. He would realize that the Bell Telephone of Canada is a relatively innocent operation by comparison. The B.C. Telephone Company has often been forced to admit that it is part of an international cartel in the field of telephone communications.
The minister attempted to reply to me a few minutes ago, but he did not claim that the B.C. Telephone Company makes any report whatsoever to the board of transport commissioners. He read out the regulations and I noticed that the words "if required" appeared. I noticed that he spelled out carefully that there were powers existing in the legislation under which the B.C. Telephone Company could be made to report, but he went no farther than that. I will say right now that the board of transport commissioners is not adequately equipped to handle this responsibility, namely, the supervision of the activities of telephone companies in Canada.
The minister stated that the company can be asked to report on a number of matters- and he quoted the words "if required"-by the board of transport commissioners. I would suggest to the minister that our board of transport commissioners are not equipped even to place a requirement; and even if they were so equipped, they would not know what to do with the information if it were submitted to them. He says the board may from time to time inquire as to assets and liabilities and as to earnings and expenditures. He also mentioned a few other matters. I submit to the minister that our present board of transport commissioners is basically designed to govern and control our railroads and that it is ill equipped or most inadequately equipped to meet the aims and objectives of the bill now before us. I therefore believe the hon. member for Hull is asking in a reasonable manner that telephone companies not be exempt from the provisions of this bill.
The minister also said that very extensive requirements were imposed upon the telephone companies as to changes in rates. I have had enough experience in this regard to know what a phony this is. If anyone in British Columbia complains to the board of transport commissioners about proposed

changes in rates, upon receipt of a complaint from either an organization or an individual the board of transport commissioners merely orders a stenographer to type out a copy of the letter of complaint and to mail it to the head office of the B.C. Telephone Company with the accompanying memorandum, "Your comments would be appreciated". Naturally the company is able to defend itself. Then the moment the defence of the company arrives in the office of the board of transport commissioners a stenographer is again asked to type out a copy of the reply of the B.C. Telephone Company, and this is then forwarded to the complainant as the explanation of the board of transport commissioners in reply to the particular complaint.
This is a racket that ought to be ended. I see in this bill at least one means whereby the public of Canada, if the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Hull is accepted, might for once be able to explore the matter and find out exactly what is happening in the field of telephone companies who, through very devious and clever schemes, have escaped provincial jurisdiction and have managed to end up with the board of transport commissioners becoming their only supervision.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Following all this discussion, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That item 15 of the schedule be amended by striking out the word "telephone".


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not wish to discuss this matter all around again. With respect I think all I should say is that in our judgment it would not be sensible to impose upon these companies a duplicate burden of reporting. We think that information sufficient for the purposes is available or can be obtained. As a matter of fact, we believe there is already available information with respect to them upon which to assess the extent and effect of foreign ownership which is the purpose of this bill, If we find that this information is not available or if, when we come to ask the bureau to collate and compare the information with respect to telephone companies or any other companies with that available from the companies reporting under this bill, they find that there is a gap in their knowledge, then at that time we can amend the schedule in order to remove the exemptions in whole or in part and we would be quite prepared to do that. As I say, I wish to be co-operative. However, I must say as a fact that to date I have not been convinced by the arguments put forward.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going to try to convince the minister in two ways. I should like the minister-who said he would have the information available at this stage, if I remember correctly-to tell us how much of
8, 1362
Corporations and Labour Unions the B.C. Telephone Company, not according to their balance sheet which has no validity in this House of Commons but according to the records of the board of transport commissioners, is owned outside of Canada. If the minister can give us that information and can satisfy us that the board of transport commissioners already has it in exactly the same form as it is asked for in this bill, then I think his argument would have a good deal of validity. If he cannot do so, then I say that this argument completely falls to the ground.
However, I think it falls to the ground for another and more substantial reason. We have been told that the great majority of the telephone companies of Canada will be obliged to report under this act. All of the little ones will be obliged to do so. There are a great number of these small telephone companies in Ontario and Quebec. There are only five companies that are exempt. One of them is the B.C. Telephone Company. Another is the Bell Telephone Company. Those are two of the biggest concerns in the country. It seems to me that it is a very strange argument for the Minister of Justice to be using when he suggests that the law should compel small companies to do something but that the government should retain it in its discretion to decide whether or not the large companies will be asked to do so. That is the whole gravamen of the minister's argument. He says that they are reporting now. However, he does not say they are giving the same information. In fact, we know very well that they are not giving the same information. We also know very well that there will be no legal obligation upon them to give the same information. All there will be is this. If the government of the day sees fit to cause them to be asked for it, no doubt under the Railway Act the board of transport commissioners-although I am not sure that the government could instruct them in this matter under their own statute-could ask for it. That is, however, a much different matter from the imposing of a legal obligation.
Why should Maritime Telephone Company be obliged to report under this act the precise information the government thinks it wants and it be left completely optional whether the Bell Telephone Company or the British Columbia Telephone Company reports? We know that all these five companies report. One of them, of course, is C.N.T. which would not be obliged to report anyway because it is publicly owned. Hence there are in fact only four. There are four companies, two of them great octopuses, that are being exempted, whereas all the other privately-owned telephone companies in the

Corporations and Labour Unions country are subject to the law. The situation is not the same as that with regard to express companies. There are only two express companies in the country and they are both subject to the same kind of requirements and to all practical intents and purposes they are completely controlled in Canada, wherever the ownership may be. However, the telephone companies are much different. It seems to me-and I am not trying to put this matter on any other basis than that of equity and fairness-that the same law should apply equally to these legal persons or that there should not be one law for the poor and another law for the rich even in the field of corporations. It seems to me that this amendment is going to impose no great hardship upon the Bell Telephone Company or the B.C. Telephone Company, unless they have something to hide. I therefore hope the minister could reconsider the matter and accept the very reasonable amendment of my hon. friend from Hull.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I make a correction in what was said because otherwise I think it might leave a wrong impression. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate suggested that I said all other telephone companies would be required to report. I do not think that could be taken from what I said. What I did say was that the only telephone companies exempt from the requirements of this act are those reporting under the Railway Act. However, this must be read subject to head 16 of the schedule which sets a size limit with respect to assets and annual revenue, which also determines whether or not there is an obligation to report. Indeed, I am informed that the great majority of the telephone companies that do not report to the board of transport commissioners are well below that size limit and therefore would not be required to report under this bill, so we are far from having one law for large corporations and another for all the small ones.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I concede the minister's point but-


Edmund Davie Fulton: For instance, in the province of Ontario there are approximately 300 small telephone companies of which some 80 per cent operate fewer than 500 telephones each, and obviously none of them would have to report by virtue of head 16 of the schedule.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister think that a telephone company with 500 telephones would not have assets of $500,000? Even one telephone costs quite a lot of money these days.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I doubt it, and certainly I would not think they would have an annual revenue of $500,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I think my hon. friend is confused. It is a limit of $500,000 with respect to revenue and $250,000 with respect to assets.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, in the initial stages we expressed on clause 3 the opinion that no matter how iniquitous the bill may be it should still apply fairly and justly to all corporations, and in that sense we would support the idea of the amendment that all telephone companies be required to report. If anybody is going to report, let us make everybody report to the same organization. That was the gist of our views expressed on clause 3. I am not going into our arguments and reasons again. We are in favour of this amendment, even though it is only a small, faltering step toward the objective of bringing all of these exempt corporations under the same law.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the committee ready for the question?


Erhart Regier: No. The minister has pointed out that he does not want to force duplication of reporting on companies. I wonder whether he can tell the committee how much reporting the B.C. Telephone Company actually does to the board of transport commissioners.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have placed before the committee in summary form the reporting requirements as contained in the Railway Act. I do not think I can enlighten the committee beyond that. That is where the information is found.


Erhart Regier: If I may pursue this matter for a moment, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked the minister how much of the B.C. Telephone Company is Canadian owned and the minister has not yet replied to that question. The minister now says that he has read the pertinent items in the Railway Act. However, as I recall, everything he read merely enabled the board of transport commissioners to require certain things and called upon the company to supply the information if required. I want to know whether the board of transport commissioners has ever requested a balance sheet or operational statement from the B.C. Telephone Company.
As I indicated earlier, I believe the board of transport commissioners does not have the necessary machinery to meet this need, and I believe the hon. member for Hull and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate are perfectly correct in their assertion that this provision is going to require many telephone companies to report, while on the other hand the board of transport commissioners will likely pursue its policy of doing nothing about

its right to require reports with the result that reports will not be forthcoming in the future.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee should surely be aware that there is a question whether a minister piloting a bill of this sort, which is designed to enable the government to obtain information from companies, and from all companies without discrimination, should really accept an invitation to go into the details of a particular company. With regard to the Bell Telephone Company I had no hesitation because, as I stated, the information I gave was from the company's own published annual report. I do not know precisely the extent to which the B.C. Telephone Company is owned in Canada and if I did I do not think I should single out that company here and give that information.


