1969-11-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr,
Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege or a point of order to bring to Your Honour's attention, and the attention of the House, a situation with regard to a motion which I filed in the proper way last Friday. I accompanied it with a letter to the Clerk dated November 7 in which I wrote the following:
Enclosed please find a motion for the Order Paper for Monday next in connection with the introduction of a bill.
You will note that I am using the alternative means which is available under Standing Order 68(1), namely, a motion to appoint a committee to prepare and bring in the bill.
With kind regards, I am
Yours sincerely,
Gerald W. Baldwin,
Member for Peace River
The motion in question, which appears, as a matter of fact, on today's Order Paper under private members' notices of motions, reads as follows:
That a committee be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, Chapter 111, R.S.C., in order to extend the application of the said act to debts incurred before January 1, 1969, and to authorize the Governor in Council to have the said amendment come into effect in such parts of Canada as may from time to time be designated by Order in Council.
The Clerk, exercising his discretion, felt that this type of motion could not be dealt with under routine proceedings, whereas I submitted it could be, and it has now been placed in the back of the Order Paper under private members' notices of motions.
I wish to argue very strenuously that I am entitled, as is any other hon. member, to have this motion dealt with in the daily routine of
business under Standing Order 68, which I shall read to Your Honour. It provides that:
Every bill is introduced upon motion for leave, specifying the title of the bill; or upon motion to appoint a committee to prepare and bring it in.
It was my feeling for several reasons that this was the type of proceeding which I would choose in this particular case. I point out that while it is true, as was pointed out to me, that Standing Order 69 provides that no bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape, the nature of my motion is an interlocutory proceeding, a proceeding by which I am asking for the appointment of a committee pursuant to this Standing Order written in the plainest of language, according to which the committee could prepare and bring in the bill.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
It should, therefore, be under the heading, "Introduction of Bills", despite the fact that the bill itself is not presented. The purpose of the order is to appoint a committee which would prepare the bill and bring it in. I submit that for that reason it should be placed on the Order Paper under "Daily Routine of Business" and, if not for that reason, then certainly according to the provisions of Standing Order 42(1) which provides that:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee-
This is just what I am trying to do.
There is nothing in the Standing Orders which says that this motion to appoint a committee must be a government motion. I submit that all too often a tradition has been allowed to grow up in this House of permitting things to be done only by the government when they are really matters for the House to settle. I will be quite frank and say that if effect is given to my application, then this motion becomes debatable under Standing Order 32(l)(m), which Standing Order defines a number of types of motions which may be debated. I believe that Standing Order 32(lXm) provides that one of the motions that may be debated in this House is a motion for the appointment of a committee.
It is true that, for reasons best known to itself, the House at the time Standing Order
862	COMMONS
Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act 68 was introduced provided that the first method of introducing a bill is not debatable. Standing Order 68(2) reads:
A motion for leave to introduce a bill-
Of course, this is not the method I am employing.
-shall be decided without debate or amendment.
Consequently, most bills are introduced in the normal way and this has been the general practice. However, I submit that if this motion were placed upon the Order Paper under "Daily Routine" it would be a debatable motion.
Let me say very briefly, Mr. Speaker, that I have had occasion over some months to look into this practice. I have wondered why it has never been used in this House. It was the practice in the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact, originally, the proper method of introducing a bill, whether it was a government bill or a private member's bill, was to appoint a select committee which prepared the bill. Then, the chairman of the committee brought in the bill in accordance with the practices of the House.
Apparently that practice has never been altered so far as Canada is concerned and so far as this House is concerned, particularly if one reads the second part of Standing Order 68(1). However, the United Kingdom House of Commons saw fit some 80 years ago to change that practice by introducing what is known as the ten minute rule. Under it, there is a motion for leave to introduce a bill and a limited amount of time is allotted to the sponsor to speak, as well as those who are opposed. A committee is then appointed and brings in the bill. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that custom endures right up until 1964.
I have here an extract from the United Kingdom House of Commons Debates for January 14, 1964, recording that on that date a motion was moved by Mr. Fenner Brockway, a private member of the House, for leave to bring in a bill "to make it an offence to discriminate" against any person, etc. It was debated by the sponsor for some 10 or 15 minutes. The question was then put and agreed to, and a committee was appointed to prepare and bring in the bill at a stated date.
Later in the same year, on July 22, 1964, Mr. John Parker, also a private member at Westminster, introduced a bill in the same way. A committee was appointed and brought in the bill. For some reason we in Canada, in

DEBATES	November 10, 1969
this House, did not see fit to attach to the employing of a committee the reservations which have been established in the United Kingdom. It is my argument, therefore, that I am entitled to use, as is any hon. member, this particular practice which I have referred to and which forms the basis of my motion today.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, may I say that although this procedure may impose certain difficulties upon the government, I submit that the government has had an option in the past to deal with this particular rule and should not now thrust upon Your Honour the onus of making this decision.
The simple ordinary language speaks for itself. Any other interpretation would be twisted and contorted and not in keeping with what was intended as an alternative means of introducing a bill. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that other members will intervene on this somewhat novel point. Your Honour may wish to take the matter under advisement.
I think my motion is a good one for a good cause but it has a collateral purpose. The rules governing the introduction of private members' public bills smack so much of hypocrisy in the sense there is no opportunity at any time to have them brought to the point of decision by the House. Before this debate is over I hope that either the Acting Prime Minister or the government house leader will be prepared to announce that the present method of introduction of private members' bills, the method of appointment of a committee to consider the bringing in of such bills involving the UK. ten minute rule, and the need to allow such bills to come to a vote, will be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization forthwith. In that case, Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to ask that this matter stand. I think it is more than time for some method to be designed by which private members' public bills can be considered and put to the question in this House.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River I should like to commend him for bringing this matter before the House. I realize that since the notice was given on Friday there has been an opportunity for Your Honour to spend an enjoyable weekend going over all the precedents, but perhaps there are further arguments for some of us to put forward.
November 10, 1969

It seems to me that the hon. member is rendering a service in two ways. In the first place, he is raising the whole question of how private members' bills are handled. In the second place, he is raising the question of the intent of the language in the latter part of Standing Order 68 (1). It must have some purpose, some meaning, although there are Standing Orders which seem to have died through lack of use. Standing Order 68 (1) reads as follows:
68	(1) Every bill is introduced upon motion
for leave, specifying the title of the bill; or upon motion to appoint a committee to prepare and bring it in.
That rule clearly specifies two ways in which a bill can be introduced. Usually we rely upon the first method, but the hon. member for Peace River has attempted to exercise the right contained in the second part of the Standing Order. I hope that this matter will be clarified, whether Your Honour makes a ruling today or holds it over for decision on a later day.
Whilst assuring the hon. member for Peace River that I am on his side, I should like to point out that another Standing Order seems to have been broken by the placing of his motion as No. 42 under Private Members' Notices of Motions.
Standing Order No. 49 (3) reads:
No member shall have more than one notice of motion at a time on the Order Paper.
The hon. member for Peace River already has a motion under this order of business, No. 39 which reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization review Standing Orders dealing with private members' public bills with a view to making a report to the House with a recommendation that such changes be made as will allow a recorded vote on some of such bills.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the operation of Standing Order 49 (3) would prevent a second motion being put on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member. Yet the Chair or the table saw fit to put it there, which seems to me to suggest that the Chair or the table believes that in some way the hon. member's motion can or should be brought before the House. If that is the case, if it is the belief of the Chair or the table that it can or should be brought before the House, I hope it will be made clear when we shall have a chance to deal with this matter.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to
Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act underline those points which have been brought up by my colleague from Peace River. I say it is instructive for Your Honour's guidance for Your Honour to consider that all these rules were before the committee on procedure for detailed examination last session and this rule was not amended. It was, therefore, felt that it was in order. If there was anything that was, shall we say, contrary to the practice or the intended practice with regard to the latter portion of 68 (1), that matter would have been brought to the attention of the House and the committee would have directed its attention to it.
On reading the wording of the Standing Order I think it becomes obvious that the language is quite clear and that it envisages that a motion can be moved-it does not specify by whom it shall be moved, whether by a member of the treasury benches or by a private member-directing the committee to prepare a bill and bring it in. This is, therefore, a clearly defined way of introducing a bill. Actually, it would be the committee in its report that would introduce the bill.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it seems to me that somehow or other the table officers who were faced with the question of this motion had to fit it into some slot. Without doing their thinking for them, I suggest it is very likely that the table officers felt this would be the area in which there would be the least difficulty, namely, under private members' notices of motions. However, there is nothing in the rules that says that a member shall only present a motion under that heading.
In fact, I would put it that the argument made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with regard to Standing Order 49 (3), to which he referred, would have an extraordinarily limiting effect on the conduct of hon. members. In other words, if the member had been unfortunate enough to have a motion put down in the normal course of events-and we know what kinds of motions these are-and if, subsequently, he had a purpose in bringing forth a bill through a committee, he would be precluded, unless he obtained the consent of the House, from withdrawing his first notice of motion which might be sixty-fifth or one hundredth on the list for consideration. In other words, it would be one which would never reach the floor of this House and the member would be completely stultified. Certainly, I do not think one would interpret our rules in so limiting a manner. Therefore there is this different,
664	COMMONS
Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act albeit very unusual, means which is still open to the hon. member for Peace River by which he is entitled to ask a committee of the House to consider and bring in a bill for the purposes stated in his motion. After all, it is up to the committee to bring in the bill and the committee, undoubtedly having a government majority in its membership, would, if it brought down a bill, undoubtedly have the government's assent. Therefore this motion must not be taken to be a means to defeat the government or to do anything of the kind. This is something which involves the privileges of a member of this House. Therefore I would urge Your Honour to give the most favourable consideration to the points and arguments put forward in support of the motion by my colleague from Peace River.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Peace River, as the hon. member for Edmonton West suggested, is an obsolete procedure of the House. In reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West may I say he will, having been a member of the procedure committee last year, recognize that there are a great many Standing Orders which have become obsolete in their application, perhaps the most notable example being Standing Order 5.


Gerald William Baldwin: How about 75c?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: How about 75c? Well, that depends on the good conduct of the hon. gentleman. Whether this is an indication, Mr. Speaker, of a program of obstruction to be carried on under the leadership of the hon. gentleman, we will find out in due course.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Surely the distinguished, honourable and learned government House leader knows he is not allowed to make such a remark. I was simply using the privilege to which I am entitled. To say that this is obstruction is something I am sure the hon. minister will, on reflection, realize he should not have said and withdraw the remark.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon.
member knows very well there is no element of privilege involved in those remarks.
To deal briefly with the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West, the fact of the matter is that although the committee did deal at some length with the Standing Orders last year, neither this question nor many of the other obsolete and archaic provisions in
[Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).)
DEBATES	November 10, 1969
our rules were dealt with. The mere fact it was left on the books does not indicate anything.
It is not without significance, after what the hon. member for Peace River has said, that neither he nor any of his colleagues were so motivated by their concern about this problem being dealt with by the standing committee last year that they brought forward any elaborated proposals for dealing with the question of private members' business. I am prepared to concede that at some appropriate time perhaps this might be reviewed, but the fact is that until now this concern has not been indicated, at least in the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
I make the submission to Your Honour and the hon. member that the provisions of Standing Order 68(1) are to be read in contemplation of the provisions of the Standing Orders with regard to private members' business. I think that common sense requires little hesitation over this point to see that if hon. members such as the hon. member for Peace River were to be in this position every day, the business each day could be pre-empted by a motion of this kind and there would be no possibility to bring government business before the House. Every day there would be one of these motions and it would therefore be impossible to deal with the public business. That, of course, is not the intention or meaning of the Standing Order.
There is a recognized procedure in the Standing Orders for dealing with private members' business. It is quite clear that to give the interpretation to Standing Order 68 sought by the hon. member would, in effect, stop dead the forward progress of the business of the company-the country.


An hon. Member:: You are still a corporation lawyer!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We are still a united company on this side, but I do not see the former member for Colchester-Hants on that side. We are quite prepared to have this question of private members' business discussed by the hon. member for Peace River, if he is still interested in the question, when it comes up under private members' business. We submit it is not in order for the hon. member to have the motion brought forward in the way he has suggested.


An hon. Member:: When are you going to speak to the point of order?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: When are you going to open your ears?
November 10, 1969	COMMONS


Some hon. Members:: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thank hon. members who have participated in this procedural debate. The Chair always has a difficult decision to make whether a final ruling ought to be made at the time this kind of point is raised or whether the matter should be taken under advisement with a view to making a ruling at a later date or later in the day's proceedings.
As hon. members will suspect, and as it has been indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the Chair has had some time now to consider the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River since the difficulty first arose on Friday afternoon. My weekend was not spent entirely in looking into the matter, but I did with the assistance and advice of counsel and the learned officials at the table, look into the matter very closely. Most of the time was spent looking for precedents which I did not find. Indeed, I have to tell the hon. member for Peace River-and I believe he recognized this himself-that there is no precedent at all for the procedure he is suggesting now.
This may not be the proper approach, but I must say I am always a bit suspicious when an hon. member proposes a procedure and, looking over 100 years of precedents, I cannot find a single precedent which applies. I suspect that if hon. members had thought in the past that this was a procedure which was open to them they might have proposed it before, and rulings would have come from the Chair one way or another. Because of the circumstances I believe I can at this point give hon. members the benefit of my reflections on the situation.
The hon. member raised this question by way of a point of order concerning consideration of this private member's notice of motion which proposes the appointment of a committee for the purpose of bringing in a bill to amend the Farmers Creditors' Arrangement Act. In support of his argument and of the proposed procedure he referred to Standing Order 68(1), which reads as follows:
Every bill is introduced upon motion for leave, specifying the title of the bill; or upon motion to appoint a committee to prepare and bring it in.
As the hon. member for Edmonton West and others have pointed out, if these words mean anything they must be accepted as a procedure which ought to be followed. If so, what is the procedure contemplated by the
DEBATES	665
Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act words in 68(1)? With respect, I have come to the conclusion that it is not the procedure which is suggested now by the hon. member for Peace River. I mention in passing that the terms of the hon. member's notice of motion would appear to involve a charge on the consolidated revenue fund and, if this is so, the question could not be considered until after a recommendation from His Excellency. But I am not ruling on that point; I have some qualms on the point but I think they should be set aside and that the ruling of the Chair should at this time relate exclusively to the question specifically raised by the hon. member for Peace River, the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
It would appear to the Chair that the one question which must be resolved at this time is whether the hon. member's motion may be proceeded with during routine proceedings. While Standing Order 15(2) does provide for the introduction of such bills at this time it does not permit the proposing of a motion to appoint a special committee to prepare a bill during routine proceedings. In accordance with paragraph 4 of Standing Order 15, such a proposed motion may be considered only under government orders or, in the case of a private member's motion, only when private members' business is being considered between the hours of 5 and 6 p.m. on a Monday a Tuesday or on a Friday. It is suggested that the provisions of 15(4) are quite explicit in this regard.
The hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre drew attention to another problem in connection with the motion proposed by the hon. member for Peace River, pointing out that we now have on the order paper two notices of motion standing in the name of that hon. member. My understanding is that this decision was taken in the face of the difficulty which arose through the motion having been proposed at that time, and because it was difficult to hold consultations at that moment. It may have been an error; possibly the matter should have been held in abeyance until the hon. member had had an opportunity to explain his views, and the Chair to consider them.
In any event, we find ourselves in a situation now in which, contrary to the Standing Orders, the hon. member for Peace River has two notices of motion appearing in his name whereas in accordance with the rules, he is entitled to only one. It is of interest to note that the hon. member's notice of motion No.
November 10, 1969

Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act 39, the one which stands as a bona fide notice of motion on the Order Paper, seeks to alter the procedure relating to the consideration and disposal of private members' business. This point was made by the hon. member for Peace River in the course of his presentation. I wish to say that I have every sympathy with the objective sought to be achieved by the hon. member as expressed in the terms of his notice of motion No. 39 and by the motion now being discussed.
There is much to be said for a re-examination of our procedure in the whole field of private members' legislation and it may well be that this is a suitable topic for consideration in due course by our Committee on Procedure and Organization.
As hon. members may know, there are meetings of house leaders in the Speaker's chambers during which procedural matters are discussed informally from time to time at which the Speaker takes the initiative on occasion to suggest that the committee might consider special problems. I propose to take the initiative to recommend to the committee that it take up at the first opportunity, at its very first meeting, the point raised today by the hon. member for Peace River. However, for the moment, and for the reasons stated I must rule that the hon. member's motion now being discussed will have to be removed from the notice section of the order paper.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order related to the remarks made by the President of the Privy Council. I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to Standing Order No. 5 and ask whether permission has been given by the House for the absence of the right hon. member for Mount Royal and also of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order raised by the hon. member is a precise illustration of the statement which was made by the President of the Privy Council, namely, that some of our rules are not observed to the extent that they ought to be. Perhaps the committee would like to consider not only 68(1) but all the Standing Orders which need to be looked into further. I do not think it would be possible at this time to try to enforce the Standing Order to which the hon. member for Timis-kaming has referred.


William Arnold Peters: Since this Standing Order is unenforceable, and since Your Honour has a responsibility for enforcing it, could I ask you to make arrangements for the committee to [Ur. Speaker.]
review these unenforceable Standing Orders, with, of course, the support of the committee?


Mr. Speaker:: That is precisely what I was saying a few moments ago. I can make suggestions to the committee though it is, of course, a committee of the House, not a committee of the Chair; a committee instructed by the House can study whatever subjects it decides in its own wisdom to consider. But I would be pleased to bring to the attention of the committee, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the suggestion now made by the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why me? I am here.



FINANCE TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau) moved: that the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, which was introduced before the house on Friday, November 7, 1969, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. e (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with section 95 (2) of the Unemployment Insurance Act I should like to table copies, in English and in French, of the annual report of the Unemployment Insurance Commission for the fiscal year ended March, 1969.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION ACT


Mr. Real Caouelte (Temiscamingue) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-147, an Act to amend the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the bill tends only to amend a provision of the present
November 10, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	667
legislation to the effect that one has to be a British subject in order to become an official of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I simply wish to replace the expression "British subject" by "Canadian subject" in the provisions of the Act.


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


David Réal Caouette: for leave to introduce Bill C-148, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Disturbance in Parliament).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to authorize parliament to apply severe sanctions against those who, from the gallery, disturb the House of Commons.


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


David Réal Caouette: for leave to introduce Bill C-149 entitled "An Act respecting the use of the word "Canada".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, this bill concerns the use of the word "Canada". In our opinion, the term "Dominion of Canada" should be dropped and replaced simply by the word "Canada".


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


David Réal Caouette: for leave to introduce Bill C-150 entitled "An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, at the present time, according to the act, the Supreme Court renders its judgments in English only.
British North America Act


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


David Réal Caouette: The object of this bill is to provide for the translation of the judgments of the Supreme Court and for their publication in both the official languages.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put, may I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question has already been put and carried. Perhaps the minister might want to raise his point of order now that the question has been put. When shall the said bill be read a second time? Next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with the greatest respect to the hon. member who has just introduced the last bill, I would suggest that the terms of the Official Languages Act cover the point he is making in the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that is hardly a point of order but a point of debate. The minister may want to participate in the debate in the House before the bill is given second reading.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


David Réal Caouette: for leave to introduce Bill C-151, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (Grants of Aids and Supplies).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Réal Caouette: Grants of aids and subsidies are now decided mainly by the Senate. The bill tends to have this fall within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons which is made up of the true representatives of the Canadian people.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
November 10, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act [English]


Donald Stovel Macdonald: for leave to introduce Bill C-152, to amend the National Parks Act.


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


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
First reading of Senate Public Bills-Bill S-3, an act to provide for the dissolution of the Dominion Coal Board and for the repeal of the Canadian Coal Equality Act, the Coal Production Assistance Act and the Dominion Coal Board Act-The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Mr. Speaker:: Bill S-3 comes forward for consideration under this item. I take the liberty of reminding hon. members who have taken an interest in the procedural point raised last week that perhaps at an early opportunity they may wish to submit arguments in relation to the proposed Bill S-3 for the consideration of the Chair. Shall the matter stand?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to accommodate my hon. friends, but I wonder whether they would be prepared to go ahead today. I should like to deal with this matter on Wednesday next if they wish. I believe the hon. member for Peace River has already made his argument, and I am addressing myself to other members of the House. I am prepared to go ahead today if hon. members so wish.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am in the hands of the House. I am prepared to go ahead or I am prepared to wait.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Then, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to make my argument now in relation to the bill. You Honour might then have the privilege of spending another holiday looking into the precedents of the House.
As I followed his argument the other day, the hon. member for Peace River's objection to the proposed Bill S-3, an act to amend the
[Mr. Caouette.l
Dominion Coal Board Act and certain other statutes, was basically founded upon the provisions of section 53 of the British North America Act and Standing Orders 62 and 63 of the House, which to a substantial degree re-enact the directions given by the British North America Act.
For the purpose of my argument in this regard, perhaps I might be permitted to indicate in a general way the provisions of the bill. Clause 2 provides for the dissolution of the Dominion Coal Board. Clause 3(1) provides that all rights and property of the board, and all obligations and other liabilities, are transferred to, vested in, or imposed upon the Crown itself. Clause 3(2) of the bill is the one to which the hon. member took exception. This clause stipulates that where an appropriation has been made by an Appropriation Act, either present or future, to defray the expenses of the board, then that sum may be applied to such appropriate branch of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as the Governor in Council may determine. Clause 4 repeals the other Acts referred to and, in my submission, is not material to the point of order raised by the hon. member.
The critical question, therefore, is whether this provision amounts to an appropriation of public revenue as indicated in Section 53 of the British North America Act and, therefore, also whether there should have been preceding this bill a recommendation under the hand of His Excellency recommending the measure to the House and, in particular, whether, therefore, the measure should have been commenced in this House rather than the other place.
I should like to submit two arguments in this connection supporting the conclusion that this is not a money Bill, in the very broad term used often in debate in this House, introduced as an appropriation of the public revenue and therefore this is not a measure which requires a recommendation of His Excellency or one required to be introduced in this House. The basis upon which I would make my argument, firstly, is the very terms of clause 3(2) of the proposed bill. There can be no application of the section and therefore, there can be no charge against the Consolidated Revenue Fund unless there is, in fact, an Appropriation Act. Putting that in the context of the Appropriation Act passed in June this year which provided the appropriation for the board in the current year- unless the House had previously taken exception to it, and there is no exception now- clause 3(2) could not operate unless there had
November 10, 1969	COMMONS
been a legal appropriation, which there was in this case. If there had not been any appropriation at all, of course the clause would not apply.
I think it might be of some assistance to refer to some of the precedents in this regard. In the opportunity I have had to look into this matter I could find no precedent exactly on the case which appears to have commended itself forcefully to Parliamentary counsel. I would, however, like to draw to the attention of the Chair two citations from the third edition of Beauchesne which would seem to be particularly germane to the type of measure we have here. The first is paragraph 449. It is a brief one and I should like to read it in full if I may:
A Bill, which does not involve a direct expenditure but merely confers upon the Government a power for the exercise of which public money will have to be voted by Parliament, is not a money Bill and no resolution is necessary as a condition precedent to its introduction.
I submit that the procedure being followed here is analogous to the procedure being discussed in that particular case. Here we have a situation where money has in fact been voted by Parliament and, therefore, it is a question of changing the tense of the quotation in that particular paragraph and saying that where money has been voted by Parliament no direct charge against the Crown is involved and therefore no recommendation is necessary in this particular context.
The other precedent to which I would refer is paragraph 450 of Beauchesne's third edition, the one immediately following the one to which I have referred. Here again I should like to quote the paragraph in full:
A Bill designed to furnish machinery for the expenditure of a certain sum of public money to be voted subsequently by Parliament may be introduced in the House without the recommendation of the Crown and without a resolution being first considered in committee.
Just to remind the House, of course, the procedure referred to in that decision, that is to say, a resolution being first considered in committee, is due to the rule changes of last year, no longer required in the House. I would say by analogy that that precedent applies in this case. Parliament did approve an appropriation bill last year for the Dominion Coal Board. What this particular bill does is provide the machinery whereby the executive government may take advantage of those particular funds that have already been appropriated by parliament. Therefore on an analogous principle, by carrying forward to a later date in time, that is to say to the time 21362-43
DEBATES	669
Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act when funds have been appropriated, this would be machinery to deal with funds which have been appropriated after the dissolution of the corporation in question.
There is also another body of opinion which I have had an opportunity to consider. I should also like to bring this to Your Honour's attention. This, in essence, is a second alternative. This argument is really founded upon the opinion held in some quarters that there probably is no necessity at all for clause 3(2) in this particular bill.
In answer to the obvious question concerning why it was put in, my understanding is it was put in out of an abundance of caution on the advice of legal counsel to make certain there would be no doubt concerning the propriety of the provision. I submit, however, there has already been an Act of Parliament, preceded by the necessary formality, which in fact authorizes the re-direction of the particular Act of appropriation already made for another purpose. I should like to draw to your attention the Financial Administration Act, which is chapter 116 of the Revised Statutes of Canada and more particularly section 81 of the Financial Administration Act. Section 81(2) stipulates:
The Minister of Finance may, with the concurrence of the appropriate Minister, direct a corporation to pay all or any part of the money of the corporation to the Receiver General to be placed to the credit of a special account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund in the name of the corporation, and the Minister of Finance may pay out, for the purposes of the corporation, or repay to the corporation, all or any part of the money in the special account.
Similarly subsection (3) of that section makes a stipulation with regard to the application of surplus funds where they have been appropriated but not used or otherwise dealt with. The decision of the minister in question is to be supported by a decision of the Governor in Council. I, therefore, make an argument on two grounds; first, that the provisions of the bill indicate it is in order in that, in effect there has been advance appropriation of public funds. The funds are to be provided for the ends, benefits, conditions, obligations and qualifications for which the sums were originally appropriated in the Appropriation Act of last June. Therefore, there has been the necessary authorization by parliament of an appropriation against the public revenue. That being so, this in effect is a procedural means whereby funds already appropriated may be dealt with so far as necessary by the department to which the responsibility will be given if parliament
November 10, 1969

Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act adopts the bill. They will be applied to the purposes already approved by Parliament.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Secondly, in any event, the provision for the application of funds is covered by section 81 of the Financial Administration Act in respect of corporations as set out in the schedule to that statute. We have the authorization of the Governor in Council on the advice of the minister to apply those funds in such circumstances as may be required. In effect, this is a provision to make for greater certainty, and is one which is already authorized by statute of this parliament. For that reason also, therefore, the bill will be found to be in order. I hope these two arguments may commend themselves to you, Mr. Speaker, but in any event I will be happy to abide by your decision in this regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I regard this as an extremely important point of order which goes to the very root of the relations between the two Houses of Parliament. I commend the hon. member for Peace River for having raised this issue last week, and I believe that it should be given most serious consideration.
I should like to make it clear that our concern does not relate to the substance of the bill. In all probability, I will be prepared to support, without any question whatever, what the bill seeks to bring into effect. The simple question is this: Should a bill of this kind originate in the Senate or is it required by our constitution and our practices that it originate in the House of Commons. Should we in the House of Commons receive this bill or should we refuse to receive it-the latter, I believe, is the course we should take-whereupon the government would be in a position to introduce the same bill here in the House of Commons.
In my view there is no question but that Bill S-3 is an appropriation measure. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) argues that it is merely a case of putting somewhere else funds that have already been appropriated by Parliament, and he tries to find support for his argument in the Financial Administration Act. I submit that the portions of the Financial Administration Act to which he referred do not apply, but I remind him and I remind Your Honour that there is a provision in that act under which moneys, although appropriated, if not expended as appropriated, lapse. I submit that but for the provisions in subclause (2) of


clause 3 of Bill S-3, the dissolution of the Dominion Coal Board would mean that the moneys appropriated for that Board would lapse. Therefore, a bill that seeks to make it possible to spend those moneys in some other way is an appropriation bill.
Bill S-3 is an attempt to give parliamentary approval for the use of moneys in a certain way, a use which has not been previously authorized by parliament. If this could be done by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) under the Financial Administration Act, then this proposal did not need to be put in this bill or to be put before us at all. But the fact is that those who drew up this bill realized that with the dissolution of the Dominion Coal Board its funds would lapse, and that the only way in which the unused money could be used for some other purpose would be by an appropriation bill passed through all stages in parliament. It is because this is a bill for the appropriation of money, and for saying how certain of the public moneys are to be spent, that we contend it is the kind of measure that should originate in the House of Commons and not in the Senate.
The hon. member for Peace River read some portions of the British North America Act and some of the Standing Orders the other day, but so that the whole argument might appear in today's Hansard as well, may I be permitted to read some of these portions. First of all, section 53 of the BNA Act is very clear and explicit. It reads as follows:
Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.
I contend, on the basis of the argument I have already advanced, that Bill S-3 is an attempt to appropriate part of the public revenue and to say how it is to be expended. There is nothing obscure, mysterious, or difficult to follow about this. This is a bill that will appropriate part of the public revenue, and therefore under the terms of our constitution, the BNA Act, it should originate in the House of Commons.
Section 54 of the BNA Act reads:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address or Bill is proposed.
That, of course, is a spelling out of what is already in section 53. I recognize the point made by the President of the Privy Council, that we used to think that that section
November 10, 1969	COMMONS
required that there be a resolution preceding a money bill. We decided that that is no longer the case, but it is still true that this House of Commons cannot pass a bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue that has not first been recommended to this House by message of the Governor General in the current session. That means that a bill to appropriate money, if we are going to vote for it, has to be one presented in the House with the recommendation of the Governor General. If, on the contrary, we proceed to vote on and pass Bill S-3, which comes to us from the other place without that message to the House, then I submit we are violating section 54 of the BNA Act.
Let me turn also to some of our Standing Orders. Standing Order 62 (1) reads:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
That is obviously taken from the BNA Act.
Standing Order 62 (2) reads:
The message and recommendation of the Governor General in relation to any bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax or impost shall be printed on the Notice Paper and in the Votes and Proceedings when any such measure is to be introduced and the text of such recommendation shall be printed with or annexed to every such bill.
None of these procedures has been followed because this bill has not originated in this House but rather has come from the other place.
Paragraph (3) does not really matter, so I shall skip it. I will come shortly to a more important one.
Standing Order 63 reads:
All aids and supplies granted to Her Majesty by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The last phrase relates to another problem, and I will have something to say about that in a moment. But please note, Mr. Speaker, that by the granting of money to Her Majesty, and that is what this bill does in the offending clause, the government is provided with certain money which, but for this bill, would not be there because but for this bill that money
DEBATES	671
Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act would lapse. But we have the sole right of originating a bill for such money, and we have the sole and undoubted right to "direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions" and so on. This is our sole and undoubted right, but in this case the decision is already made and given to us in a bill from the other place.
I must be careful, Mr. Speaker. I must not get worked up into expressing my feelings for the institution we call the other place. That is another issue, and it will come up in a private member's bill in a few days. But here, I am talking to those who accept the existence of the Senate, for a while yet at any rate, and I suggest that as long as it does remain we should follow the constitution. Standing Order 63 is as clear as it could possibly be, that the decisions as to how moneys are to be spent, what limitations, conditions and qualifications are to be attached to such grants, are the sole prerogative of the House of Commons. They are not even alterable by Their Honours in the other place. In this case, not only are they beyond that right but they are going to the point of telling this House, in the first place, how those grants shall be used.
While I am dealing with Standing Orders, may I draw Your Honour's attention to Standing Order 64, which I think we should take very seriously as a House, even if Your Honour were to rule that the bill is in order. I hope the bill is not in order, but if you do rule that it is a decision for the House to make rather than the Chair, I hope the House will carry out the provisions of Standing Order 64 and refuse to receive it. Please note what Standing Order 64 says:
In order to expedite the business of Parliament, the House will not insist on the privilege claimed and exercised by them of laying aside bills sent from the Senate because they impose pecuniary penalties nor of laying aside amendments made by the Senate because they introduce into or alter pecuniary penalties in bills sent to them by this House; provided that all such penalties thereby imposed are only to punish or prevent crimes and offences, and do not tend to lay a burden on the subject, either as aid or supply to Her Majesty, or for any general or special purposes, by rates, tolls, assessments or otherwise.
If I understand the language of that Standing Order, it is quite clear. It says that, as a general rule, we in this House of Commons have the complete say over money matters, and if the Senate were to send us a money bill we would refuse it. However, it says that if the Senate sends us a bill, or amends a bill of ours, in a money respect, and that bill or
672	COMMONS
Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act amendment is concerned only with the imposition of a fine or a punishment of some sort, we will not claim our privilege of refusing to accept that bill. Surely, the language of Standing Order 64 is as clear as can be to the effect that in all other cases we will claim our privilege. Therefore I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if Your Honour finds this a matter for the House to decide rather than the Chau, the decision of the House should be to reject the introduction and the first reading of this bill.
Now, Sir, by an interesting but strange coincidence Professor Elmer A. Driedger, now of the Faculty of Law at Queen's University, just a few days before this issue came up very kindly sent me a copy of a paper he had prepared entitled, "Money Bills and the Senate". Professor Driedger sent it to me because he knew I would be interested in this kind of exciting reading. I read it before this issue was raised the other day, and it is amazing how timely it is.


John Napier Turner: Would the hon. member give the date?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, it is reprinted from the Ottawa Law Review, volume 3, No. 1, Fall 1968, copyright 1968 by the University of Ottawa, and is entitled "Money Bills and the Senate" by Elmer A. Driedger, Q.C. It is a very interesting and learned review of this whole question of whether or not the Senate has the authority to amend money bills.
Professor Driedger, whom we all remember as a distinguished civil servant, a former deputy minister of justice who was with us for many years, goes into the question very thoroughly and finds that the practice in the United Kingdom is quite clear. Their Lordships just do not have this power. He also finds that, over the years, our Senate has argued from time to time that the limitations on their Honours are not the same as the limitations on the House of Lords at Westminster. He points out that the Senate has argued that really the only limitation placed on the Senate in money matters is that they cannot originate money bills.
Now, I do not agree with the position the Senate takes, and I think it is fair to Professor Driedger to say that he does not agree either. But the point I am making, well documented in his article, is that even the Senate, in its discussions over the years of its powers in relation to the House of Commons, has never doubted the proposition that it has no right to originate money bills. The Senate has argued for the right to amend money bills, a

DEBATES	November 10, 1969
right which the House of Commons has never conceded, but at no point has the Senate even contended that it had the right to originate money bills.
Professor Driedger's article, as I said, deals at some length with the position in the United Kingdom, and then he translates that into the Canadian position. As so often happens in these procedural arguments, he falls back on those famous nine words in the preamble to our constitution which so often, when we get into something like this and wonder what the answer is, lead us to say that our constitution is "similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom". And Professor Driedger says that if the Senate has certain powers here that Their Lordships do not have in Westminster, then of course those nine famous words in the preamble to our constitution are being violated. I quote briefly from his article as follows:
But perhaps the strongest argument in favour of the Commons can be founded on the theory that under our Constitution (similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom), representation and consent form the basis of the power of the Commons to grant money and impose taxes.
Further on he says:
Through the centuries the principle was maintained that taxation required representation and consent. The only body in Canada that meets this test is the Commons. The elected representatives of the people sit in the Commons, and not in the Senate-
This is Professor Driedger talking, not the member for Winnipeg North Centre.
-and, consistently with history and tradition, they may well insist that they alone-
The House of Commons.
-have the right to decide to the last cent what money is to be granted and what taxes are to be imposed.
Professor Driedger carries this argument through to point out something that Your Honour is very much aware of, namely, that we so completely assert our rights with respect to the appropriation of money that, as he says:
The Supply Bill is presented for Royal Assent by the Speaker of the House of Commons with the words "The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service. In the name of the Commons, I present to Your Excellency the following Bill." And in the course of his speech on prorogation the Governor General addresses his thanks to the Commons alone.
In another paragraph, Professor Driedger points out that Section 53 of the BNA Act deals only with origination of bills and therefore does not deal with the question of
November 10, 1969

amending money bills, so that so far as origination is concerned there is no question that that particular power does not belong to the Senate. Over the years, the Senate has produced a number of studies on this issue, and in some of their memoranda they have made certain arguments for their rights. But as Professor Driedger points out:
The Senate argues that Section 53 takes away only the right to initiate, and not the right to amend;
This is an argument for the Senate's position, that maybe the Senate has power to amend. But at no point in all of these discussions, even on behalf of Their Honours, has there been any question about the right to originate money bills. That right belongs solely, exclusively, absolutely to the House of Commons.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
At one point Professor Driedger discussed this position hypothetically and indicated that if this principle were violated, that is if the Senate could amend a money bill, a number of other things might follow. I shall read this paragraph:
Again if the Senate conclusions are sound, it must necessarily follow that the Senate could change the incidence of taxation, could postpone the coming into force of a taxation bill, could limit its duration, and otherwise control or interfere with the imposition and collection of the revenue.
By a logical extension of the Senate conclusions, it would follow that the Senate could
(1)	increase or decrease taxation;
(2)	increase or decrease appropriations;
(3)	alter the purposes of appropriations;
At best, Mr. Speaker, Bill S-3 does this; at worst it appropriates new money, and this one of the things that Professor Driedger lists as an undesirable consequence if we were to give in to the Senate on this issue. I go on with the quotation:
(4)	postpone the operation or limit the duration of taxation bills;
(5)	alter the incidence of taxation;
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I found this article on the question of the right of the Senate to amend money bills extremely interesting. By implication, it confirms one of the solid facts of Commons-Senate relationships over the years, namely, that whatever power the Senate may have to deal with our bills it has no power to originate a money bill. That power rests solely with the House of Commons.
To come back to the nature of this bill, I know that the President of the Privy Council takes a view different from mine, and of
Privileges and Elections
course I think he is wrong. I think this is a money bill but he says it is just a case of putting money that has already been appropriated somewhere else. But if the Dominion Coal Board were to go out of business, the money allocated to it would lapse. It would not be available, and therefore what would be required would be a new appropriation to make it possible for the money to be spent in some other way.
This is an appropriation bill, and in terms of the Standing Orders as well as all the theory of representative government, it is a matter which should originate in this House of Commons. I hope Your Honour will so find. I hope, too, that on the basis of Your Honour's finding this House will refuse to receive this bill from the Senate but will give it back to the government so that it may be introduced in the proper manner in this House of Commons.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought it apparent that what the government has done is not acceptable. I submit that they should have moved by way of supplementary estimates, with an item of $1, as they did at the last session when transferring unused funds for a different purpose. I do not think that the Section 81(1) has any bearing because it refers to a sort of "class B" Crown Corporation. Here, in the House of Commons, we must receive a recommendation for appropriation, and this was not done. If this proposal is accepted it is possible that we might find moneys which were allocated for one purpose but unused, being diverted to another purpose which had never been considered by this House. I would say that the limitations imposed upon the Crown are binding in this case. The bill should not have started in the Senate but should have come here in the normal course of events with the usual notation "for discussion and disposal".


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to thank hon. members for their learned contributions to a very interesting debate. I shall spend some time studying the arguments and precedents brought forward by hon. members and give my ruling as soon as possible.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
November 6, 1969-The President of the Privy Council-That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be empowered to study the
[Stage Direction]
November 10, 1969
Questions
following matters and to report to the House such proposals as the committee may deem advisable:
1.	The Canada Elections Act, exclusive of Sections 62 and 63;
2.	The report of the Representation Commissioner on methods of registration of electors and absentee voting, 1968, made pursuant to Section 9 of the Representation Commissioner Act;
And that the evidence adduced by the committee in its study of the aforementioned items during the first session of the twenty-eighth Parliament be referred to the committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Broadbenl: Eor the fiscal year 1968-69 and the current fiscal year up to September 1969, what has been the number of projects, the forecasted federal government expenditures and the actual government expenditures for the Defence Research Board's Defence Industrial Research Program?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. 1968-69: Number of active projects, 101; Forecast expenditures, $4,500,000; Actual expenditures, $4,299,853.
1969-70: Number of active projects, 89; Forecast expenditures (complete fiscal year), $4,500,000; Actual expenditure, $1,162,442.


SINGLE-MAIL PROCESSING SYSTEM
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For what period of time was the single-mail processing system in effect in the post office?
2.	What is the estimated cost of introducing the single-mail processing system in the post office and then reverting back to the original system?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1. The
system was implemented on February 17, 1969.
2.	There was no cost to introducing this system which is still in operation. No consideration is being given at this time to reverting back to the former system.


INVESTIGATION OF DEATH OF TROUT
Mr. Harding: Has the Department of Fisheries and Forestry undertaken an investigation of the thousands of dead trout fish along a four-mile stretch of the Sable River on the south coast of Prince Edward Island and, if so what are the results of this investigation?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Yes. Fish kill was detected almost immediately on August 25, 1969, by patrol officers in the DeSable River. Some flounders were killed in the tidal portion of the stream and several thousand speckled trout above in the size range 1J" to 12". This is a small stream of average width of eight feet and depth of two feet, infrequently visited by anglers. The source of the kill was located about four and a half miles upstream.
This source was pollution emanating from emptied agricultural pesticide bags and containers, including DDT. Aquatic life in the stream was normal above this point for the remaining several miles.
Water is taken from the stream in the vicinity of the source of pollution for use in spraying equipment by a number of farms. An intensive investigation failed to provide the identity of the person responsible for the violation. The Department is conducting a very comprehensive program with a view of stamping out the release in streams of these deleterious materials related to agricultural activities.


STUDIES BY PROFESSOR WARNER
Mr. Thomson: 1.	What studies by Professor R. E. Warner have been sponsored by the Fisheries Board of Canada?
2.	What are the general results of these studies on the subject of the environmental effects of oil pollution in Canada?


Eugene Whelan: 1. The
Fisheries Research Board of Canada has been involved in a minor way in paying Professor R. E. Warner's travel expenses to the Arctic to examine the scene where an oil barge was crushed and sunk near Melville Island.
2.	Professor Warner was unable to locate the oil slick in flights over the scene. His account points out (a) the need to maintain contact with the spill in Arctic conditions, (b) the need for practical guidelines to deal with such spills and (c) the need for co-ordination of efforts by an appropriate body.
November 10, 1969


EMPLOYMENT OF SARAH ANNE ROBINSON
Mr. Howard (Skeena): Since January 1, 1966, has Sarah Anne Robinson, Ph.D., been employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for any purpose and, if so (a) what, in detail, was she employed to do, (b) in what geographic areas was this work conducted, (c) what amounts of money was she paid, and (d) does the government consider that it received full value for the money so expended?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) Miss Robinson has not been employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, (b), (c) and (d) Not applicable.


SERVICEMEN'S GROUP INSURANCE
Mr. Brewin: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence taken out group insurance for Service men?
2.	What is the aggregate amount of insurance taken out?
3.	Was the contract given to the Maritime Life Assurance Company of Halifax?
4.	Is the Maritime Life Assurance Company of Halifax a subsidiary of the John Hancock Mutual Life Assurance Company of Boston?
5.	Has the group insurance been divided or farmed out one-third to the John Hancock Mutual Life Assurance Company of Boston, one-third to the National Life Company of Canada and one-third retained by the Maritime Life Assurance Company of Halifax?
6.	If these are not the correct figures, has the group policy been farmed out and on what basis?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. No. Members of the Canadian Forces designed a self-paid group insurance plan for the specific needs of the serviceman. The Chief of the Defence Staff will sign the contract on behalf of the serviceman. The expenditure of public funds is not involved in this proposal.
2.	The value of the insurance and the premiums are individual based on age, income, family status and years of service. Since it is a vountary program the number of participants cannot be forecast and thus the aggregate amount of protection is unknown.
3.	The plan was offered to all federally registered insurance companies. A consortium, of which Maritime Life Assurance Company of Halifax was a member, was eventually accepted.
4.	John Hancock Mutual Life Assurance Company of Boston is the principal shareholder of Maritime Life Assurance Company of Halifax.
Questions
5.	This insurance plan is co-insured by the three companies quoted in equal amounts. Maritime Life Assurance Company, is a member of the consortium, will be operating and administering the plan.
6.	Not applicable.


PAYMENTS TO EUGENE STEINER PUBLIC RELATIONS LTD.
Mr. Howard (Skeena): Since March 1, 1969, how much money has been paid to Eugene Steiner Public Relations Ltd., 1330 -8th St., S.W., Calgary, Alberta by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have no record of Eugene Steiner Public Relations Ltd. However, $6,473.19 was paid to K. M. Steiner Public Relations Ltd., 514-5th Ave. S.W. Calgary 1, Alberta, from March 1, 1969 to October 1, 1969.


PAYMENTS TO BERGER, TISDALL, CLARK AND LESLEY LTD.
Mr. Howard (Skeena): Since March 1, 1969, how much money has been paid to Berger, Tisdall, Clark and Lesley Ltd. Box 61, Toronto-Dominion Centre, Toronto, Ontario by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Since March 1, 1969, $7,000 has been paid to Berger, Tisdall, Clark and Lesley Ltd., Toronto by this Department.


PAYMENTS TO CROCKETT WRITERS
Mr. Howard (Skeena): Since March 1, 1969 how much money has been paid to Crockett Writers, Public Consultants, 295 Kensington St., Winnipeg, Manitoba by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Since March 1, 1969, $3,248.16 has been paid to Crockett Writers, Public Relations Consultants, Winnipeg, by this Department.


PAYMENTS TO JACQUES GUAY ET ASSOCIES INC.
Mr. Howard (Skeena): Since March 1, 1969 how much money has been paid to Jacques Guay et associes inc., Public Relations Counselors, Suite 440, Dominion Square Building, 1010 St. Catherine St., West, Montreal 2, Quebec by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?

November 10, 1969
Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Since March 1, 1969, $5,788.89 has been paid.


PAYMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL SURVEYS LIMITED
Mr. Howard (Skeena): Since March 1, 1969 how much money has been paid to International Surveys Limited, 550 Sherbrooke St., West, Montreal 2, Quebec by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No money has been paid to International Surveys Limited, Montreal, by this Department since March 1, 1969.


PAYMENTS TO WILLIAMS AND WILSON LTD.
Mr. Howard (Skeena): Since March 1, 1969 how much money has been paid to Williams and Wilson Ltd., Public Relations Counsel and Services, 1161 Melville St., Vancouver 6, B.C. by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Since March 1, 1969, $16,589.60 has been paid to Williams and Wilson Ltd., Vancouver, by this Department.
PAYMENTS TO DESROCHES, JASMIN ET ASSOCTfeS INC.


Mr. Howard (Skeena): Since March 1, 1969, how much money has been paid to Desroches, Jasmin et Associes Inc., Public Relations Counsellors, 640 Cathcart St., Montreal 2, Quebec, by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: None.


ARMED FORCES AIRCRAFT RESCUE OPERATIONS
Mr. Barnett: 1.	How many hours of flying time under the direction of the Rescue Co-ordination Centre, Vancouver, B.C., was spent by Armed Forces aircraft in the period (a) July 1, 1968 to December 31, 1968 (b) January 1, 1969 to June 30, 1969?
2.	Of this time how much was spent on (a) marine searches (b) mercy flights (c) aircraft searches (d) searches for missing persons (hunters, etc.)?
3.	How many aircraft of the Canadian Forces participated in such operations during these periods and in what numbers for each type of aircraft used?

