1970-11-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for the Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-179, respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company.


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


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-180, respecting the packaging, labelling, sale, importation and advertising of prepackaged and certain other products.


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

[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)

Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada.


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

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

Mr. Paproski: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to tighten immigration procedures for persons entering Canada as visitors?
2.	Do immigration officers currently require identification from all persons seeking to enter Canada?
3.	Are persons who are or may become public charges allowed to enter Canada as visitors?
4.	Are known or suspected drug users or peddlers, within the meaning of the Criminal Code, permitted to enter Canada as visitors and, if so, what is the reason for such a policy?
5.	In what cases are persons prohibited from entering Canada as visitors?


Hon. Ofto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. It is not the intention of the Government to make it more difficult for genuine visitors to come to Canada. An improved internal system is being developed to facilitate early detection and removal, if necessary, of those who overstay their legitimate sojourn in Canada as well as those whose immigration status is in doubt.
2.	Yes.
3,	4 and 5. Categories of persons prohibited by law from entering Canada, as immigrants or as visitors, are described in Section 5 of the Immigration Act. These include persons who are public charges or who are likely to become public charges, as well as drug addicts or known or suspected drug peddlers and unlawful users within the meaning of the Narcotic Control Act.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS TO INDIAN FARMERS
Mr. Gleave: Of the 48 Farm Credit Corporation Loans to Indian farmers in Canada (a) how many individuals in each province received such loans (b) what was the amount of each loan to each individual (c) what was the purpose for which each loan was made?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that: This question is identical to Question No. 2054, June 16, 1970, which was answered on October 5, 1970.


OLD AGE SECURITY AND GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT RECIPIENTS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many persons in Canada, by provinces, are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension?
2.	Of the recipients of the Old Age Security pension, how many persons in Canada, by provinces, are in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement?
3.	Of those receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, how many persons in Canada, by provinces, are receiving the full amount?
4.	What is the average amount, in Canada, and by provinces, being received as a Guaranteed Income Supplement by recipients of the Old Age Security pension?
5.	Do the answers to the above questions take into consideration persons living outside of Canada who are in receipt of the

November 2, 1970
Questions
Old Age Security pension and, if so, how many of such persons are there, and if they are considered as belonging to the various provinces what is the number of each province?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The following answers are given as of August, 1970:
Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	P.Q.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	NWT	Yukon1.	31,713	12,340	70,854	53,479	401,762	624,977	94,175	92,722	114,557	197,609	808	4622.	24,938	8,495	42,166	32.093	227,425	252,139	47,777	45,076	57,568	85,490	665	2483.	19,408	5,394	26,092	21,157	150,077	123,587	25,621	25,344	32,471	46,172	584	2034.	$29.64	$28.09	$28.96	$28.25	$28.45	$25.01	$27.82	$27.35	$31.53	$26.92	$31.83	$31.18
Average for Canada: $27.41
The figures given in 1. above include persons receiving the Old Age Security pension outside of Canada in August 1970. Some of these persons may be out of Canada permanently, others on a temporary basis. They are considered as belonging to the various provinces, with the numbers for each being as follows:
Nfld. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. P.Q. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C. NWT Yukon
86	61	313	279	2,895	5,120	573	502	696	2,889	2	4
Total for Canada: 13,420
The Guaranteed Income Supplement is payable outside of Canada for only six months following departure. No data are available as to the number of pensioners receiving the supplement outside of Canada.


IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many Immigration appeals against deportation are now pending?
2.	What action is being taken to alleviate the problem?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. 3,751 as of October 1, 1970.
2. This backlog of appeals pending before the Immigration Appeal Board is largely comprised of people who came here ostensibly as visitors and then applied to remain permanently. Many such applicants are found to be inadmissible as immigrants. When they refuse to leave as requested, it is necessary to order their deportation and the majority of them exercise their right to file appeals with the independent Immigration Appeal Board. The Department and the Board are fully aware of the problems created by this backlog and for some time now have been seeking solutions to them. Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C. was commissioned to study this matter for the Department and his findings are expected shortly. Numerous remedies have been suggested, including amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act itself, as listed in the legislative program of the current session of Parliament.


MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM-BRITISH COLUMBIA VOCATIONAL SCHOOL, BURNABY
Mrs. Maclnnis: Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration pay an amount to the British Columbia Department of Education or the British Columbia Department of Labour for each Manpower-sponsored student at the British Columbia Vocational School in Burnaby and, if so, what amount is paid per student?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes. The Department pays the province for the actual cost of providing training. The following are esti-

mated costs per training place. Aircraft maintenance, $1,680; Baking, $1,540; Academic upgrading, 10, $1,680; Acedamic upgrading, 12, $700; Building service worker, $140; Cook, general, $1,540; Commercial general, $700; Bookkeeping and accounting, $1,400; Commercial upgrading and advanced options, $1,680; Court reporting, 1,120; Commercial secretarial, $1,400; Drafting, mechanical, $1,400; Drafting, structural, $1,400; Appliance servicing, phase 1, $420; Appliance servicing, phase 2, $700; Electronics technician, $1,400; Meat processing, $1,120; Mechanical maintenance and repairs, $700; Stenotype Operator, $1,400; Welding, general, $1,400; Welding, upgrading, $1,400.


REDESIGNING OF PASSPORTS
Mr. Forrestall: Can the government indicate what progress has been made on the subject of redesigning such travel documents as the Passport, with a view to utilization of computer techniques particularly in connection with the work being done by ICAO in this field.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Some progress has been made by the ICAO panel established to investigate the feasibility of an improved style of travel document which would incorporate computerized reading techniques. As a panel member, Canada has attended the two meetings that have been held. However, much development work remains to be done. In its deliberations, the panel must take into account such matters as the security and format of the document, materials and production methods, and the costs involved, both to governments and members of the travelling public. The final decision whether such a document is economically feasible will depend on the findings and recommendations of the panel and their ultimate acceptance by ICAO as a recommended standard.
November 2, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry
MILITARY ITEMS OR EQUIPMENT SOLD TO	CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES BY
PORTUGUESE COLONIES	CORPORATIONS AND UNIONS


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	Since 1960 what military items or equipment has Canada sold to Portugal and by type, at what cost?
2.	Since 1960, what military arms or equipment has Canada sold to Angola, Mozambique or Portuguese Guinea?
3.	Since 1960, has Canada sold any commodity that could be considered of a military nature, to Angola, Mozambique, Portuguese Guinea or Portugal?
4.	To the acknowledge of the government are any Canadian arms or military equipment being used in the persecution of domestic conflicts in Angola, Mozambique or Portuguese Guinea?
5.	In particular, are Canadian Sabre Jets being employed in any of these conflicts and, if so, when were these arms or equipment made available to these Portuguese colonies and from what country were they purchased?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: See reply to question No. 1,617, answered October 7, 1970.


CURTAILMENT OF PUBLICATIONS DUE TO INCREASED MAILING CHARGES
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Does the Post Office Department have any estimate of the number of non-profit quarterlies, journals, magazines, newsletters which have ceased publication on account of increased mailing charges and, if so, what is the estimated number?
2.	What is the estimated number of the above-mentioned which have for the same reason been forced to cut down the number of their publications?
3.	What is the estimated number of letters and telegrams from groups and individuals received by the Post Office Department concerning increased postal rates for (a) publications (b) first class mail?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: 1.	No.
2.	Not known.
3.	This information is not readily available. To provide it would necessitate the expenditure of many hundred man hours which cannot be justified.


ADVISABILITY OF COMPULSORY ARBITRATION
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of providing a law requiring compulsory arbitration in order to avoid unnecessary strikes and the loss to the economy and to wage-earners when such strikes take place?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: In giving consideration to amendments that might be made to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the provision of compulsory arbitration in the law has not received favourable consideration for a number of reasons, one being that, as has been the experience in other countries, it will not prevent strikes and economic losses arising from strikes.


Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of requiring corporations and unions to obtain approval of their shareholders and/or members before making contributions to political parties?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The Task Force on Labour Relations made some recommendations with respect to trade unions and political action. The government's position on this will be made known when the bill to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is brought forward.


NEWSTART PROGRAM-THE PAS, MANITOBA
Mr. Simpson: 1.	What is the annual budget for the NewStart Program at The Pas, Manitoba?
2.	How many persons are employed under this Program?
3.	Has a consultant or consultants been hired by NewStart at The Pas and, if so, what is the name of the consultant or consultants?
4.	What are the duties of the position of consultant and what qualifications were required?
5.	What remuneration is being paid to the consultant or consultants?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. The budget of Manitoba NewStart for 1970-71 is $950,000. Budgets for future years will be determined on the basis of the program which is approved annually by the provincial Minister of Education and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
2.	Manitoba NewStart currently employs 51 persons.
3,	4 and 5. Manitoba NewStart is an autonomous corporation and the information requested should be obtained by writing to: Mr. W. C. Thomas, Executive Director, Manitoba NewStart Inc., P.O. Box 5000, The Pas, Manitoba.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether a prime suspect, Paul Rose, was under police surveillance for perhaps as long as 48 hours between the time of the kidnapping of Mr. Laporte and his murder and that he escaped from police surveillance during that period-perhaps as late as October 16, the day before the War Measures Act was invoked? If so, did the Solicitor
774

November 2, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
General know that Mr. Rose was under surveillance and did he either approve or express any views about this?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that Mr. Rose was under surveillance after Mr. Laporte was kidnapped and before the War Measures Act was proclaimed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, was the Solicitor General consulted about Mr. Rose being kept under surveillance rather than arrested at that time?


George James McIlraith: He knew of it, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: After the escape from surveillance of Rose, did the Royal Canadian Mounted Police recommend that his picture be published promptly and was this recommendation not acted on and was this recommendation known to the Solicitor General?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the reason he was under surveillance and no warrant was issued for him was, of course, what must be obvious, that there was not at that time evidence against him to warrant the issuing of the warrant for his arrest.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General whether he would reconsider and answer the question I asked? Did the RCMP recommend publication of Rose's picture and the offence, because I understand Rose's fingerprints were on an FLQ communique that had been received? Did the RCMP recommend at that time the publication of his picture and was this known to the Solicitor General?