Erhart Regier: You gave it for the Bell Telephone Company.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I gave it for Bell Telephone because Bell Telephone has published it. I told the committee where I got it from at the beginning, but I do not think I should go through the exercise in the manner suggested, as I would be doing if I accepted the invitation to tell the committee about this or that named company. I am not going to start to do so.
Our object is to place the government in a position where it will have the information. Those parts of it that can be made public in accordance with the act will be available for inspection, and the rest will be information available to the government and published in summary form.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister has really put forward the most extraordinary argument we have heard in the course of the debate on this bill. He is asking us as a legislative body to exempt four companies only from the operation of this legislation under part 15 of the schedule. There were five companies, but Canadian National Telegraphs would be exempt in any event because it is government owned, so there are only four. The minister says that every other telephone company with revenue of more than half a million dollars must report, and must report its foreign ownership. But surely the only excuse the minister can have for exempting these four companies is if he knows and is able to show us by the figures that these four are already reporting their foreign ownership, not in some document that they themselves circulate to the public and may stop issuing next year, but in a public document in the possession of the board of transport commissioners. Because the only argument
6,	1962	2581
Corporations and Labour Unions the minister has given for exempting them is that they do report to the board of transport commissioners. The whole point is that unless they report precisely the same things to the board of transport commissioners they should not be exempted from this legislation, and it should not be left to the government to treat them as little pets and ask for the information or not as it chooses.
It seems to me that the minister should show us that this precise information is now available, not that it will be some day in the future if the government chooses to act. We do not know how much power the government would have over the board of transport commissioners under other legislation to compel the board to ask for this information. This is a terrible way to leave the law. For the minister to say that he should not give these details is not nearly good enough. After all, we are putting a burden on all these other companies and he is saying that these four should be exempt because they are under the control of the board of transport commissioners. That does not make any difference unless they are now giving or have a legal liability to give to the board of transport commissioners precisely what we are asking other companies like the Maritime Telephone Company to give under this legislation.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I want to be fair to the minister. I do not recall his saying that the B.C. Telephone Company reports to the board of transport commissioners. My recollection is that all he said was that they may be required to report and that if requested to report they would have to do so. He was a little vague as to exactly what they would have to report. That is the whole bone of contention as far as I am concerned because I can remember that a number of years ago we had a royal commission in British Columbia to investigate the activities of the B.C. Telephone Company. After only one year of investigation, at fantastic expense to the taxpayers of our province, the royal commission threw up its hands in disgust and admitted utter defeat. They became involved with telephone and telegraph lines in Honolulu during their investigation, so this company is part of an international cartel, as the minister well knows. He knows that our board of transport commissioners has never attempted to get the background of the financial story of this company, and I submit they have the machinery to do so.
The minister now says that a little telephone company relatively speaking, will have to spend hundreds of dollars in accounting fees in order to supply the necessary information which I submit, in the main, will be completely useless so far as the announced
2582	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions objective of this legislation is concerned. Yet a company like the B.C. Telephone Company, which is very much involved with the announced objective of this legislation is going to be able to continue to escape public knowledge of its operations. In my opinion, this course of action borders on the height of irresponsibility. It reminds me once again of what I said a number of days ago. I am becoming more and more convinced that this whole bill is nothing more than a bunch of political eyewash, intended only for the next election campaign.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam permit me to ask him a question?


Erhart Regier: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does he not think that this problem about which he is talking, and I agree with what he has said, may be solved by that great, super-socialist, the premier of British Columbia?


Frank Howard: He is not a socialist, he is a fascist.


Erhart Regier: The B.C. Telephone Company, in my opinion, has been permitted over the years to escape the jurisdiction of our provincial government. I am quite prepared to accept the concept that it might also be nationalized like the B.C. Electric or could be expropriated. However, unfortunately for the telephone users of British Columbia, the B.C. Telephone Company has managed to hoodwink the banking and commerce committee of this house on ever so many occasions, and by slow but sure degrees has completely escaped provincial jurisdiction,


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry the hon. member overlooked the information I gave the committee earlier when I was referring to the Railway Act, where I pointed out that the Bell Telephone Company, being a telephone company covered under the Railway Act, is required-not just "may be called upon" but is required-to report at least annually to the board with regard to its assets, liabilities, capitalization, revenues, etc., in accordance with the forms and classifications for the time being required by the board. Such returns must be made in duplicate under oath.
Then, I did not tell the committee, as I was going quickly in order to summarize, that a duplicate copy of such returns, dated, signed and attested in the manner aforesaid, shall be forwarded by such company to the dominion statistician within one month after the first day of February of each year. There is, therefore, already a duplicate reporting requirement and, in effect, we would be triplicating the requirements. The short answer


is that this company, as well as other telephone companies referred to, are required to report such particulars and in such form as may be required by the board. Copies of their returns go to the dominion statistician where they are available for publishing in summary form.
I am satisfied, the more I consider the matter today, that what we are called upon to do in the amendment would be not really asking them to duplicate but to triplicate their reporting burden.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I listened carefully to what the minister said about the reporting requirements. There was no mention of the fact the company had to report foreign ownership which, according to the minister, is the real point of this bill. This is the reason we are putting forward this amendment. It is true that they have to report all these other things, but there is not a word there as to how much of it is foreign ownership, which is the whole purpose of this legislation. Here are two great corporations, the Bell Telephone Company and the B.C. Telephone Company, and other companies, that will no longer be required, even if this bill passes, to report on foreign ownership. We say they should not be exempted from that, and it should not be done by this backhanded method, through the council chamber, by the government asking the chairman of the board of transport commissioners to change the forms. Parliament should do it Parliament is going to make a law for the Maritime Telephone Company and that law should apply to the B.C. Telephone Company and the Bell Telephone Company. They should not be exempted.


Erhart Regier: The minister objects to the company having to make three reports instead of two. I am only a humble member of parliament but I have a secretary in my office and on ever so many occasions she has been able to type out eight copies of a report with no added expense whatever. I fail to see the terrific injustice that the minister implies would be imposed or the burden that would be imposed upon these companies if they had to make these copies available under the terms of this legislation.
There is another point that was raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. The existing demands upon these companies do not call for a proper disclosure of the extent of foreign ownership. This is the whole objective of the bill, according to the introductory statement of the minister. However, he is now willing to accept as adequate, returns that do not include this information.
I can recall a number of occasions when, as a member of the banking and commerce committee, we had the officials of the B.C. Tele-

phone Company before us. On each and every occasion when we opened our questioning by suggesting that possibly the majority of the ownership of the company rested outside of Canada, there was a great show of indignation. We were insulting them by even suggesting that it was not a bona fide Canadian company. After hours, and I can remember one occasion when it took a number of days, the officials of the company were forced, most reluctantly, to admit that the main controls of this company were vested outside of Canada. No Canadian company likes to admit it is not master of its own house, but is a mere appendage of an international cartel.
I can appreciate why the B.C. Telephone officials like to hide the real ownership and real control of the company. I believe that the amendment commends itself to the serious consideration of this house. If the members of this committee take the minister at his word and really believe that this legislation is intended to reveal to the government and to the people of Canada, the extent of foreign ownership and control of companies in Canada, then I fail to see how they can, in good conscience, oppose the amendment now before us. In my opinion if they oppose the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hull, then they are making a liar out of the minister and they are saying that they do not believe that the minister meant what he said when he introduced this legislation in the first place.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not always easy to anticipate precisely the information the committee will be wanting, and I confess not to have anticipated some of it. I had a lot of other information, some of which I have given. I have sent out for further information and I am now in a position to advise the committee that the board of transport commissioners does know the extent of foreign ownership of the telephone companies, and that every time an application is filed for a change of rates, further special returns are made reporting the percentage of their shares held in Canada and abroad. That applies to the B.C. Telephone Company and the Bell Telephone Company. I am also informed, on the basis of information provided to the board, that Canadian control has been increased in recent years.


Erhart Regier: May I ask the minister how many employees the transport board has who have any knowledge or experience in the field of telephones?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure I could not say at the present time.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Erhart Regier: I would submit that there is not one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That undoubtedly is the hon. member's opinion, but he is not always right.


Frank Howard: Neither are you.
Amendment (Mr. Caron) negatived: Yeas, 18; nays, 28.
During the taking of the vote:


Gordon Campbell Chown: I should point out to hon. members who were not in when the vote was called that they will have to remain outside the House of Commons while the vote is being counted.
After the taking of the vote:


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Edmund Davie Fulton: By leave now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, next sitting.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Methuen Fleming: Before the house takes up the next order of business I wonder if I might have leave of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of acquainting the house with an announcement.


Lionel Chevrier: If the announcement is going to be what I think it is, then there will be no objection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Make it short.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Minister of Finance leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



THE BUDGET


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to inform the house that, barring unforeseen occurrences, and if it is the pleasure of the house, I hope to introduce the budget on Tuesday evening next, April 10, at eight o'clock.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
728. Canadian wildlife service-wildlife resources conservation and development, including administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act- further amount required, $27,000.
2584	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before we embark on consideration of this vote I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could give the committee the information that he gave me in a letter about the role of the federal government in the supervision of race track betting. It does not seem to me that it should be given to just one hon. member. It is a matter of general interest, and I would point out that we expedited an item the other day to please the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: I shall be glad to do whatever the house wishes, but I would have to have unanimous consent. I fulfilled in detail the commitment which I made to the hon. gentleman, which was that I would be glad to get any additional information for him and send it to him. I sent it to him and fulfilled that commitment. Now I am in the hands of the committee as to whether there would be unanimous consent that I should give the information on this vote.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not want to enter into a dispute about semantics with the hon. gentleman, who is always very amiable until he gets excited.


Richard Albert Bell: Which is very rarely.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we should make a lot more speed if he could get unanimous consent, if indeed that is really necessary.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I do not know to which item the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is referring. Is it an item that has been passed?


Richard Albert Bell: It is an item in agriculture.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Will the committee give unanimous consent to revert to the item referred to by the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate?


Richard Albert Bell: I hope we would not revert to the item, because the item has been carried.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just let us have the information.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Will the committee give unanimous consent for this information to be given?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Richard Albert Bell: This is a letter dated April 3, 1962, addressed to the Hon. J. W. Pickersgili, M.P., House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario. It reads:
Dear Jack:
At page 2292 and 2293 of Hansard of March 29, 1962, I undertook to send to you further particulars of the role of the federal government in supervision of race track betting.
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).l

I would refer you specifically to section 178 of the Criminal Code (statutes of Canada 1953-54).
Where parimutuel systems are operated upon the race course of an association, the association must be incorporated by a special act of parliament of Canada or of the legislature of a province if incorporated on or after May 19, 1947; or, if incorporated before May 19, 1947, that the association has conducted a race meeting with parimutuel betting under the supervision of the Minister of Agriculture at any time after January 1, 1938, but before May 19, 1947; or, that the Minister of Agriculture has before May 19, 1947 made a determination under this section that the provisions of sections 176 and 177 shall not extend to the operation of a parimutuel system. The Criminal Code, section 178, also specifically provides for race meetings at which there are trotting races exclusively where pool selling, betting or wagering is permitted by an association if incorporated in any manner before March 20, 1912 or incorporated after that day by special act of parliament of Canada or of the legislature of a province.
With only three exceptions, the associations have been incorporated by special act of the legislature of a province, or by provincial letters patent. Each charter approves a number of racing days per calendar year under that charter.
Under the Criminal Code, the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for the approval of the parimutuel system and for the supervision of its operation. The minister, as a first responsibility, determines whether the charters held by associations under which they have applied for race track supervision, conform to the rules above stated. The minister establishes current validity of such charters by obtaining an up to date certification from provincial governments. Further, before approving racing dates, the minister satisfies himself that all other requirements under the Criminal Code and under the regulations issued by the Minister of Agriculture under section 178 have been met. These regulations govern the requirements of the parimutuel system, the race track facilities, and the actual conduct of the racing meets.
I am advised that the particular association to which you refer has submitted five charters all issued prior to March 20, 1912 and that these appear to be currently valid in conformity with the principles I have stated. They are being studied by the Department of Agriculture, to whom further inquiry should be made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. member
very much.