4.	What was the maximum number of aircraft participating at any one time?
5.	What is the estimated average cost per flying hour?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. (a) 834 hours, 28 minutes; (b) 678 hours, 53 minutes.
2.	(a) 92 hours, 8 minutes; (b and d) 283 hours, 55 minutes (These are not recorded separately); (c) 916 hours, 58 minutes.
3.	Albatross and Labrador aircraft in 442 Squadron at CFB Comox carry out search and rescue in the Pacific area. Other military aircraft such as Dakota, T33 or Hercules may be called in when required for a major search and rescue operation.
4.	Eight.
5.	As Order-in-Council P.C. 1962-13/653, dated 2 May, 1962, stipulates no fee will be charged for humanitarian assistance, specifically search and rescue, no record of costs of individual searches is maintained. The estimated average cost per flying hour for each of these aircraft based on costs of fuel, oil, lubricants, spares and contractor repair and overhaul is as follows: (a) Albatross, $142; (b) Labrador, $229; (c) Dakota, $117; (d) T33, $141; (e) Hercules, $318.


RCMP INTERVIEWS OF SUSPECTED U.S. DRAFT EVADERS OR DESERTERS
Mr. Nysirom: 1.	What authority has the RCMP to locate and interview persons suspected of being draft evaders or deserters from the United States?
2.	How many such interviews have taken place since January 1, 1969?
3.	How many man-hours have been involved in these procedures?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: 1.	The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, by virtue of Section 18 of the RCMP Act, has authority to make investigations under the Immigration Act and, in reference specifically to Section 50 thereof, to locate and interview aliens to determine their method of entry into and their present status in Canada.
2.	2,259.
3.	Man-hours not recorded.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPLICATIONS
Mr. Laprise: How many initial applications were made to the Unemployment Insurance Commission during 19671968?
November 10, 1969


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minisler of Labour):: There were 1,389,366 initial applications made to the Unemployment Insurance Commission during 1967-68.


R.C.M.P. SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	What was the total amount of money in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968 (f) March 31, 1969?
2.	What rate of interest does the Government pay for the use of this money?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968 (f) March 31, 1969?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968 (f) March 31, 1969?


George James McIlraith: 1.	(a) March 31st,	1964,	$45,986,906.99;
(b) March 31st, 1965, $57,706,948.59; (c) March 31st, 1966, $65,411,253.45; (d) March 31st 1967, $85,081,315.27; (e) March 31st, 1968, $104,724,111.76; (f) March 31st, 1969, $130,811,253.12.
2.	Interest is credited to the Superannuation Account on the last day of each quarter in each fiscal year, namely, on June 30, on September 30, on December 31 and on March 31, respectively, calculated at the rate of one per cent of the balance to the credit of the Account on the last day of the preceding quarter.
3.	(a) March 31st, 1964, $1,576,978.32; (b) March 31st, 1965, $1,929,488.33; (c) March 31st, 1966, $2,420,759.75; (d) March 31st, 1967, $2,841,067.52; (e) March 31st 1968, $3,534,722.02; (f) March 31st, 1969, $4,494,764.86.
4.	(a) March 31st, 1964, $573,195.38; (b)
March 31st, 1965, $666,752.98; (c) March 31st, 1966,	$848,113.32;	(d) March 31st,	1967,
$972,646.84; (e) March 31st, 1968, $988,991.22; (f) March 31st, 1969, $1,101,036.09.


IMPORTS-DESIGNATION AS TO SOURCE OF ORIGIN
Mr. Gleave: 1. Which imports coming into Canada are not labelled to be specifically identified as to source of origin and for what reasons?
Questions
2. Is the Government of Canada giving favourable consideration to requiring Australian beef imported into Canada to be labelled as to source of origin?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. The following is a list of categories of imported goods which are not required to be marked as to country of origin: (a) Goods for use by the trade which are not normally considered to be consumer goods. The Marking of Imported Goods Order was passed by Order in Council under the authority of section 15 of the Customs Tariff, to provide for country of origin marking of certain consumer goods so that the ultimate purchaser or consumer could determine the origin of an article if he so desired, and was not intended to be a protection for manufacturers or a form of trade barrier, (b) Goods that are only partially manufactured before importation or are components to be further manufactured or to be incorporated into other goods in Canada. To require goods of this nature to be marked could result in goods of substantial Canadian manufacture being sold on the domestic and world markets as the produce of the country of origin of the imported part, (c) Goods imported by individuals or institutions for their own use such as antiques, gifts, personal effects, bequests and donations to institutions. In instances of this nature, the importers are also the ultimate consumers and are aware of the origin of the goods by virtue of the importation effected, (d) Goods imported on a temporary basis or in transit through Canada. Importations of this nature usually do not become the property of anyone in Canada and in most instances remain under Customs control while in Canada. Departmental Memorandum D42 established by Order in Council P.C. 19631775, December 5, 1963, as amended, contains the Marking of Imported Goods Order including a Schedule of the goods to which this Order applies.
2. Importations of beef from Australia, as well as from other countries whose system of meat inspection is satisfactory to the Government of Canada, are presently subject to country of origin labelling in accordance with Part VI of the Meat Inspection Regulations. Section 87(1) states in part: "Except as provided in this Part, products are not eligible for importation into Canada unless (b) there is securely applied to the meat product and to the package and container thereof (iii) the name of the country of origin preceded by the words 'product of', except that where the name of the country of origin appears as

November 10, 1969
Questions
part of an official stamp or brand of the national government and such name is prominently displayed, the words 'product of' may be omitted from the marking." The Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise co-operate with the Department of Agriculture in the administration of the parts of the Act dealing with imports and exports of meat. Regulations pertaining thereto were passed by Order in Council P.C. 1959-192, February 19, 1959, as amended, and are published in departmental Memorandum D55-18.


PAROLES FROM FEDERAL PRISONS
Mr. Winch: 1.	How many persons are estimated to be paroled from federal prisons in 1969?
2.	How many persons are estimated to be paroled from federal prisons in 1970?


George James McIlraith: 1.
1,600.
2. 1,930.


CHANGES IN SEALING INDUSTRY REGULATIONS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What alterations or changes have been made in the regulations or by direction of the Department of Fisheries in connection with the sealing operations of baby seals?
2.	When do the altered provisions go into effect?


Eugene Whelan: 1. The
sealing seasons in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on the Front will be shortened; whitecoats will not be taken in the Gulf; the use of aircraft and helicopters will be prohibited except for scouting or searching for seal herds and landing in close proximity to seals will not be allowed; it will be illegal to shoot seals in the water.
2. In time for the 1970 sealing season.


FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING BOARD EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Mr. Reid: 1.	When were the chief executive officers of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board appointed?
2.	Who were responsible for these appointments?
3.	What consultations were taken with the fishermen about these appointments, and if there were none, for what reason?
4.	What is the background of each of the chief executive officers of the Freshwater Fish marketing board?


Eugene Whelan: 1. The
President who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was appointed on March 7, 1969.
2.	This appointment is by Order-in-Council as required by the legislation.
3.	There were no formal consultations with fishermen but many were known to be in favour of the appointee selected.
4.	The President, David F. Corney, has been in the fish business for 20 years in the course of which he was engaged as General Manager of the Saskatchewan Fish Marketing Service for ten years, and General Manager of Acadia Fisheries Limited, Mulgrave, N.S. for six years. He was ten years a Director and eventually President of the Fisheries Council of Canada.


FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ADVISORY BOARD
Mr. Reid: 1.	When was the Advisory Board of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board appointed?
2.	Was it consulted in the appointment of the chief executive officers of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board and, if not, for what reason?


Eugene Whelan: 1.
Twelve members of the Advisory Committee were appointed by Order-in-Council on May 22, 1969.
2. The Advisory Committee as provided in Part II of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act is advisory to the Corporation on such matters relating to trading and dealing in fish, fish products or fish by-products as are referred to it by the Board of the Corporation.


FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING BOARD-COMPETITION FOR EXECUTIVE POSITIONS
Mr. Reid: 1.	What kind of competition was run for the chief executive positions on the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board, and what kind of advertising was given to these competitions, and if there were no competitions, why were there none?
2.	By what authority were these positions filled without a competition, and how were the people now holding the chief executive positions on the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board selected?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Following normal business practice, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation advertised
November 10, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	679
its requirements for executives where this appeared most practical or necessary to find the talent required to fill the position and no advertising was considered necessary, particularly in the case of urgent and limited term requirements in this period of transition, where personnel with known skills and experience were immediately available from within the fishery and the fish trade community.
2. The Freshwater Fish Marketing Act. Appointments were approved by the board of directors on the recommendation of the president.


BOW RIVER-CONTROL OF RAW SEWAGE
Mr. Mahoney: 1.	Has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development completed its plans for the installation of facilities to prevent the escape of raw sewage into the Bow River from the Banff municipal sewage system?
2.	When is it proposed that these facilities be in operation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Plans are underway. There has been a pre-tender call and there is considerable interest by companies.
2. It is intended that the project get underway early in the next fiscal year for completion in the fall of 1970.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question relating to finance. I do not know whether as a result of the white paper on taxation the Prime Minister and his finance minister have sought refuge or are away celebrating. In view of the statement by the Minister of Finance that the government will review its sales and special commodity taxes as soon as Parliament and the country have digested the white paper proposals, will somebody say when the review will get under way and how it will proceed? Will we have a white paper with regard to these taxes and, if so, when?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the department will be responding to questions tomorrow.
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: Tomorrow?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The department is supposed to be responding to questions today, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Woolliams:: We might as well have had a holiday today. They are all away.


Mr. Crouse:: You are the government; you are running the country.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Give your
leader a chance. He needs it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am delighted by the co-operative attitude shown by the government house leader. I have a supplementary question for the appropriate minister when he comes into the House to answer. Is it the position of the government of Canada that Parliament should be asked to consider proposals like those in the white paper without having had an opportunity to examine and consider in the same context changes in the sales and special commodity taxes, which the government intends to consider?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I may correct my previous answer, the House will not be sitting tomorrow so it will respond to the question on Wednesday.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs arising from a report by the anti-combines branch which showed an alarming increase in take-overs in Canada as well as an alarming increase in the merger of Canadian firms. Is the minister considering the establishment of an agency or other body within his department to supervise foreign take-overs of Canadian firms and to limit such take-overs if it is in the public interest to do so?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the comment in the report tabled the other day arose out of a study prepared for the Economic Council of Canada which was published some months ago. The recommendations of the study were taken into account in the recommendations that the Economic Council of Canada made with regard to competition policy. The implications of the report, the implications of the merger movement in

November 10, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Canada and of the take-over movement, are being considered in our proposed revisions of the Combines Investigation Act.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I understood the minister's answer correctly, he said that all these things are now being studied by his department. Can he inform the House when he expects the studies in this important field to be concluded and whether he expects to bring in legislation to deal with these matters?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne indicated that we will be introducing amendments to the Combines Investigation Act during the present session.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
In his investigation on American control over Canadian companies, could the minister include the new government of Manitoba which only last week borrowed $15 million from the Americans?



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, since so many ministers are absent may I direct my question to the Postmaster General. It is prompted by information that certain bus companies are expanding their parcel delivery system in anticipation of increased demand for their services because of high rates and the lack of dependability of delivery by the Post Office. Can the minister advise if he or any of his 15 task forces are contemplating the withdrawal of the Post Office from the parcel post business?


Eric William Kierans: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Since the Public Accounts Committee has a vast amount of work facing it, a fact that was drawn to the government's attention only last week, and since no action has yet been taken, will the Acting Prime Minister see to it that the required terms of reference to the Public Accounts Committee

are brought in as speedily as possible in order that we, the members of the committee, can not only get on with the work ahead of us but obtain fresh authority to bring in a report on the work we finished prior to the recess?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to look into the matter.



VIOLENT DISTURBANCES

[Stage Direction]
PROPOSED MONTREAL BYLAW [Translation]
Gilbert F. Rondeau: I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Can he tell us whether the authorities of the city of Montreal have asked the advice of his department concerning the bylaw which it is on the verge of passing in connection with demonstrations and public meetings which will from now on be banned in the city?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I wish to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Does he believe that the Montreal bylaw is constitutional?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this question is still-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will admit that the question is out of order.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the apparently sweeping nature of the proposed bylaw to ban demonstrations in Montreal and its possible implications with respect to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly guaranteed by the Canadian Bill of Rights, will the Minister of Justice look into this question and consider making a statement to the House on the constitutional aspects of the bylaw?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, since the bylaw is still before the city council of Montreal, I doubt whether it would be appropriate for me at this time to say much about it. I have asked to see a copy of the text of the bylaw. Of course, whether such bylaw is constitutional or not will depend, in the final analysis, on what the courts might
November 10, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry say about it if it were challenged. If the any thought of establishing such a commis-bylaw were challenged it might, at that point, sion? Will he report to the House what progive an opportunity to the Attorney General gress he has made since the month of June of Canada to decide whether to intervene.	with regard to obtaining consent for the
establishment of such a commission?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can he advise the House what minister is to lay the wreath tomorrow at the war memorial on behalf of the government of Canada?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it will be the Acting Prime Minister.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain why the Prime Minister himself will not be laying the wreath?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FISHERIES


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are absent, may I direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the hon. gentleman anything to report on the outcome of discussions held over the weekend between the Prime Minister and U Thant on the proposed conservation of our sea resources as well as methods for controlling pollution of the high seas?


Eugene Whelan: No,
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to report at this time.



FINANCE


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since the list of legislation tabled by the Prime Minister on opening day does not contain any reference to a bill dealing with a Canadian or national securities commission, does that mean the minister has abandoned


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no. The answer to the second part is that we are still considering our position within the government.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Did the Public Service division of the United Appeal achieve its quota in the recent Red Feather drive. If so, will the government issue a statement to counteract the impression left on a recent television program that the Public Service division was in large part responsible for the failure to meet the United Appeal quota?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: According to my information on the subject, Mr. Speaker, the Public Service employees have not only reached but oversubscribed the objective set for them in this joint appeal, and it might be a good idea to take up the hon. member's suggestion and issue an official statement about it.



ALLEGED LACK OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Since he is absent may I direct the question to an appropriate minister of the government who can take it as notice. In view of the statement over the weekend by the chairman of the Public Service Commission of Canada alleging a lack of equality in employment opportunities for women in the Canadian Public Service, will the minister look into this matter and make an early statement in the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question in the form it was asked is in order. The hon. member should ask his question directly, instead of seeking a comment from the minister about a statement made outside the House.
November 10, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry CRIMINAL CODE



JUVENILE DELINQUENCY-CONSIDERATION OF RAISING OF AGE

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It has to do with Criminal Code reforms to be brought in to comply with recommendations of the Committee on Juvenile Delinquency. Is the Minister of Justice considering amendment of the Criminal Code so that the age at which a person may be convicted for an offence will be raised from seven years, the present age, to twelve years. Will he also be considering section 13, the exception clause?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are studying all aspects of that report.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. No bill has yet been brought down, but in the contemplated reform of the Criminal Code, will this aspect be dealt with?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member will have to wait and see. It may be in that bill or in another bill to be introduced by my colleague, the Solicitor General.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's answer and the convictions registered against youths, would he consider referring my bill to amend sections 12 and 13 of the Criminal Code to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, whatever procedure we may want to adopt, I certainly will do everything I can to make sure that the provisions of the hon. member's bill receive early consideration by the committee. I do not know whether I can influence the deliberations of that committee. The hon. member is a very prominent member of it.



COMBINES


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On March 6 last the minister told the House that the research division of the Combines Investigation Branch was conducting an examination of the MacKenzie report to the provincial government of Alberta in respect of the retail

gasoline trade. He stated also at that time that the report was being referred to the Economic Council of Canada. Can the minister now say whether the examination of the MacKenzie report has been completed by these two bodies, and can he also state whether we may expect the findings to be communicated to this House?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Economic Council in its report published last August commented on the problems and some of the trade practices raised not only in the MacKenzie report but in the T.B.A. report and the B.C. report, all of which dealt with similar trade practices engaged in by the oil companies. As I said earlier today, we are considering the report of the Economic Council leading toward a revision of the Combines Investigation Act.
With regard to the MacKenzie report, I want to make it very clear that many of its recommendations do not fall within the jurisdiction of either the Combines Investigation Act, no matter how worded, or within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Many of these recommendations with regard to licensing, terms of chattel mortgages or leases, are purely provincial matters.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact this question is of the utmost importance, particularly to those who are involved in the gasoline trade, is the minister prepared to introduce this subject to Parliament by means of a white paper or some other parliamentary procedure?


Stanley Ronald Basford: My preference would be to act more quickly than that and introduce an anticombines revision act.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In light of the fact Imperial Oil has launched an intemperate attack on the MacKenzie report, can the minister advise whether in fact this or any other company made representations to his department-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This supplementary should be placed on the order paper.



NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE-INQUIRY AS TO INVESTIGATION

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since the minister is from Vancouver I wish to ask, in
November 10, 1969
view of the large initiation fee Vancouver has to pay to enter the National Hockey League, whether he will investigate the N.H.L. under the Combines Investigation Act?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the law is clear that professional sports do not fall within the Canadian Combines Investigation Act. As the hon. member may have noticed, I had some discussions on this subject a few days ago in Washington and I stated some months ago in Toronto the onus was on professional sports leagues to show why they should not be included in a revised Combines Investigation Act.



TRANSPORT


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the deep concern felt by railway workers over the applications by the two railways to abandon passenger services and in view of requests by the unions representing these workers that hearings on these applications be held in public, will the government do what it can to see to it that these requests are met?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I will have the matter looked into.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. It is based on the report that the government, in hot pursuit of its program of austerity, awarded a contract for $27 million to a Montreal firm for the construction of buildings in the city of Ottawa. Can the minister advise if this contract was awarded by tender or by closed invitation?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question should be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency about the matter, it can be considered at the time of adjournment.



MANPOWER


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (Soulh Wesiern Nova):: My question is to the Minister of Man-
Inquiries of the Ministry power and Immigration. In view of the growing concern about the number of non-Canadians on the faculties of Canadian universities and the lack of job opportunities for Canadians at the graduate and post-graduate level, can the minister tell the House if his department has in existence any programs designed to provide placement for the highly educated unemployed?


Mr. Speaker:: Similar questions have been asked in the past. It has always been the view of the Chair that information of this kind should be given by ministers by way of a statement on motions. Perhaps the question might be asked in those terms.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Would the minister be prepared to make a statement on motions regarding this problem?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the problem my hon. friend mentions. I will seek some opportunity to give the information that I have available on this point.



LSD-INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION

Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of recent hospital reports of an alarming increase in emergency treatment of young people suffering from the effects of LSD, as well as four deaths in the last month, is the minister considering the taking of early action on the legislative level?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, despite the tragedy of the particular instances which the hon. member has brought to the attention of the House, it is still the intention of the government to await the report of the task force under the chairmanship of Dean Le Dain of Osgoode Hall Law School. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is awaiting his report on the non-medical use of drugs. I think that is the position at the moment.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to inform the House as to the purpose of the visit by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the Middle East?



November 10, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Acting Prime Minister in a position to inform the House as to which countries the minister will be visiting while in the Middle East?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will be glad to have that information brought forward on Wednesday.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago I answered two questions addressed to me. I was under the impression the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs was not in the House. I notice he is in the House and perhaps he could be permitted to give fuller answers to those questions.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is going to Iran, Israel and the United Arab Republic.
The purpose of his trip is to respond to the invitation extended by the Foreign Affairs ministers of these three countries and, naturally, to inquire in the field on the problems facing those countries.
The object of his mission is necessarily a peaceful one, even if it is not necessarily a peace mission.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wanted to ask a question relating to external affairs but apparently there is no one in the House to answer. I think this is a day on which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is supposed to respond to questions. He was here earlier. Perhaps his Parliamentary Secretary could inform the House whether a chairman of the board of the Cape Breton Development Corporation has yet been appointed to replace the chairman who resigned a number of months ago?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minisier of Regional Economic Expansion):: I will be pleased to bring that [Mr. Nystrom.)
question to the attention of the minister, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the Postmaster General. In view of the increasing number of Canadians who are deprived of letter carrier delivery service under the existing rules of the Post Office, does the minister or the government have under consideration the complete abolition of mail delivery to individual premises across Canada in order that all discrimination can be eliminated?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question appears to be in argumentative terms.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: My question is to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. With regard to the take-over of the Lancaster veterans hospital, which is the subject matter of a pending question on the late show this week by the hon. member for York-Sunbury, will the minister satisfy himself that the heavy lay-offs of staff from this hospital are in accordance with civil service guarantees?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: As the hon. member has said, Mr. Speaker, this whole matter will be discussed on the late show some time this week, perhaps this evening. With regard to the layoffs, I wish to assure the hon. member that all due precautions and notices have been given. We do not know as yet how many lay-offs there will be. What we did send out last week were notices to those who may be surplus. It is very possible those who have received such notices will fit into other positions.


WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT-INQUIRY AS TO REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Tomorrow being Remembrance Day, I wonder if I might ask the hon. gentleman a question which is of concern to many veterans. When the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs finishes the work it is now doing in connection with the Pension Act, will the government be prepared to refer to that committee a study of the War Veterans Allowance Act?
November 10, 1969


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already announced-in fact, he did so on June 16 before the adjournment of the previous session-that the whole fabric of social legislation in this country is under review by the government. As soon as this review has been completed announcements will be made at the proper time.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Eric William Kierans: the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of Bill C-ll, to amend the Railway Act.
He said:

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is merely to extend the regulating powers of the Canadian Transport Commission with regard to telecommunications companies whose activity falls within its jurisdiction. Before going into the reasons for this initiative, I should like to say a few words about the Canadian telecommunications industry and existing regulating powers.
Our industry represents a unique combination of the public and private sectors which, through the years, has allowed the setting up in Canada of one of the best telecommunications system in the world. Thanks to their efforts of voluntary co-operation, those companies which, in this respect deserve praise, have managed to set up an integrated national system that meets the nation's economic and social needs. The most recent addition to this family of companies is, naturally, Telesat Canada. A few months ago we made a review of the plans for integrating the new satellite technology into the complex cable and microwave network we already have. It behoves us all to pursue our overall plan and use our authority in such a way that the Canadian telecommunications network may be even more efficient, more flexible and surer in the future.

Turning now, Mr. Speaker, to the regulatory situation, radio matters as such are exclusively under federal jurisdiction. So, also, are
Railway Act
the affairs of telecommunications companies operating under federal charter, of which the most prominent are Bell Canada, CN/CP Telecommunications and the British Columbia Telephone Company.
The implementation of this federal jurisdiction in terms of legislation has been I think it is fair to say, rather limited. Apart from broadcasting, the regulation of telecommunication has been confined largely to a detailed technical control of the use of radio, a rate setting activity in the public telephone and telegraph field, a control over submarine cables used for external telecommunication, and other matters covered by special acts.
Under the Railway Act, the Canadian Transport Commission regulates telephone and telegraph rates charged to the public but not the rates for services where no charge is made to the public. These latter services are usually referred to in the jargon as private wire services. They include such things as networks for TV distribution, Telex and TWX, data transmission for computers, air traffic control voice circuits, etc. There is a limited element of competition among the providers of these private services,, whereas the telephone service is considered a natural monopoly. It is to these private wire services that the bill would extend the jurisdiction of the Transport Commission.
As I am sure hon. members know, the pace of technological development in telecommunication has been accelerating at an exceptional rate with the result that this technology is being applied to practical use at a rate that often exceeds the ability of legislators and administrators to assess the long term implications. I need only mention, as an example, the wide band cables which in a short space of time have been established to bring many TV channels into our homes and which can bring many other types of service as time goes on. This same cable technology will be used to provide thousands of telephone and data transmission paths within and between cities.
If the government's regulatory structure is not geared to keep pace with these industrial changes, both in terms of competence and basic philosophy, then logical, well-planned and orderly development will be impeded.
It was with all of these factors in mind that earlier this year I established a telecommission which has as its objective the production of facts and recommendations in this whole field. Already this body has organized some 50 separate studies involving many interested

November 10, 1969
Railway Act
parties engaged in various disciplines throughout the country.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask leave of the House to have a document setting out the work of the telecommission printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eric William Kierans: There are copies in English and in French.
[Editor's Note: For text of document referred to see Appendix A.]