George James McIlraith: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making assumptions about the details of evidence in this case. I do not propose at this point to give the details of the evidence that was available in connection with the warrant that has subsequently been issued for Mr. Rose. That is a well established practice in the House. I do, however, repeat what I said earlier, that the reason he was not arrested at the time he was under surveillance was that sufficient evidence was not available to permit the issuance of a warrant.



MURDER OF PIERRE LAPORTE, KIDNAPPING OF JAMES CROSS-OFFERING OF REWARD

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: In view of the negative results of the police investigations in both the Laporte and Cross cases so far, has the government now decided to offer a substantial reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the criminals involved in either of these two cases inasmuch as rewards have been helpful in solving criminal cases in the past?


George James McIlraith: I can only repeat what I sought to convey in earlier answers to the same question, that the matter of a reward is under very close consideration by the two governments at the present time and has been from day to day for some days.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: It takes them a long time to do the obvious.


George Harris Hees: As this matter has now been under consideration for several weeks and as the offering of a reward could prove very useful in solving either or both of these cases, would the minister advise the House what in the world is stopping the government from making this very constructive move?


George James McIlraith: It is very simple, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister as I have tried to be as lenient as possible in allowing questions and answers in connection with this matter. It seems to me that the original question asked by the hon. member was quite legitimate although it has been asked before, but his supplementary question is the same argument as has been made before. Perhaps we could hear the argument in response to it from the minister, but that will not advance the situation very much.


George James McIlraith: The answer is very simple. It is that the government prefers to take the advice of the police authorities responsible in this case, plus the advice of the responsible legal authorities, rather than the advice of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, that is the usual snide type of remark the Prime Minister makes. Can we not have a sensible answer to a constructive question on a most important matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



KIDNAPPING OF JAMES CROSS-EFFICIENCY OF POLICE INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
Considering that more than a month has elapsed since Mr. James Cross was abducted and that the people of Canada are concerned about the delay in capturing the abductors, would the Solicitor General satisfy this House and the Canadian public that the searches are being carried out in a truly efficient way by the various police forces of Canada?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to give the House the assurance that effective police work is being done by all the responsible authorities in an attempt to solve these cases.


Mr. Woolliams:: My question is not a supplementary but it is certainly related. In light of the Prime Minister's statement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question would have to be supplementary before the Chair could recognize the hon. member now. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands would normally be recognized at this time unless there is a supplementary question.

November 2, 1970



QUEBEC-INFORMATION CONCERNING ALLEGED DISCUSSIONS ON ESTABLISHMENT OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: My question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has confided to the press that the government has "solid information" regarding alleged discussions for the setting up of a provisional government in Quebec, the said discussions having taken place in that province prior to October 16, is the Prime Minister prepared to take the House into his confidence and give to hon. members the contents of this solid information regarding the incident in question?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the solid information I referred to, when asked by the press if I had any solid information and my answer was yes, is the facts that have been laid before the country by the person who was involved in this, in an editorial last Friday.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of that-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a
supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see the difficulty of the hon. member for Calgary North and I will recognize him in a moment. In the meantime I will allow the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands a supplementary question. I will return to the hon. member for Calgary North in due course.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if, in this solid information which the government has, there is any indication that the discussions regarding the setting up of a provisional government in the province of Quebec contemplated any unconstitutional or illegitimate actions to establish such a government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: None that I know of, Mr. Speaker, but they were obviously predicated on the fact that a government that had been elected six months before with an overwhelming majority of seats was now, in the mind of this person, so unstable and unlikely to last that he was contemplating a means to replace it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
ask if this solid information, which the government alleges it has in its possession, was a factor in the government deciding to proclaim the War Measures Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have answered this all last week, Mr. Speaker, during which time the opposition was busy spreading this rumour; the answer was no and it still is no.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North.
Inquiries of the Ministry



QUEBEC-ALLEGED PLOT TO ESTABLISH PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT-LAYING OF CHARGES

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in light of the Prime Minister's statements today and the statements he made on Friday regarding a plot to create a provisional government in Quebec, are charges being laid against any person under the War Measures Act, the sedition sections of the Criminal Code or any other sections of the code in view of the solid information he says he has?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: None that I know, Mr. Speaker, and I would even say I think not. The solid information was the fact that these conversations had taken place. Had I in this House, when asked about these rumours, said I knew nothing about them I would not have been telling the truth. Had I confirmed them I would have been accused of spreading the rumours. Therefore I told the House I did not want to deny or confirm such rumours.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice. In view of the facts set out by the Prime Minister in the House today and also on Friday, has any thought been given to laying a charge of criminal conspiracy in respect of illegal discussions and agreements in the conversations the Prime Minister has discussed?


John Napier Turner: No Sir.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Secretary of State who reports to the House for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. It is further to previous questions I have posed on the same subject. Has a decision been reached as yet on the provision of a second television service for Cape Breton Island and eastern Nova Scotia? If the minister has not got the information at hand, would he immediately check with the CRTC and the CBC to ascertain what progress is being made and how soon this service will be available to the many taxpayers concerned?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the matter is still under consideration as part of the CBC's capital expenditure projects. I have followed the matter closely but, for the moment, I would like to take notice of the exact question put by the hon. member in order to give him as soon as possible the very latest information on this matter.


Robert Muir: I thank the minister for his reply. At the same time would he also investigate the alternative of

November 2, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
providing cable television to the area in question, and report back to the House?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


George Harris Hees: Is the
government planning to call in the very near future a meeting of government, business and labour to discuss the matter of price restraints for 1971 in view of the fact that the heads of the principal business organizations in Canada have stated recently that their members will not continue to practise price restraint in 1971 unless organized labour agrees to restrain its demands for increased wages and in view of the fact that in the past two or three days the leaders of organized labour have also stated they have no intention of doing so?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, although I do not accept that the submissions were made in the terms of the hon. member's question, I have already been advised by the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission that he is still discussing these matters with the people mentioned by the hon. member.


George Harris Hees: Does the minister not consider that time has run out and that these decisions must be made before the end of the year or price restraint will cease to exist?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now submitting an argument in support of his question and I have to presume that his submission will be taken into consideration by the minister in reaching his decision.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Mafane):: I want to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he could check the charges brought against the CBC by one of its employees to the effect that the Corporation allows the mayor of Montreal to edit the news, to preview broadcasts before they are normally put on the air and to select the accompanying news clips. Is the minister ready to ask the CBC to find out whether these charges are justified?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS RESPECTING NEWS PROGRAMS

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I have a question for the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker, also involving the CBC. Have any special instructions been given to the CBC or Radio-Canada affecting the corporation, either in English or in French, as to the dissemination of news since the proclamation of the War Measures Act? If so, would the minister make a statement in the House, if any such special instructions have been given, as to how the news is to be reported?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand whether the hon. member is referring to instructions given by the government to the CBC, in which case the reply would be no. If he is referring to directions given by the CBC to its reporters and commentators, I would have to inquire from the CBC in order to give the hon. member a detailed reply.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Perhaps I lost the translation as I stood up, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister mean that he will inquire whether such instructions have been given and that he is prepared to make a statement to the House?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to answer the first part of the question pertaining to instructions given by the government to the CBC, the answer is no. With regard to whether the CBC itself has given instructions to the information, news and public affairs services, it is public knowledge that the president of the CBC at a certain point made public the recommendations he had made to those services to exercise restraint. I do not know of any instructions other than those but I shall inquire and answer the hon. member's question later.



ARREST OF CERTAIN NEWS BROADCASTERS UNDER WAR MEASURES ACT

John George Diefenbaker: My
question is directed to the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask him whether a number of news broadcasters connected with Radio-Canada were picked up by the authorities under the provisions of the regulations under the War Measures Act and, if so, have they since been released?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I know that certain persons connected with the CBC-I could not clearly state whether they were employees or merely free-lance contributors-have been arrested and later released. I could not give the hon. member the precise information he requested, but such information must certainly be available either from the CBC or the Quebec Minister of Justice, and I can make inquiries if the right hon. representative is interested.

November 2, 1970


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think that information should be available because over a year ago the matter was brought before the House and the Secretary of State at that time apparently did not know of the existence of these FLQ people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not believe the right hon. member is asking a supplementary question. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West on a supplementary.



OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL ON PROGRAM, &quot;WEEKEND&quot;

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he will investigate whether or not it is the policy of the CBC television program, "Weekend", to allow anyone criticized on that program the opportunity of rebuttal on a subsequent show, or is this privilege confined to cabinet ministers such as-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question is obviously an argument or a grievance. I would not think it is a legitimate question. If hon. members will allow me, we will try to go to another subject at this point.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister met with Prime Minister Golda Meir today to discuss matters of mutual concern to both countries? If so, has he anything to communicate to the House about possible changes in Canada's attitude toward the Middle East situation, or anything of interest to tell the House?


An hon. Member:: Or about the War Measures Act.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I had a very interesting meeting indeed with the Prime Minister of Israel. We talked essentially about the Middle East and the problems there, and there is nothing at this time that I can communicate to the House.


An hon. Member:: Does she have a War Measures Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Don't you know?


NATIONAL SECURITY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice will recall that last
Inquiries of the Ministry
week I asked him two or three times how many persons were being held under the War Measures Act regulations beyond the period of seven days at the request of the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec or of any province?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. gentleman and the House the statistics as I have them as of 11 p.m. last night. Four hundred and twenty people have been arrested and 286 released; therefore 134 are still detained. Answering his question of last week, I can say that none of those who have been released have been charged. No charges have yet been laid against those still detained. I still have not been able to obtain a breakdown of how many have been held after seven days but I assume that I can obtain this information at an early date. The statistics I have been given have not been broken down that way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would it be fair to assume at this date that a very substantial percentage of the 132 people being held have now been held for more than seven days?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to assume that, no.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it so difficult for the minister to obtain this information which it seems to me is highly relevant to the current situation?