Mr. Drysdale:: The Liberals are still backing the wrong horses in the next election.
The Depuiy Chairman: I might inform the house leader of the official opposition that it is recorded that item 727 was passed on March 30.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Your Honour is quite right; I have looked that up. I thought we were still on that item, but apparently it did go through. We are now on item 728, I take it. I wonder if the Minister of Finance would like to add anything to the discussion which took place last Friday concerning wildlife, when certain matters were considered having to do with the vision of the north. I wonder if the minister would care to add

anything to some of the statements that were made, such as going from saloon to saloon and from saloon to mortuary.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I do not profess to be an authority on the subject of wildlife but I am always interested when others are interested in the subject. In a word, I think the committee is well aware of the reasons for the proposals involving the restoration of certain buildings famous in their day. This is strongly recommended in the interests of stimulating the tourist interest. There has been a very substantial tourist interest in the Yukon and it is expected that the restoration of these buildings that were very famous in their day will provide a very great tourist attraction and the expenditure will be repaid in the form of tourist outlays many times over.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to ask the
minister whether the government got any objective appraisal before undertaking this rather large expenditure of nearly $500,000 which we found a good deal of difficulty in getting the government to admit. Did the government get any objective appraisal as to how many years it would take to recover this investment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the matter originated with the historic sites and monuments board and it was they who made the proposal to the minister, having first studied the matter and satisfied themselves that this was going to be a paying investment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question. Perhaps he can get the information here. With respect to the administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, has there ever been an instance in the administration of this act where they have discovered that a migratory bird such as an egret had come from, say North Africa to the North American continent and therefore it was legal to take the feathers from that bird?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is away in the clouds soaring high above me in this matter. I am afraid it would be unwise for me to attempt to pursue him into that realm.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am sorry; I understood that the officials of the wildlife branch were here.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall item 728 carry?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Are there no officials able to give an answer to that question?
Supply-Northern Affairs


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will give the hon. member such information as has been fur-ished to me. The field program was planned and carried out to gather information on the distribution of sandhill cranes in the Last Mountain lake area of Saskatchewan during the time crops are subject to damage and to assess the effectiveness of control methods on reducing any damage that might occur.
Because of favourable weather conditions for harvesting, the cranes did not carry out a large amount of damage. The test of observation and data collecting techniques and of damage control methods provided much useful information.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, are the officials unable to answer my question? Have there been instances of birds coming from other continents being destroyed in Canada and the feathers taken, and therefore this action being legal-I refer to birds such as egrets-because they did not come under the terms of this act?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the subject is a somewhat abstruse one. I will communicate with the division of the department concerned and ask that that information, if available, be furnished to the hon. gentleman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 728 carry?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the minister if he could give me any indication as to the status of the eiderdown collection situation in the St. Lawrence river area at the present time. It is a matter I have been interested in for several years; I mean, seriously. The present arrangement, as I understand it, is one in which the licence is issued by the Quebec government. There was some controversy as to the right of the licensee. This was when the old administration was in charge in the province of Quebec. I am referring to the Duplessis administration. What I am curious about is as to whether there has been any change since the new government took over in Quebec in connection with this franchise, or licence, or whatever it is. I understand that the Canadian wildlife service have a certain re-sponsibilty with regard to this matter because these are migratory birds. I would appreciate having information on this matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, sir; no change.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Water resources branch-
729. Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $50,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Northern Affairs
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, this vote
covers a matter which is, I think, of immediate concern to those of us who reside in the Montreal area. The minister will probably remember that last year prior to the spring freshets the level of the water in the port of Montreal was very seriously affected and-


Henry Frank Jones: Only four Liberals here.


Lionel Chevrier: -the reason was that the plan for the control of the downstream interests and the downstream levels at Montreal was not working out to the satisfaction of the international St. Lawrence river board of control. What I have to say is of course not in the slightest degree critical of this board because I think they and their predecessors have done very good work in an effort to protect the downstream interests as well as the upstream interests. My reason for raising the matter is to ask one or two questions upon which I hope I can get some elucidation. First, about this plan which has been in operation for some time, namely, plan 1958-A which was to have been amended by the Canadian section in co-operation with the United States section of the international St. Lawrence river board of control in order to find a better method of protecting the navigation interests, upstream as well as downstream. My question is: has the amendment to this plan been made?
While the minister is waiting for his officials, perhaps I may raise the other matter I have in mind. As a result of the difficulties which were experienced in Montreal harbour in the closing weeks of navigation in the 1960 season under plan of regulation 1958-A, the international joint commission at its April 1961 meeting gave to the board of control some discretionary authority under that plan whereby some additional storage could be accumulated on lake Ontario during the high supply months for release out of the St. Lawrence river during the low waterfall months. I am informed that under this authority the board has accumulated during the past summer 0.3 foot of storage on lake Ontario. This depth on the lake is equivalent to 104,000 cubic feet per second for one week, or sufficient to raise the level of Montreal harbour one foot for somewhat more than five weeks. The question is: has there been a greater amount of water stored in lake Ontario, not only for the protection of the downstream interests at Montreal but also for the protection of the interests on lake St. Francis and in the Cornwall area?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I must apologize to the hon. member. The official who has this information has apparently got lost between the gallery and the floor. He has not arrived.

I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to convey the answers to these questions to him.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, that would be agreeable. However, there are one or two other matters which arise. It has been found that there is not a sufficient amount of flow coming into the river following the plan which was established by the international board of control. The question arises as to whether or not there will be additional quantities of water diverted from lake Ontario into the St. Lawrence river so as to increase the flow in the low water period in order to protect navigation and, secondly, to protect power development as well.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall be glad to undertake that this information will be communicated to the hon. member.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This item is in connection with professional and special services, water resources branch. I presume it has something to do with the salaries paid to the technical people upon whom this government has relied for advice in connection with the Columbia river treaty proposals.
I should like to bring to the minister's attention an item in today's Citizen which appears under the heading: "Columbia Pact -McNaughton Says Canada Sold Out". It reads in part:
General A. G. L. McNaughton, retiring chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission, said today that the Columbia river treaty amounts to "servitude in perpetuity of our vital rights and interests."
The report goes on to say:
The 75-year-old former wartime army leader and defence minister lashed out against the negotiators of the Columbia treaty on the grounds that they had departed from the principles based on engineering studies laid down by the l.J.C.
General McNaughton goes on to say:
The Canadian negotiators were a house divided against itself, unskilled and uninformed in its representatives. They opened a situation for the Americans to exploit and I can't blame the Americans for doing so.
The article continues:
At another point in an interview here prior to his return to Ottawa, General McNaughton reiterated the charge in these words:	"The
Americans saw we were a house divided against itself-they moved in on these people and skinned them alive.
These are very serious charges coming from a person who has had the longest acquaintance with proposals for the development of this river in various ways. There is another aspect of this question. Other people have come to me and told me they have visited the water resources branch seeking information with respect to certain aspects of this treaty but were unable to get it. I

want to ask the minister if he has any comments to make on General McNaughton's charges as reported in the Citizen this afternoon.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think it would be appropriate at this stage for me to make any extended comment on this matter. I do not think, strictly speaking, it arises on this item, which is one in respect of engineering services retained in connection with the making of a report-a report which has since been made public and with which I am sure the hon. member is familiar.
With regard to the article which the hon. member has read, I have not seen it myself, and I think, in fairness, I should not attempt to comment on it in an extended way until I have actually seen it. It is well known, I believe, that General McNaughton and the international joint commission were in touch at all times with the negotiations which led up to the treaty being signed. The view that General McNaughton held originally was one which preferred a different type of undertaking with respect to certain of the courses and reservoirs. My information is that since it was not possible to bring about agreement on the basis which General McNaughton favoured it was necessary, as so often happens, to accept something different.
Here were two governments of two sovereign countries negotiating. Neither one of them could have its own way in all matters, and in the end the particular way which General McNaughton favoured was not possible because there could never have been an agreement between the two countries on that basis. My information is that, no agreement being possible on the basis which he would have preferred, General McNaughton went along then with the proposals which were developed as a substitute. Certainly his advice was made available on that basis.
No one questions the right of General McNaughton to retain his view that something different would have been better, but the fact is that the course he favoured could not have been the subject of agreement. Various differences were made the subject of negotiation and in the end a treaty was arrived at on the only basis which proved to be possible.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not wish to take up the time of the committee on this problem now because I am sure the subject will be discussed throughout the country in view of the great respect in which General McNaughton's views are held. However, I am interested in what the minister has to say because I was reliably informed that the change of direction occurred on the insistence of the government of British Columbia which wanted to
Supply

Northern Affairs build a high dam as against the sequence proposed by General McNaughton.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let me clear up that question. The views of the government of British Columbia certainly entered into this. There were three governments involved all of which had views as to the optimum course. What was achieved in the end was the only basis on which agreement could be reached.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 729 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: If I may, I should like to revert for just a moment to the matter which 1 raised originally. I should like to commend the government. I do not do that very often. However, I should like to commend the government in connection with their decision to establish a full time office located at Cornwall, the primary duties of which are concerned with the objectives involved in the regulation of the St. Lawrence flows having in mind all of the criteria which the international joint commission and the two federal governments have laid down for the protection of the interests all the way from lake Ontario to Montreal harbour.
The minister will probably remember that the board of control was established by order of the international joint commission to supervise during construction the works of both power and navigation in the international section and also to supervise water limits and the flows from lake Ontario downstream. I have no hesitation in saying this.
Had we been in office, having established this board originally and having located the survey headquarters at Cornwall we would have wanted to set up an office to carry out the responsibilities after construction, as has been done under the circumstances. I am grateful to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources who was good enough to advise me that this was being done. In fact, I understand now that it has been done and that there is an office with a staff comprised of some four or five technical personnel, with one engineer in charge, whose duties and responsibilities are to supervise water levels and the flow of water. That is a decision which is all to the good. I think it will have a great bearing and influence on the implementation of the plan which was established by the board of control, and any amended plan. The minister, of course, said he did not have his officers with him here and could not give me details of whether or not the plan had been amended. I understand that it has been amended. Perhaps, he can tell me in what manner it has been amended. I think, however, the decision to have a technical

Supply

Northern Affairs group of officers which will regulate the discharge of water is all to the good. I trust that it will have the effect of protecting the downstream interests at Montreal, the power interests at Beauharnois and the other navigation interests upstream.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just wish to make one other comment. I wish I could use the name of the senator to whom I shall refer. However, I discussed this question with a very well known senator in the United States and he said this to me, "Mr. Herridge, we were amazed at the developments in the negotiations. The Canadian negotiators threw General McNaughton's aces away all in the first throw".