Eric William Kierans: When the work is completed and evaluated, toward the end of next year, the government will make known its general intentions on telecommunications policy and legislation. We do not pretend that such policy can be fixed in all respects or endure for a long period of time; the art is too fluid and concepts are being challenged continuously. However, it will be essential to have a sufficient degree of stability to allow the industry to continue their long term planning with certainty.
I think I have said enough about the general position in which we find ourselves, and where we plan to go during the next few years. If developments were not so rapid, I could stop here and have this regarded as a progress report on our activities. However, nothing stands still.
Among the many developments taking place in the telecommunications industry few are more striking than the growth of private wire services. They have been growing at the rate of up to 20 per cent a year and today the private wire services of federally regulated companies account for some $90 million. This rate of growth will not only continue but will increase particularly as a result of the development of computer service companies which operate on-line time-shared computers linked to distant customers by communication systems. The present value of all types of computers installed in Canada is estimated at about $800 million and is forecast to exceed $1 billion by the end of 1970.
The development of private wire networks is important in itself. It is important also in relation to the general networks which are regulated in the public interest, through private networks are, at present, not so regulated. The same communication companies operate both regulated networks and unregulated private networks. In the case of CN-CP, for example, close to 75 per cent of the revenue

of this company derives from its private wire offerings.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It is inherently unsatisfactory for a body such as the CTC to be charged with regulating only one position of a particular company's business. In terms of the rates charged to users, the relationship between the regulated and unregulated operations of a company can be decisive. In this connection, I should mention that the CTC in its recent decision on the rate application by Bell Canada requested that company to produce a revenue and cost breakdown both of its regulated and its unregulated operation.

Most hon. members are aware, I am sure, of the enormous possibilities of electronic data processing. Before long, computer systems will cover the whole country and will be used extensively for storing, distributing and communicating information as well as scientific, medical, educational, legal, accounting statistics and others. Already, improvements which will increase considerably the storing and research capacity of computers can be foreseen. Used jointly with today's highly complex telecommunication system, the whole thing becomes a powerful instrument which, well managed, may strongly influence Canada's development. In that respect, the proposed amendment is designed to enable the Commission to determine an equitable rate applicable to the private wires which intervene in computer communications with other services, and to make sure that all users of the private wire service will get equitable non discriminatory treatment. Such an amendment will entitle the Canadian Transport Commission to examine the complete range of the activities carried out by the telecommunications companies falling under its jurisdiction. To that end, the definitions "telegraph toll" and "telephone toll" are amended by clause 1 of the bill.
The charges collected by the cable television firms from their customers are expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission, since they come under the Canadian Radio Television Commission.

I have much pleasure in moving the second reading of this bill.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister
November 10, 1969

for going into orbit for the first time, I think, as a sort of custodian or guardian angel of the Railway Act. I have watched with interest the expansion of his empire as, by order in council, those responsibilities which heretofore were held by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) have come under his careful scrutiny.
I suppose it is only proper that the empire of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kier-ans) should be expanded, because after all he has done so remarkably well in the Post Office Department that he should be given greater opportunities to serve and to expedite! I did not realize how ambitious were his plans for new empires until I returned to the precincts of Parliament Hill this fall, when on visiting the men's room outside the door to this chamber I discovered that about a fourth of the floor space had been pre-empted. When I asked about this I was told it was to be the new domain of the Minister of Communications. So, the expansion is indeed physical as well as intellectual and jurisdictional.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The information is false.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have been corrected, Mr. Speaker, and I stand corrected. As I stand crowded in the future I will remember that it is not this minister but the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) who is responsible. I should not have been building for the Minister of Communications a larger empire than he has; I should have known better than to think that he needed help from me in that particular regard.
At some time we will be looking forward to what is supposed to be in the wind, a confrontation of Imperia between those who are supposed to be the consuls of the new Information Canada empire-the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and the Minister of Communications. This confrontation will be extremely interesting.
On looking at Bill C-ll I thought it was very straightforward and innocuous, not a piece of legislation that would evoke a great deal of wide ranging discussion. But never has so seemingly a straightforward and innocuous piece of legislation evoked such an explosion of ideational projection as that which has just been delivered. I suppose that old habits die hard. It is said that once you learn to write you never forget. I suppose once you learn to sky-write you never forget that either, and the minister is an expert at sky-writing. He has expertise in his office,
Railway Act
and perhaps there are some appropriate speeches left over. Who knows what opportunities must be seized to make use of them?
I had not expected that in this legislation the minister would find an opportunity to expatiate upon the telecommission or Telesat. I thought he might more likely have told us about his own "Dial a Message" service which he inaugurated, perhaps anticipating the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) in this regard. When the minister finally got to the legislation, I think he said nothing to which I would find serious reason for taking exception. I think this is just a piecemeal beginning.
As we mentioned to the minister many times during the past session, there is a crying need for a more thorough going operation in the realm of regulation in the whole field of telecommunications. For a time it seemed as if the minister was not seized with the importance of this, but with the appointment of the telecommission I am satisfied that he has now come to a recognition of the great importance of putting into one framework the relationship between regulation and operation in this tremendously important field.
I am sure that some of my colleagues who are very well informed on this subject may wish to address themselves to this legislation. I will look forward to later opportunities, at various stages of the bill's passage, to express further views thereon.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, when I heard the minister say at the commencement of his remarks that Canada has one of the best telecommunications systems in the world, I wondered whether he and I were living on the same planet. One Saturday morning this summer, while spending some time in my constituency, I wanted to do what has been for at least 100 years a relatively simple task: I wanted to send a telegram to the city of Yorkton, Saskatchewan, approximately 300 miles from Winnipeg. I phoned the Canadian Pacific telegraph office, since Yorkton is on the CP line, and I was told that although they could take my message they could not tell me, in view of the cut-back in services, whether the CP telegraph office in Yorkton was open, and consequently did not know whether my message would be delivered before Monday morning. So, when the minister tells us we have one of the best telecommunications systems in the world he and I must be talking about a different company.
Railway Act

November 10, 1969
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The purpose of this bill apparently is a very simple one, to extend the authority of the CTC under the provisions of the Railway Act to regulate and set the tolls charged by the telegraph or telephone companies to private wire services. I submit it is not nearly as simple a proposal as the minister puts forward. I believe the cabinet, having made a very serious mistake in January of this year, is now proposing legislation in an effort to get itself out of a somewhat difficult situation. On January 28, 1969 the cabinet passed an order in council, one paragraph of which I should like to read:
That after exploring a number of alternatives and following extended negotiations, it was concluded that the purpose of CN/CP Telecommunications would best be served by accepting a proposal to acquire a 51% interest in Computer Sciences (Canada) Limited;
It is because the cabinet permitted that acquisition that we are in this difficulty and have to pass this legislation. I submit, however, that it is not in the best interests of the computer companies of Canada nor of the ordinary people of Canada. This was done at the same time the anti-combines division of the government was holding an inquiry into the defects, if there are any, in permitting Bell Canada to own a wholly owned subsidiary, Northern Electric Company. The Bell-Northern Electric inquiry was held because Northern Electric is a manufacturer, as is Computer Sciences Limited. The inquiry by the anti-combines division is for the purpose of examining the relationship of Bell, as a monopolistic buyer of communications equipment, and Northern Electric which apparently is a subsidiary of Bell and a manufacturer of this equipment. One section of the government apparently has some doubt about the good sense of permitting Bell, a communications carrier, to own Northern Electric while another section of the government, in this case the cabinet, has permitted CN-CP Telecommunications to purchase a computer company, which I submit is in precisely the same position in relation to it as is Northern Electric to Bell Canada.
Not only was it probably a mistake to have permitted this, but I submit, having permitted it, the government will find that Bell Canada will now follow the example of the CN-CP Telecommunications and want to engage in the same business of transmitting computer information from one city to another. The government took this action in the full

knowledge that the private computer companies of Canada objected to it and made their position very clear in a brief which they submitted to a number of cabinet ministers, including the Minister of Communications. In their brief the companies suggest that the government investigate the competitive nature of CN Telecommunications and the public communications arm of Canadian Pacific, the relationship between the Canadian and United States Telex networks, the adequacy of existing telecommunications, the relationship of unregulated and regulated aspects of common carriers to computer uses, common carrier rates and tariffs and the possibility of the federal government becoming more involved in communications and the security of data sent by common carriers. They point out that there was a similar proposal in the United States to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission from the Department of Justice.
Despite this, the Canadian cabinet permitted this acquisition by CN-CP Telecommunications. The brief quotes from a submission to the United States Federal Communications Commission from the Department of Justice which says that common carriers may use tariff restrictions as a means of placing independent data processors at a disadvantage if allowed to enter the computer timesharing field. It goes on to say that communications common carriers should not be allowed to use their monopoly position in the field of providing circuits to extend their influence into areas not necessarily included in the monopoly.
I submit that the cabinet has permitted CN-CP Telecommunications to do what no other telecommunications system has been permitted to do. In the Montreal Gazette of February 27, 1969 the vice-president of the CPR, Mr. W. J. Stenason, is reported to have told a press conference that this is the first time anywhere in the world computer systems and communications services have been integrated, despite the fact that they are ideal partners. That, of course, is Mr. Stenason's opinion. I submit it was a mistake to permit this purchase by CN-CP Telecommunications. It is a merger which will not benefit the people of Canada. I submit that when the minister suggests he wants the CTC to regulate these operations, he really is saying there will be no regulation at all. I suggest that the record of the Board of Transport Commissioners, the commission which preceded the CTC, the record of the CTC and of its highly
November 10, 1969

priced and highly influential but in my opinion hardly objective president, has been one of complete failure in protecting the interests of the citizens of Canada. Whether you look at the failure of the regulatory commission to protect the interests of the people in respect of railway services or whether you look at its complete failure to protect the interests of the ordinary people in respect of telephone rates, it is a history and a record of complete failure.
I have said on another occasion, and I repeat it, that the office of the Board of Transport Commissioners and the office of the Canadian Transport Commission might just as well be at the head office of the CPR or Bell Telephone because that Board has never done very much to protect the interests of the ordinary people. The Board of Transport Commissioners and the Canadian Transport Commission have been given, by government legislation, the task of making sure the interest of the public are protected on matters of rates and service. They are quasi-judicial bodies, but there is no evidence at all that they have really protected the rights of the people they are supposed to protect. Unlike regulatory bodies of a comparable nature in other countries which vigorously dig out the facts regarding the financial positions of public utilities, the Canadian agencies have played the very passive role of merely assessing the information submitted to them in the hearings which they hold on very rare occasions. The result has been a most uneven contest with organizations, such as the Canadian Association of Mayors and Reeves, having to pass the hat around to collect a few tens of thousands of dollars from their already strapped budgets trying to get the expert advice needed to counter the fantastic ability of Bell of Canada and, I submit now, of CN-CP Telecommunications to hire the best people to present their case.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It should be acknowledged that as a result of reconstituting the old Board of Transport Commissioners into the new Canadian Transport Commission, the CTC is now empowered to dig out the facts in the manner traditionally adopted by the U.S. regulatory bodies. However, there is no evidence that it has in fact done anything more than the old Board of Transport Commissioners. Every year, following rulings by the former board which entitled Bell to a certain rate of profit on its investment, Bell exceeded the level of earnings permitted by the Board of Transport
Railway Act
Commissioners. From 1958 into the middle of the 1960's Bell's excess profits which were extracted, I submit, illegally and in violation of the Board of Transport Commissioners own rulings, amounted to some $37 million. When you consider that this amount remained after Bell paid the 50 per cent corporation tax, it is obvious that Bell extracted in that period, I submit illegally, about $75 million from the telephone users.
In 1964, the Board again reviewed the situation, but all it did was to permit Bell to continue legally to make the rate of profit over and above what had been permitted in the earlier rulings. This profit amounted to about 6.6 per cent, despite the earlier ruling of the Board of Transport Commissioners which permitted the Company to make a much lower rate of profit. Bell's defiance of the Board of Transport Commissioners continued into the period when parliament changed the set-up and established the Canadian Transport Commission with Mr. Pickersgill as its president. In its first full year of earnings after the 1966 ruling, Bell's profit levels were in the range of 6.7 per cent and 6.8 per cent. At that point the CTC stirred itself, and asked Bell what proposals for rate decreases it had in view of its excess earnings. Bell argued that because of the sharp rise in interest rates and increase in construction costs, their excessive profits were justified. The CTC like the Board of Transport Commissioners before it, accepted this explanation and agreed to tolerate profit levels in excess of the maximum which they had fixed in their own ruling a year earlier.
With that encouragement, Bell of Canada came back to the CTC and asked for new permissive rates of 8 or 9 per cent return on total average investment. To achieve this, Bell requested a general rate rise which would add 10 per cent or about $83 million to their revenues. These increases would have meant 40 cents to 70 cents a month increase for home telephones and approximately $1.30 to $2.95 for business telephones.
The CTC seemed to reject the Bell application but in fact, using a slightly different formula, it permitted Bell increases estimated to amount to $27 million a year. I submit, on the basis of past experience with Bell's calculations which have always erred on the side of conservatism when it suited Bell, that the rate increase which the CTC permitted, we will find, will not come to $27 million a year but probably to something in the neighbourhood of $35 million to $40 million a year. In making this decision, the CTC ignored Bell's

November 10, 1963
Railway Act
relationship with Northern Electric. As has been suggested by a number of government agencies such as the Canadian Association of Mayors and Reeves, the Board refused to order an investigation into the accounting system of Bell so that the accounting system would show the division of costs between the regulated and unregulated aspects of Bell's business. This is essential for any commission to be in a position to determine the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates in a regulated area. Furthermore, exact and complete particulars of the nature of Bell's investments should have been required.
Other information should have been required of the company, such as the detailed depreciated book value of all nontelephone communications, plant and equipment not regulated by the CTC; reports showing operating revenue for the same years produced by non-telephone plant and equipment; the relationship and transactions between Bell and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company; and the actual terms of the service agreement between these two companies. None of this information was requested by the Canadian Transport Commission or by its chairman, thereby following the completely passive role of the former Board of Transport Commissioners.
One should not be surprised that this board and its chairman-on the basis of our past experience with him-should have taken this passive approach. However, that does not absolve the government from appointing the kind of commission which has done the sloppy and passive job which I have indicated. The board did not look into the relationship between Bell of Canada and its subsidiary, Northern Electric. The United States authorities have prohibited and forbidden the kind of close relationship which exists between Bell of Canada and Northern Electric. The commission should have inquired into what amount in excess of fair prices was paid to Northern Electric by Bell and which may be buried in Bell's earning base or operating expenses. It should have investigated the dividend policy of Northern Electric. It is true that the commission has no direct control over Northern Electric, but since Northern Electric is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bell of Canada, obviously its financial position is extremely important because Bell can hide in the profits of Northern Electric a good part of what are supposedly its operating costs. It should have compared Northern Electric's rate of return with those of other telephone equipment makers. It should have
[Mr. Orlikow.l
demanded a cost of manufacturing study of Northern Electric by private groups to ascertain the precise level of mark-up or profit from its sales to Bell that may be embedded in Bell's operating expenses or earning base.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The Board should have determined whether funds spent by Northern for research and development were excessive in relation to other operating costs and whether these were included in the cost to Bell of materials and services purchased from Northern. None of these things were done by the CTC in the last inquiry which it held when Bell asked for an increase.
On the basis of my personal experience with the way the former commission failed to protect the interests of the consumer, of railway passengers, I am very skeptical that the CTC will look closely at the proposal of the CPR to abandon its transcontinental train service. I remember speaking to the Chairman of the former Board of Transport Commissioners in 1966 and asking him was he aware of the rumours then prevalent among CPR employees that the CPR intended to do away with the Canadian, its transcontinental train. The chairman told me he had no knowledge of this.
I pointed out to the then chairman that a couple of years previous to that the CPR operated two transcontinental trains, the Canadian which was then still in operation, and the Dominion. I reminded him that the CPR had applied to Board of Transport Commissioners for permission to withdraw the Dominion from service, that the board had refused the application, and that then the CPR had taken the dining car and sleeping car facilities away from the Dominion. I do not have to tell members of this House that there are very few people willing to travel from Montreal to Vancouver by train if they cannot get a meal on that train or a place to sleep. The inevitable result was that in about six months the Dominion attracted no passengers.
The CPR then came back to the board and said, "We want to discontinue the Dominion; we can show you that it has no passengers and that we are losing a great deal of money on it." The board did not ask, "Why has it no passengers? Why is it losing money?" The board did as it always did, it rubber-stamped the discontinuance of the Dominion.
On the basis of past experience with the Board of Transport Commissioners, I am very much afraid that in acting as a regulatory
November 10, 1989

agency to protect the people of Canada the new board will behave as its predecessor, and will serve simply as an office boy for the companies it is supposed to regulate, the CPR, Bell Telephone and CN-CP Telecommunications. Indeed, I am very doubtful that the new board needs any more power, taking into account its high-priced, competent personnel, although I am not certain they are as competent on behalf of the Canadian people as they are on behalf of the companies that the Board is supposed to regulate.
In the past this Board has failed to use the power given to it to regulate telephone rates. In the past it has failed to use its powers to make the railways companies, in particular the CPR, live up to their commitments. The commitment by the CPR was in a contact which it made with the Canadian government and the people of Canada, a contract to provide adequate railway service. The CPR has now built up other interests and investments, but it should be remembered that these have been based almost exclusively on the grant of some 25 million acres of land, some of it the most valuable land in this country, given to the CPR about one hundred years ago as part of the price of persuading so-called free enterprisers to build a railway across Canada. In the light of this past experience I have no hope that the CTC will use the new powers which the minister proposes to give it to protect the interests of the consumers in this field, any more than it used its power to protect consumers in the past. This being the case I have to say to the minister that at the very least I am rather skeptical about the proposal he is making.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingion-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, in its outward appearance Bill C-ll might be one of those simple types of bills that are periodically brought before this House to tidy up matters and put certain things into focus. But in view of the statement which the minister has made, it is now clear that it is not a simple bill. It does not deal with a simple matter, but rather with something that is very complex, very sophisticated, and upon which a number of companies are spending a great deal of money.
At first glance it might appear that the bill deals with small, private telephone and telegraph companies which had been getting away with something that should not be permitted. However, from the minister's statement it would appear that the bill concerns important matters of transportation and communication and problems that have arisen
Railway Act
with respect to the use of new types of communications now being employed by so many business organizations. Therefore, the bill is one that requires a great deal of thought and examination.
The authority of the Canadian Transport Commission is to be enlarged, and the explanatory note to -clause 3 of the bill reads: This amendment would extend the non-discriminatory and just and reasonable rules application now "in respect of tolls" to services and facilities provided by a telegraph or telephone company.
The minister did not indicate in his statement to the House whether there had been any discrimination, or areas of dispute or complaint with respect to companies using services being provided by telephone and telegraph companies. I remember that when we were discussing amendments to the Telephone Act a few years ago a little bit of controversy arose between the cable television people and the Bell Telephone people with regard to the rental being charged by Bell Telephone for the services it provided for the cable television companies. Regulatory authority might be necessary in an area such as that.
But, Mr. Speaker, there must be other areas in which discrimination may have been practiced, areas that the minister did not tell us about, because a bill like this is not introduced in this House, all of a sudden without some reason other than that the industry has increased in size and complexity. Someone must have felt he had been over-charged or not properly served, and complaints must have been made to the department, to the government and to the Canadian Transportation Commission, thus making this bill necessary to bring all these companies under the control of the Canadian Transportation Commission.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I do not want to ramble around like the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow), going into railway matters and all types and areas of communications and transportation. However, when the Canadian Transport Commission was established a few years ago we hoped for a tremendous improvement in dealing with problems, but at the present time we wonder whether they have the facilities to investigate questions like discrimination and toll charges. This is a very complex business and if the Commission is going to take these matters under consideration it may be necessary to double the staff and even hire experts to ensure the job is done properly. I

November 10, 1969
Railway Act
am not so sure that we have seen very many concrete examples of the wonderful job the Transport Commission was supposed to do. By the time they get through dealing with railway complaints it is doubtful whether they will have time to go into the matters covered by this bill.
I hope that the many people involved in this type of business will receive notice well in advance so that they will have ample opportunity to prepare and present their cases before the committee. There will be arguments for and against the bill, but there is so much money involved-the minister indicated $90 million in one case and $100 million in the other-that I hope everyone involved will have enough time to prepare a case to help the committee examine the subject thoroughly before this bill finally becomes the law of the land. We look forward to a thorough and adequate discussion of this legislation at the committee stage.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in saying a few words on this Bill C-ll I am not interested in wire service or Telesat; I am only interested in getting the normal means of communication for the people I represent. The government can repeal paragraphs or sections of the Act to their heart's content, but it is obvious to me that if tolls are to be changed or approved or revised, there must be a service in the first place. I submit respectfully that this is not the case in the district I represent. The name of the Canadian Transport Commission is not one which is bandied about in a complementary way in the province of Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, because they continue to treat with apathy the services they are charged with providing for my province. X need not repeat statements about the action taken with regard to the railway passenger service in the province which has denied normal transportation services to many Newfoundlanders.
With regard to telephone service, another form of communication and one which falls within the responsibility of this Board, one would not believe the type of system that exists in many of the communities in the province. There are far too many communities limited to one telephone in a home or in a CNT office, where people have to travel as much as 10 to 14 miles to use it-that is if one is lucky enough to find the phone in working order.
And then again, Mr. Speaker, there are some communities which are really well supplied with CNT service. Some communities

have 10 or 12 phones supplied by the good graces of the CTC, but they are all on the same line. Picture, if you will, Mr. Speaker, a community in Newfoundland in which someone gets sick and one has to call a doctor. The lack of medical services is one thing but the means of communication necessary to contact help in the case of an emergency is the responsibility of the department which controls the CNT. To deny any Canadian the right to this service is a shameful situation. Reference has been made to changes in tolls but in the isolated communities of Newfoundland the Company does not charge a toll, they charge by the pole. If anyone wants telephone services extended the charge is $85 a pole. So, why are we so concerned with amendments? Why is the CNT looking for approval or revisions? When is the government going to live up to their promise of equal opportunity for all Canadians regardless of where they live?
May I quote a few examples? I offer the little community of Trout River which is lucky enough to have a few telephones, but if people want to call an adjacent community about five miles away they have to use long distance. Then, there is the community just a stone's throw away from the city of Corner Brook where the storekeeper who has the phone has to pay 40 cents every time he wants to make a call. This is the latest type of telephone, Mr. Speaker, a radio-telephone. In this age of the satellite, Mr. Speaker, the government does not hesitate to spend millions upon millions of dollars to communicate around the world, but they evidently are not aware of the denial of the rights of many thousands of Newfoundlanders who do not have the basic necessity, a telephone.
And now we are coming up with a new scheme which is called Information Canada. This agency is going to inform all Canadians what the government is doing. Well, this Information Canada is not going to be of much help to many parts of Newfoundland, certainly not through the use of the telephone. But these people are getting information from their members of parliament because they know how to communicate directly with the people they represent. The Newfoundland members are interested in offering the involvement and participation that this government does not care to communicate to neglected Newfoundlanders.
I hesitate to criticize the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) in this regard, Mr. Speaker, but when one faces the daily frustrations resulting from the neglect of one's district through the failure to provide the
November 10, 1969

basic right of normal communication services, it is pretty hard to accept. So, Mr. Speaker, I say if the passage of this bill will help provide the telephone service and the extension of these facilities to people who need them and must have them, by all means let us pass it. Let us do our duty to the Canadians we represent by providing this necessary service.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the House that when the minister speaks he closes debate.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I have warm sympathy for the remarks made by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). Recently, I had a discussion with the telephone companies and while it was not directly related to his riding, great emphasis was laid on the fact that services had to be improved and maintained, particularly in Labrador. We see all the common carriers from time to time and this is the position we take with all of them. Inevitably, this matter comes up and I might say that it is one of the strongest selling points for the satellite.
The satellite will make possible the extension of communication services to scattered areas, and throughout the north. It will make service available in both languages in accordance with national policy and will strengthen communications from one end of this country to the other. If common carriers are not willing to comply with requirements, having all the facilities at their disposal through satellite communication, my department will take very firm measures.
I should like to reply to the three members at one time, the hon. members for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and Wellington-Grey (Mr. Howe) and to thank them for their participation in this debate. I agree with some of the subsequent speakers in that I did not find the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North entirely relevant. We are not here to fight again the battle of increasing telephone rates or curtailing railway services before the CTC. It is not relevant. We are getting into a somewhat analogous situation. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North said, it is a very difficult issue and the Board itself is faced with some very complex questions. We cannot decide them now. So, I say to the hon. member that the position we presently find ourselves in is this: we want to introduce this amendment as a holding operation, pending a full
Railway Act
scale review that will be placed before the House on what should be a telecommunications policy for Canada. With the gracious permission of hon. members I tabled today the document showing the scope and extent of the studies of that commission. Some 50 studies are going on, and involve participants both inside and outside the government.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I ask for the co-operation of all hon. members. If they think that this outline is not complete, and that the 50 studies do not encompass all the ramifications of the problem-and I am not certain that they do-I should appreciate hearing suggestions about areas we have overlooked.
At present we have in Canada a computer industry that is overwhelmingly United States owned. Do we want the services side of the industry also to be United States owned? If so, then it follows also that the location of all computer banks may inevitably have to be on a north-south orientation instead of an east-west orientation. We have not made up our minds yet as to whether we want to permit Canadian-owned common carriers to enter the computer services industry. If we do, under what conditions do we want them to enter? To what extent are we going to permit the structure of that particular telecommunications industry to be organized in the competitive, free enterprise area? To what extent are we going to demand that it be under monopoly control and how much of that monopoly will we attempt to regulate; also, how is it to be regulated? This industry is advancing so rapidly, as I was at great pains to point out, that instead of letting another 18 months go by before we have all these answers, we have simply said that for the time being we will conduct a holding operation. We will, during this period, attempt to develop a logical, coherent and rational policy we can lay before hon. members. We are giving priority to this particular aspect of the study and I think that some very serious questions will be posed in this House.
All I can say at present is that instead of waiting that 18 months and letting the industry become entrenched in new directions that we may find impossible to roll back, we think it is better to take advantage of the Canadian Transport Commission which we presently have at our disposal and bring this matter under the aegis and authority of the commission. It can regulate either for better or worse, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North suggests. But it will regulate the industry to some extent, and that is better than

November 10, 1969
Railway Act
having no regulations at all. The bill, we frankly admit, is a short term solution being brought in now so that a long run solution and policy can be presented to this House.