Mr. Baldwin:: The Prime Minister makes irrelevant statements.


John Napier Turner: They are not irrelevant. I have received every co-operation from the Attorney General of the province of Quebec, but for this particular breakdown I have not been able to get the figures.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: May I
direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. When he reports on that matter, will he also report on approximately how many people are still being sought?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will report on this.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice whether, among the total of 420 people who have been arrested, there are any who were arrested, released and then arrested again?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information, but I will obtain it.


INDUSTRY
John Napier Turner: While I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the hon.

November 2, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
member for Cape Breton-East Richmond who directed a number of questions to the Prime Minister and myself last week. I now have the answers, if you will allow me to give them. The hon. member asked first of all:
Prior to any government financial settlement with the shareholders of Dosco, will this matter be brought before the House for agreement?
My answer is that no settlement of the amount of compensation has yet been reached between Cape Breton Development Corporation-Devco-and the former owners of the assets expropriated by Devco on March 30, 1968. It will be a matter of government policy whether or not any proposed settlement with the former owners is brought before the House. I would point out to the hon. member, however, that there is no requirement in the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act for so doing.
His second question was:
-will the Prime Minister also inquire of the Minister of Justice whether the list of shareholders will be made available along with the dates when the shares were acquired by the individuals?
The answer is that Devco did not expropriate the shares of the companies involved in this acquisition but, rather, expropriated the physical assets of those companies which were located in Cape Breton. Accordingly, Devco has no records of the shareholders of those companies and therefore is not in a position to supply the information requested. For the same reason, Devco is unable to supply the text of any agreement between the shareholders of the companies and Dosco.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easi Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has taken the opportunity to answer those questions, I would ask if he would take a good hard look at any arrangement that the government makes in order to save itself millions of dollars?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a representation which he must assume will be taken into account.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister investigating the reported sale of Ryerson Press to the Canadian subsidiary of a United States company? Can he report on the present situation and can he also indicate whether the government is contemplating any action similar to that taken with respect to Denison Mines earlier this year?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there is no law under my jurisdiction which would give me authority to investigate such a sale.


John Stratford Burton: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the state-

ments made by the right hon. gentleman and the Minister of National Revenue that it will be some time before the government is able to make public or indicate its policy with respect to foreign ownership, is the government giving consideration to an interim policy to deal with problems and situations such as this one that are likely to arise?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: An interim policy-no, Mr. Speaker. There have been ad hoc decisions which the House knows very well, and in that sense I suppose these could be termed an interim policy, but as requested by the House we have hoped that all these ad hoc decisions would be replaced eventually by a more general policy. I know that the party of the hon. member is having some difficulty in reaching its general policy; perhaps we could have a race.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will the minister undertake to investigate the particular matter of the sale of Ryerson Press to determine what action might be taken by the federal government or other jurisdiction to save a very important industry for Canada?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is probably referring to the Combines Investigation Act which comes under my department. There is no evidence that I am aware of connected with the sale or proposed sale of Ryerson Press to show that it is a breach of the Combines Investigation Act.


REQUEST FOR COMMISSION TO STUDY QUACKERY AND CHIROPRACTIC TREATMENT
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister indicate whether he has received a communication from the Canadian Medical Association recommending that a commission be set up to study and report on health quackery and chiropractic treatment in Canada? Also, can the minister indicate what action, if any, has been taken on this matter?


An hon. Member:: That's a new twist.


John Carr Munro: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that such a communique has been received. I am not in a position at this time to indicate to the hon. member what action, if any, will be taken with respect to the communique. I would hope to be in a position to advise him later.


Paul Yewchuk: Would the minister say whether he will make a statement on motions in this regard?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether a statement on motions will be necessary or whether I can just advise the House and the hon. member when I have the floor in answer to another question.
November 2, 1970




Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Has he met representatives of Cuba and Algeria in order to know if some FLQ members would now be in those countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, we have had no such conversations with the governments of Cuba or Algeria. Of course, we did make contact with them, for example, before making our offer of safe conduct to Cuba. That offer could not have been made without the agreement of the government of Cuba.


CUBA-ALLEGED OFFER OF SAFE CONDUCT TO PAUL ROSE AND ASSOCIATES
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he not inquire whether the Cuban authorities in Montreal have already offered safe-conduct to Paul Rose or his allies?
* * $



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Government House Leader when the government intends to initiate debate on the bill introduced today by the Minister of Justice and whether it is the intention of the government that examination of the bill be undertaken by the Committee of the Whole in lieu of a standing committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I propose that we begin discussion of the bill on Wednesday. It is the intention of the government to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole.



POLLUTION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: My question is for the
Minister of Fisheries and Forestry who deals also with matters of pollution. It is based on the allegation of the Ontario Water Resources Commission that mercury pollution originating from Dryden Chemicals Limited has affected fish for hundreds of miles down the Wabigoon-
Inquiries of the Ministry
English River system as far as Hudson Bay. Has the federal government entered into discussions with the appropriate Ontario and Manitoba authorities concerning this critical situation? Also, what steps have been taken to protect the health of Indians in the area who have no alternative to fish as a staple in their food diet?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, we are continuously in touch with both the province of Ontario and the province of Manitoba in this connection. With respect to fishermen, including native fishermen, we have been purchasing all the fish offered regardless of their mercury content, or making loans where the lakes were closed.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: My
question is supplementary to one asked earlier of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry but is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is with regard to the alarming mercury poisoning. Will the minister inquire to ascertain whether the results of blood tests carried out on native Indians, particularly Indian children, could be communicated to the band chief in the area concerned?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I see no objection to that.


Mark Willson Rose: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries. Is the minister prepared to take action under the provisions of the Canada Water Act to combat the extensive mercury pollution in the river systems around Dryden, Ontario?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I do not see an immediate application of the Canada Water Act.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is based upon the comprehensive policy statement made by the British Foreign Secretary on the Middle East situation. Can the minister advise whether the Canadian government had foreknowledge of this important policy statement? Does the Canadian government look with favour upon the suggestions of the British for ameliorating this difficult situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have doubts about the question of the hon. member, particularly the second part. However, the matter is of interest. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply, with the consent of the House.


Mitchell William Sharp: I was not personally aware of the contents of the British statement in advance, Mr. Speaker. I will look at it to see whether I care to comment.

November 2, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On October 27 I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if the minister or the government were prepared to initiate action under the Agricultural Stabilization Act to make payments to hog producers in the Prairie provinces in view of the fact that the price for hogs, basis dressed weight, has fallen below the support price of $22.17 per hundredweight. Can the minister now reply to this question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With regard to this question I may say the mandatory price support for hogs under the Agricultural Stabilization Act is calculated on a national weighted average price to producers which currently is $23.74. I wish to advise the hon. member that the national weighted price for hogs for all of 1970 and up to and including October 10 was $31.95 per hundredweight.


Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kenl-Essex):: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the continued concern of provincial authorities and the agricultural industry over the conflicting views concerning jurisdiction with regard to interprovincial trade, does the government now intend to ask for a Supreme Court reference in this matter?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. After conversations with officials of my own department as well as officials of the provincial Departments of Agriculture, I am convinced that the most satisfactory solution is to proceed with Bill C-176. I say that for reasons I have explained in this House many times.


Harold Warren Danforth: I wish to ask a supplementary question based on the answer of the minister. The bill is very complex. Can the minister indicate how soon after the passage of the bill we may expect it to have some influence on this very serious problem?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question is in order.



NATIONAL AND ROYAL ANTHEMS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouih-Halifax East):: I have a question for the Government House Leader. I had no success last session with his predecessor on this matter. Can the minister indicate whether legislation will be introduced this session dealing with Canada's national and/or royal anthems?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is possible that the House will deal with this question this session, Mr. Speaker. I am presently considering when and how this might be done.



PENSIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is based on assurances of progress given several times last session by the minister. Has a reciprocal pension agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany yet been reached?


John Carr Munro: Agreement has not yet been reached, Mr. Speaker. I visited Germany with my officials. Approximately two weeks ago we had a very extensive meeting with representatives of the German government. Another such meeting is planned for this month in the hope that agreement will be reached in the early part of January. If this schedule is adhered to, it will not be implemented until it has been dealt with by the German parliament.



NATIONAL SECURITY


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the question period a question was directed to me concerning a reward. I answered that this matter was under very close consideration by the two governments, the federal government and the government of Quebec. I now wish to add to that answer. A reward has now been authorized and a statement has been given to the press.


Some hon. Members:: How much?


George Harris Hees: May I
ask the minister how much the reward will amount to, who authorized it and when it will be made available?


George James McIlraith: It has been authorized by the governments directly concerned, Mr. Speaker. There are several rewards involved, and it is up to the figure indicated in the press release. The total amount is quite adequate.


An hon. Member:: Will you share the press release?


George James McIlraith: I will be very glad to bring the press release before the House immediately the final revision is issued.


George Harris Hees: I rise on a question of privilege. When the question was asked a short time ago the minister said this decision had not been made and gave no indication that it would be made. Now he says that a press release has been issued. Obviously the answer he gave me is in contravention of the rules of the House. It is about time you started treating this House with some respect instead of insulting it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
November 2, 1970


George James McIlraith: On a charge like that, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is only lair that I have an opportunity to reply.
I have sought to show respect to Parliament and to the other government concerned in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George James McIlraith: The press release was issued at 2.40, Mr. Speaker. The information I gave in answer to the question by the Leader of the Opposition was precisely correct at that point of time. It had not been decided to issue the press release at that time for a very good reason.


George Harris Hees: If the press release was issued at 2.40, it was obviously prepared a long time before that. What was the reason for not giving this information to the House when I asked for it?


George James McIlraith: I would be glad to give the reason.