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have explained the difference in points of view on this matter. Anyone can take a particular point of view and say, "This is right". It is probably only natural for each individual to hold firmly to his own point of view. However, when you come into the field of negotiation where different interests are involved and consequently different points of view, it does not follow that the point of view of a particular individual is bound to prevail. All of these points of view were carefully considered. Canada was represented by an extremely competent negotiating team, including the highly competent officials of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and others. I must take firmly the position that Canada was ably, competently and sufficiently represented in these negotiations. The treaty itself is one which, if implementation may follow, we believe to be of definite and clear advantage to Canada. That is not to say that, had we had our own way in all respects we could not have done something a little bit different. However, the fact is that after extended negotiations, with three governments involved, the treaty represents the one basis upon which agreement could be arrived at.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have one more question. Before ratification occurs in the house at some future time, will the government refer the treaty to the external affairs committee? If so, will the committee, if it wishes it, have the opportunity to hear General McNaughton?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think that is a question that might more properly be asked on some other occasion. It does not relate to this particular item which, after all, is an item dealing with payment for services of a particular engineering firm who wrote the report. The hon. member will have ample opportunity to ask his question or to press his point of view on this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am really rising to say something about another matter, Mr. Chairman. However, before doing so, may I say that I think this whole business illustrates how unwise it was for the government to enter into a treaty with the United States before reaching a really ironclad undertaking with the province of British Columbia. If they had followed the excellent example given them by my hon. friend from Laurier and by the Leader of the Opposition when they were in charge of the St. Lawrence treaty, they would have had everything signed, sealed and delivered by the province before they pledged the word of Canada. I must say that for this unseemly haste and bungling at the end of this whole matter they seem to be reaping the reward that such ineptitude properly deserves.
However, it was not for that purpose I rose to speak. It was to speak about the negotiation that has been going on ever since the present government of Manitoba came into office-I was going to say ever since the present government came into office -with regard to the Winnipeg fioodway. On the orders of the day I asked the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question about when this agreement is likely to be reached. I pursued the matter as far as I could pursue it on the orders of the day. I had hoped that the minister would be here because, as a Manitoban, he would probably be more familiar with the matter than would the Minister of Finance, although I think there are many people who believe that the Minister of Finance is the real log jam in this transaction. Rightly or wrongly, I believe that is the general view in Manitoba.
I have in my hand a clipping from the Winnipeg Tribune and I took it advisedly from the Tribune and not from the Free Press, containing an account of what took place in the legislature about this matter the other day. This is from the Winnipeg Tribune of March 27. I do not wish to waste much time on this matter; I just wish to get some information. This report states as follows:
No written, final agreement has been made with Ottawa, Premier Roblin said. But he assured the house that official agreement would be wrapped up before a federal election, even if it is held in June.
I must say that it is refreshing to find how much more the premier of Manitoba knows about what this government's intentions are than does the House of Commons itself or perhaps even by this government itself. However, Mr. Roblin spoke with great conviction that agreement would be wrapped up. By

"wrapped up" I presume what is meant is that it would be signed. The report goes on to state this:
At first Mr. Roblin refused to answer opposition questions concerning a possible "upper limit" on federal cost sharing.
He insisted details of final negotiations had to remain secret.
I must say that this business of secrecy seems to have extended into a very wide field in these days. The report continues:
But he did have written agreement approving the cost sharing in principle.
I wonder whether the minister would tell us what this written agreement is, approving cost sharing in principle, what the principle is and whether the federal government has in fact put an upper limit on the expenditures it is prepared to make?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has spoken of two matters. With reference to his first observations, I wish to say very briefly that there was no bungling or ineptitude in relation to the treaty. The fact is that the government of British Columbia participated in all the negotiations and all of the steps leading up to the drafting of the treaty. They were parties to all of those steps and all of the agreements antecedent to the treaty. I wish to put that clearly on record in correction of the statements made by the hon. member.
With regard to the second matter he raised, may I say that there is no firm, written agreement signed yet, but it is expected that the agreement will be signed soon. The matter is a very important one and there have been discussions and negotiations over a period of time. We understand that we are close to the signing of the agreement. As to specific terms, I think it would not be appropriate for me to comment on terms until the matter emerges from the stage of negotiation and becomes a matter of a written agreement. The hon. member can be very sure that when the agreement has been entered into it will be made public.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that very point, Mr. Chairman, surely we can be told as much as Mr. Roblin told the Manitoba legislature. Mr. Roblin said, according to this statement which I am sure is accurate, that he did have a written agreement approving cost sharing in principle. Can the minister tell us what the nature of that agreement is? It is a written agreement and surely if the Manitoba legislature can be told this we can be told it. Mr. Roblin also indicated, though he did not precisely say, that there was an upper limit on the federal cost sharing. Surely the minister can tell us whether or not there is such a limit.
26207-1-165
Supply-Northern Affairs


Donald Methuen Fleming: Obviously this is an essential term and one of the matters that has been under discussion, and it just is not appropriate to discuss terms that are under negotiation and discussion until the agreement has been concluded. I have tried to indicate that I do not think this will be long. The negotiations have reached quite an advanced stage but until the agreement has been signed I think the committee will appreciate why it is not appropriate to attempt to discuss views on particular terms.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to have taken a tremendously long time for these two Tory governments to get together about a matter that is very essential to the people of Manitoba and about which Mr. Roblin was very critical of his predecessors, who made a great deal more haste than he seems to have been able to make with his friends here in Ottawa.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister said it would not be proper to make known the terms of the agreement that the federal government has entered into with the government of the province of British Columbia and I agree that perhaps that is the right position. However, prior to the signing of the treaty between Canada and the United States there was certain information available and some sort of understanding, if there was no written agreement. If it is not possible for the minister to give the terms now, I wonder why he cannot tell the house how the agreement which is about to be signed or will be signed in the near future differs from that contained in the treaty which has not yet been ratified.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think there is some confusion here. We have been talking about two different things. My remarks, which have been paraphrased by the hon. member, related to the negotiations between the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba in relation to the Winnipeg floodway system. We had been talking earlier about the Columbia treaty.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I misunderstood the minister. Then there has been no agreement reached between the federal government and the province of British Columbia with reference to the Columbia river project.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Prior to the signing of the treaty the federal government fully understood that the government of the province was completely in accord with the terms of the treaty. The position having been taken by the government of British Columbia that they are not in accord, efforts have been made by me to arrive at an accord. That has been the aim of the federal government in the discussions I have been holding with Premier Bennett.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Lionel Chevrier: Is there likely to be an accord soon and is that what the minister said a moment ago?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, what I said in that regard was said concerning the negotiations with the government of Manitoba. When I said we look forward to an agreement soon, I was speaking of negotiations with the government of Manitoba.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the position with reference to British Columbia?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member has heard the reports I have given to the house on the series of meetings I have held with Premier Bennett and, as I repeated in the house yesterday in reply to a question from the hon. member for Kootenay West, I expect to have further meetings with Premier Bennett.


Lionel Chevrier: Is there any possibility of the minister telling the committee whether an agreement might be reached in the near future and can he say whether or not the agreement he hopes to achieve will be different from that contained in the treaty?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know how soon agreement can be reached. I know I have been applying the best efforts of which I am capable in that direction and I have no doubt it is the wish and hope of Premier Bennett that there may be an agreement soon. But the question is, on what terms or on whose terms; and among other questions is the fundamental one as to the manner in which and the party by which the obligations to be assumed by Canada under the treaty with the United States are to be carried out.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it from what the minister has said that the agreement will be on terms different from those contained in the treaty, and that raises the question-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say that.


Lionel Chevrier: No, I am saying that arising out of what the minister said, and if I am wrong the minister can correct me. If that should be the case, and there is a probability of it, does that mean that the government will have to renegotiate the treaty with the United States?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I do not think the hon. member has correctly interpreted what I had to say. I was pointing out that we are discussing the questions of terms and the implementation of Canadian obligations under the treaty, because these are obligations in relation to various matters which would normally be discharged by the provincial government. I have emphasized that the government of the province was a party to all negotiations leading up to the treaty and all of the


decisions which were taken from time to time and which culminated in the terms of the treaty.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, did the minister's officials in the water resources branch in arriving at the cost of the High Arrow dam make allowance for $25 million which the Celgar Corporation says it will cost to put in the equipment to take their logs over the dam if it is to be automatic?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer is no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word in addition to what the hon. member for Laurier said. He was obviously too modest to make this point. The minister said that there had been no bungling about this matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: One dam, $25 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is only a detail. Here, there is a transaction involving the good name of Canada. When my hon. friend negotiated with Ontario hydro prior to the signing to the St. Lawrence arrangement, the whole agreement with Ontario was drawn up and signed in the Prime Minister's office before the agreement with the United States was signed. There was no doubt about it. It was not some assumption resulting from civil servants taking part in negotiations with a province, that the province was going ahead with it.