David Orlikow: Before he finishes, will the minister permit a question? When the 50 studies to which the minister referred are completed, will they be tabled and made available to members of this House and to the public, or will they be treated as so many other studies commissioned by the government have been, as internal documents not to be made available to the public?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, it is my policy and the policy of my department to table, as we did in the case of the post office, as many of these studies as we possibly can. The restrictions will of course be those that are imposed by the authors, restrictions that may be applied for reasons best known to themselves and may be designed to prevent personal criticism or criticism of, let us say, a particular aspect of an operation. For instance, the criticism might not serve the interests of the Canadian people because it might contribute in a material way to some decrease in morale within a department. But I would say that, generally speaking, the answer is that we intend to table as many of these studies as we can, if not all.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch)-housing- urban renewal, Vancouver-request for policy statement; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-social security- inquiry as to establishment of income floor; the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae)-veterans affairs-transfer of veterans hospital.
The House will now proceed to consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely:	notices of
motions.



NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give immediate consideration to increasing the Income Tax exemption of all citizens from the date they start receiving their pension from $1,500 to $2,500, retroactive to January 1, 1969 in view of the spiralling cost of living during the past ten years, so as to prevent the tax burden from falling heavily on those no longer able to earn.
He said: The motion before us which I have had the honour to move is in effect a plea on behalf of all citizens in receipt of old age security pension to have their income tax exemption increased from the present $1,000 to $2,500, retroactive to January 1, 1969.
I am naturally pleased that this resolution is No. 1 on the order paper under private members' notices of motions and I express the hope that, knowing there could hardly be a dissenting voice to the implementation of this measure in this first session of the twenty eighth parliament, the government will give it early consideration. This motion is, of course, principally designed to offer a modest relief to pensioners in general and to superannuates, most of whom have been suffering from the inflationary trend of consumers' prices prevailing in the economy.
Last Friday the government unveiled a tax reform program which will free some 750,000 low income Canadians; among this number there will be many of those whom this motion is designed to help. Nevertheless, the exemption for a single pensioner does not reach the $2,500 I am suggesting in this resolution.
In the white paper the Minister of Finance has acknowledged the need for an increase in tax exemption from $1,000 to $1,400 for a single person, but does not make any distinction between a young person in the prime of his productivity and a pensioner, a person who has reached the declining years and can only look forward to a bleak future. For what the minister has suggested in the overhauling of the tax system, I have nothing but praise The general effect is bound to be good; but it would have been a little better if he had taken into consideration the plight of those for whom I am speaking.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The purpose of this motion, however, is not to discuss the merits of the white paper on

November 10, 19G9

taxation in general, but I hope I am in order in pointing out what the white paper could have contained to help the pensioner with a low income. In passing, may I point out the pitiful situation in which retired civil servants find themselves, with a low fixed income eroded year after year by the spiralling cost of living.
If the pension dollar had the same purchasing value it had in the year 1959. I would not be introducing this motion at this time. However, I am thinking of the many thousands of pensioners, including the thousands of retired civil servants with an income of not much more than their pensions, for whom even the little assistance they may find in the modest exemption increase of $1500 in their personal income tax, would be of some help.
Life expectancy at age 65 is estimated at approximately 15 years. It is a small recognition to extend to those who will live beyond their retiring age the right to enjoy a few extra dollars saved from their income tax. It seems that whether or not we should seriously attempt to provide a measure of income below which no man or woman will fall is a social as well as an economic and moral question. I admit at once that the measure of relief which the motion under discussion will provide to pensioners is very small. Nevertheless, it is an admission that it is immoral to allow some Canadians to exist below an adequate level of income, while the majority live on a level of prosperity.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on August 13, 1969, speaking on "Expenditures and Guidelines" said, and I quote:
We want to replace inefficient and outdated programs by new ones which will assist even more than now, low-income and destitute Canadians.
With the introduction of the suggestions contained in the white paper, it is evident the Prime Minister meant what he said on that occasion. However, the tax proposals in the document are not final. There will be ample time available for amendments since the date for the implementation of the tax reform is January 1, 1971 The head of our government always means what he says. He is not given to making promises, as everyone knows but everyone may not admit. He is a man of action, and I am encouraged to firmly believe that as soon as possible he will come through with a program which, in time, will dispense with the need of introducing resolutions such as this one. But, in the meantime, I submit to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) this modest proposal of giving those who have
DEBATES	695
Income Tax Exemption re Old Age Pensioners made their contribution to the sum total of our national development a little relief from the burden of taxation.
While I am proposing an increase in the personal income tax exemption for recipients of old age security pensions in general, I wish to add a word on behalf of the federal superannuates, for most of whom financial security has deteriorated considerably during the past few years on account of the escalation of the cost of living. I feel that the government should do something to alleviate their predicament by an upward revision of their pension benefits.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), speaking to the Canadian Pension Conference in Montreal last May, dealt with the subject of an increase in pensions to the retired civil servants. He contended that the government could not dip into funds of the superannuation account to pay an increase in pensions to retired civil servants and leave to the future the question of repaying the deficit that such an increase would create. If it did so, the minister stated, the statutes would require the government to make good this deficiency by budgetary charges, so this provides no easy way out for the government under the present budgetary system. Frankly, I have not been impressed by the minister's statement, however correct it might be. If to meet an obligation, and I feel it is a moral obligation if you will, the government has to make good whatever budgetary charges may be necessary, so what?
However, I have faith in a statement made by the Prime Minister shortly after he took office. He said he had arranged for a review of the costs and benefits involved in our social security system which could take into account the question of the difficulties now being experienced by those living on pensions.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), speaking at a conference of social workers a few days ago on the subject of justice to the poor, had this to say and I quote:
That we should have poverty In Canada is, as the Economic Council has reported, a disgrace. The arguments of social academics, then, as to what constitutes the threshold of poverty, or whether there is a cycle of poverty, or whether most of the poor are found in the slums, or in the central city, or whether they are concentrated in areas of rural blight, appear not so much brutal, as banal. Poverty, simply enough, is pervasive; and poverty, unhappily enough, is present everywhere in Canadian society.
You don't have to tell the poor what poverty is, they know. They feel it very painfully

the sense of hopelessness and helplessness. They understand
November 10, 1963
696	COMMONS
Income Tax Exemption re Old Age Pensioners
the deprivation of denial. They know what it is like to live in decrepit housing, to have the cracked pavements of the streets as their only parks. They know what it means to be prey to debt and despair.
Senator David Croll, that great humanitarian, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Poverty now holding hearings on the question of poverty in the various regions of Canada, three years ago headed a Senate committee on aging. His committee report recommended massive reforms in attitudes and assistance involving Canada's senior citizens. One was a suggestion that all Canadians at 65 should receive a guaranteed minimum income as a matter of right. This recommendation, as everyone knows, was finally adopted by the former Liberal government of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, in the form of a $30 supplement to the old age security pension to pensioners with no other income.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
This was a breakthrough for all old people without income. It meant a minimum income of $1,260 for single persons and $2,220 for married couples. The committee also recommended the establishment of a technically competent body to study income needs and develop a socially acceptable minimum. Had such a committee been established it would undoubtedly have looked into the effect of personal income tax exemptions upon the aged whose means, other than their pensions, were limited.
I might add that Senator Croll's committee report fully justified the three years of study and research which went into its preparation. To my knowledge no previous attempt had ever been made to examine, as a whole, the problems facing aged Canadians. To those Senators who worked like beavers on this committee, parliament owes a debt of gratitude; certainly, a parliamentary committee of the House of Commons would not have the time to undertake this approach to the income needs of elderly people on a long term basis. It is to be regretted that notwithstanding such valuable work there are some who advocate the abolition of the Senate.
Few problems are worse than to be old without the means of sustaining a decent standard of living, especially if one suffers from poor health, as is often the case. Then again, those I have in mind are the people who suffer most when inflation robs them of a portion of their meagre incomes. I realize that the government has been busy trying to formulate a program limiting large new


expenditures, and that it has been reluctant to give up any revenues until inflation has been brought under control. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the fact that wide ranging proposals for tax reform were made public last Friday, November 7, I suggest the effect of this motion will be very small indeed, and I therefore urge the government to give favourable consideration to its adoption tonight.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the calling of the hon. member's motion today has precipitated discussion in this House of part of the contents of the government's white paper on income tax. To this extent, one welcomes the motion.
I would say to the hon. member, however, that before we can possibly adopt this proposal, all the evidence will have to be available. Taking account of the proposals which now appear in the white paper to increase the allowances of all citizens to $1,400, one has to ask: what is the impact on the totality of revenue? The white paper says the cost would exceed $1 billion The provisions of the Income Tax Act, as they now stand, are such that the taxpayer receives an exemption of $1,500 if he is over 70. It was one of the conditions of the increase in the old age pension in 1964, whereby old age security benefits were made payable progressively over the next five years down to the age of 65, that the $500 exemption then applied to recipients of old age security over the age of 65. Any taxpayer over 65 was allowed the additional $500 personal exemption. But this did not apply to the spouse unless the spouse was an individual taxpayer. So a couple, in normal circumstances, received a personal allowance of $2,500.
The purport of the hon. member's motion would be to increase this to $5,000. Since no distinction has been made between taxpayers and non-taxpayers, his calculations may be somewhat affected by the proposals in the white paper. The proposal in that document is that the personal exemption of a couple shall increase to $2,800; the $500 which now comes into effect at the age of 70 if the person concerned is receiving old age security benefit, applies again only to the taxpayer. Thus, in the normal pensioner's household this would amount to $3,300. However, if the wife was in receipt of a separate income which resulted in her being an independent taxpayer, it would go up to $3,800.
I do not believe there are any hon. members in this House who are more conscious
November 10, 1969	COMMONS
than any others of the burden imposed by inflation on persons of fixed incomes. I find it interesting that the hon. member, who was a parliamentary secretary and who is now an entirely private member on the government side, should be drawing attention in such clear and unmistakeable terms to the evils of inflation. The government, it would appear, has only recently been convinced of the seriousness of this problem, if we are to judge by the nature of the program it is advocating. Even three years ago we were brushed off whenever we drew attention to the dangers of inflation. I am glad to note that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) has come to the side of the growing number of people in this House who say that all else matters nought-that first, we must deal with inflation. This has been said by speakers on this side of the House for a long time-even before the change in pension arrangements made in 1964.
It seems to me, however, that the hon. member is destroying the equity of the tax system. It is proposed in the white paper that the system should be made more equitable by increasing the personal allowance to $1,400. I am not satisfied that this will be the result, because the $1,400 applies to a person who is in receipt of a very modest income as well as to a person who receives a very substantial income. Thus, in effect, the additional $400 exemption should be chargeable to the well-endowed taxpayer at his marginal rate.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The benefit bestowed by the $400 can be Very high, as much as 50 per cent under the new rates. In other words, the tax benefit to an individual at the end of five years will be to the extent of $200. The additional $400 per taxpayer in the more modest income class can mean an $80 benefit if the tax rate is only about 20 per cent.
I would have been much more interested in seeing the hon. member put forward a proposal for a tax credit at the age of 65. I am referring to a tax credit which can be computed as a target rate, shall I say, for a mean income. By that I mean a standard income, not the very modest or low income. It would be more valuable to persons of lower income.
Let us suppose you give $150 in cash by way of a tax credit to a man who has an income Of $3,500. These figures are taken out of thin air purely by way of illustration. This sum would represent to this person a nice little gift. On the other hand, in the case of a
DEBATES	697
Income Tax Exemption re Old Age Pensioners person of the same age and with the same entitlement, but whose income is $15,000, what does this $150 mean to him? To this extent a payment or tax credit to the taxpayer of more modest means would tend to make the tax system more equitable.
This is a personal view, Mr. Speaker. I have a preference for the tax credit system over a personal allowance. It is contended that a tax system must be equitable, but my own view is that the tax system must not inhibit economic growth. If it does, then it becomes very difficult even to maintain equity within the system. Equity is important, yes-terribly important; but I do not think it outranks all other considerations, as some people have indicated.
I also wonder whether or not the hon. member should have put a dollar figure on his proposal. For example, how many taxpayers would there be at age 65-in this particular case, at age 70-who would receive this exemption? If millions of dollars of revenue were lost or diverted as a result of this proposal, where would it go? We must bear in mind that income tax yield seems to be an inflexible figure. Certainly the record of this government indicates that expenditures per annum are going to rise, notwithstanding the fact that there have been all sorts of promises made about revenues being held to the line. In 1968 the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) guaranteed that the budget would be balanced and that government expenditure would remain the same. Although there was no decline in revenue there was a short fall of over $700 million. Therefore, I find it a little difficult to accept that any revenue saved from this particular group of taxpayers would not be transferred to some other group.
If this is so, I would like to know whether this group is going to be the middle income group, or is it going to be that very high income group that apparently the Minister of Finance has recognized is so limited in Canada that additional taxes on the group would yield very little? This is why the middle income taxpaying group is being distinguished in the white paper as the target for ever-increasing heavy taxation.
We must remember that the so-called wealthy people described in the white paper are those who earn from about $10,000 to $24,000, and I am just wondering how many people in this country earning between $11,000 and $13,000, those who find themselves in this so-called wealthy class and are the first to disclaim that they are wealthy, are
November 10, 1969
698	COMMONS DEBATES
Income Tax Exemption re Old Age Pensioners in fact struggling. Otherwise, why do we see heavy wage demands in certain categories of skilled workers, such as carpenters, electricians, plumbers and bricklayers, in Toronto and Hamilton whose new contracts, providing they work all year, will net them $12,000 or $13,000 a year and even more if sufficient overtime is available?
The hon. member spoke about the guaranteed income supplement that has been in effect for some years under federal legislation. This supplement was, of course, a rehash of legislation that existed in some provinces, though not necessarily under the guise of a guaranteed income supplement. I remember in some provinces it was in the form of an old age supplement to which the federal government contributed half the cost. It was computed by the provincial government, who had the administration of it, frankly as a form of guaranteed income; there was an income test to qualify.
In my own province, the province of Alberta had an old age supplement which was then changed to a social allowance, but the purpose was the same. The criteria in relation thereto were much the same. Actually this was not a new and radical idea. In fact, it has broad application, I think, across the country today. Some provinces not in a financial position to pay the supplement are now doing so even though this is placing an additional strain on their budgets, the provincial contribution being substantial.
I think it might be called the fortunes of war that the hon. member has raised this question at this time; that is, if the word "war" can be used in any way in connection with private members' hour. The hon. member was exceedingly fortunate to draw first position in debating this motion, and on that score he is to be congratulated. He is extraordinarily lucky to bring the motion in just on the morrow of the white paper on taxation.
I am sure the hon. member would agree that, before we could properly express ourselves on the advisability or otherwise of his motion in the terms in which it is couched, we must have evidence of the repercussions of the white paper and the modifications that may be brought to it by the government, since the government itself has said that the white paper does not contain hard and fast proposals in every case. This may be one of those cases.
I suggest that the hon. member address himself to his government colleagues in order

to see whether he cannot bring about some additional relief for the particular group to which he refers. But let us bear in mind that the old age security recipients are not the only ones whose fixed incomes are being eroded by inflation. A number of widows have been caught by the effect of inflation on annuities arranged by their husbands. Women in their middle years who are raising a family and trying to pay for their children's university education, as well as many other people who depend on a fixed income to live, deserve consideration too. However, I think the prime consideration is that every effort should be made to defeat inflation and then to remove some of the pressure on all those groups which are equally meritorious.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not share the confidence in the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the present government expressed by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) so far as pension matters are concerned. I am also afraid I do not share his euphoria about the other place and its Committee on Poverty. I commend the two or three members of that committee who have been anxious to get acquainted with poverty itself rather than just listen to ivory tower briefs. But that is beside the point about which we are concerned at this time. I do not wish to take over any of the functions of the Senate, although it is trying to take over one of ours. However, despite my not sharing some of the attitudes expressed by the hon. member for Fort William, I am glad he won the draw so that his motion could be at the top of the list on the order paper and be discussed today, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) just said, on the morrow of the presentation of the tax reform white paper.
As the last speaker pointed out, the details in a motion of this kind are a bit complicated. One must look at what it does in raising the exemption levels at the lower end in respect of giving a little to some people and a whole lot to others who do not need it, and so on. But I do not think even that should be brought into the argument today, because the hon. member's contention is that something should be done right away to relieve the suffering being experienced by a great many of our retired people. I agree. I am glad he mentioned not only old age pensioners generally, although I think those on the old age pension and who have nothing else are the worst off. I
November 10, 1969
COMMONS DEBATES	699
am glad he also mentioned retired civil servants. It seems they have been mentioned a few times before in this House. I would add other federal superannuates such as retired members of the R.C.M.P., retired members of the armed forces, retired employees of the CNR and various other groups.
The fact about this resolution which I think pleases me most is that it has in it a date, namely January 1, 1969. The hon. member is asking that whatever is done be made retroactive to January ,1 1969. On that proposal I wish to support him wholeheartedly. I would urge him, no matter what happens to this resolution today, to use all the winsomeness he has with his colleagues on that side of the House to get them to accept that part of his resolution. We can argue all we want-and I will do some of it-about the proposals in the white paper, whether they are good enough, whether they go far enough and so on, and what their effect would be on pensioners; but the fact is even if the white paper is adopted it would not be effective until January 1, 1971. Therefore, even if the white paper becomes law, in the two years 1969 and 1970 old age pensioners will be under the law as it now stands.
I cannot expect the government to bring in an elaborate amendment to the Old Age Security Act or to the Income Tax Act with regard to one group in society when it is planning an over-all tax reform bill, but it does seem to me it could find a way to declare a moratorium on income tax for 1969 and 1970 in the case of people who are living on only the old age security pension or on only an income up to a total of, say, $2,000 for a single person and $4,000 for a married couple. I should like to stress this as strongly as I can. I can see the government saying to the hon. member that he has a good idea and all the rest of it, but now that we have the white paper this type of change cannot be made because it would amount to fiddling around in the meantine. The trouble is that in the meantime many of these people are passing away. Some of them will die sooner than they would otherwise simply because they cannot make both ends meet.
What I find to be commendable in the hon. member's resolution, and what I am asking as something that should be considered, is a moratorium on income tax for the years 1969 and 1970 in the case of retired people whose incomes are below a certain point. The figures I suggest are $2,000 single and $4,000 married. Like the hon. member for Edmonton West, I become a little concerned about merely rais-
Income Tax Exemption re Old Age Pensioners ing the exemption level because then the millionaire who is in receipt of the old age pension would be covered by this resolution and would receive quite a bonanza. This problem could be solved, however, by the proposal I am making in respect of establishing floors and declaring that any retired persons whose incomes are under those floors shall not pay any income tax whatsoever for the years 1969 and 1970. I make that proposal strongly and suggest the figures of $2,000 single and $4,000 married.
If the government does not turn around and accept my proposal right off the bat, or argues that my figures are too high in respect of the bookkeeping or figuring that has been done, then may I say that at least the government should go as far as $1,400 single and $2,800 married. By the white paper of Friday the government has admitted that no one in Canada should be paying income tax if his income is below $1,400 single or $2,800 married. The government is saying that in its view $1,400 single between age 65 and 70, $1,900 single over age 70, $2,800 married between age 65 and 70 and $3,300 married over age 70, are floors which ought to be achieved. That having been admitted with regard to our pensioners, I think it is an insult to these people to say this shall not come into effect until the taxation year 1971. There are many other people who would like to see the tax benefits come into effect earlier, and I am with them. At least most other people will have a few years to live in which they will be able to obtain the benefits of the tax reform proposals, but many pensioners will not.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I think it would be little enough for the government to declare the kind of moratorium I have suggested. If it is not prepared to take my figures of $2,000 and $4,000, at least it should take its own figure of $1,400 and $2,800, $1,900 and $3,300 or whatever it is. I urge that the government do this, and that the hon. member for Fort William and the friends he has on his side of the House fight this matter out in the Liberal caucus and not take no for an answer. I hope he will not come back one day and tell us that he took it up with the government but that he was given good reasons for not going ahead with his proposal. That is not good enough.
I said in passing that I shared the view of the hon. member for Edmonton West, that if you merely raise the tax exemption level you
November 10, 1969
700	COMMONS
Income Tax Exemption re Old Age Pensioners give quite a bonanza to the people on top. This is true, but I would almost rather accept the resolution as it is than not do anything at all. The reason is that 60 per cent of the people of Canada who have qualified for the old age security pension, the non-means test one, have qualified for the guaranteed income supplement, and about half of those who have qualified for the guaranteed income supplement have qualified for its full amount. This tells a story of poverty and old age in this country that is even more glaring than anything the Senate committee has yet brought out. You do not have to go looking for it; it is right there in the statistics that 60 per cent of our people who are old enough to receive the old age security pension have been able to qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. This means they have been able to meet the means, or needs, or income test on that pension.
That is why I say that the important thing is to get some action. Let us not make the kind of mistakes that could be made, but I would rather make those mistakes and give a few bonuses where they are not needed, if that is the way we have to do it to get something done for those who really need help.
I return to my basic position. I think the thing to pick out of this motion, coming as it does after the white paper has been proposed, is the date the proposal would become effective-January 1, 1969. Let us ask for retroactivity, and let us not be satisfied with action two or three years from now. Let us, rather, call for action which will take care of these people during 1969 and 1970. I repeat the word I have used a number of times and again call for a moratorium on income tax for all persons in receipt of the old age security pension whose total income is below certain figures. I have already suggested the figures 1 have in mind.
Having said all that, I want to sit down in case there are others who want a minute or two in which to speak before a vote is taken on this motion. But may I remind the House that even after we have done these things in terms of the income tax legislation, even after we have tried to improve things for people in other ways, this does not fill the bill. The one thing that we have to do for our older people is increase their pensions. That goes for the old age security basic pension, for pensions to retired civil servants, for pensions to all federal superannuates and for pensions across the board.