George Harris Hees: Well, let's have it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the minister clear up something that must be in the minds of everyone? I refer to the fact that it took so long before you made this decision. Would you mind explaining to the House and the country why there was such a delay?


George James McIlraith: Yes, I will be glad to.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Both the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings have addressed themselves to the minister. They should address their questions to the Chair.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last week, this matter was under continuous consideration from day to day. As to what arose today, at two o'clock, after the bell started to ring summoning the House to meet, a new matter arose that completely changed the answer that I would have given at five minutes to two. That matter had to be checked out, and it was checked out between two and 2.40. Surely hon. members are capable of understanding a simple matter like that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are two or three supple-mentaries. I recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on a supplementary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, members can understand that the Solicitor General had to have the concurrence of the government of Quebec before the decision and the announcement could be made. When did the government of Canada and the government of Quebec reach the decision that a reward would be offered; and when was the press release prepared announcing that such a decision had been reached?


George James McIlraith: The final draft of the press release would have been made some time about two o'clock today.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When
was the decision made?
Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: The decision that a reward would be authorized, if and when the circumstances warranted it and it would not do more damage than good in view of other elements that may have arisen in the consideration of the criminal cases, was made, many days, indeed some weeks, ago.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will allow the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings a supplementary.


George Harris Hees: Would the Solicitor General now advise the House what important information came to his attention at two o'clock to make him change his mind?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not be in a position to give that information at this time. I would be very happy to give the information, and 1 hope I can give it soon so that the House will have the opportunity of assessing for itself how utterly irresponsible the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings is in these matters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me we are now getting into a debate between the minister and the hon. member, and certainly that would not be very helpful.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister accused me of being utterly irresponsible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I asked him a very responsible and important question and he gave me an answer contrary to the facts just announced. I asked him what had changed his mind, and he replied that I was irresponsible for asking that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: That is the sort of nonsense that we get from this government day after day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before calling orders of the day, I believe the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has a supplementary.


Malcolm MacInnis: have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. At 2.15 the Solicitor General said that the government was giving consideration to the offering of a reward. Now the Solicitor General informs the House that the government of Canada has decided to offer a reward. Am I to understand from this statement that the government of Canada does not exist, or the Prime Minister and the other cabinet ministers in the House today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again I suggest, with respect, that this is developing into a debate between hon. members and the minister. If the House will agree to return to the item "First Reading of Senate public Bills", 1 understand there is an item that should have been called at that point.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 2, 1970
Canadian Arms Exports to South Africa



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the first reading of Bill S-2 (from the Senate), respecting statistics of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs seeking the floor on a point of order or question of privilege?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Before moving to orders of the day may I have the permission of the House to revert to motions in order to make a statement that I would have made at the opening of the House today, one that I think it is urgent to make but was prevented from doing so because of a meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has been reviewing its policy with regard to the application of the embargo against the export of arms to South Africa. This review was undertaken as a result of Security Council Resolution 282 of July 23, 1970, which elaborated upon the terms of the Security Council's 1963 resolutions on this subject. Since the latest resolution went beyond the terms of the arms embargo as originally established, thorough consideration was called for to determine what steps the government should take in compliance with the terms of the new Security Council resolution.
The Canadian government has since 1963 applied a general embargo on arms exports to South Africa. Exceptions were made, however, to allow for shipment of maintenance spares for equipment supplied before the 1963 resolutions were adopted, as well as for export of certain aircraft piston engines and spares for them.
In light of the review just completed, the government has decided that henceforth the supply of all vehicles and equipment, and the supply of spare parts for vehicles and equipment, for the use of the armed forces and paramilitary organizations of the Republic of South Africa will be prohibited.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: In addition, certain aircraft piston engines and maintenance spares for such engines, previously exempted from the government's application of the
embargo, will no longer be supplied for military use by the armed forces or paramilitary organizations in South Africa.
In complying with the recent United Nations resolution on this subject, the government does not intend that normal trade with South Africa in goods for civilian use should be affected.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I just say very briefly, Mr. Speaker, by way of immediate comment that I really do not believe that the government of Canada had very much alternative to the course it has just announced in view of the position taken by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) on British arms shipments to South Africa.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we have long advocated this action and naturally we welcome it. We do question why it took so long and why it was necessary to wait until this time. Be that as it may, I hope the government is giving consideration to changing another anomaly in our relations with South Africa. We pronounce our detestation of the principles of apartheid, yet at the same time give special, preferential treatment to South Africa as though it were still a nation of the Commonwealth. I am wondering whether the time has not come for that part of our anomalous and sometimes hypocritical policy to be reviewed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, October 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-174, to establish the Tax Review Board and to make certain amendments to other acts in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonion West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that, as a result of a change in the order of business, this item was called on Friday afternoon rather than today as had been announced last Thursday. Prior to the minister making his statement on Friday, I would have liked to raise the point of order that I am now going to raise with regard to another rather poorly drafted recommendation.
9 (3:00p.m.)
This is not a major point but it is one which I think strikes at the logic and consistency of a proper application of the recommendations. Your Honour will recall that the other day I had some words to say about these particular recommendations, the manner in which they were being drafted and the improprieties of them. The government must face up to the responsibility of making appropriate recommendations to this House because the

November 2, 1970

expenditure of money is only authorized by recommendations meeting the legislation and authorization given by Parliament. In this particular connection, I would draw to Your Honour's attention paragraph 2 of the recommendation which reads as follows:
To provide also that the salaries, travelling allowances and annuities payable to members, former members and widows of former members shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and that all other expenditures shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose.
The provision in this recommendation is implemented by clause 16 at page 7 of the bill. I will not go into the reading of that particular clause, but if Your Honour will turn to page 16 of the bill you will see there clause 23, subclause (2) which reads as follows:
Subsection (2) of Section 9 of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(2) All benefits and other amounts required to be paid pursuant to this Act shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and, except in the case of benefits calculated by reference to annuities payable under the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Judges' Act or the Tax Review Board Act shall be charged to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account.
The provision in respect of these benefits, which incidentally are the supplementary benefits, the 2 per cent annual increments to cover increases in the cost of living, etc., and we all know about those, are therefore part of the statute law and are statutory estimates. They do not require a particular item in the annual estimates, yet if one reads the recommendation, one does not see the word "benefits". If you look at the definition of "benefit" under the Act one must conclude that such benefits are considered as separate and distinct from the annuities upon which they are calculated. This is made clear by Section 6 of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. That section reads:
The supplementary retirement benefits payable to a recipient shall be paid at the same times, in the same manner, during or in respect of the same periods and subject to the same terms and conditions as the pension payable to that recipient.
Then, pension is defined by Section 3(l)(d) as follows:
-"pension" means a pension, annual allowance or annuity payable pursuant to an enactment listed or described in Schedule A.
I would put it to you, therefore, that benefits under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act are not part of the annuity but are supplementary to it. Therefore, the net result of this is that whereas the act purports to make a statutory payment out of the benefits under clause 16, the recommendation does not mention benefits and does not appropriate them to a charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund. All I am saying is that the act purports to do one thing and the recommendation forces Parliament to do something else. I say it certainly could be corrected but I point out to Your Honour that in my submission, and I think on review perhaps Your Honour will agree, the recommendation should be amended. I am not going to hold up the passage of the bill pending this necessary amendment to the recommendations. I am certain it is not as pertinent as it was the other day in respect of the Investment Companies Act wherein the flaw in the recommendation was vital to it.
Tax Review Board Bill
Having said that, unless Your Honour or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) wishes to make some comment-


Mr. Speaker:: I assumed the hon. member rose on a point of order at this stage. He has raised an interesting point on which the Minister of Justice might like to comment before an opinion is expressed by the Chair as to whether or not this bill should be allowed to proceed at this time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I do not want to hold it up.


John Napier Turner: On the point of order, I am not sure the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is really considering it in that precise form since he has generously suggested he would not want to hold up the bill. May I submit to Your Honour that a recommendation both under the new and old rules never, so far as I can find, mentions item by item those charges on ways and means. I suggest these words found in the recommendation "salary, travel allowances and annuities" are certainly wide enough to include the term "benefit". These are generic terms general enough to include any specific items. The concluding words of the second paragraph of the recommendation, namely that all other expenditures shall be paid out of money appropriated by Parliament for the purpose, would include any specific funds already authorized other than the Consolidated Revenue Fund to be paid by parliament.
I submit to Your Honour that the recommendation in amplitude is wide enough to cover any of the specifics in the individual parts of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Waterloo rising on a point of order?


Mr. Saltsman:: No, Mr. Speaker, not on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding of the point raised by the hon. member, as part of his submission, is that perhaps we should not hold up the consideration of the bill at this stage. Both the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. Minister of Justice have submitted very potent arguments. I have very often felt it should not be necessary that our recommendations should attempt to go into all the details of the bill because we are bound to get into difficulties. It is only normal that some aspects of the bill should be overlooked and in this case the recommendation becomes faulty. I have very often felt it would be sufficient for His Excellency to advise us in writing that he had looked at the bill and finds it is all right, so we should proceed with it. In my view, this would be sufficient.
This is a constitutional position and we want to know whether His Excellency thinks this is a bill with which we can proceed. If he tells us that in three words, we should take his word for it. If the law officers of the Crown or of Parliament want to go into the details trying to cover the field they will necessarily get into difficulty, the type of difficulty the hon. member for Edmonton West has just drawn to our attention.