Mr. Lambert:: What about provincial cabinet ministers?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Provincial cabinet ministers? Judging from what some of the cabinet ministers in this house say when they get out at large, I am sure the Prime Minister would hate to be committed, for example, by the Associate Minister of National Defence when he acts as secretary of state for external affairs and talks about our relations with other countries.
The right way to have done this thing would have been to have an agreement signed between British Columbia and the federal government so that the people-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And the facts known first.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Kootenay West says, "And the facts known first". They could hardly have signed an agreement unless the facts were in it. In any event, the good name of Canada should not have been put to a treaty with the United States until there was a signed and sealed agreement with the province that would be carried out. If that had been done, it might have taken a few more weeks or a few more months, but at least when it was done it could have been proceeded with instead of having this unseemly wrangling between the provincial government and the government of

Canada. This welching on our word to the United States, and this whole deplorable mess, is one of the worst bungles in the whole history of our relations with the United States and of the relations of the federal government with the provinces.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is necessary to correct these wild statements of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. This was not a matter of some civil servants meeting together. The government of British Columbia was represented in these negotiations by two ministers, two very eminent ministers, Mr. Williston and Mr. Bonner. They participated throughout. There was no bungling and the good name of Canada has not been dishonoured in any respect. An agreement was entered into in the form of this treaty. There has been no dishonouring of an obligation at all. The good name of Canada continues to be good. The honour of Canada is unimpaired, Mr. Chairman.
Now, it is regrettable that there has been delay. This delay is due, I assure you, to no fault on the part of the federal government.


Mr. Marlin (Essex East):: Whose fault is it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: You should have nailed them down in the first place.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member talks about nailing people down. It is all very well to talk about nailing people down, but that is not the way in which you proceed in negotiations with sovereign governments if you wish to achieve agreement.
We believe that the agreement that was negotiated is of advantage and benefit to Canada. Even if it may seem difficult and take a great deal of effort, we are going to persevere in our efforts to bring about a project we believe to be of very great advantage to Canada and to the people of British Columbia.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister one or two more questions in this regard? When the treaty was signed between the federal authorities and the United States authorities in Washington, did any of the British Columbia representatives go along with the Canadian delegation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I understand that none was present at the signing, although I believe they had been invited. The hon. member is aware, from previous reports that have been made to the house and correspondence that was tabled, that the letter from Premier Bennett which indicated for the first time a measure of dissent from the firm understanding which had prevailed, arrived in Ottawa while the Prime Minister, 26207-1-1651
Supply-Northern Affairs to the knowledge of the government of British Columbia, was actually en route to Washington to sign the treaty with President Eisenhower.


Lionel Chevrier: There are one or two other matters that arise out of this. The minister has said that the good name of Canada has not been affected. I will not enter into contentious debate because I admire the manner in which the minister is attempting to get his estimates through at the moment. He is not always in this non-contentious mood. I commend him for it because I think there is great progress to be obtained under those circumstances.
The point is related to the statement of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the minister's reply. The minister will, of course, remember what the secretary of the interior, Mr. Udall, said when he complained rather bitterly, and publicly, about the delay of the government of Canada in fulfilling its responsibilities and obligations in connection with the treaty. This, as the minister knows, brought a retort from the Minister of Justice who, in effect, told this United States cabinet minister to mind his own business. I bring this up because, certainly, it is not tantamount to giving Canada a good name outside of our own country. If, in fact, a treaty was signed many, many months ago, and has not been submitted to parliament, either because there was no agreement between the province and the federal government or for other reasons which we shall not discuss at the moment, does the minister not think it would have been far better to have had an agreement in writing, signed and ratified by parliament, with the province prior to the signing of the treaty in Washington?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is pleasant, Mr. Chairman, to speculate on how things might be done if one had the opportunity of creating events in the pleasantest and most suitable way. However, the fact is that there had been, as I pointed out, a complete measure of understanding between the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada right up until the day before the treaty was signed. It was in the light of that knowledge that the plans were made for the signing of the treaty, and the terms of the treaty. As I have said, the negotiations were completely known to the ministerial representatives of the province and they had been parties to all the decisions which were involved that led up to this final act.
Now, the hon. member refers to secretary Udall. I think it only fair to say that Mr. Udall felt he had been somewhat misreported in the press because he had not attempted,

Supply

Northern Affairs as he put it, or intended to convey the impression that he was trying to lecture Canada. The situation is simply this: The United States proceeded expeditiously to ratify the treaty. I give them full credit for that. They were in a position to do so. They did not have to deal with the government of a state. I think it only fair to remind the hon. member, particularly when he talks about the St. Lawrence seaway, that in that particular case a treaty entered into in 1932 was not ratified by the United States senate for over 20 years, or something like that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was never ratified.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was never ratified and the agreement of 1941 was not ratified either; and I do not know that anyone said that this besmirched the good name of the United States. The fact is that the Columbia river treaty will not become final, in a binding sense, in Canada until ratification; and the efforts that have been made on behalf of the federal government are designed to bring about the necessary understanding and agreements with the province in order that by ratification and all other necessary steps this great beneficial project may be undertaken.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has referred to something having been said by me about the St. Lawrence seaway. I did not raise the question of the St. Lawrence seaway.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry; it was the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who made reference to the part that the hon. member for Laurier had played, the course he had taken in the fulfilment of that treaty, and the steps that had been taken in negotiations with the government of the province party thereto.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With great benefit to
Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister is in error in stating what had been done in regard to the treaties of 1932 and 1941. The minister did not say that the treaty of 1932, which was signed by Canada and the United States, was first submitted to the United States senate where it lacked the necessary two thirds majority. It was therefore never approved by the government of the United States, and so this treaty cannot be compared to it. So far as the 1941 agreement was concerned-


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
Lionel Chevrier: I shall come to that in a
moment, but I think that on reading the record one could come to no other conclusion than that I have come to. Before speaking of delay I would also remind the minister that the 1941 agreement was submitted to the United States congress in many different forms on several occasions, and it was neither rejected nor ratified by the United States congress.
So far as the delay is concerned I would point out to the minister that this project was studied by any number of international commissions and it was not until 1952 that a new approach was brought into being, namely a joint application to the international joint commission. That was submitted by the governments of Canada and the United States, and it admitted that the two governments were really seized with the problem. Also, before the joint application of Canada and the United States was submitted, an agreement had been entered into and signed between Canada and the province of Ontario and was approved of by this house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to say briefly that I think the government of Canada acted in good faith. It accepted the word of the negotiators from British Columbia, and unfortunately accepted the advice of the water resources branch as to this being a good treaty for Canada.
Does the minister know that Premier Bennett has said that this treaty was signed by Canada when it did not even know for certain where it could build the dams? Premier Bennett has also said that it has cost him $500,000 a month for the last 10 months to determine the sites for the dams mentioned in the treaty. Does the minister know there has never been a survey or assessment made of the value of land and forests to be destroyed, or an assessment made of the compensation to be paid to industry, farmers and residents, or of the cost of rebuilding roads? None of these estimates have been made. I am quite sure the federal government was misled in this respect, and I do not blame the federal government at all.
Does the government know that other engineering firms have estimated the cost of these dams at $100 million higher than was first thought, and that for the High Arrow dam there is an estimate of $25 million capital cost for putting close to one million feet of logs over the dam every day, either $25 million in one lump sum, or $3 million to $4 million with the provincial government having to pay $500,000 a year to the companies for the cost of moving these logs? This is something the water resources branch knew nothing about.

In view of the fact that the federal government was not aware of these facts and that its officials did not know of them, how could anyone say this is a good treaty for Canada when the costs continue to climb all the time? Prominent engineers have studied this matter. I have received letters from a number of them in Ontario, Quebec and other places. I just mention this in order to say that I think the treaty was signed without a full knowledge of the facts and costs.
So far as Dr. Keenleyside is concerned, I do not know what dams he has built in the past. The minister can read an editorial about him in The Province. He has been telling people that this is a good treaty and this is what the federal government wanted, and I have had to contradict him on that point.
I am concerned with this matter. I represent a lot of people who will be affected, and I would say this stalemate provides a good opportunity for the federal government to renegotiate the treaty, to get the facts as to costs, and then proceed on a much sounder basis than we have had in the past. I also suggest that before any further negotiations are carried on, or alterations made in the treaty, we should have a firm agreement with the government of British Columbia.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question in connection with the incident which happened prior to the signing of the treaty? I think the minister said that a letter came from the premier of British Columbia at the time, or just about the time, that the Prime Minister was leaving to sign the treaty. The minister has mentioned this previously but I am not too clear about one point. Did that letter change the understanding with British Columbia materially in so far as the federal government was concerned?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The letter is on the record. A copy of it is on the records of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: I have not got it before me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was tabled a long time ago and I invite the hon. member to look at it.
May I say very briefly in reply to the hon. member for Kootenay West that I do not think his appraisal of the situation is fair or accurate.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It was admitted in evidence before the hearings on the Arrow lakes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member talks about an admission in evidence. It depends who makes the admission.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The great Dr. Keenleyside.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Donald Methuen Fleming: Dr. Keenleyside does not represent the federal government. An admission on the part of Dr. Keenleyside is not an admission that affects the federal government. The fact is that, in the ordinary course, preliminary investigations had been made in relation to matters of an engineering nature that entered into a decision that had to be made. There is a great deal of engineering that obviously had to be undertaken by the provincial government, and that has been going on since. I can assure the hon. member that no time has been lost in that respect.
I can assure him that the engineering work has been proceeding and it had to be done before any construction could be undertaken.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We need to esimate the cost.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No time has been lost, and to give the hon. member an idea of the amount of effort put into this study, the federal government has spent something like $4 million in the studies. We do not at all accept or share the view put forward by the hon. member that the federal advisers have misled the government or have been incompetent or were misinformed. We do not agree with him in those assertions for one minute.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A number of prominent engineers in Canada do.