I am not taken in by the argument that these people have to wait until we have solved the problem of inflation, because in the meantime they are suffering more than those higher up the economic ladder. In my view it is time that we closed the gap between those at the bottom and those at the top, by raising the incomes of those at the bottom, without waiting to solve the problem of inflation. I am in favour of coping with it, but I do not think these people should be made to suffer while we wait. The main job of this Parliament in the economic field is to increase the pensions of our older people and the income levels of all our people, but in the meantime I support the proposal that something effective be done regarding the income tax situation, not just in 1971 and the years thereafter but by a moratorium that will be effective for 1969 and 1970.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark and Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to have at least a few moments in which to make some comments on the notice of motion that has come before us in the name of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai). It is a double privilege because the hon. member is held in very high regard and has the affection of many members of this House, if not of us all. Therefore, I am pleased to support the motion that he put forward. It seems rather symbolic that the hon. member's motion should have come out first in the draw and that it should be the first one to be debated today.
Some people might say that since the Members of Parliament on the government side of the House tend to be youthful, they are interested only in young people. Some of the youngest people I know are very old in years, and I commend the concern expressed in the motion for the retired and those on limited and fixed incomes. This concern is demonstrated not only by the motion before us but by the actions of the Government of Canada, in particular in presenting the white paper on tax reform, which matter has been adequately covered by hon. members who spoke before me.
It has for a long time seemed to me that the two main problems in Canada are, first the ever decreasing farm incomes in rural areas, and second the problems facing pensioners, especially those retired from civil service. I think both problems are very urgent and demand equal attention. I hope that Treasury Board will be able to raise the pensions of retired civil servants, those who have given of themselves, of their time and of their years
November 10, 1969

for the well-being and furtherance of Canada.
I was delighted, as I am sure other members of the House were, to learn last Friday that the white paper on tax reform proposes a significant step in the right direction in easing the burden of many people who are on fixed incomes.
The motion before us and the suggested raising of the exemption from personal income tax reflect the social concerns and indeed the social sensitivity of the government. This kind of concern demonstrates the heart and compassion of the government, and the view held in all parts of the House that people are of first importance and governments must seek a closer understanding of the problems of the average man whom we represent in the House. We must be concerned about the quality of life, and not simply the quantity of life. We do not want simply to perpetuate more years of penury; we want to promote genuine prosperity. It is a very natural human desire and drive to want to survive, to cling to life. But we want more than the survival of the elderly; we want, rather-and must work for-a personal income that enables the maintenance of the highest possible degree of human dignity. It is not good enough to provide institutions and community clubs for the "unfortunate" elderly. We must eliminate the circumstances that tend to demean and belittle anyone's self-esteem.
I want to illustrate this point by sharing with the House a report that came to me in the last few days from a man who was travelling in the Andes of Peru. He was coming down a mountain route when he met a local Peruvian who could speak English. This man was very interested in what the native of Peru thought of North America in general and of the United States in particular, and asked him about it. The Peruvian told him that he hated North Americans. My friend was a bit surprised and he said, "Why? Surely you are aware that the United States of America has given many millions of dollars in aid to your country, to help Latin America, and has done so much for you." The Peruvian drew himself up, standing on his dignity, and replied, "Yes, that is true. They have given us a lot, but they confirm us as beggars."
* (5:50 p.m.)
It may be very difficult to give assistance but it is far more difficult for many proud Canadians, among whom are most of our elderly people, all of them very proud of their 21562-45
DEBATES	701
Income Tax Exemption re Old Age Pensioners human dignity, to be the recipients of handouts and charity. Therefore, I support wholeheartedly and with great enthusiasm any means which would enable our elderly citizens to be independent and to command their own future by having adequate financial means with which to live a full and rewarding life in their advanced years. So far as this motion and the steps taken by the government will not confirm our elderly as beggars, but will do the exact reverse, I support them.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, time is pressing and I do not want to prevent anybody else from speaking. However, I think there is one thing that should be considered when the substance of this proposal is being examined. We now have the white paper on tax reform which will have a generally good and advantageous effect, but it seems to me that some form of tax allowance should be considered in respect of legitimate expenses as well as the capital gains tax allowance that will be granted on homes. I wonder why we should not allow depreciation on homes owned by elderly people whose reportable or taxable income is below a certain figure. I know that many people do not own their own homes, but I think it is a tragedy when a married couple with a very modest income, probably anchored by time and memory to a home they have lived in for years, find that the cost of ever-increasing taxation is driving them out of that home.
When this matter is being discussed I think consideration should be given to the proposal that those with incomes below a certain level be allowed full depreciation on their homes after they have reached a certain age; and further, that the depreciation be worked out in such a way that the costs of education of the younger people, in other words the educational taxes involved in the full tax on their homes, would be eliminated. The federal government would then be subsidizing education. I know that might be unconstitutional, but the government would be doing it through a back-door method and it would also be helping poor, elderly people. In the average city such people would have their taxes cut by at least half. That suggestion is all I have to contribute at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to use the remaining few minutes to express my full support of the motion of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai).
November 10, 1969

Canada Corporations Act
Nobody in this House would refuse to join in assisting and encouraging him in his good intentions, when the aim is to help a group of our fellow citizens who need it so badly, particularly old people who, due to their age, find it so difficult to earn a living.
I concur with other members who have mentioned, perhaps it was coincidence, the white paper published a few days ago. I have studies this document rather rapidly and it seems to me that it contains, at least in part, an answer to some questions that hon. members, especially the hon. member for Fort William, may have.
In any case, the government proposes to improve the situation in this white paper. There is no mention of a $1,500 basic exemption for old people, single people, or of a $2,500 exemption for married persons but things look better just the same. By the way, if I am not mistaken, there is nothing final about the white paper since the government intends to refer it to a committee where all hon. members will be given the opportunity to defend their point of view so as to help our senior people and our parents.
However, there is one thing that worries me in reading this white paper-and I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) concurs in this-and it is the difficulty to make the measures passed in 1970 retroactive to January 1969.
Generally speaking and in principle, it will not be easy to give retroactive effect to measures adopted between now and 1971.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair to resume the same at 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill C-4, to amend the Canada Corporations Act and 
other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 which is moved for reference to the committee this evening embodies important and far-reaching amendments to the Canada Corporations Act. Since its introduction in 1934 the Canada Corporations Act has been amended three times. Only one set of those amendments, those enacted four years ago in 1965, could in any way be considered substantial amendments. The amendments now before the House are the most extensive that have been prepared since the inception of the act in 1934. In retrospect, Mr. Speaker, I think 1965 can be considered as the year in which we in this House initiated a complete review of our corporation law. The amendments now before us are an important part of that review, and I emphasize "an important part" -a review which I expect will be completed within the next two years. These amendments are, therefore, only part of the process.
The tremendous changes that have occurred in society since 1934 and which are continuing at an increasing pace must be reflected in our legislation. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that such an important piece of legislation could have gone virtually untouched from 1934 to 1965. Our corporation law sets the framework within which much of the economic development in the business life of our country takes place and I believe that such legislation should be under constant review, consideration-and reconsideration. Only then can it fulfil the vital objectives it is designed to serve.
As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not propose the complete revision of all matters dealt with in the Canada Corporations Act. It deals with the most pressing problems. Other aspects of the Canada Corporations Act are still under study in my department as part of a general review of company law. Since the early 1960's a good deal has been said about the role of securities and companies regulation in the careful functioning of our capital markets. The Royal Commission on Banking and Finance, the Porter Commission, was the first attempt in Canada to consider this question in a meaningful manner. In 1964 this report helped point the way to the advances we have witnessed during the last four or five years in this field. More recently it was pointed out by
November 10, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
the Kimber Committee in Ontario that "one of the strongest single forces in the complex process of raising capital is public confidence". Public confidence requires a knowledge of the relevant facts that will permit the anticipation of profits. The Porter Report stressed the desirability of greater disclosure of corporation information relating not only to financial institutions but also to the securities market as a whole. The Kimber Report paved the way to the introduction of a comprehensive set of disclosure requirements in Ontario in 1967. The four western provinces have followed suit and have adopted in substantial form the Ontario requirements.
The maintenance and strengthening of investor confidence and investor protection are real concerns of this government. The 1965 amendments improved the financial disclosure requirements of the Canada Corporations Act. This was only the first step, Mr. Speaker. The bill that is now before the House will considerably improve the quality, the range and the level not only of the financial information but generally of the corporate information available to shareholders, prospective shareholders and to the public in general. There is no valid reason why the corporate information available from federal companies should not be as adequate as the information concerning companies incorporated in other jurisdictions. The improvements proposed in the interests of investors should help increase confidence in the securities industry. As was pointed out by the Kimber Report, to the extent that the securities industry has become a more effective and a more efficient part of the economy, the general public will benefit. This is the main goal that we are pursuing in the present biU.
The measures contained in Bill C-4, whether they concern no disclosure, insider trading, takeover bids, proxy solicitation or inspection and investigation, are all designed to promote the climate required for a high degree of investor confidence to develop. The most important proposals in this bill to improve public confidence and public information relate to financial disclosure. As long ago as 1935 the Royal Commission on Price Spreads, the Stevens Commission, called for better financial statements and recommended that they be published in the press and in the Canada Gazette. A later Royal Commission on Prices, the Curtis Commission devoted much of its attention to proposals for greater quantity and better quality of information in corporate financial statements. In 1959 the Royal Commission on Price Spreads in Food Prod-21362-455
Canada Corporations Act ucts, under Dr. Andrew Stewart, noted that "private companies whether incorporated federally or provincially are not required to provide financial information." The commission pointed out that this category includes subsidiaries of many foreign firms. It recommended that private companies be brought under the same financial disclosure rules as public companies. The Porter Commission and the Carter Commission both expressed concern about the standards of corporate disclosure in Canada.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The concerns these various inquiries have expressed was reflected in the interim report of the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons of which I had the honour to be the co-chairman together with Senator Croll. In our interim report of December, 1966, our committee, which was made up of all parties of the House, said in part:
In times of both depression and prosperity, Canada has in the past resorted to a series of Royal Commissions or parliamentary inquiries on prices and price spreads, each of which has had to compile its own information on costs, profits and return on investments. Your Committee was no different, and used its parliamentary privilege to ask for and receive from corporate witnesses information never before made public. However, your Committee feels strongly that if those responsible for or concerned about the management of public affairs are to be properly informed, such information should be available publicly on a continuous basis for the scrutiny of parliamentarians, public officials, consumer groups, investment analysts and the academic community. Such public disclosures would also be a spur to greater efficiency and productivity by preventing inefficient enterpreneurs from hiding their inefficiency from shareholders or public scrutiny. Further, your Committee sees no reason why large public companies should be compelled to compete in the marketplace against other large private competitors whose operations are almost wholly secret and many of which are privately held wholly-owned subsidiaries of the nonCanadian parents.
The committee's recommendations were:
(a)	That the distinction between disclosure requirements for private companies of significance to the public and public companies be eliminated.
(b)	That the disclosure requirements for both public and such private companies be enlarged to assure full and complete disclosure of corporate activities to give to the public sufficient information for meaningful continuous analysis and comparison.
In this bill, Mr. Speaker, we are seeking to extend the financial disclosure requirements to all federal companies of economic significance, to make all this information more readily available to the public and to make the financial information that is disclosed
November 10, 1969

Canada Corporations Act more comprehensive and meaningful. To take the last point first, the amendments would require companies to prepare a statement of source and application of their funds. This will provide an accurate portrayal of the manner in which the company used the funds that became available to it during the year. Companies would also be required to prepare all their financial statements in comparative form, showing in a single statement figures for the last two consecutive years. Generally speaking, these new requirements will involve little or no additional work by the company, as the figures to be included in these statements would readily be derived from the company's books.
The bill proposes various other requirements which will undoubtedly be thoroughly discussed in the committee to which it is to be referred. But there is one new requirement that I wish to draw to the attention of the House this evening.
The growing conglomeration and diversification of business enterprises, especially in the United States and to a certain degree in Canada as well, has reduced the quality and the usefulness of the financial statements of many corporations. Companies operating across many industries commonly report their operating results on a consolidated basis, thus preventing the public from having access to relevant financial and operating characteristics. The failure to make public detailed financial information not only deprives investors of the data they need to make informed investment judgments, but also deprives shareholders of the data they require to assess the performance and quality of the administrators and managers of companies.
The variables that are of primary concern to the investor include the profitability of the business, the risks involved and the opportunity for growth. In the case of a company with a single class of business, each of these variables is effectively consistent throughout the company. In a company with multiple classes of business, the rate of profit, the extent of the risk and the opportunity for growth are bound to be different for each class of business. The progress and success of such a company is a composite of the progress or success of its several parts, and it is not possible to forecast the future of the total company without some knowledge of each of these parts.
For these reasons, companies with more than one class of business would be required to indicate the proportion in which their sales or gross revenue are divided amongst these

classes. They would also be required to disclose the extent to which the carrying on of the business of each class contributed to or restricted the profit or loss of the company. I am convinced that hon. members will agree with me that in the wake of conglomeration and diversification of business enterprises in Canada it is essential that we take steps to increase the quality and usefulness of the financial statements of many corporations.
The experience in other jurisdictions, especially in the United States and Great Britain, has shown that reporting requirements of this sort are both desirable and feasible. The amendments would leave a good deal to the discretion and judgment of the directors. We are confident that they will approach this requirement in a manner consistent with the over-all purpose of the legislation. This brings me to a second important aspect of our proposals concerning financial disclosure.
One question that we had to resolve is to whom the companies' financial reports should be made available. The Canada Corporations Act is silent on this point, but following a policy of long standing my department does not make these financial statements available to the public. I suggest that there are no valid reasons for such a restriction in the case of the financial statements of public companies. Shareholders, prospective shareholders and creditors should all have access to this information. We all know how easy it is for anyone to get access to the information available to the shareholders by buying one share in the company. We propose to do away with this legal hypocrisy, and the amendments require that the financial statements filed in my department be made available to the public on the payment of a prescribed fee.
I now turn to the third aspect, the extension of financial reporting requirements to some private companies.
We are most anxious not to impose unnecessary reporting burdens or disclosing requirements on the many firms-the great majority of all companies incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act-which are private companies. We have considered the advisability of imposing on all private companies the disclosing requirements imposed on public companies, as has been done in some jurisdictions. We have concluded that the public benefit that could possibly be expected to be gained from such disclosure requirements being imposed on all private companies, of whatever size, would not be sufficient to justify such additional costs.
November 10, 1989
There is, however, the problem of the many-large private companies that exert considerable influence in our economy. The private company device that had originally been developed to assist the small entrepreneur, most often organized on a family basis, has very often become the corporate structure used by huge firms. Furthermore, many of these large private companies are in competition with public companies which must disclose information about their operations. Many of these private companies are wholly-owned subsidiaries of public companies incorporated abroad; we know little if anything about their operations in Canada, although the global operations of the parent and subsidiaries taken as a whole may be required to be disclosed in the foreign jurisdiction concerned.
The government and the public need to know more about the affairs of the large private companies. It is a prerequisite of any rational decision-making process that it be based on information as complete and accurate as possible. This principle applies to all managers, including those who manage the affairs of the country.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The 1968 report of the Task Force on the Structure of Canadian Industry struggled with this problem in dealing with the issue of foreign ownership and control in Canada. The report correctly pointed out that a judgment of the benefits and costs to Canada of foreign investment must include a careful analysis of the performance of foreign-owned firms in Canada. How does the behaviour of these firms and their efficiency compare with Canadian-owned firms? With their parents? With foreign subsidiaries elsewhere? These are some of the questions that are most difficult to answer now because of the lack of sufficient information about foreign-owned, private firms. In the view of the task force, the most serious problem with respect to the issue of foreign ownership and control was the extent to which foreign-owned firms were relieved of the necessity of public disclosure by virtue of their status as private companies in Canada.
The lack of definite information about private companies concerns not only the issue of foreign ownership. Noting that it is impossible to determine precisely the number of large private companies in Canada, the report indicates that on the basis of data on 743 of the largest Canadian companies it appears that 60 per cent are private companies. Of 375
Canada Corporations Act of the largest non-financial Canadian corporate complexes identified by the task force, 162 or 43 per cent are private companies and about 75 per cent of those are controlled by non-residents.
In a recent study on the performance of foreign-owned firms in Canada, Professor Safarian noted how limited was the available data for the examination of both foreign-owned and Canadian-owned firms in Canada.
The task force pointed out:
It is a pre-requisite to public discussion of government policy and the formulation and implementation of actual policy that more information be available on the activities of corporations, particularly large corporations, both Canadian-owned and foreign-owned.
The proposals now before the House in Bill C-4 will make an important contribution toward improving the present situation. The disclosure requirements that we propose will not apply to small private companies for the reasons I have outlined. Nor will they apply to any private company that is a personal corporation within the meaning of section 68 of the Income Tax Act. They will apply only to private companies which by virtue of their size are of significance in our economy.
One of the difficulties of this approach is deciding which companies are economically significant. We recognize that setting a test for this purpose is bound to be arbitrary. We have chosen to define an economically significant company as one which has assets or gross annual revenues greater than $3 million. We have chosen this figure because this test will elicit sufficient information to help us understand the greater part of the economic activity of federal companies. If the test we are proposing in Bill C-4 was copied in all Canadian jurisdictions, federal and provincial, we would get the following coverage: (a) some 1,200 manufacturing companies accounting for 80 per cent of assets employed in all manufacturing and 75 per cent of manufacturing sales; (b) over 300 mining companies accounting for 87 per cent of sales, and 87 per cent of assets in the industry; (c) over 400 companies accounting for nearly 50 per cent of sales in the wholesale trade; and (d) some 1,700 finance companies accounting for over 75 per cent of gross revenues and 86 per cent of assets in the industry.
Some people say that the government has the information it needs in its files, especially in the files of the Department of National Revenue, in the files of Calura and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics; that if it does

November 10, 1969

Canada Corporations Act not have the required information, the government has the means of getting it. The claim is made, however, that there is no need to make public the information relative to the affairs of private companies; that to do so would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Those who speak that language surely do not appreciate all the implications of their position. I can hardly believe that in this day and age they want the government of the land to stand beyond the reach of the criticism of the citizens; that they want to allow the government of the land to take decisions that affect us all on the basis of information not available to the public. The public, even the otherwise well-informed public, the analysts, the academics and commentators, cannot appreciate, discuss or criticize policy as effectively as possible because of lack of access to the same information as is available to the policymakers or to the government.
One may ask whether it is worth having such disclosure since it will apply only to federal companies. First, it should be recognized that many, if not most, of the large foreign corporations operating in Canada through wholly-owned private companies are federally incorporated. Moreover, we believe that it is up to the federal government to take a lead in this matter and encourage provincial governments to follow. The act will provide for exemption when disclosure would be detrimental to a company's interests. Some people have also suggested that the requirement sould apply only to foreign-owned companies not to Canadian-owned firms.
Surely, we do not want to embark on a course that would discriminate in this way against foreigners. We do impose restrictions on the degree of foreign ownership permitted in certain sensitive sectors of our economy, such as communications, finance, banking and broadcasting. But once those specific requirements are satisfied, our general corporate laws should apply equally to foreign-owned and Canadian-owned companies, regardless of the ownership of the shares.
I like to think that hon. members will agree with the government that although there is no particular objection to the large firm being organized on a private basis, there is no valid reason why the use of the private company device by large firms, which play an increasingly important role in our economy, should become a shelter enabling them to hide from the public their financial affairs.

I would now like to discuss some of the other aspects of Bill C-4. Much of the discussion about corporate law in recent years has turned on the relationship that should exist between corporate management and the company, and between corporate management and the shareholders. At the centre of this discussion is the question of the duties and responsibilities of corporate management in the exercise of their office.
This question raises many difficult problems that are still under study in my department and in other jurisdictions as well. Bill C-4, however, deals in a comprehensive manner with one of the most important of these problems, the problem of insider trading. Let me illustrate by an example the type of situation that in this regard troubles the public so much. Texas Gulf Sulphur is a case in point which has been widely publicized in the press. Various issues arising out of this case are still currently discussed, especially in the United States press and the United States courts.
The case of Texas Gulf Sulphur raised complex questions that have resulted in a number of lawsuits in the United States. Some of these are not yet settled and I do not wish to comment on whatever action may remain before the courts. However, the case provides a good illustration of a problem that should concern us all. Insiders who have access to information intended to be available only for a corporate purpose and trade for their own account ini the securities of a corporation do great damage to our system of free market economy.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The Kimber Report studied this question in great depth. It concluded that while it is not improper for an insider to buy or sell securities in his own company, it is improper to use confidential information acquired by him by virtue of his position as an insider in order to make profits through trading in the securities of his company. The ideal securities market should be a free and open market. The price of securities should be based upon the fullest possible knowledge of all relevant facts. We agree with the Kimber Committee that any factor which tends to destroy or put in question this concept lessens the confidence of the investing public in the marketplace and is, therefore, a matter of public concern. The question which arises is: What do we do to prevent insiders from using confidential information for their own personal benefit and to
November 10, 1969
the detriment of the company or the shareholders? And when the insider has in fact used the information for his own personal gain and caused prejudice to the company or to some other person, what do we do? How do we ensure that everyone is treated fairly?
The problem of insider trading is dealt with in a rather rudimentary way in the Canada Corporations Act. Under the current provisions, directors, officers and shareholders controlling more than 10 per cent of the issued shares of a corporation are required to file reports with the company's secretary on a monthly basis disclosing the number of shares sold or purchased during the preceding month. The secretary must make the reports available for inspection by the shareholders and they are presented to the shareholders, whether requested or not, at the annual meeting. The secretary of the company must also, within a month of receipt by him, send copies of these reports to my department, where they are available for shareholders' inspection. Penalties for breaches of these provisions are imposed by way of summary conviction proceedings. There are a number of shortcomings in this approach: First, the act currently applies to a narrowly defined class of insiders. Second, the disclosure provisions are not satisfactory. The information disclosed is available only to the shareholders of the company and not to former shareholders, let alone to the investing public generally. Finally, there are not provisions for the recovery of the benefit or advantage received by the insider at the expense and to the detriment of the company or the persons who traded with the insider.
Bill C-4 proposes a comprehensive code to deal with the problem of insider trading. The proposed insider trading rules are substantially the same as those already found in the company law or securities legislation of Ontario and the four western provinces. The important features of the uniform provincial legislation in this regard have been adopted. The differences sire only minor. Insiders would not under these provisions be prevented from trading in the securities of their company. The amendments would, however, improve the accessibility of insider trading reports by making them available to the public, and not only to shareholders as is now the case. Thus, the purposes of these disclosure requirements will be better served. The reports will provide an indication of insiders who might be liable for damages. They may also prevent insiders from engaging in
Canada Corporations Act improper trading they would be reluctant to disclose.
The amendments would also impose a statutory liability on the insiders, their associates and affiliates, including close members of the family as well as on any employee of the company or any person whose services are retained by the company, who take improper advantage of their inside knowledge. These people would be accountable to any persons who have suffered a direct loss because of the use by such insider of specific confidential information in connection with a transaction relating to the securities of the company. The insider would also be accountable to the company for any direct benefit received by him in similar circumstances. As this kind of abuse is likely to arise only in the case of a company whose securities are traded publicly, these provisions would apply only to public companies that have made or are making offers of their securities to the public. These new requirements should help to maintain a high degree of confidence in the investing public that all will be treated fairly and equitably. They should also militate against the undue enrichment of insiders through their confidential knowledge at the expense of the shareholders or other affected persons who lack the inside knowledge.
I now turn to the amendments which deal with proxies and proxy solicitation. As our economy expands and our companies grow larger and more complex, management seems further isolated from the shareholders in an increasing number of companies. For most of the year, corporation management can carry on without reference to the shareholders. Once a year, however, the shareholders have the privilege of deciding whether the present management should be continued in office. Relatively few shareholders actually appear at annual meetings and more are willing to give proxies to representatives of management. Unregulated, the proxy device thus tends to become a powerful instrument which management can easily use to perpetuate itself indefinitely. Furthermore, proxies are often solicited to approve management's action in cases where shareholders are not given sufficient information. An informed decision is often almost impossible. In practice, no alternative is offered to the shareholders. The proxy form they receive designates a management representative as nominee. He has full discretion to vote on behalf of the shareholders.