November 2, 1970
Tax Review Board Bill
In any event, I suggest that with the consent of the House we proceed with a consideration of the bill at this stage. The argument and position explained by the hon. member for Edmonton West will be looked into perhaps a little more closely at the time we reach another stage of the consideration of this bill. The Chair may then give a ruling and if the recommendation is found defective it can be remedied at that time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that the amendment could be slight, requiring only one or two words. This would clear up the matter. In any event, I think I have made my point.
I should like to refer to the minister's statement of the other day, and I realize he is having to leave the House for other reasons. I hope we can welcome him back very shortly. In any event, this bill had its origin in the recommendations of the Carter commission. That commission indicated something I, too, have found over the years, particularly when I was connected with the Department of National Revenue as Parliamentary Secretary. The operations of the tax appeal board do become much too formal and very often assume the unnecessary trappings and formality of a court. Over the years it had become really a tax court, and that, in effect, is what the Carter Commission wanted. I think we are engaging in a sort of exercise in semantics or perhaps moving the men around on a chess board by saying that all the functions of the Tax Appeal Board, as it now exists shall be transferred to a tax appeal court which is part of the federal court set up under Bill C-172. I believe there is now a great deal of activity that really will be for nought. I cannot accept the minister's wishful thinking that this body, as he says, will be so informal that a mere letter or piece of paper sent in to the board will suffice to launch an appeal and that it can be done by a neighbour, accountant or someone on a very informal basis to just one commissioner and so on. This raises a great number of questions.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
First of all, I wonder about precedents. Are all the precedents of the tax appeal board and the interpretations of the Income Tax Act to be set aside by this bill? Will this tax review board start afresh and say it entirely discards the decisions of the tax appeal board? If that is so, then there will be a complete revolution in respect of the Income Tax Act and the interpretations thereof. That is the first point. If there are to be precedents, then immediately I suggest to the minister and to his Parliamentary Secretary that some of the informality will be gone because expert tax accountants and expert tax lawyers will be the ones who will approach the tax review board and point out the existence of certain previous interpretations of the law.
Another point is that I think the bill proceeds per incuriam, that is, frankly in ignorance of the provisions of the Canada Evidence Act because in clause 9(2) it says that the board will not be bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence in conducting a hearing for the purposes of that act. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that
under no circumstances can we circumvent the rights granted by the Canada Evidence Act or the evidence act of any particular province by such provisions setting up a tax review board act. The right granted under the Canada Evidence Act is a fundamental right. It cannot be set aside very lightly by provisions such as those in clause 9(2). That is another question I raise.
Then, I want to ask questions concerning the mandatory requirement that all hearings shall be by one member. The minister indicated that he felt the hearings before the tax appeal board had become fishing expeditions or a form of preliminary hearing. In fact the Department of National Revenue people having seen the whole of the taxpayer's case would then be able to judge whether they should go to the Exchequer Court and could prepare their case before the higher court on the basis of what had been presented before the Tax Appeal Board. With the greatest respect, I ask just how this will differ. The taxpayer, in order to try to convince the tax review board, will have to lay out his entire case.
I am sure that neither the minister nor his parliamentary secretary will say for one moment that no one from the tax department will be present before the tax review board. The case will be laid out, and the mandatory requirement is that it be before one commissioner. What a fishing expedition for the Department of National Revenue this could turn out to be, if such appearances were ever fishing expeditions or preliminary hearings. I do not think the Minister of Justice remembers all of the Income Tax Act. I believe he forgets the fact that he practised law with a firm that enjoys probably the greatest reputation in Canada as a tax advisory legal firm. Before appearing before the tax review board the taxpayer will have to lay out his case before the deputy minister because the appeal must be to the deputy minister. The assessment is varied, vacated or confirmed. If it should be confirmed, or merely varied, the next recourse to the taxpayer will be to go before the tax review board. A look at the amendments to the Income Tax Act, as put forward in this bill, would indicate that the appeal to the deputy minister has not been eliminated. Therefore, the deputy minister has the first shot at the taxpayer's case.
Secondly, before the tax review board proposed under this bill, the taxpayer will have to lay out all his cards. The tax authorities will see the strength of his case. Then, if the department is not satisfied with the decision of the tax review board, proceedings will be started in the trial division of the federal court. I admit that until that proposed stage the taxpayer has not been involved in any costs, even if he loses, apart from his own solicitor-client costs. However, if he should go to the trial division of the federal court, in the event that the amount of the tax payable is in excess of $1,000 costs may be assessed. If the amount of the tax payable is less than $1,000, then in no instance will he pay costs since under this bill there is a direction that the costs will be paid by the Crown in all appeals involving a tax liability of $1,000 or less. This is excellent but the minister, however, cannot eliminate the opportunity for a fishing expedition.
[Mr. Speaker.!
November 2, 1970

I believe the minister was quite right and that the government has moved appropriately in placing this body under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice rather than under the Minister of National Revenue. Successive ministries have continued to have the Tax Appeal Board report to Parliament. Mind you, the board also reports to Parliament in this particular instance. The Tax Appeal Board reported to Parliament through the Minister of National Revenue and he made the recommendation for appointment to it. To that extent, I think there was a weakness. Now, the appointments will be on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice. But I believe the federal court and the tax review board will be more under the imprint of the government rather than Parliament than hitherto.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I would have liked to have seen this bill tidy up or remove entirely the appeal provisions from the Income Tax Act, but such is not the case and, frankly, we have a somewhat bastard way of drafting the legislation. The net result is a complete lacuna in a certain sector. I will come to that in a moment. In any event, I agree that it is a constructive move to place this Tax Review Board under the aegis of the Minister of Justice.
My next comment relates to the appointment of judges to age 70 to the federal court. This provision first appeared in Bill C-172. When the minister answers questions I would like to hear him tell us whether it is now government policy that all appointments to the bench be up to age 70 and that if there are any openings under the Judges Act this year, as was forecast in the Speech from the Throne, the provision regarding appointment of judges up to age 70 in the superior courts of the provinces will apply. Is it now a general policy of the government that appointments to the courts in Canada will be only to age 70?
The minister, in justifying appointments to age 70, indicated that hitherto under the Income Tax Act, division I, appointments were for periods of 10 years, and since it was deemed insecure, the best possible men could not be obtained. I should like to disabuse the minister's mind in this regard, because I do not think any administration failed to reappoint men who were competent. Generally, all men have seen out their time. There may have been the odd exception, but I do not accept for one moment the contention of the minister that appointments for 10 years to the Tax Appeal Board have created any difficulty among persons who have been appointed to the board in the past. What the minister proposes to do now indicates a retrograde step in my opinion, in that the present members of the Tax Appeal Board will be treated differently. Under clause 18 (3) and (4) we see that those members of the Tax Appeal Board who have now reached 70 years of age will retire and will be entitled to a full pension. Those members who have not reached age 70 will complete their period of 10 years and will retire with a very small annuity. There may be only one or two in this situation, but they have given a very important segment of their lives to this work. I know the age of one
Tax Review Board Bill
member of the Tax Appeal Board, and it was merely as a result of consulting the record that I am aware of it.
It seems rather odd to me that these two provisions, which do not do the same thing, are contained in the bill. Apparently Exchequer Court judges will continue in the federal court of Canada to age 75, since such were their terms of appointment, but one or possibly two members of the Tax Appeal Board will have their appointments cut off. I think that the only decent thing to have done would have been to guarantee them a reappointment to the Tax Review Board. Strangely enough, as I recall, the one man who is most affected is one whose term expires in two or three years time. In other words, he was appointed by the administration of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). It is a rather strange coincidence, but all the other judges who were appointed by subsequent administrations as well as prior administrations will not be affected. It seems to me that some political axe work is going on right in this clause. The parliamentary secretary may shake his head in injured innocence but that is the result of the legislation.
I would like the minister to explain why he does not give equal treatment to all members of the board. These people came to the board in the normal anticipation, based on years of precedents, of being reappointed to the board. If the name and the constitution of the board is to be changed, why should its members not be able to anticipate reappointment? After all, the man to whom I referred, I think, may have two or three years to go. He will not go on an extended leave but will carry out the duties of one of the members of the Tax Review Board, so why not reappoint him?
I would like to revert to clause 11 (2). This is a requirement which I believe is an improvement. It provides that rules made under this section will be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, and will have no effect unless they have been published in the Canada Gazette; that is quite right. The wording that follows seems strange. It reads:
-and copies of all rules made under this section shall be laid before Parliament within fifteen days after the making thereof or, if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting.
I suggest that the word "making" is very imprecise. I do not know when the rules are made. Is it when the order in council is approved, or are the rules made when they are published? I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that consideration be given, at the appropriate time, to changing the word "making" to "within 15 days after the publication thereof". Then, we will have a precise date known to everybody. The rules must then be tabled in Parliament within 15 days after the publication thereof. There is no question that the rules do not come into effect until they are tabled in Parliament, but it is their publication in the Canada Gazette that is the crucial date. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the better wording would be "after the publication thereof" rather than "the making thereof" because we do not know when they were made.

November 2, 1970
Tax Review Board Bill
I should like to make one more point. I had some difficult skating to do in and out of many clauses in several bills to get around this point. We know that hitherto all the statutory requirements concerning the Tax Appeal Board were contained in division I of the Income Tax Act. This starts with section 86, and includes sec. 104. This present legislation purports to delete merely a small number of sections in that division of the Income Tax Act. Then, the bill makes what is called consequential amendments to other parts, one of them being section 101 of the Income Tax Act. Strangely enough, however, it fails to recognize that the definition of the word "court" in that whole part of the Income Tax Act is contained in section 104, in which section "court" is defined as being the Exchequer Court. But if we go to Bill C-172 and look at Schedule B, which has the consequential amendments, section 104 is not amended. Therefore, under the Income Tax Act the Exchequer Court is still the Court. This will necessitate some changing around. I merely raise the matter at this point because I would like to have the government prepared to meet the objections to this in committee with an appropriate amendment.
[DOT] (3:30 D.m.)
This is merely a minor point, Mr. Speaker. I know it becomes a little tiresome for other hon. members when we are dealing wtih such minor dressing up of legislation, but I think it is better to give the government notice now so that it can consider my objection. If I am wrong, then when we examine the legislation in committee I can be told so, and we will not have to waste a lot of time. The government will be prepared. In a manner of speaking, we have now had the preliminary hearing on this particular bill and the government has seen my case. Having said that there are some things wrong with the bill, I must repeat that I am quite prepared to have second reading given to it and have it referred to the appropriate committee. It may be that the Justice and Legal Affairs is the best committee to which to refer the bill, because this is strictly lawyers' law. Some other bills are scheduled to be referred to that committee which might be more appropriately considered by other committees.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, in trying to determine what is significant about the legislation before us, I think the key was given by the minister in his remarks on Friday when he said that not only should justice be done but it should appear to the public to be done. In many ways, this bill does not change anything substantially. It will make some changes which I believe are improvements, in the sense of assuring the public that not only is justice done but that it will appear to be done.
The idea of providing for judges who will hold office until 70 years of age and not just a ten-year period, is an important consideration in re-assuring any taxpayer who goes before the appeal board. It is also important to