Donald Methuen Fleming: All right; in a matter of this kind, where the views of experts are put forward, it is not unusual to find some differences of opinion. But we have chosen to follow advice that we think is competent and sound, and we think it has been fully supported and buttressed by engineering evidence.
Mr. Chairman, in pleading for discussion relevant to the item may I say that with regard to the report that this item is intended to pay for, the Montreal engineering firm staunchly supports the view that led the government to sign this treaty in the belief that it is one of very great potential benefit to Canada and to British Columbia.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the minister gave me a rather curt reply a minute ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not intentionally.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister for that. However, the minister has said, "Look it up in Hansard and you will find the letter". I suppose I could do that. I have seen it and I have to draw on my memory, but I think the letter to which the minister refers changed the terms of the understanding between the government of British Columbia and the federal government. If that is the case, as I presume it is, then why did not the government turn back, in the light of that letter,
2594	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs and not proceed with the signing of the treaty; because it looks to me as if the Prime Minister was most anxious and in great haste to sign this treaty with the Eisenhower government, either because the Eisenhower government was about to retire or because he was anxious to hail this as one of the greatest international projects ever signed between Canada and the United States.
In any event, the Prime Minister probably thought that he should go on with the wedding even though the bride was not there. My purpose in rising a second time is to ask the minister why the government did not, in the light of the letter which it had received, turn back and start negotiations anew with the province of British Columbia toward the end of obtaining a firm agreement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I informed the committee a few moments ago that when that letter reached Ottawa the Prime Minister was already en route to Washington for the purpose of signing that treaty in accordance with arrangements made prior to that date to the knowledge of all of the parties, including the government of British Columbia.
If the hon. member will refresh his memory by referring to the terms of that letter, I think he will concur in the view that the Canadian government took, that that letter could not be accepted as a change in the course of agreement and understanding between the governments of Canada and British Columbia which had led up to that agreement and the preparations for the signing of the treaty, understandings that had been embodied in the terms of the treaty, for the signing of which arrangements had already then been made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the minister is being very naive when he says that. Why on earth did the premier of British Columbia write this letter, obviously indicating that he was not satisfied, if he really was satisfied? It is just ridiculous.
The hon. member for Laurier said that the Prime Minister went through the wedding without the bride. That is one way of putting it. Another way is that the Prime Minister was attempting to play Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark, and what a Prince of Denmark Mr. Bennett has turned out to be.


Lionel Chevrier: There are one or two other matters that I think should engage the attention of the committee.


Mr. Graffley:: "To be, or not to be".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, "To be, or not to be".


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask the minister, what is the view of the federal government with reference to the export of power?


Has the view of the federal government changed in that respect. If I remember aright statements that were made from time to time by the Minister of Justice, I believe, and perhaps by the Minister of Finance-I am not too sure-certainly outside the house, if not within the house, that there was at the beginning some serious objection being taken by the present government to the export of power. That now seems to have been amended in some respect by statements that I have seen. I wonder whether the minister would care to comment on the view of the federal government at the present time with reference to the export of power.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the view of the present government is well known and has been clearly stated. The house dealt with legislation on this very subject three years ago and it made provision, in establishing the national energy board, for review by that board of applications for permits to export various forms of energy, including electric power. Various applications under the terms of that legislation have been heard by the board and have been approved, and the governor in council has given approval to various of those applications involving the export of power.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister whether he has a secret agreement with the premier of British Columbia which will not be disclosed until after the election?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no secret agreement that I am aware of.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is there any agreement, secret or otherwise?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the federal government is applying its best efforts to achieve agreement in order to get this great and beneficial undertaking launched.


Lionel Chevrier: Is it the intention of the government, in relation to the last but one answer which the minister gave, that with reference to the export of power each application for the export of power will be dealt with on its merits?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course, Mr. Chairman, that is the duty of the board under the statute, to deal with each application on its merits.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 729 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Five o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a very important question; the Prime Minister said so himself.
Item stands.


Gordon Campbell Chown: In order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, it is my duty to rise, report a certain resolution and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Resolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


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



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Timiska-ming (Mr. Peters), in whose name items Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the public bills on today's order paper stand, has kindly agreed that these might stand aside without otherwise losing their places, if the house would give its unanimous consent, in order to allow item No. 4 in my name, and item No. 6 in the name of my hon. friend from Nanaimo, to now be called.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the house would also be agreeable to calling item No. 7 after items Nos. 4 and 6? My hon. friend from Timiskaming has also agreed that it should be called. I wonder if the house would consider that also.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is entirely different.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is suggested that by unanimous consent the order of business in connection with public bills be altered and that we should deal with the items on today's list in the following order-No. 4 standing in the name of the hon. member for Halifax, No. 6 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nanaimo, and No. 7 standing in the name of the hon. member for Port Arthur. The hon. member principally concerned has agreed. Does the house give consent to this order of business?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is all right for two of them. It is all right for Bill No. C-34 and Bill No. C-46, both of which are changing the names of districts.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I had better test the opinion of the house with regard to those two, first.
Representation Act


Lionel Chevrier: There is certainly no objection on our part to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Halifax, but it seems to me that the suggestion of the hon. member for Port Arthur is equally good, and if we are going to consent to the first two there is no valid reason why we should not approve the third.


John Cameron Pallett: I would point out that there may be some question of whether Bill No. C-47 is in order, as the hon. member for Port Arthur well knows. It is not a simple representation bill as the other two are. It may give rise to a lengthy discussion. The subject has already been announced as one that is receiving the attention of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Port Arthur mind if I tested the opinion of the house on the two other measures?
Will the house give consent to the proposal of the hon. member for Halifax that these two representation bills dealing with the names of constituencies be dealt with first?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Perhaps I could just reply to the point which the chief government whip has raised. He has suggested that this bill may not be in order. I should like to draw his attention to the fact that the bill has been on the order paper in the same form in other sessions and that it has been on the order paper since the beginning of the present session. Thus it hardly seems to me that his point that it may be out of order has any relevance at all.


Mr. Speaker:: I will ask the house, equally, for the hon. member for Port Arthur, whether it will agree to the third item being order No. 7.


John Cameron Pallett: Perhaps we might consult the hon. member for Port Arthur and deal with this matter after the other two have been disposed of.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes or no?


John Cameron Pallett: No, for now; maybe "yes" later.


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of complete agreement now I will take the matter up with the house after we have dealt with the two items on which we have agreed.



REPRESENTATION ACT


Edmund Leverett Morris: the second reading of Bill No. C-44 to amend the Representation Act (Halifax electoral district).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Representation Act
On clause	1-Halifax-Dartmouth	and
County.
Edmund Leverett Morris: Perhaps I might make a brief statement in order to clarify the purpose of this measure. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill No. C-44 in my name is solely to change the name of the federal electoral district of "Halifax" to "Halifax-Dartmouth and County". The present bill makes no other change either in representation, dual voting or boundaries of the riding.
The present name "Halifax" has given rise in many places to the misunderstanding that the federal electoral riding, as presently defined, is confined to the great and progressive fortress and port city of Halifax. In fact, it contains the city of Halifax and also the city of Dartmouth and the whole territory encompassed by the municipality of the county of Halifax.
In 1951, the population of the riding was 162,217. Five years later, it had increased to 197,948, and the final population count arising out of the 1961 census of Canada, which has just been published, is 225,723, making it the third most populous federal riding in Canada.
Because the single word "Halifax" is the name of both the capital city of Nova Scotia and the name of a county, it is sometimes assumed that the present name of the riding applies to that historic city alone. During the last session of parliament the former town of Dartmouth, founded in 1750 and now having amalgamated with several contiguous areas, proudly achieved city status and rightfully proclaims that it is now the fastest growing city in Canada. The prime purpose of the bill is to give electoral recognition to the status of Dartmouth as a great city of Canada, and at the same time to give recognition to the fact that the federal electoral district encompasses the whole county, and not alone the city of Halifax, to which assumption the single name "Halifax" sometimes leads.
Bill No. C-44, which I am hopeful the house will now pass, has been publicly endorsed in most gracious terms by His Worship the Mayor of Dartmouth on behalf of the more than 45,000 citizens of that city, and I recommend it now to the sympathetic consideration of the house.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could I ask the sponsor a question arising out of figures recently issued by the dominion bureau of statistics which indicate that compared to other areas in Nova Scotia represented in this house, Halifax has a disproportionate number of electors?
I was just wondering if the hon. member might not be somewhat premature in proposing this particular title in view of the fact that the adjustment which is soon to come
[Mr. Morris.!
will quickly render the new description an inaccurate one. Maybe the hon. member could at least express his opinion on that.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I think it would be premature to do so. It is not possible to forecast what the proposed electoral boundaries commission might or might not in its wisdom and judgment decide would be the merit of delimiting the present boundaries of the dual riding of Halifax. In any event, sufficient unto the day is the need thereof, and it is my hope that the constituency, in the not hypothetical present, would take account of the misunderstanding actually arising from the single name, and I am hoping that through this bill electoral recognition will be given to Dartmouth and the rest of the country.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. W. F. Matthews (Nanaimo) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-46, to amend the Representation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.
Walter Franklyn Matthews: I should like to take a few minutes of the time of the committee to thank the hon. member for Timiskaming for his kindness and also to thank all members of the committee for allowing this bill to come forward. I might say that, as found in the explanatory note, the purpose of this bill is to change the name of the electoral district of "Nanaimo" to that of "Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands". The reason for the change is that this particular part of British Columbia has grown. It is a thriving community. Other parts feel they also would like to be named as part of that very fine constituency. The name "Cowichan" goes back for 90 years in the lumbering business and it is certainly entitled to that consideration. I might say that the beautiful islands there certainly are proud to have their name included in this list. I might also mention the fact that to these islands-.
I refer to the gulf islands-probably come more pleasure boats and tourist boats during the tourist season than come to any place else in Canada. I should at this time like to extend an invitation to any hon. members who may wish to visit these beautiful spots. There

is nothing else I wish to add except to say that this legislation will be very well received.
I certainly hope the bill will be passed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent the house could now proceed with Bill No. 7. In the absence of that consent, the next order of business would be item No. 1. Is the house prepared to give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Port Arthur?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the house will proceed with item No. 1.