November 10, 1969
Canada Corporations Act
Professor Louis Loss, an American authority on securities regulation, has discussed this problem in the following words:
Corporate practice has come a long way from the common law's non-recognition of the proxy device. The widespread distribution of corporate securities with the concommitant separation of ownership and management, puts the entire concept of the stockholders' meeting at the mercy of the proxy instrument. This makes the corporate proxy a tremendous force for good or evil in our economic scheme. Unregulated, it is an open invitation to self-perpetuation and irresponsibility of management. Properly circumscribed, it may well turn out to be the salvation of the modern corporate system.
The proposed amendments provide a comprehensive set of rules governing proxies and proxy solicitation whether the solicitation is by management or others. The form of the proxy would be regulated. It would also be designed in such a manner as to afford the shareholder the opportunity to appoint as his nominee someone other than the person designated by management. The form would also allow the shareholder to instruct his proxy how to vote on each matter to be considered.
Sufficient information is a prerequisite to sound decisions. An information statement would therefore be required to accompany any solicitation of proxies. Shareholders must be provided with an opportunity to exercise their right of corporate suffrage. For that reason, companies would be required to send suitable proxy forms along with notices of meetings. Furthermore, shareholders will now receive, prior to the meeting, an information circular giving information on the matters to be considered at the meeting. Thus, they should be in a position to vote more intelligently. The considerations to which I have referred are less likely to arise in companies owned by a small number of shareholders. Consequently, these requirements would not apply to a private company or a public company which has fewer than 15 shareholders. These amendments correspond with the present requirements of the legislation of Ontario and the western provinces.
In one important respect we are breaking new ground insofar as Canada is concerned. We are introducing a procedure of shareholder initiative to make it easier for those shareholders who wish to involve themselves in the affairs of their company to do so more effectively. The amendments would provide machinery to enable a shareholder to give notice to all shareholders of his intention to submit a proposal to the meeting. A company soliciting proxies would be required to

include the shareholder's proposal in its information statement. Thus, a shareholder, not only the management, could avail himself of the company's mailing facilities at comparatively little cost to the company. This should prove, as it has proved in other jurisdictions, a healthy device in stimulating shareholder interest; and there are provisions in the act to prevent abuse of this privilege by cranks and kooks. Our objective in proposing these changes is clear. We want to ensure that shareholders are provided with adequate information to enable them to make intelligent use of their voting right, or of their right to have someone else vote for them at meetings. In this way we wish to encourage shareholders to take an active and responsible role in the direction of their companies.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The fourth major aspect of Bill C-4 deals with takeover bids. At present there is virtually no provision in the Canada Corporations Act governing takeover bids, despite the growing importance of this method of acquiring control. There can be serious, undesirable side effects if shareholders are not given the time and information necessary to judge on its merits an offer for shares. Most other jurisdictions have found such legislation desirable for orderly activity in the marketplace. The object has been to give the shareholders whose shares are wanted for the purpose of the takeover the information which they need to evaluate the bid intelligently, and to ensure that those shareholders who want to accept the bid are treated equally by the bidder. The new rules would apply to takeover bids involving public companies with more than 15 shareholders. These rules will cover situations where the bidder or offerer has, or will have, 10 per cent of the object company's equity shares, which can often constitute control. Shareholders must be given at least 21 days in which to make their decision and deposit their shares.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is a beautiful
statement.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am glad the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) likes my statement. When more shares are deposited than the bidder wants, the bidder must take up his total and pay for them, from all that are available to him, on a pro rata basis. This means that there is no pressure on shareholders, as now, on the basis of "first come, first served." The bidder must send his bid to the directors, as well as the shareholders, of the
November 10, 1969

company in question. Whenever the directors of the offeree company recommend to their shareholders acceptance or rejection of the takeover bid, the directors would be required to issue a directors' circular containing information to explain their recommendation, and indicating whether they themselves propose to accept or reject the offer. It is most desirable that the shareholders receive sufficient information to enable them to evaluate the position of management.
Offers to be effected through the facilities of a stock exchange or on the over-the-counter market would be exempt from these provisions. In these cases the bidders are not in direct contact with the shareholders; the purchase of shares takes place in the market. As the shareholders and the bidders are dealing at arm's length, there is not the same need for protecting the shareholders. Similarly, these provisions would not cover offers made by way of private agreement with individual shareholders. There is also provision for specific exemption by a court upon application. These provisions are substantially similar to the requirements found in the legislation of Ontario and other provinces.
The fifth series of amendments contained in Bill C-4 deal with provisions for inspection and investigation of federal companies. Corporate laws of Canada, most of the provinces and the Commonwealth already contain provisions for inspection and investigation of companies in the interests of shareholders oppressed by mismanagement or fraud, although the mechanics of the investigation process vary greatly.
Under the Canada Corporations Act the minister may appoint inspectors to investigate the affairs of a company, but only on the application of shareholders. Furthermore, the expenses of any such investigation are the responsibility of the applicants or, where I as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs so direct, that of the company. Such requirements tend to deter people from bringing forward valid complaints.
Our experience supports this conclusion. Since 1950 the department has received only 11 formal requests for inspection, although the number of informal complaints received is substantially higher-about six a year. A few of the inspections ordered by the department have paved the way to the laying of criminal charges. In other cases the inspection was useful in showing suspicions of irregularities or misconduct to be groundless and baseless.
Canada Corporations Act
The inspection and investigation procedure has a key role to play in maintaining and developing investor confidence in our market system. Through this machinery the administration can help to ensure that the corporate device is not used as a shield to defraud the investors, the creditors or the public generally. Through this procedure the administration can also help to ensure that the shareholders, whatever the extent of their financial involvement in a company, whether their interest is a minority one or not, will be treated fairly and equitably.
With these objectives in mind, and bearing in mind the overriding requirement that the inspection and investigation process be fair and just to all and that the fundamental rights of all be protected, we propose a new approach to inspection and investigation. First, the amendments would spell out the grounds on which an inspection or investigation could be made. These grounds are of two categories; first, suspected fraudulent or unlawful acts, or misconduct on the part of the company; second, acts that are oppressive on the minority of dissenting shareholders.
Second, an investigation could be commenced only with the approval of the tribunal, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. This approval could be sought either by my department or by a sufficient number of shareholders of the company. On approving the initiation of an investigation the tribunal would appoint an inspector and define the scope of the investigation to be undertaken. Again I emphasize that in spelling out the powers of the inspector under these provisions great care has been taken to ensure that all be treated justly and equitably. On completing his investigation the inspector will be required to prepare a statement of the evidence he has obtained, and the tribunal must give anyone affected by the statement a fair opportunity to be heard before the tribunal makes its report.
A simpler procedure is provided where the purpose of the investigation is solely to determine the reasons why a company has failed to file with my department a document that is required by the act to be filed. I hope that these powers of investigation and inquiry need never be used. Any investigation or inquiry power has to provide within it proper safeguards. I am confident that these have been built into the act and that they can be defended as proper safeguards in the circumstances. Finally, we propose that the costs of carrying out an investigation be part of the public costs of administering the act. The
710
November 10, 1969

Canada Corporations Act amendments, however, provide that in some circumstances individuals or companies can be required to reimburse the administration.
Some may raise questions as to the additional reporting requirements that some of these amendments will impose on the business community. Many of our federal companies are already required to comply with provincial reporting requirements under the securities acts of the provinces. For these companies the amendments are not likely to result in a much greater burden. Great care will be taken to ensure a high degree of uniformity in the development of the prescribed forms.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
We have already begun to discuss with the provinces ways and means of eliminating unnecessary duplication of reports. There is no reason why we cannot, in close co-operation with the provinces, minimize the amount of duplication. We will continue our efforts in this direction just as we have tried to make our proposals as consistent as possible with provincial legislation.
We have taken the opportunity in Bill C-4 to deal with one very different kind of problem, the question of companies incorporated by special act of Parliament. As hon. members are aware, various categories of companies such as pipe line companies, trust, loan and insurance companies and railway companies cannot now be incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act or any other statute of general application. They can only be incorporated by special act of this Parliament.
The pressure of other business does not always permit the setting aside of sufficient parliamentary time to consider and dispose of requests for special acts to incorporate new companies or amend the original incorporating statutes. As a result, great inconvenience can at times be caused to the companies involved because of the uncertainty of the procedure and lengthy delays which are sometimes involved. We therefore propose an alternative procedure to the special act machinery.
In the case of pipe line companies, insurance, loan and trust companies, letters patent of incorporation could issue pursuant to the Canada Corporations Act with the concurrence of the minister responsible for the department concerned or any other minister named by order in council. In the case of railway companies, the granting of letters patent would be subject to the issue of a certificate of public convenience and necessity

by the Canadian Transport Commission. Companies of this type now governed by special acts would be allowed to apply to become companies subject to the ordinary provisions of the Canada Corporations Act. The amendments do not apply to banks, telephone and telegraph companies which will continue to be governed by the special act provisions.
We have taken great care to ensure that the public interest continues to be a paramount consideration when dealing with these special types of companies. In our view the protective measures embodied in the amendments will be sufficient to ensure that the public interest is well served. I am confident hon. members will come to the conclusion that this is a commendable step which will result in a considerable saving of the time of the House and greater convenience for the companies involved.
Finally, I should draw the attention of hon. members to the provisions of clause 4 of the bill. This clause would permit companies to restrict their shareholders to Canadian citizens or residents if the shareholders are unanimous in wanting such a restriction. At present, companies incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act do not have this power although certain federal regulations, particularly in the broadcasting field, make a certain degree of Canadian ownership a requirement.
Since this bill was introduced in the last Parliament we have received representations pointing to a number of difficulties in clause 4 as it now stands. We have been studying the problem for some time and I am hopeful that when the bill is discussed in committee I will be in a position to offer for consideration and study an amended or improved version of clause 4.
I am confident hon. members will share my view that Bill C-4 is a piece of legislation that deserves the support of the House. I apologize, Mr. Speaker, in this introductory statement on second reading for taking so much of the time of the House, but these are comprehensive amendments to the Canada Corporations Act covering new and very important disclosure provisions, insider trading, takeover bids, proxies, investigations and inquiries. I thought it was, therefore, important that I should make a long and detailed opening statement. I commend these amendments and this bill to the members of the Finance Committee and trust I will receive the support of that committee in dealing with Bill C-4.
November 10, 1969


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in some instances I am glad the minister has given us some rather lengthy explanations in respect of this 82-page bill, which of course is quite complicated in much of its length, and has outlined the reason this is being done by regulation. We have a sort of allegation or claim in respect of a just society.
Combined with what is proposed in the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Benson) white paper on taxation, this bill concerning corporations and some other things leads me to wonder whether we are moving toward a regulative society. With regard to many of the amendments I have a great number of questions, because it seems to me, particularly in the area of private companies, that since the investing public is not involved in private companies there are some attempts at what seem to be just plain out and out snooping for whatever purpose it may be. It may be that people just want to have control over certain operations. There again, I simply ask: Is it an attempt to establish a regulative society? I give the minister fair warning that I will be looking very carefully at these matters which have to do with a number of the requirements that will be made of private companies in which the investing public is not in any way affected.
It is a cardinal principle that in so far as public companies are concerned, the requirements as to filing financial statements and so on are for the benefit and protection of the investing public. It is not so much the actions of the companies' branches in Toronto, Vancouver or Edmonton that really act as protection for the public, but rather the actions of the various stock exchanges and the securities commission. They are the real watchdog of the public. The minister told me this afternoon that he had not been able to make much progress in respect of the establishment of a Canadian securities commission.


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is not what I said.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister said he had not abandoned his idea and that it was still continuing. But I can tell the House and the minister that I know he is not making any progress. The point is, however, that substitute machinery is being set up so that his department can act as though it was a national securities commission in so far as dominion companies are concerned. We will see just how far this goes. I would not want it to be the substitute for a Canadian securities commission. I know some of the problems 21362-46J
Canada Corporations Act with regard to that matter. Ottawa's requirement is that the commission shall be seated in Ottawa and shall operate from Ottawa. This is nonsense. A securities commission operates near the biggest market, and a national securities commission could operate in Montreal or Toronto far more effectively than in Ottawa. This is one of the stumbling blocks, and there are others. But I am sure all provincial authorities agree with the principle of a national securities commission whereby many of the provisions the minister would like to impose in the corporations act which would go further than any other corporations act, would be put into effect. I think we are trying to achieve commendable ends.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Certainly those of us who have some knowledge of company law want to see an improvement in the control of insider trading. But according to the way the minister explained it, anybody who might potentially be an insider acts at his own peril, because any information might be used or deemed to have been used by him for his advantage. This point will have to be explained. He will also be subject to claims by shareholders who might have been affected, by previous shareholders, or even somehow or other by the regulatory agency which may initiate a suit to try to recover moneys. This policy goes much further than has even been the case and will require a good deal of explanation.
Let us deal with the various points raised. First of all, there is the removal from this House of the power of incorporation by private bill of many types of organizations, as described by the minister in a rather complete press release dated May 22. I do not know why great parts of it had to be read into the record tonight. In any event, if we look at page 8 of the press release we see that incorporation by special act of Parliament would apply to pipeline companies whether oil, gas or commodity, trust companies, loan companies, insurance companies and railway companies. There is a limitation that they cannot be incorporated in any way other than that permitted under the acts which govern these particular types of companies, such as the Trust Companies Act, and so forth. In other words, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) could not incorporate a trust company in derogation of any of the requirements of the Trust Companies Act. It must be clear that this is understood.
One provision which concerns me somewhat is that the Minister of Consumer and
November 10, 1969


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, when the minister was introducing the bill I was asked a question behind the curtains. Somebody asked, "What does it all mean?" The thought that occurred to me as a rather fast explanation of the bill was that it will just make it a little more difficult for corporate structures to get away with things. The minister has been castigated by some of the financial newspapers. One had the headline,
Canada Corporations Act Corporation Act Changes Rouse Businessmen," and another, "Business Protest to Corporations Act Mounts." From these headlines it would seem that the minister was introducing an earthshaking document. However, all he is really saying is that after 34 years the executive have finally come to the conclusion that public investors are entitled to expect that there will be disclosure of business activities, that inside trading will be restricted and reported and that proxy solicitation will be somewhat more straightforward than it has been in the past. After 34 years these are the earthshattering amendments that he proposes.
I do not want to commence my remarks with a negative attitude, Mr. Speaker. The fact that it has taken so long to produce these amendments is not something for which we can blame the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). By and large 1 am glad to see these changes being proposed in our laws affecting corporations. The time has long past when businesses, particularly large ones, and in many cases foreign-owned corporations, can say, "What we do is of no concern to the public or to our shareholders." The proposed legislation is a worth-while step in terms of taking a look at what is going on inside the corporate structure of the country, but I would suggest that the bill can be only a prelude to measures of far greater significance.
Just finding out that there are bad things going on is not enough. Obviously the purpose of finding out is to take some kind of action, but there has been little indication of the kind of action the minister is prepared fi>
take if his investigations reveal that corporations are not always acting in the public interest. I for one do not necessarily view corporations as bad things. In some cases I believe they have been bad things. But, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the kind of industrial society in which we live, and at the kind of technological progress that is taking place, it is quite obvious that only very large corporations having large resources are able to take advantage of these technological changes. The implication is that we will have to live with corporations, with very large organizations. The question is not whether we are going to be happy about it, but to what extent we can make corporations responsive to the needs of people.
The important thing about all our institutions is the degree of responsiveness that they demonstrate to the needs of Canadians. This

714	COMMONS
Canada Corporations Act bill will at least provide us with an opportunity to examine the structure and behaviour of corporations in a better way than we have been able to do recently. The significant question is, how will the government act to make changes once it is in command of such information? The large companies of our time have taken on the position of a state within a state. They have enormous power. Some of them employ more people than some countries have populations. Many of them have financial resources that are infinitely greater than the taxing powers of some countries. Many of these corporations are based outside the boundaries of the countries in which they operate, and they take their orders from outside those boundaries. This is very true in Canada where to a large extent foreign-owned corporations, if American-owned, are subject to American law even if it be in conflict with the law of Canada. This gives rise to a very serious condition, a state within a state, and we must find means of coping with it.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Large corporations have virtually the power to tax. Usually we think of taxes as being imposed by government at various levels, but where a corporation is able to determine its own profit level it also imposes a kind of tax. The difference is that if we do not like the taxes imposed by our government we can at least turn it out, but people are helpless in the face of a giant corporation.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come to look at the kind of profits corporations are entitled to make and the prices they charge. They should not unilaterally have the power to tax without having to answer to the people of the country in which they operate, any more than may the government of that country. Governments do not always plan, but corporations do. They represent a huge investment and must make advance decisions. They become bureaucracies with a life of their own and must decide investment and market policy years ahead. Often they are even able to overcome the market structure.
I do not think we can really say that we have the kind of free market of which the classical economists used to speak. Giant corporations and associations of every kind have been able to operate against this type of market system. Knowing that, and knowing that the discipline we would expect from the market system no longer exists, there must be some other way that corporations can respond
[Mr. Saltsman.l
DEBATES	November 10, 1969
to the country and its people. The market system cannot be depended on any more in this respect. It is difficult, and to some extent perhaps even undesirable, to impose excessive regulations of any kind, whether of business or other organizations in our society. I for one would look for ways to provide a regulating mechanism without detailed government scrutiny for every sort of activity. I am suggesting that the market can serve a useful purpose if we change the rules of the game so that it becomes a reflection of efficiency and responsiveness, which is what it is supposed to be.
When we set priorities for the number of houses we want and the kind of hospitals and public service we want in a civilized society, we should not let the market make the decisions. But when it comes to a decision as to the kind of shoes we wear, the kind of car we drive or the hat we sport at Easter, surely the market can offer the choice provided there is the market mechanism and it is not frustrated by the enormous power of the corporation as we know it today.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we need more than just disclosure and more than just some idea about proxy trading or insider trading. We will have to change our tax system. I suggest that unless we change it to bring some corporations either under regulation or some kind of market pressure, this bill will be meaningless; we will have a lot of information and a lot of facts that will be of no help. We already have enough information and facts and enough insights to indicate a fundamental change in our tax system. Such change is not taking place. I do not have any cause for confidence that if this legislation is passed, the kind of tax reforms and changes necessary to make corporations responsive will come to pass.
How does the corporation escape from the market discipline? One way is by vertical integration of its operation. A clear example of this is the oil industry which starts with exploration, developing, refining and then ownership of the service stations just to make sure the whole thing is co-ordinated. They have a market system which obscures facts. What does "platform power" really tell us about gasoline? What do the glossy ads which we read or see on television tell us about the product? Very little. This is a real form of power. In some ways it is tyranny, and must be broken. I would be much more impressed with this legislation if there were provisions in it to the effect that owners of oil wells
November 10, 1969

cannot also own service stations. Then we would really get some market forces at work.
That is not such a far-out suggestion, Mr. Speaker. There has been three major investigations in the oil industry all of which came to the conclusion that too many service stations were being built, that operators were not able to make a decent enough living, and that the prices as a result of vertical integration were not cheaper but were higher than necessary. There has been an enormous amount of waste through the vertically integrated operation.
The minister pointed out that under the bill, in the case of conglomerates separate reports of their activities will be required and that there will have to be an indication of their profit and loss position. However, there is nothing in the bill to say that for tax purposes they cannot present a consolidated statement and be taxed on the over-all position provided they indicate their method of operation.
To make this measure effective, where you have a chain of supermarkets each store should report separately and be taxed on the basis of its profit and loss position. If this is not done, one store may take tax money that would normally go to the government and subsidize an inefficient operation or drive out a competitor; the profit from one store could be used to absorb the loss of another. This is really a distortion of the market system because there is no test of efficiency. In effect there is a vast subsidization of the corporation in this position, an internal subsidization at its own discretion.
There is much talk about providing money for old age pensioners, increasing the family allowance and even bringing in the guaranteed annal income. There never seems to be enough money to do this, but the tax laws permit this type of subsidization to go on. In the long run it destroys the small entrepreneur. If the small entrepreneur is destroyed because he is inefficient, that is one thing; but if he is destroyed because a competitor who owns a series of chain stores can open up a store close by and run it at a loss because it is subsidized by the other stores, that is another. That is an unhealthy situation and it illustrates to some extent the real problem that exists in vertical integration and conglomerates and chains. Under our present tax system you do not have an effective way of evaluating the efficiency of the structure of various corporations. Mere pious hopes or platitudes will not do; we need a taxation

Canada Corporations Act or they would discard them. That is their business. But I do not like those values for this country because I think we are a different kind of people. I resent tax laws that allow us to be dominated culturally by entrepreneurs of another country. There might have been some justification for these exemptions in the early stages of industrialization, but by permitting them to continue today we are distorting the market system.
I am not making a pitch for us to regulate advertising; I am not saying that we ought to control it, because I do not think anyone in government is wise enough to say how much one should spend on advertising, what form the advertising should take or how an advertiser should spend his advertising dollar. That is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that the product should bear its full selling costs. I say that selling costs should not be deductible for income tax purposes. If the product sells well, that is good. If by selling many items you lower your selling costs, as many people claim, that is very good. The success of your product will be reflected by success in the marketplace and it will not be subsidized with tax money. If the product does not sell, again that will show up in the marketplace. We cannot see how successful a product is so long as we allow advertising and selling expenses to be deducted for income tax purposes. The tax bonus that is conferred on the entrepreneur in this manner is tantamount to a direct subsidy. This is made possible by our present taxation system. I am asking that our tax system be changed to allow market forces to operate more accurately and specifically than they now do. Our large enterpreneurs always say they want to live by the market. But they are not living by the market, Mr. Speaker, because they are receiving a subsidy through our tax system. I do not think they are entitled to that kind of protection.
The third area I wish to touch on is that of retained earnings. According to our information about corporations, big corporations seldom have to go to the marketplace if they want money for expansion. Even when they do go to the market, they go there with the advantage of an AAA credit rating, and so on. It might be worth-while if we forced large corporations to pay out all retained earnings to shareholders. Corporations should not hold on to retained earnings or if they do those earnings should be taxed at a special rate. If the corporations need money for expansion, let them go back to the shareholders and the marketplace. I think the minister said that

our capital markets are functioning smoothly. I say to him that our capital markets are enormously distorted because corporations can hang on to retained earnings. As a result they are not subject to the discipline of the marketplace; they do not have to explain their investment priorities to any banker. In my opinion this is not good. If those gentlemen who are in charge of our corporations believe so much in the marketplace, they should live by the marketplace. Then perhaps we might see some significant changes which would benefit our consumers.
I think this legislation is worth while, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry it has taken 34 years to arrive. That it has taken so long is a powerful indictment against governments which for the past 34 years have directed this nation's affairs.