remove jurisdiction over the board from the Department of National Revenue and place it under the Department of Justice.
If I might digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, this is much like everything else that we give to the Department of Justice. Often that department is asked to correct, through legislation, some of the basic flaws in our society. In this case the basic flaw is the tax system. If we had a better tax system there would be small need for this kind of board. As it is, this board will have its hands full, because although the white paper on tax reform started out to remove many of the anomalies that exist in the tax system, I suspect that what we will eventually get will be more of what we had previously. Therefore, the appeal board will be called upon to adjudicate many cases that it would not have to adjudicate at all if we had a proper tax system. This is part of the whole approach we take in our society of providing opportunities, either under the Criminal Code, the Department of Justice, combines legislation or in other ways, to correct basic difficulties that we are not willing to correct by tackling the fundamental problems in our society.
What kind of cases will come before this appeal board? Most of the present cases deal with allowable expenses, the question of whether somebody who has made certain expenditures can charge them as legitimate expenses. They are not cases of fraud, or cases where somebody has been caught in an embarrassing position by not declaring the full amount of his income. These cases occur in marginal areas where a taxpayer says, "This is permissible under the law. I am permitted to go to this convention even though it is taking place in the South Seas, because it is a business expense." Then the department argues, "This is not what the tax laws were designed to encourage."
Other cases concern the distinction between what is a capital gain and what is an ordinary profit, because all kinds of arrangements are made in order to try to get as much income as possible in the form of capital gain rather than as regular income, since at the present time capital gains are not taxed at all and ordinary income is fully taxed.
So long as we have this kind of system, and given the outlook and psychology of our society, it is almost inevitable that people are going to try to take their gains in one form rather than in another and thus minimize their tax liability. This has been the great difficulty facing this court. The court's decisions deal with how a person took his income, and the way he arranged his business life. The white paper on tax reform, which started out to change all this, has created as many difficulties as existed previously. Even if you accept the entire proposals in the white paper, and there seems to be some evidence that they will not be accepted in their entirety, there will still be left a distinction between capital gains and ordinary income. As long as this distinction remains, the courts will be busy trying to clean up this Augean stable. They will be busy all the time because people will try to take
November 2, 1970

their income in a way in which they will not have to pay so much taxes. I do not think courts can reach satisfactory decisions in cases like these, at least satisfactory in the sense that a taxpayer will be completely happy or satisfied that justice has been done to him.
One of the other areas of difficulty is that in many cases what is needed-again this is true in combines legislation-is an advance commitment from the tax department on how it is going to treat certain forms of income. Anyone who wants to minimize his tax liability is not likely to go to the tax department for advice on how to do it. If he is trying to take his income in one form rather than another, and looking for special ways of doing it, he might think that the tax department is not the best adviser in the world for this purpose. Many of the arguments that take place, and the tax assessments which are contested later on, arise from this situation.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
We have no great objection to the legislation. We are quite prepared to give it second reading and have it go to committee. The only point we wish to make at this time is the futility of much of this legislation. In the Justice Committee we did try to correct problems that should be corrected in the tax system and, indeed, I do not envy the people who will be called upon to act as judges in these matters.
Having sat in this House for some six years now, I have had considerable experience with the income tax department and their assessments. By and large I must say that I think they have been quite fair and reasonable, that they do not wish to take a position until they have considerable evidence to support their stand. The disagreements that arise are usually disagreements of interpretation of income and allowable expenses and I do not see how this new procedure will change things greatly.
One advantage of the new set-up is that ordinary people, whatever their reasons, will have better access and perhaps feel freer to contest decisions that have gone against them. To the extent that we permit scrutiny of government decisions and civil service decisions, and to the extent that it is clearly demonstrated to ordinary people that we are trying to do this, then I think the legislation is an improvement over what is presently on the books.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to answer the questions asked by the members who participated in the debate earlier today. However, if the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) reads the speech the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) delivered last Friday when he introduced the bill, as reported in Hansard at page 762 and following, I think he will find the answer to almost all the questions he asked today.
Tax Review Board Bill


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I read it.


Albert Béchard: Besides, Mr. Speaker, at the very suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West, the best time to discuss some technical aspects of the legislation and the details he would like to obtain, is in committee.
I do not want to deal at length here with some points that he has raised. Of course, being an opposition member he sees in certain appointments or in the expiration of the terms of office of certain commissioners a trace of party politics. But this is not at all the case as regards Bill C-174 which is being discussed at the present time.
As the minister has so ably put it and as the two previous speakers have admitted, the legislation has been prepared with a view to speeding up procedures, increasing their efficiency and putting them within reach of the small taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to unduly delay proceedings, but I nevertheless wish to thank the two previous speakers for their constructive remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please, is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I raised a point of order at the beginning of my remarks and I wonder whether the Speaker will give his ruling with regard to it when the bill comes back from the report stage or if there is some other means whereby Mr. Speaker can communicate his ruling on this point of order. If the bill goes to committee now there will not be anything before the House, so I am just raising the question. Perhaps the committee could be advised informally, through usual channels, of Mr. Speaker's views and there we could tidy up matters. If we could have that word while in committee, then perhaps the bill could be brought back shipshape.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I see the point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and it was my impression that Mr. Speaker was thinking along the lines he has expressed. When the hon. member raised the point at the beginning of his speech, from what I heard, I thought Mr. Speaker was ready to let the bill go through this stage of the proceedings with the possibility of correcting anything that needed to be corrected at a further stage.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
[Stage Direction]
November 2, 1970
Canada Co-operatives Association Bill

Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill C-177, respecting co-operative associations, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, by way of introduction to this motion for second reading of this bill and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, I should like to say a few words in support of the bill entitled an Act respecting Co-operative Associations. I trust that these remarks in explanation will assist hon. members in their consideration of this lengthy piece of legislation.
As is well known by hon. members knowledgeable in the field of co-operative law, there has never been any federal legislation of general application governing the incorporation and operations of co-operative associations at the federal or national level. Going back into history and checking Hansard, one learns that as early as 1907 a bill passed in this House but fell in the Senate mainly because, as I read the debate, the proposed legislation did not clearly indicate that it was to be operative only in the areas in which the federal Parliament was competent to legislate. Since 1907, the co-operative movement of Canada from time to time has pressed various governments for the passage of such legislation, namely legislation at the federal level allowing for the incorporation and operation of what we could call federal co-operatives. Some years ago, the two largest Canadian co-operative organizations jointly pressed the government for federal legislation on co-operatives. The joint Senate-House Committee on Consumer Credit, which I had the honour of co-chairing with Senator Croll, in its report of April 25, 1967, supported representations made to the government and concluded by way of recommendation "that federal legislation governing the incorporation of cooperatives is long overdue".
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The government of that day, headed by Right Hon. Lester Pearson, indicated to the co-operative movement that it was in sympathy with its demands. He said that he and the government would consider carefully introducing before this House a federal co-operatives bill. I am happy, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the government headed by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to bring this legislation forward after a parliamentary pause of some 63 years-which is somewhat slower than Parliament usually operates. I am glad that after such a long wait the co-operative movement of Canada is now able to see before Parliament a bill which, at the national level, will allow for the incorporation of federal co-operatives.
The absence of a federal co-operatives act should not be taken to mean that no co-operative associations have ever been incorporated by the federal authorities. That is not so, as co-operative associations have, over the years, been incorporated either under the federal companies
(The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
act-under what used to be the Dominion Companies Act-or by special acts of Parliament. Although the validity of these incorporations was never questioned, it was generally recognized by experts in co-operative law that the Companies Act was not the proper vehicle for incorporating co-operatives and, in recent years, we have adopted a similar policy under which no such incorporations have been allowed to take place.
An obvious question that arises, Mr. Speaker, is: why is the Companies Act unsuitable for co-operatives associations. Or, in other words, why have co-operatives not been incorporated under the Companies Act? Why do we need the special act we are considering today? The answer to this question largely rests on the distinctive nature of a business corporation and a co-operative association. There are, in effect, a number of differences between these two types of organizations, namely, the co-operative association and the business corporation. For the purpose of illustrating the point that the Companies Act is not suited for co-operative associations, I propose to discuss two of the more basic differences.
One of these differences relates to the treatment of surplus or profit resulting from operations. In the case of an ordinary business corporation, generally speaking, such surplus is distributed to the shareholders by way of dividends and there are provisions to that effect in the Companies Act. But in the case of a co-operative association, the surplus of operation is normally distributed to the members or clients of the association on a patronage basis. This means, in effect, that the share of a member of a co-operative association in the surplus of the operation is calculated on the basis of the use he has made of the services of the association. The more he uses the association, the more he receives as his share of the surplus resulting from the operation; whereas shareholders in a corporation receive their dividends regardless of whether they have used the services of the corporation or not.
The second important difference is this: it is a basic principle of co-operative law that a member has only one vote, notwithstanding the amount of his investment in the association. As hon. members know, in the case of an ordinary business corporation, of course, the voting rights of a shareholder are ordinarily dependent on the extent of his investment in the corporation, one share bringing one vote. Again, there are provisions to this effect in the Companies Act. These are but two important differences as between corporate law and co-operative law which render the Companies Act unsuitable for co-operative associations.
As I said before, a number of co-operatives have been incorporated by the federal authorities under the companies act. In doing so, it was recognized that some violence had to be done to some of the provisions of the act, in order to suit the peculiar nature of a co-operative association. That is the reason it was eventually decided that no further incorporation of co-operative associations under the Companies Act should be allowed to take place. That is also one of the reasons we are bringing this legislation forward at this time, so that co-operative associations incorporated at the federal level could be
November 2, 1970