DIVORCE


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-41, to establish the office of parliamentary proctor and to regulate taxation of costs.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling on the hon. member or recognizing the hon. member, may I say that I feel it to be my duty to draw the attention of the house to the fact that this bill has some of the characteristics of a money bill or one that requires a resolution. I therefore feel that if the debate proceeds I should at least indicate the possible difficulties with a bill of this kind so that it will not be taken as a firm precedent for similar legislation.
The bill provides for the appointment of an official who is described as parliamentary proctor and who would be under the joint direction of the Speakers of the two houses and the joint committee of the two houses. It provides for the payment of a salary for this official and for the raising from suppliants for parliamentary divorce of fees from which the salary would be paid. In this act no provision is made for these fees going into the consolidated revenue fund. However, by general legislation I think they would be required to be paid into that fund. It therefore may not be possible to get them out again in order to pay the officer without specific legislative authority. As the bill stands, it would perhaps come under the heading of a bill which provides a service in response to a moderate fee commensurate with the service. On the authority of a citation from May's Parliamentary Procedure, the 16th edition, page 789, there is some precedent for such legislation without a preceding ways and means 26207-1-166
Divorce
resolution. However, I am by no means satisfied that the bill comes under the exception. With that caution now, however, I feel that the debate might proceed as the case is not as clear as it might be. I recognize the hon. member for Timiskaming.


William Arnold Peters: I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the concern you have shown. It is certainly a concern of mine that we may have under our divorce procedure some arrangement which would allow the payment of this particular official. For this reason it was felt that the proctor's fee would be charged to the persons obtaining relief rather than coming from the general revenue. For this reason the amount of money that would be paid in would, of course, be in a fund from which his salary would come before the money was finally turned over to the general treasury. This may be a technicality. It is a technicality, of course, to which the Minister of Justice is giving consideration now.
I am always sorry to note that the Minister of Justice is so overly cautious-perhaps I should not say he is too slow-with regard to decisions of any nature, even in the answering of letters. It certainly is the fact in this case that the necessity for a proctor has been indicated for some time. In my particular bill we assumed that this could be done through allocation of part of the fees paid by the petitioners themselves, as this would be done first, and that the other moneys would then be turned in to the general revenue and would be under the control of the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate. This may indicate one of the problems confronting a private member of parliament in arriving at a solution for a real problem which we as members of parliament have in no way been able to solve in the past. The office of proctor has been developed in such countries as England. The province of Ontario has now appointed a proctor.


Norman Platt Lambert: May I rise on a point of order for purposes of clarification? Did Your Honour reserve the question whether this bill in the name of a private member is validly before the house or was the hon. member addressing his remarks to that point which you raised? He is now embarking entirely on the merits of the bill rather than the question of whether there is an infringement of the rules of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I did not make myself as clear as I should. I called on the hon. member to move his motion indicating that my purpose in rising was to file a caveat, if you like to put it that way, to indicate that I had doubts about the bill, but as they had not been cleared up to the extent that I felt

Divorce
I should withdraw the bill from the consideration of the house, debate might proceed on the bill itself. If the hon. member felt disposed to address himself to that point it may be that I did not give him the opportunity to do so, but perhaps it is too late to do so now.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I believe that a similar bill has been introduced before. Obviously some consideration has been given to this matter and a private member in introducing a bill of this nature must follow a very circuitous route to overcome the problem. I hope we have been successful in that regard.
_ Obviously what we are doing in this bill is putting forward the need and reasons for a parliamentary proctor, and I think that in the very near future we will see this an accomplished fact as a result of action on the part of the government. I hope that the member who has shown concern about this matter will not be opposed when the government does this.
In the main the office of official proctor is an office established under the direction of the courts and the holder of that office investigates any factor to which the court may direct his attention and which does not come within the legislative field. The request would be made by the crown itself and for this reason this official is normally known as the Queen's proctor or King's proctor as the case may be. This official has the right to look into matters that may appear to the court to be beyond its field of investigation and yet warrant some investigation.
We are all aware of the recent C.B.C. program "Close-Up" which depicted some of the abuses of the divorce procedure in the province of Ontario. Charges were made that this was not a proper program and that things were reported that were not necessarily true. The situation even reached the stage where the attorney general of the province said that the things that were said on the program were not true and he was going to do something about it. The logical conclusion of the whole discussion was the establishment of the office of Queen's proctor in the province of Ontario, though because of the circumstances the manner in which the office was created was rather spectacular. In my opinion it would have been very fortunate if his duties had been extended to include investigation of gambling activities as well because there probably would have been less controversy at the present time.


Henry Frank Jones: You might have one in Saskatchewan too.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, there might be one in Saskatchewan. I would recommend that a proctor be attached to each court handling divorce and I suggest that the powers of the proctor should be extended to cover a number of other fields, because in this way investigations can be conducted by an impartial official, which does not appear to me to be possible under court procedures or the procedures of a legislative body such as the Senate.
Some aspects of this problem have been brought to the attention of the House of Commons before, but I should like to refer only to one investigation which the hon. member for Skeena and I made because it certainly indicates the fault, and indicates also the need to have somebody to conduct impartial investigations. We were very concerned about the fact that many newspapers in the province of Quebec were making very strong statements about the type of detective agencies involved in parliamentary divorces. There have been quite a number of editorials along this line. I have a letter here regarding the training of investigators. It points out how these investigators are trained or rather indicates their lack of training. The letter is from E. T. Nesbitt of Quebec city and is dated August 25, 1958. I should like to read one portion.
The key to the situation is in the lack of qualifications among the investigators, especially in cases where they investigate non-existent evidence, such as adultery which they know in advance has not been committed, or which has to be fabricated by phony witnesses and phony corespondents, in order to support the phony divorce bill. Many of the cases are something like problems in nuclear reaction being investigated by plumbers who haven't even got a plumbing licence. They are problems which might take properly qualified investigators at least six months or two years to investigate thoroughly, if the objective was to prevent the divorce bill from being presented. However, since the whole objective is purely destructive and is intended to increase the Quebec divorce rate rather than to decrease it, the objective itself is simply to destroy some 400 marriages per year, regardless of whether properly trained investigators could eliminate most of the bills.
Because we were concerned about this matter and had heard a number of statements made before the miscellaneous private bills committee that did not appear to be factual, we sent a letter on the 9th of May, 1961 to the respondents and corespondents in 242 cases. We were surprised to find that a large number of these letters were returned by the post office as not being deliverable. We checked with the post office and the post office provided an explanation in each of these cases. Out of 242 cases, 114 letters were returned and the post office gave these reasons: No such street number or post office in Montreal, respondents, 2, corespondents,

5; not in directory, unknown, respondents, 19, corespondents, 45; moved, not at that address, respondents, 16, corespondents, 18; sent to place of work and unknown, respondents, 1, corespondents, 2. That is a total of 38 respondents and 70 corespondents. Six corespondents and respondents appeared as witnesses and therefore were not involved in our inquiry. That accounts for the 114 cases. This is the type of job that a proctor would do.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, we must give credit where credit is due. The Senate committee, itself, has made much more specific rules in relation to the sending of notice to the respondent and corespondent. We still feel, however, that we are dependant upon the province of Quebec to license the bailiffs who are handling these cases. We recall the Eccles case which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) has had under advisement for two years and about which he has failed to do anything. In this particular case the respondent had never appeared at the address shown on the form. According to the janitor who had been at that place for a number of years, there had never been anybody of that name at that particular address. I believe this is the sort of thing about which a proctor could do something; this is a field in which the proctor would serve a very valuable purpose.
If we are going to continue with the Senate divorce mill, then we are going to have to provide the same protections that a court affords the public. I believe the amount of money that is collected from these divorce petitions would warrant the maintenance of this officer who would be appointed by the governor in council. He would be paid a sufficient amount to make it unlikely that he would be involved in any of the shenanigans that currently take place, not only the Senate divorce mill but the divorce mills throughout Canada.
The second part of this bill relates to the taxation of costs. We know, and it has been widely established, that the price of a parliamentary divorce will run anywhere from $1,000 to $20,000. We feel that the proctor should have a right to decide the amount that can be charged for the various services needed at the various stages of the divorce proceedings. He would have the right, for instance, to limit the amount paid to investigators, to legal counsel and to others involved in the case. For this reason, we believe that the proctor should have some powers in the taxation field.
There is another point which I should like to make in connection with the appointment of a proctor. This term may be new to most Canadians, but I am quite sure that in the very near future there will be a public 26207-1-166i
Divorce
proctor attached to the parliamentary divorce petition section and that this will prove to be of advantage to all concerned. I suggest that we should ask something further of the proctor, and this will apply only if we see fit to give the Senate jurisdiction over parliamentary divorce and the power to grant a decree absolute. If this procedure were established, then in my opinion the proctor should have an obligation to report to the House of Commons through the Speaker any changes that he believes would be in the interests of the public. This divorce procedure has changed very little over the years. It is quite true that the Senate has established standing orders for the operation of the divorce committee. They have set up a red book which outlines the requirements of parliamentary divorce procedure. I feel the proctor should have an obligation to report to the house through the Speaker, when the estimates for legislation are considered, those changes that he feels should be made with regard to taxation and the method of processing the bills of this type.
I feel that the Queen's proctor would serve a very valuable purpose. He would allow those of us who are concerned about the abuses of our divorce procedure to free our minds of this worry. We would, in effect, be hiring him to act as our consciences in connection with divorce procedure.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, this seems to me to be the reverse of the coin which was exhibited during the course of the debate yesterday on the same subject matter. At that time we were seeking some alternative method of dealing with this very difficult problem which has been inflicted upon the parliament of Canada. I would take it that today this bill would indicate that parliament would have acquiesced in carrying the burden of these divorce cases. At this time, I would be reluctant to adopt that particular point of view. However, if we should have to accept this position for some time, then I want to examine this bill in the light of that situation.
It seems to me that when we look at proposed legislation we must search in detail to find what benefits we hope will accrue from it and look at what mischief it is intended to cure. I would assume that the intention of this legislation is to prevent the abuses of this procedure that we have seen in the past, the obvious abuses of the opportunity to come to parliament and obtain relief in the form of a divorce. There have been abuses, and I think that that fact has been established from time to time. In so far as the establishment of a parliamentary proctor is concerned, I think we have to go back a little farther than the hon. member did.