An hon. Member:: I do not agree.


Max Saltsman: I exonerate the present minister from blame. It is hard to hold him accountable for the sins of previous governments since for all I know he may not have been born 34 years ago. We have come a long way, and I hope we do not have to wait another 34 years before seeing action based on the kind of information that will become available through legislation of this kind. I conclude by saying that unless we obtain a fairer tax system, and unless the government is prepared to act on the information that is obtained, this entire exercise will not have been worth while.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford) is entitled "An Act to amend the Canadian Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments."
The members of the Ralliement creditiste have always expressed very clearly their faith in private enterprise and they are in favour of permitting private enterprise a maximum of development in order to reach standards of valid competition that will enable the consumers to benefit from reasonable prices while respecting the consumer sector of our society and of our national economy.
Many people have taken objection, in the past, to corporations, calling them, for
November 10, 1969
instance, highway robbers and exploiters of small people,, profiteers who take in millions and millions of dollars, asking the government to take over some corporations or even nationalize them in order to achieve a more equitable distribution of the country's wealth.
Mr. Speaker, one seems to forget that the millions of dollars made by these companies are not necessarily stashed away in order to ensure them a cash reserve. On the contrary, the corporations are investing their profits in their firms to expand.
I remember reading one day the speech made by a great American tycoon. I refer to Henry Ford who said some time before he died: If I had to launch my industry today, I could not do it because when I started in the car industry, I could use my profits to expand, to enlarge my plants and I did. Today, I could not do it simply because the government takes away my profits and I have to go to credit lenders and borrow at prohibitive interest rates in order to expand.
Today, this same thinking should be understood by the Canadian parliament and the Canadian people.
Often I hear people say: If there are poor people in Canada, it is due to the large corporations and the profits they make. It is incorrect to say or to attempt to prove that poverty in some areas of Canada is due exclusively to corporations.
I know that some corporations, and the same is true of any other sector of our economy, are guilty of abuses. For example, if several companies combine in order to fix prices, in that case the government is certainly obligated to interfere in order to prevent trusts.
In the past, we have seen cases where the organizers of trusts or combines were sentenced to fines from $25,000 to $50,000. Those people did not care because by raising their prices by a quarter of a cent or half a cent, they could make a $50 million profit within 12 or 24 hours.
That was laughing at the government or at justice.
Therefore, as concerns combines, trusts or people who want to monopolize in order to exploit the Canadian people, I say that the government should take more restrictive measures, not only by having them pay a fine, but by sentencing them to jail. In fact, a five or ten-year jail term would give the trust or combine organizers something to think about.
Canada Corporations Act
If we really want to protect private enterprise as well as the establishment of new corporations or ensure the respect of already established ones, we should preserve healthy competition that provides for a better output to the consumer sector in our society.
Whenever a company does not provide good service, or produces low-quality goods, competition takes on great importance since consumers will prefer honest companies which really have at heart the welfare of the people.
This 80-page bill is really a substantial one, but hon. members have not had enough time to consider all its clauses.
In any event, I feel this is I a measure that could improve the part played by corporations in our society. This measure is intended to protect the consumer and I hope it will do so. Were we some day to, realize it has failed to achieve its objective, it would be up to us to introduce the required amendments.
Mr. Speaker, provided we keep a watchful eye on them, it is possible to have in Canada honest corporations, eager to promote the general welfare of the country and respectful of the laws passed by the federal parliament. If every corporation is led to see the importance of legislation passed in order to ensure the over-all welfare of the people, the Canadian parliament will have contributed to help the consumers of the country and the nation as a whole.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this is a very large bill to correct a very small fault with relation to the private members' hour. That has been mentioned as one of the reasons for this bill. I think there are probably other reasons for it. Some of them have been mentioned.
The objection which we in this party have is that bills coming before Parliament recently have not been met by the terms of this bill, and I do not think they will be. The minister is to be congratulated on building up a bureaucracy in his department from a very small beginning to what has obviously become a large section of the government. I remember when there were only three or four people in the companies branch and the function of two or three of them was to help the others back on their chairs when for various reasons they fell off. This was about all that was done in the companies branch. Obviously the minister intends to make changes. This is good, because from my personal observations

November 10, 19G9

Canada Corporations Act it has not been the strongest of our federal government branches. Perhaps armchairs would have been more satisfactory for some of these people, Mr. Speaker.
We in this party have been interested in a number of incorporations. We have used other companies for the purpose of getting the minister to make a decision in this regard, and for that we make no apology. To prove the point, I have on a number of occasions discussed at length the proposal of a company to change its name when the amendment being sought contained no other proposal but that.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I agree with everyone who says that companies should not be subjected to harrassment of this sort when they are seeking merely a small change of that nature. We have been concerned by the fact that many companies wish to set themselves up in Canada under a federal charter and then operate as if they were foreign companies, providing none of the benefits which one is inclined to think should come from a good Canadian corporate enterprise. This is true in the case of many insurance companies. I am happy that we have been able to persuade some of them which have been incorporated during the last two or three years to become Canadian-owned within a stated period of time to the extent that Canadian law provides. It is odd that this should be, not 51 per cent as one might expect but 49 per cent. Canadian law states they can establish only 49 per cent or all voting rights are lost, with the exception of 10 per cent.
We do not believe this bill will really meet these problems. It is true the minister is expanding his department, but the Superintendent of Insurance still does not have the powers necessary to do the job which I am sure both the minister and myself, as well as Canadians generally, want done in relation to insurance companies.


An hon. Member:: How are you so sure the minister wants it done?


William Arnold Peters: I am fairly sure he does. I cannot believe anyone would want to extend further the proliferation of insurance companies, adding more to the thousand or so already in existence. We would be creating a monster, one which the minister would not wish to supervise. How much better the situation would be if the number of companies 
engaged was small enough to maintain a reasonable competitive level while at the same time providing coverage in all necessary fields.
In an attempt to provide safeguards for the public we have resorted, in addition to legislation, to a number of devices. One is control through the National Energy Board and similar bodies such as the Transportation Commission. This is an area which the minister should seriously consider enlarging. I presume we shall soon be incorporating companies engaged in the transfer of gas and oil. I would point out that it is not only a question of whether these companies meet all the corporate requirements; we have to consider whether they also meet the needs of the Canadian people.
We can all recall the debate on the trans-Canada pipeline which brought down the man who was perhaps the greatest planner Canada ever had, Mr. C. D. Howe. It brought him down because he had looked only at the business entities, forgetting the way in which people would be affected. I believe this situation will be repeated. It will not be long before a national commodity pipeline is in operation, and even before that we shall see the construction of a national oil pipeline to the Montreal market When this happens the needs of the Canadian people will have to be considered first, not the convenience of the new company which will be incorporated to carry out the work.
In this connection, I do not think the National Energy Board should make decisions which ought to be made in Parliament. I do not believe the board has the machinery for making these decisions on a proper basis. I strongly urge that important decisions on questions such as these be left to Parliament because of the great influence we have on our national development. It is possible that given time the minister will set up more effective machinery within the insurance branch of his department. I do not think such machinery exists at the present moment. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) referred, as did one of my hon. friends, to the work of the securities commissions of the provinces and the lack of any federal equivalent in this field capable of supervising investment corporations and other companies whose activities are being supervised haphazardly under provincial jurisdiction.
The minister has gone to great trouble to remove from the attention of private members a number of vexing problems which
November 10, 1969	COMMONS
have developed over the years. But let us look at the traditional procedure under which the federal Parliament authorizes the incorporation of companies. I submit that we incorporate them here because it is felt that the necessary controls for the protection of the Canadian people would otherwise be lacking-because as things are the public interest could not be supervised in any other manner.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, would the leader of the House confirm that the business for Wednesday is as announced?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding the fact that we did not complete consideration of this bill, we shall begin on Wednesday the three bills which were announced-the Canadian student loans bill, the small businesses loans bill and the bill for financing the Canadian National Railways. I forget the order which was given. If we make progress on these measures, we shall for the balance of the afternoon return to the bill we have been discussing.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Harold Edward Winch: Early last week, Mr. Speaker, I gave notice of a debate at ten o'clock because an answer is urgently required from the Minister without Portfolio who is responsible for reporting to this chamber on housing matters.
It will be recognized by all hon. members that several months ago the government put a freeze on urban renewal and development. We would like to have a weather forecast indicating when the thaw is likely to set in. In my constituency of Vancouver East and one adjoining area in Vancouver Centre is a total of 1,315 acres all of which is subject to urban development and renewal. Two of the projects in this area were approved as far back as five years ago. It is therefore understandable that we should be interested in learning from the minister how long we shall
DEBATES	719
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion have to wait before construction begins, and just when it is expected he will reach a decision on the policies, procedures and regulations which will be involved in the government's brand new urban renewal and development plans.
In order to give a few examples of what this means in my riding, let me say that I received information from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the project known as redevelopment project No. 2, comprising some 28 acres of land, was initially approved in July, 1964. No action has yet been taken.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
There is also urban renewal scheme No. 3 at False Creek flats which was approved in December, 1964. This area comprises a total area of about 900 acres, which is divided into seven sub-areas, of which only one has been completed. We have what is known as Strath-cona sub-area, which covers some 40 acres and has a population of 3,000. This application has been deferred until the government brings down its new policy. We also have what is known as urban renewal scheme No. 4A, which was approved on October 3, 1968, and comprises 340 acres. According to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, this submission is being held up pending determination of the government's brand new urban renewal and development policy. Another is urban renewal scheme No. 6, covering seven acres of a residential pocket. This scheme was approved in August, 1967, and only the clearing is under way.
Those are a few examples of projects which have been approved over a period of five years and cover a total of 1,315 acres in my constituency. All the work and development is being held up, to say nothing of the planning, until we are told what is in the mind of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing in regard to reconstruction and development in the city of Vancouver.
I think I have said sufficient to point out the situation in my constituency and the urgency of the matter. We members of the House of Commons need an indication from the government as to when the thaw will set in and the government will announce its policy. Then construction and redevelopment of these projects can proceed. Such projects are a vital necessity not only in my constituency but throughout the length and breadth of Canada.
720	COMMONS DEBATES	November 10, I3SS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will recall, the minister responsible for housing has agreed to make a statement on motions in the near future on the general subject of urban renewal.
In so far as the situation in Vancouver East is concerned, as I think the hon. member who asked the question is aware, the city of Vancouver has made an application for assistance under section 23B for the Strathcona section only of the total 1,300-acre area No. 3. As the minister indicated to the hon. member recently, he had the opportunity to visit this area and to talk to many of its residents when he was in Vancouver in August to meet the Hon. Dan Campbell, Minister of Municipal Affairs for the province of British Columbia. On August 7, he met with the mayor and members of council of the city of Vancouver. The representatives of the Strathcona Property Owners and Tenants Association were also present. As a result of these meetings it was agreed that the real need in this area appeared to be one of finding ways and means of assisting the citizens in rehabilitating and upgrading their properties and to involve the people concerned in the total process. The earlier proposals of the city contemplated acquisition and clearance of most of the properties in the area.
The National Housing Act contains no provisions for grants or subsidies to assist people of low income in the repair and rehabilitation of privately-owned residential properties. It seemed apparent that the citizens of Strathcona area considered such aids to be necessary in their case. Therefore, it has been arranged with the city and the province as well as with the Strathcona property owners and Tenants Association, that a committee should be appointed with representatives from the city, the province and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as well as the association charged with the responsibility of formulating proposals for the rehabilitation of one or two blocks within the area.
A condition to the minister's agreement is that the residents of the area are given the fullest opportunity to participate in the selection of the site and in the terms of reference for the proposed study. Since that time a working committee has been organized under the chairmanship of the director of the Vancouver social welfare department. The Strathcona Property Owners and Tenants Association is represented on the committee, as are 
officials of the province and of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Continuing meetings at about weekly intervals have been held since October 1. The committee has agreed to the principle of the residents' association engaging consultants to assist in the definition of a one or two block area which may be the subject of an experimental rehabilitation project and as well to assist in examining the buildings in this area to establish what might be done.


Harold Edward Winch: That is only 40 acres out of 1,350.


Mr. O'Connell:: That is the only area in respect of which the city of Vancouver has made application for an implementation scheme. City officials are examining the area to ascertain-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.



SOCIAL SECURITY-INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF INCOME FLOOR

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver- Kings -way):: On November 5, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if, in view of his recent expressions of concern about people on low income and in view of the representations made in Halifax to the Senate Committee on Poverty, the government was now prepared to consider establishing an income floor below which no Canadian would be allowed to fall. The Prime Minister very courteously replied that the government was not yet satisfied that this was a realistic step.
Two days later the government published its white paper on tax reform. It proposed, among other things, to raise income tax levels from the present levels of $1,000 for a single person and $2,000 for a married couple to $1,400 for a single person and $2,800 for a married couple. By this very proposal the government admits that several million Canadians are now living below acceptable income levels. The fact that three-quarters of a million taxpayers are now going to be dropped from the rolls because their income is too pitifully low to tax is the strongest argument anyone could advance for the need to establish a guaranteed income in Canada.
As I listened to the debate this afternoon on the motion of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) I had the distinct impression that some members on the government side of the House have the idea that if
November 10, 1969

and when the proposals of the white paper become law in 1971, everything will be all right; low income people will then know the full blessings of the just society. Not so. Fairer taxation will help, of course. We are not sure yet how fair it is nor how many of the proposals will be put into effect. But fairer taxation will not necessarily provide income for the 44 million to 5 million Canadians who live in poverty. Only a guaranteed annual income can do that; and only this Parliament can establish that income floor.
Where is the money to come from? There is only one source, ever. It is the taxpayer's money, based on the wealth this country can produce. But today a lot of this money is wasted in keeping poverty in being. Poverty is not cheap. The Economic Council in its latest report points out that poverty is an expensive luxury. Keeping people poor means using precious resources to deal with more sickness than we would otherwise have. Keeping people poor means using valuable resources to administer public welfare and assistance programs. Keeping people poor means paying for more policemen, judges and jails than we would otherwise need. Keeping people poor means losing human abilities and possibilities on a scandalously wasteful scale. And what have we to show for keeping people poor? We have frustrated, alienated, wasted, broken human beings who exist in a substandard world of their own and watch twentieth century life passing them by on television. We send out the rare committee to weep over their misery. No wonder the young people revolt against our hypocrisy.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The time has come for us to realize that while millions of our fellow Canadians continue to live in poverty, the rest of us cannot long continue to enjoy affluence with impunity. The time has come to face the challenge of getting rid of poverty altogether and, as has been indicated over and over again in this House, although there is never money to establish things like a guaranteed income we know perfectly well that if a war were to break out tomorrow, money would be no object; it would be found, and in the amounts needed.
An essential, first step in that direction is the building of a solid income floor based on a modern standard of living and geared to changes in that standard of living. Surely we want to get away from the charge levelled in the story told by the hon. member for Lanark
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and Renfrew (Mr. McBride) in which the poor said bitterly of their wealthy benefactors, "They confirm us as beggars". The guaranteed income will be a first step in wiping out that indictment against the rest of us.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her continuing concern in this area, one which we all share. I am sure that all members of the House share this concern, as does the government. As the hon. member knows, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) answered the question that was asked by the hon. member during the oral question period in this chamber on November 5 in the only way he could. At that time he stated, as recorded at page 547 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is talking about a guaranteed annual income, yes, we have been considering it for some time. I am not in a position to say when a statement will be made, because as a government we are not yet satisfied that this is a realistic step.
May I suggest that when the Prime Minister used the word "realistic" he was talking about a step that must be realistically beneficial to people of low income, and in my judgment there is no use doing anything until we know that this will be the result of government action.
I think also it is obvious from the remarks of the Prime Minister that the government's constant attention has been addressed to the interest of Canadian citizens on low income. Certainly the tax reform proposals, about which the hon. member had some nice things to say a minute ago, recently put forward by a genuinely liberal Finance Minister and supported by the government, are unassailable proof that a major preoccupation of this government is the creation of a just and equitable society for all Canadians. How this can best be done is matter for discussion and consideration of the kind that was intimated by the Prime Minister in his reply to the hon. member.
I might add that I share the hon. member's deep and sincere concern that has continued for many years, and I have confidence that this government will be producing proposals that are best for the low income families in our country. I am quite sure that all members of the House will endorse such proposals when they are brought forward.
November 10, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion VETERANS AFFAIRS-TRANSFER OF LANCASTER HOSPITAL


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, the question I would like to discuss in the seven minutes that I have under the rules this evening is that of the proposed transfer of Lancaster Military Hospital to the board of commissioners of the Saint John General Hospital and the New Brunswick department of health. There are a number of questions involved in this whole matter.
First of all, an integral part of the agreement in the transfer was that there was to be a 300-bed wing provided for veterans at the Saint John General Hospital, and second that the takeover date was to be the 1st day of July, 1970, or such other date as the parties might agree-I repeat, "or such other date as the parties might agree."
This particular question was debated very fully at the New Brunswick provincial convention of the Royal Canadian Legion held on September 1 and 2. As the minister perhaps knows, it was also debated a week ago when the very able and eloquent member of the New Brunswick Legislature for Saint John West, Mr. Logan, aired this matter on the television station there. A response was made to Mr. Logan's charges by the New Brunswick minister of health, Mr. Theriault.
I wish to quote from a press release which appeared in the Saint John Evening Times Globe on November 3, in which Mr. Theriault is reported to have said that there are two points with which he is dissatisfied; first, the amount of the federal grant in connection with this takeover, and second, the takeover date. As to the grant, he felt it should be $10 million instead of the 4J million that the federal government is transferring to the province. Second, he objected to the takeover date because he did not expect that all the details could be worked out by that date. I would call the particular attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) to these statements by the New Brunswick minister of health. They indicate that the province of New Brunswick is not prepared to take over the hospitalization of New Brunswick's veterans on July 1 next.
There is something more important than just having all the details worked out, Mr. Speaker. I feel, and the New Brunswick veterans feel, that before any transfer is made the proposed new 300-bed wing at the Saint John General Hospital must be ready for the

receiving and proper care of those veterans who need treatment. In answering my question I would ask the minister to advise whether or not he is aware of the freeze on new hospital construction that has been imposed by the New Brunswick provincial government. I am sure that the minister has received many letters on this subject, as have all of us who represent New Brunswick constituencies. I am deeply concerned. I know the Royal Canadian Legion is deeply concerned. I know the veterans are concerned.
In order to help the minister out with his answer-I want to be helpful because we are working toward the same objective on this matter-I would like to place on the record the resolution passed at its convention by the Royal Canadian Legion. If the minister has not received a copy I would be glad to supply him with one. It reads:
Whereas the present agreement between the Department of Veterans Affairs, Province of New Brunswick and the Commissioners of the Saint John General Hospital provides inter alia for the transfer of Lancaster D.V.A. facilities to the province of New Brunswick by July 1st, 1970,
And whereas the integral part of the aforementioned agreement is the construction of a 300-bed wing to the Saint John General Hospital and the agreement provided for a takeover date for Lancaster D.V.A. as "the first day of July, 1970 or such other date as the parties may agree,"
And whereas the New Brunswick Command, Royal Canadian Legion strenuously and vigorously objects to any takeover prior to the construction of the new wing, and paragraph 11 of the agreement clearly contemplates no move of veterans until the said wing is completed,
And whereas the New Brunswick Command Royal Canadian Legions considers the pith and substance of the agrement to be the proper care of veterans in conjunction with the construction of the new wing, and whereas the Department of Health for the province of New Brunswick has announced a halt in hospital construction in the province.
Therefore be it resolved that the proposed takeover of the Lancaster D.V.A. facility by the Province of New Brunswick be postponed until such time as the new wing proposed for the Saint John General Hospital is constructed and ready for occupancy.
I am sure that the New Brunswick veterans, especially those who are sick and who need hospitalization, will be deeply interested in what the minister has to say on this question.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 

November 10, 1969



APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;


[Stage Direction]
Representatives from eleven government departments will be working on the Telecommission announced today by the Communications Minister Eric Kierans. They are:
The Department of Communications The Department of Justice The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce
The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
The Department of National Defence The Department of External Affairs The Secretary of State Department The Department of the Solicitor General The Post Office Department The Department of Regional Economic Expansion
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development The Department of Agriculture The Department of Transport The Department of Communications has also enlisted the assistance of several Canadian universities and the following public and private bodies:
The Canadian Radio-Television Commission The Canadian Transport Commission The Canadian International Development Agency
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation The National Research Council The National Film Board The Canada Council The National Gallery The Telephone Association of Canada The Independent Telephone Association of Canada
The Trans-Canada Telephone System CN/CP Telecommunications Electronic Industries Association of Canada Canadian Radio Technical Planning Board Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation
Communications Research Center Computer Society
Canadian Radio Technical Planning Board Canadian Cable Television Association.

[Stage Direction]
Fifty study projects have been undertaken by the Telecommission to examine the legal, social, economic and demographic implications, both present and future, of telecommunications. They are:

[Stage Direction]
Analysis of constitutional and legal basis for regulation of telecommunications in Canada.
Study of relevance of American legislative and regulatory experience to the Canadian situation.
Relevance of regulatory experience in countries other than Canada.
History of regulation and current regulatory setting.
Concept of a common carrier.
Analysis of the relationship between common carriers' and broadcasters' function.

[Stage Direction]
Study of formal structure of telecommunications; logical basis for regulation; regulation of monopoly versus competitive price system.
Quantitative description of the telecom munications sector, links with other sectors of economy, production and cost relationship within a sector, evolution over next years, projection of demands.
Telecommunication carriers-oriented market projection and analysis.
Description of Canadian telecommunications manufacturing industries-size-growth, etc.... International marketing of goods and services.
Study on institutional structure of telephone operating industries.
Corporate ownership and control of telecommunications carrier service industry, vertical and horizontal integration in telecommunication and related industries.
Reappraisal of present management of frequency spectrum.
Study of management spectrum policy with particular concern with the economic aspect of spectrum usage.
November 10, 19G9

[Stage Direction]
A study of international implications of telecommunications, the role of Canada in international organizations, Intelsat and other relevant organizations.
Communications and the Canadian assistance programme of developing countries (hardware and software).
International legal problems concerning transfer and storage of information.
Analysis of the role of Canadian telecommunications companies in respect of foreign countries.
Analysis of international telecommunications operations, the growth and handling of international traffic.

[Stage Direction]
The future of communications technology- long range study.
Research and Development-industry/uni-versities/government programmes to promote R and D industry and industries.

[Stage Direction]
Concept of a computer utility
Relationship between common carriers, computing companies and information and data systems.
Civil liberties, privacy and other problems related to the input of, and access to data storage in a computer system. Conference to provide further information.
Study of problems in data transfer with particular regard to visual data software.
Institutional arrangements for optimizing development of data banks in public interest.
Long term market prospects for computer services.
Telecommunication services present and anticipated needs of the computer industry and its customers.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT Telecommunications and the Arts Telecommunications and the Mass Media Telecommunications and Education Telecommunications and Leisure Telecommunications and the Individual Telecommunications and Governments Telecommunications and Corporate Institutions
Telecommunications and Transportation

[Stage Direction]
Regulatory bodies, structures and roles. Relationship between D.O.C. and regulatory bodies.
Relationship between D.O.C. and telecommunications carrier service industry.
Relationship between D.O.C. and manufacturing industry, rationalization of future role of C.R.C.
Relationship between D.O.C. and Universities. Conference to provide further information.
Relationship between D.O.C. and organizations internationally orientated.
Communications and National Security. Emergency National Telecommunications. Postal services and telecommunications.

[Stage Direction]
Communications and regional development. Study of the problems relating to regulation of private wire services including services by satellite.
Study of interconnection of systems, circuits and devices.
Communication and northern development analysis of present and future situation. Conference to provide further information.
Special services provided by wide-band intra-city cable distribution system.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 12, 1969