governed by a statute of general application better suited to the special character of their organization than the Companies Act.
Hon. members are aware of the work done by the co-operative movement within the framework of provincial legislation in various fields of economic activity. A few figures might assist in placing in perspective the importance of the co-operative movement in Canada. In 1967, the volume of business for more than 2,500 co-operatives amounted to more than $2.1 billion, an increase of close to a quarter of a million dollars or 11 per cent, over the previous year. Assets totalled $1 billion, of which members' equity represented 47 per cent. Membership at 1,700 million members was up slightly from that of the previous year.
Many co-operative associations desire to serve their members on a multi-provincial or a national basis. We believe that they should have the facilities to do so under legislation of general application well suited to their peculiar nature, as is the case with other types of organizations under the Canada Corporations Act.
I would like to insist on the fact that this bill deals only with the incorporation and operations of federally incorporated co-operatives. It does not touch upon the controversial question whether co-operatives should be subject to the same taxation laws as other types of business. This question, of course, is one for my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), in the context of his proposals for tax reform. That matter will be before this House in due course and upon that Parliament will take whatever decision it deems appropriate. That question does not arise in this debate, which is related to a bill to allow for the federal incorporation of certain entities. As I say, this bill does not touch on that question one way or the other. It does not touch on the question of the tax status of co-operative societies and has no relation to whether this bill should be or should not be passed.
I said in my introductory remarks that this is a long bill, almost an overly long bill. It contains 138 clauses of a rather technical nature. For these reasons, I do not intend to review here the provisions of the bill in any detail. I am sure that the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, to which I hope the bill will be referred, will consider each of these provisions carefully. I and my officials will be readily available when the committee studies the provisions of the bill and goes through them, clause by clause. For the purpose of second reading and reference to the committee, it might be sufficient for me at this time to mention briefly some of the more important features or principles of this legislation. Before doing so, however, I should like to briefly explain to hon. members the various steps that have preceded the presentation of this legislation.
First, there was created in 1965 a study committee to assist the government in the preparation of a bill allowing for the incorporation of co-operative associations at the federal level. This committee was headed by Mr. Louis Lesage, the Director of the Corporations Branch of my department. Also on that committee were Mr. Gordon
Canada Co-operatives Association Bill Blair of Ottawa and Saskatchewan, who has since joined us in this House as the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton, and Mr. Francois Jobin, a Quebec City lawyer, who has since joined the Quebec Department of Financial Institutions, companies and Co-operatives, as Head of the Co-operative Branch. The work of the committee has been most useful to us in the preparation of this bill. I wish now to record our gratitude to the three members of that committee.
As a follow-up to the work of the committee, we consulted a large segment of the co-operative movement, especially those associations that had, from time to time, shown an interest in this kind of legislation. The comments and suggestions that we received, as a result of these consultations, were very precious to us.
Before putting the bill in its final form, my officials also had numerous discussions with provincial officials. We are much indebted to the provinces who have permitted us to draw on their expertise and experience in this field in preparing this legislation. Many of the provisions of this bill have been modelled on provisions now in force in one or the other of the provinces.
Finally, a special word of thanks should go to Mr. R. J. MacMaster of Vancouver, an acknowledged co-operative law expert. Mr. MacMaster's advice and suggestions have been most valuable to us throughout the preparation of Bifi C-177.
You will note, in the first clauses of the bill, that a semi-registration system has been adopted for the creation of a new co-operative association. Perhaps this is my western bias coming out, but I think some form of registration system is less cumbersome to administer than a letters patent system of the type now prevailing, for instance, under the Canada Corporations Act. The ministerial discretion, however, is maintained; hence the expression "semi-registration system". Such ministerial discretion is considered normal and necessary in the case of co-operative associations in order to ensure that only "bona fide" co-operative associations be created.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
One of the purposes of this bill is to enable co-operative associations to federate on an interprovincial basis, and also to enable individuals desiring to carry on an enterprise on a co-operative basis in more than one province to become incorporated under the federal Companies Act or by special acts to take advantage of the proposed act through a certificate of continuation. For example, if a co-operative association had been incorporated by a special act of this House in 1930 or 1940, it could now come under Bill C-177, by a certification of continuation. The law of general application would apply. There would be a good number of advantages for them following that course of action.
One of the objectives of this legislation is to permit existing co-operatives to federate for either interprovincial or national objects. This will be facilitated by a transjurisdictional transfer procedure which is set out in clauses 7 and 8 of the bill. This is a rather interesting provision. To be effective, such a procedure will require

November 2, 1970
Canada Co-operatives Association Bill the passing of a permissive act by the province concerned allowing a co-operative association to leave its jurisdiction for the purpose of its being continued or federated or amalgamated under the provisions of this bill. Even then, the transfer from the provincial jurisdiction to the federal jurisdiction could be effected only with the consent of the federal authorities and that of the province concerned. The transfer of a co-operative which ceases to operate on an interprovincial basis could similarly be effected from the federal jurisdiction to a provincial one. This procedure, I should emphasize, is only permissive and will require, to be effective, the consent of all the authorities, federal and provincial.
There are limitations as to the nature of the objects that federal co-operative associations would be allowed to have. These are very important. These limitations are found in paragraphs (a) to (h) of subclause (1) of clause 5 and relate to the business of insurance, telephone, railways, banks, etc. You cannot form a co-operative association to carry on that kind of business. In addition, excepted from the application of the bill are co-operative credit associations, credit unions or Caisses Populates. It was not believe that federal co-operative associations should be allowed to enter a field that has so far exclusively been controlled by the provinces, that is credit unions and Caisses Populates.
In the case of the creation of a new co-operative, at least seven natural persons are required to file articles of association, while, in the case of federations, only two existing co-operative associations may file such articles. The reason for having at least seven persons in the case of new co-operative associations is that, in the case of a co-operative association operating on an inter-provincial or national basis, it does not seem unreasonable to require that at least seven persons show an interest in the association to be formed. However, in the case of federations, the number of applicants is only two because federations are usually formed by co-operatives having a sufficiently large number of individuals as members.
Before the association is registered, certain conditions must be complied with. Only a co-operative which would not be confined to provincial objects, which will "carry on its undertaking in two or more provinces" and which will "have a fixed place of business in each province where it carries on its undertaking", will qualify.
Furthermore, and this probably goes without saying, an association will be required to operate on a "co-operative basis". As the purpose and method of operation of a co-operative differ substantially from those of other corporations, it is most important that those who operate companies for other purposes should not be able to do so under the guise of a co-operative name. A co-operative association or federation would be considered to be operated on a co-operative basis if it complies with the requirements set forth in the bill. These are, in effect, the cardinal principles on which co-operative associations are based:
(1)	No member, as a rule, shall have more than one vote;
(2)	No member, as a rule, shall vote by proxy;

(3)	Interest on share and loan capital shall not exceed a fixed per cent per annum; and
(4)	The business of the association shall be operated as nearly as possible at cost and, after provision for reasonable reserve; any surplus funds arising from the operations of the association shall be distributed wholly or in part among the members or among members and patrons of the association in proportion to the volume of business which they have done with the association.
The charter of the association will be comprised of the memorandum of articles and the charter by-laws. The internal organization of the association will be governed by its by-laws, that is, its charter by-laws and ordinary by-laws.
All of the charter by-laws would have to be enacted by the board of directors and sanctioned by the members either at a special or annual general meeting of members. These by-laws will come into force only on their being approved by the minister.
Both the memorandum of articles and charter by-laws may from time to time be amended. The filing of a supplemental memorandum of articles will be required only in cases of a rather major nature. This would be so, for instance, in the case of Em association wanting to extend the objects for which it has been incorporated or to further its other objects. The system of charter bylaws will have the advantage of eliminating as much as possible the need for supplemental memorandum of agreement. This is designed to simplify the administration. For example, changes in the capital structure of an association and matters concerning the membership and voting rights, borrowing powers and other subjects of a similar importance, could be modified by amending the charter by-laws.
The act provides for two types of co-operative associations, with or without share capital. Whether the co-operative is with or without share capital will be set out in the memorandum of articles.
It will be possible for co-operative associations to provide for a delegate system, the particulars of which will have to be set out in the charter by-laws.
The charter by-laws will set out the number of co-op shares to be issued as well as their par value. The members' shares or common shares are designated as co-op share. In the case of a business corporation, it is possible to issue shares without nominal or par value but, in this act, it will not be possible to provide for a co-op share or preferred share having no nominal or par value. The value of a co-op share is not subject to fluctuation and the voting rights being an attribute of membership generally have no relation to the number of shares held.
Co-operatives with share capital will have an unrestricted power to purchase or redeem their own shares. Such a power to redeem or purchase its shares is important in the case of co-operatives, as it is necessary that the control of the association always vest in members who are actually using the co-operatives.
By the effect of clause 17(2), co-operatives are permitted to reissue their co-op or common shares. This is
November 2, 1970