Divorce
We have accepted, as part of our way of life, the fact that the family is the basis of our civilization, religiously, economically, socially and in all respects. It is for this reason there has been, from time to time, an evident desire to retain the family unit and make it as difficult as is reasonable to dissolve marriages. In most cases involving disputes between citizens the state does not intervene unless perjury has been established or there has been an abuse of the court. However, in respect of the dissolution of marriages, since the time of the original procedure before the ecclesiastical courts in the United Kingdom, an officer of this nature has had some function. His function has been to see that the public interest in the maintenance of the institution of the family shall not be lightly destroyed. We have, therefore, had rules which provided that domicile must be established; that there should be no collusion; that there should be no connivance; that there should be no condonation and that only within the prescribed limits shall there be a dissolution of a marriage. If there should be any indication that there has been an abuse then the proctor, the Queen's proctor or the King's proctor, would have the right to intervene. Consequently I think that the duties of any such officer as is envisaged in this bill would be precisely the same, not merely to pursue the question of abuse of the perjury per se but to make sure that if this parliament is going to be involved in this particular issue, that the same rules will apply as are applied in the courts.
This is one particular aspect of it where I think we would be in difficulty. As the hon. member pointed out there are standing rules in the other place which I think have some relationship to the rules under which the courts have established their jurisdiction. On the other hand there are no rules in this house and theoretically any captious, capricious or frivolous reason can be assigned for refusing the relief which has been asked. In other words I would think that, precedent to the establishment of this office, there must necessarily be a common set of rules under which the parliament of Canada will decide the basis on which dissolutions of marriages are going to be granted. Otherwise the result might be that the parliamentary proctor would be something in the nature of a parliamentary Perry Mason, sent out to pry into matters which may not go to the true issue which is involved.
While I am not against this principle, I think if it comes to the point where we must assume this responsibility we would have to consider it very carefully. I say that because, as I look ahead, I can see this government has a great future so far ahead as

the mind of man can see, and I would not like to see its rights to bring benefits to the economy of the country defeated by having to deal with these cases. Yet, as I say, should we have to, then I would like to see it attempted on proper principles.
Consequently I make this comment that while I favour this principle I think it should be founded only a basis of rules applicable to and approved by both houses, unless of course it should turn out that we do decide to assign the sole jurisdiction to deal with these cases to the other place. In any event there should be a firm understanding as to the basis on which dissolutions of marriages are granted so that an officer of this description would know precisely what are the limits of his authority, what are the rules on which these divorces might be granted, and if he is going to intervene he should know precisely why he is going to intervene and what he is going to do about it.
Since the bill has been brought forward for discussion I may be permitted to refer to the section which has already been the subject of the verbal caveat which Your Honour uttered. I would think that, the principle having been accepted, it is in the public interest that cases of this kind should be dealt with properly, that there should be no fraud and no abuses permitted, and that it should be at public cost that such an official should be paid.
Of course I recognize that it would be impossible for a private member to introduce such a provision. Even in its present form Your Honour must have some doubts, you must be in dubitate as to whether or not it could be properly passed by the house. But, if we do accept this principle, I would urge that it be in the public interest to see that marriages are only dissolved in a proper way and subject to the proper causes, and that the cost of an official of this nature and of the office should be borne by the public at large.


Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: I wish to direct my preliminary remarks to the point of order that has arisen. I am in agreement with the principle that there should be some person to supervise the matter of the conduct of granting of divorces through this parliament, or through whatever method may later be devised. That principle has been recognized by many of the provinces which have appointed similar officers to supervise divorce proceedings.
I think we are here trying to do something indirectly which cannot be done directly. It is quite true that the sanction to raise the money and the expenditure of money is not directed to the government as such. It is directed to the Speakers of both houses who would act to levy a form of taxation upon

applicants for divorces, and out of that money they would provide payment for an officer of both houses who would have the post of proctor.
I believe that no private member can sponsor a bill which can cause expenditure out of the consolidated fund or any public funds, or cause the government to raise money for whatever fund might be set up. I submit that this purported levy is a form of taxation, and if it were to be paid out of the consolidated fund then this would be an invalid bill put forward by a private member.
What the hon. member proposes to do is bypass the consolidated fund and set up another fund. I am not sure whether it would also be a public fund, but in effect it would be the responsibility of the government to see that the proctor was paid. For instance, what would happen if there were not enough divorce petitions to pay this officer's salary? Perhaps that does not seem practical, in view of the way in which these divorce petitions are increasing; but if a proctor is appointed and gives service, who is to be responsible for his payment? The Speakers of both houses are; but ultimately the responsibility will fall back upon the government because it is the House of Commons and the Senate which appoints the Speakers. That being so I believe this indirectly would make a charge on the consolidated fund of the country. In effect there would be a guarantee that the government would see payment was made, its authority for that being delegated for the time being to both Speakers who would collect the levy on those making petitions.
When we impose duties on goods coming into the country that is a form of taxation, but people do not have to pay it if they do not import the goods concerned. However, I ask is it right to tax an applicant in order to raise money for certain purposes? On that basis I would contend that this bill is trying to do something indirectly that we cannot do directly.


William Arnold Peters: Question.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that those of us in the house who are lawyers are fully aware of the valuable services that can be rendered to the courts within the provinces, because there is in most provinces a Queen's proctor to make sure that the rules and regulations for bringing divorces before the courts, as well as the actual matters constituting divorce, are adhered to and subject to scrutiny.
I am sure that hon. members of the house have found it a trifle embarrassing to find that sometimes some of the evidence presented to the parliament of Canada to obtain a divorce seems to be a little suspicious, to say
Divorce
the least. While I agree with the hon. member who introduced this bill that a Queen's proctor would render much valuable assistance and would probably keep to a minimum or weed out a certain amount of what I call shady practices, I must add the note of caution that even with a Queen's proctor divorces are not always, in all the provinces, obtained according to the way in which they should be obtained.
The point, of course, is that the Queen's proctor is the individual appointed with that specific duty. While I think that our law enforcement agencies are constantly on the lookout to make sure that the laws against perjury, for instance, have not been violated, I think the reason a certain individual is delegated in most attorneys general departments to look after this matter specifically is that divorce is a subject which can easily be neglected, where there is not the light of publicity, et cetera, that would keep the ordinary officials of the department so busy and vigorous on it if someone were not given that specific responsibility.
I am not going to argue too minutely some of the provisions of this bill. We have already heard from the hon. member from Peace River who, because of his very long legal experience, and I may say very distinguished career in law, has been able to give the house the benefit of his views on this matter. I would like to back him up in his stand that this office should not be financed in the manner set out in this bill. Certainly it is a public servant performing a very valuable function and it is up to the public to pay his salary and expenses. In that connection I note that the bill itself contains the method of appointing a Queen's proctor. It puts on the Speakers of the two houses the duty, with the advice of the parliamentary committees, to select this official.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, if this official is going to play the part that he is supposed to play, and if he is going to be able to acquire the staff that would be necessary for him to effectively carry out the investigative functions of his office, there must first of all be some degree of permanency about it. The idea of making such an official the result of a political appointment seems to me to destroy that independence of movement that is necessary if he is to be able to carry out his functions in the manner required.
The hon. member for Timiskaming pointed out one of the reasons why this man should be well enough paid so that he would be free from any suggestion or taint of influence, so that he would be really free to dig into these divorces and see exactly what is going on. He pointed out the high cost of divorces in parliament. I suppose by inference

Divorce
he was pointing to the possibility of curbing influence being used against such an official. I find it a little contradictory that he should make these references, and very practical references too, to the sort of pressures that might exist and at the same time leave the appointment of this official on this sort of political basis which would be subject to political debate, political pressures and which would put the Speakers of both houses under a bit of fire.
Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the cost of divorce, but I did find myself a little amazed when the hon. member mentioned a price of from $1,000 to $20,000 for a divorce. Certainly I have the highest regard for the legal profession. I believe that most lawyers try to keep the fees charged for their services in fine with the value of those services. I find it incredible that anyone should seriously suggest a fee of $20,000 for putting a divorce through the House of Commons, unless it was after the filibuster to keep them out of the house.
I do not believe that the Queen's proctor in the province of Alberta has anything to do with taxing solicitors' fees. That is done by the bar association. I would think that this function of the Queen's proctor in the House of Commons could be a most valuable one. Yet here again the appointment of this official should not be left open to political consideration. He should not be chosen from among the practising field from time to time, but should be an official appointed on a long term basis the same as any other public servant or civil servant, with security of tenure and reasonable pay and allowances. He should also have that degree of permanence of office that would give him the status and staff not only to be able to carry out investigative duties regarding evidence in divorce matters, but also to be able to keep in touch with trends in legal matters within this country so that his office would always have an up to date view on what was happening in legal fields, what were the fees and costs, and so on.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the house leader could give us an indication of what the government is planning to do up until the time the budget is brought down on Tuesday evening. It would certainly be very helpful to us to form some idea of the order in which to prepare for things.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, now that the budget date has been announced for which the opposition have been asking, perhaps they will move very rapidly with the following items of business. Third reading of Bill No. C-38 will be the first item on Monday. Then the first item for general discussion, of course, would be the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister on the electoral boundaries commission; second, Bill No. C-80, an act to amend the Veterans' Land Act; third, Bill No. S-19, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act; fourth, Bill No. C-79, an act to amend the Customs Act; fifth, the resolution in the name of the Secretary of State dealing with the universal copyright convention; sixth, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act; seventh, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act, and eighth, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance with regard to crown corporations. All of those items could be passed by an active house on Monday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister indicate whether, if they are not all passed on Monday, we will go on with that program on Tuesday up until the time of the budget?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Some of those items will be called on Tuesday, but there may be other important items appearing on the order paper on Monday which the house would like to deal with on Tuesday.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following item was passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
728. Canadian wildlife service-wildlife resources conservation and development, including administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act- further amount required, $27,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 9, 1962