reasonable as co-op shares have a fixed par value which can never be increased or decreased. Preferred shares, which will also always be with par value, when redeemed, will not be, however, reissued. They will be cancelled. When further authorized capital will be required, the co-operative association will have to proceed by way of amendments to its charter by-laws requiring ministerial approval.
One clause of the bill requires a co-operative association, incorporated under the act, to include in its corporate name the word "co-operative", "co-op" or "pool". Similarly, there are provisions that associations other than associations incorporated under this act or an entity expressly authorized to use these words by provincial legislation, shall not use these words in order to avoid a misrepresentation or deception. The conditions of membership in an association are to be regulated by the by-laws of the association.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Shares in a co-operative association will be transferred only with the permission of the board of directors. This is a usual limitation in the case of co-operative associations because of the special relationship that a member has to his co-operative. The shareholder or member of a co-operative association does business with the co-operative and is not only a mere investor. For that reason, the co-operative needs to control the admission of shareholders or members. One of the fundamental principles of a co-operative is that any surplus arising from its operations must be distributed among the persons who, by their patronage, have made the surplus possible. Before the distribution is made, reserves may be set aside. The distribution of surplus will be controlled by the rules established by the charter bylaws of the association.
There are many other aspects of this bill that I have not mentioned, and which undoubtedly the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will want to study carefully. This will be so, I would think, for instance, of the provisions relating to the preparation and disclosure of financial statements, transjurisdictional transfers, etc. I am confident that hon. members, having considered the provisions of this bill and having waited 63 years for its introduction will agree that this is a piece of legislation that deserves their support. I look forward to making myself and my officials available to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs when the bill is referred to the committee so that we can examine the bill in very great detail.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the official opposition support the principle of the bill and look forward to the opportunity that will be afforded them of examining it clause by clause during the committee stage.
We also salute the co-operative movement in Canada. We salute it for the good work it is doing and for the patience it has manifested in waiting these many years to get the bill to Parliament. The minister referred to this fact. A bill of a similar nature was before Parliament in 1908 but was defeated by the other place for reasons
Canada Co-operatives Association Bill which it would probably not be useful to go into at this particular time. However, perhaps we will hear more of that when this bill is before the committee.
Speaking of the committee, Mr. Speaker, I note with some surprise that the bill is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The minister did not seem to exhibit any undue interest in this, though one would have expected the bill to be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has been assuming a greater role session by session, yet it has no standing committee of its own. The fact that this bill has had to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs emphasizes this need, and I am surprised the minister did not make reference to it. Since there is no standing committee on consumer affairs, I see no reason why the bill could not be sent, as I say, to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Having said that, I am delighted to note that this bill, which has been advocated all these years by the co-operative movement in Canada, incorporates in its preamble the fundamental principles of the co-operative movement as laid down by Rochdale Pioneers of England in 1844. Perhaps these principles are worth mentioning here. They are, first, open membership, which means that all who can benefit from the services may join; second, democratic control, which means that each member has only one vote, regardless of the size of his shareholding; third, limited return on capital at a modest rate set by the annual meeting; and lastly, distribution of surplus on the basis of patronage. I think it is useful to set out these principles in the bill, which is placing a special responsibility upon the federal government in a field which heretofore was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
As the minister pointed out, associations that wish to incorporate under this bill must carry on undertakings in two or more provinces with a fixed place of business in each province in which they carry on their undertakings.
I note that the bill will set up a system of registration which will come largely under the discretion of the minister. I am not suggesting that the minister is not capable of exercising the proper discretion and responsibility given to him by the legislation, but like everybody else he is a fallible human being and I am a little concerned at the increasing discretionary powers that the minister is taking unto himself, not only as a result of the provisions of this bill but under other bills he has brought to Parliament since assuming his current office.
These are some of the points that we shall bring to the attention of the minister when the bill is before the standing committee, but I hope that, before we conclude this stage of the proceedings, the minister will inform the House why the bill is being sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs rather than the committee that normally deals with the minister's estimates and legislation coming within his jurisdiction.
Co-operative associations have for a long time been handicapped by lack of legislation dealing with their

November 2, 1970
Canada Co-operatives Association Bill national activities. Manitoba was the first province to incorporate a co-operatives act in 1887, followed by Quebec in 1906. The co-operative movement in Canada was first launched in Stellarton, Nova Scotia, in 1861, and since that time has grown to the point where, as the minister mentioned, it does business today in excess of $2 billion.
The co-operative movement in Canada has a membership of over 1.5 million people. These people are totally involved in co-operatives of one form or another under the headings of marketing and purchasing; fishermen's co-operatives in the province of Newfoundland and the other Atlantic provinces, as well as in the province of British Columbia; service co-operatives; and production co-operatives. The need for legislation at the federal level was thus quite clear and in line with the continuing needs of the co-operative movement in Canada, needs that have been manifest for the past 50 years. This prompts one to ask why it has taken so long to introduce such legislation.
I should like to find out what became, for example, of the recommendations of the royal commission on co-operatives which was set up in 1945. I do not think the minister made any reference to that royal commission, the recommendations of which have gone largely ignored, though coincidentally perhaps some of them may have been incorporated into the bill now before the House.
This bill is largely of a technical nature and will provide mainly, as the minister has said, for the operations of co-operatives in a way that is substantially different from the operations of other corporations. Hence, co-operatives will be removed from the jurisdiction of the Corporation Act. There will be this system of registration rather than the requirement of parliamentary legislation and letters patent.
There are a number of questions of a technical nature which we hope to put to the minister, his officials and the witnesses who will be called when the bill is before the committee. At first glance it seems to me that, apart from the discretionary powers referred to by the minister which he will be assuming under this legislation, it is not clear whether or not, a division within his department will be established to handle the operations of co-operative associations. Obviously this will be necessary and will automatically flow from the bill. I notice the minister is shaking his head, but unfortunately a shaking of the head is not recorded by Hansard.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is a shaking of the head in the affirmative.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


James Aloysius McGrath: I hope he will clarify this point when he has a chance to speak before the legislation passes this stage.
The question that comes to mind is, since we are setting up this type of a structure why not create the post of registrar to be responsible for co-operatives? In other words, we could have a registrar of co-operatives

instead of having this power largely assumed by the minister as now envisaged by this legislation. To my mind the minister was very vague on the kind of consultation which has been held with provinces regarding some of the objections raised when the original bill was brought before Parliament in 1908, objections that were of a constitutional nature. I should like to know whether or not some of these objections have any foundation at the present time.
I salute the co-operative movement in Canada for the good work it is doing all across the country. We notice this bill will help to facilitate this work and make it much easier in terms of federal responsibility. We cannot help but wonder why it has taken Parliament so long to act on a matter that is obviously so important. In conclusion, I would again plead with the minister and his colleagues to give earnest and serious consideration to the necessity of establishing in this House a standing committee on consumer affairs in order that we might have the opportunity, not only of dealing with this particular legislation but of dealing with many important areas which come within the minister's jurisdiction, and which are so vital and important to the consumers of Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of our group to welcome this legislation and say to the minister that we will be as helpful as we can at all stages of the proceedings on this bill. First, I should like to add my comments to those of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) regarding the disposition of this bill after it has received second reading. As indicated on the order paper, the bill is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. My question to the minister is, why should this be so? I know that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is something of an orphan and its measures are shifted to different committees for consideration, but it seems to me that usually the minister appears before the committee on health and welfare.
I do not think this bill should fall within the prerogatives of a lot of lawyers on the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. Just as war is too important to be left in the hands of generals, this legislation concerning co-operatives is too important to be left in the hands of lawyers, particularly since the number of lawyers who have some knowledge, feeling and understanding about co-operatives is so small. I would feel much more comfortable, and I would hope the minister would also, if this bill were to be considered by a different committee than the one proposed.
At the outset, let me say that finally we are getting a bill which provides for federal incorporation of co-operatives. As has been said, we have been waiting some 62 or 63 years for this. I have not been waiting that long, and certainly the minister and the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) have not been waiting that long because we are not that old, but the people in the co-operative movement in Canada have been waiting that long.
November 2, 1970


Stanley Ronald Basford: It took the Trudeau government to get around to doing it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Since 1908, we have had 41 or 42 years of Liberal government and 21 years of Conservative government during which time the co-operative movement has appeared year in and year out to plead, ask, beg and present briefs. The co-operative representatives always received a pat on the head and been told what a great thing the movement is, but they always got the runaround. There is no particular credit to the present administration that this bill is now before us. After the length of time that has passed, the situation has become so inordinately bad that somebody had to move. I do not think it is incumbent upon the minister or his colleagues to brag about the fact that they are the ones who finally did it.
We agree with the bill in general and will support it. There are several improvements we think it needs. It is our hope the minister and whatever committee the bill goes to, will listen carefully and with sympathy to the suggestions made by people from the co-operative movement and Members of Parliament. We hope the minister will see fit to accept what we feel will be improvements to it.
There are at least three provisions in this bill which my colleague will deal with at greater length. These fly in the face of the very principles of the co-operative movement which the minister outlined. The bill is designed to cover co-operatives doing business in two or more provinces. This is what the co-operative movement has been requesting for all these years. Provincial legislation is fairly adequate for any co-operative that confines its activities to one province. When membership and operations cross boundaries federal legislation is needed.
Particularly since the end of the last world war, cooperatives have become provincial co-operatives with activities in several provinces. For this reason, the bill is long overdue. The co-operative movement considers a federal act is necessary, not to replace provincial legislation but to complement it. This legislation is also necessary to protect the name "co-operative". We are all aware of the many instances in which the name has been abused and misused by those who would try to take advantage of a name that is held in high esteem by the public. For example, one can think of some building co-operatives which use the name to take advantage of greater access to the people to whom a builder wants to sell or rent his buildings.
The co-operative movement has been, to put it mildly, very patient. No doubt we should be grateful for that patience as well as the fact that they have not been much more militant than one would otherwise expect. In this regard I need only quote from an article in the "Co-op Commentary" number 23, under the heading "Studied Indifference". In this article it is pointed out that there are many things not available to co-operatives which might be available under federal law. Let me quote from this article:
If, when meeting the cabinet committee last week, the CUC and CCC needed justification for their use of the phrase
Canada Co-operatives Association Bill
"Studied Indifference" in describing the attitude of Canadian federal governments they need have looked no further than this: Incredibly, in Canada federally, there is no protection in law against misuse of the word "co-operative" in a company name. There is no federal legislation limiting a member to one vote. The general meeting of members cannot take responsibility for enacting bylaws.
The principle of patronage returns is not recognized.
Bylaws do not have the force of a contract between the member and the co-operative.
These are some of the illustrations given by the cooperative movement itself in this article entitled "Studied Indifference" to indicate how the co-operative movement has been treated by successive federal governments.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
This bill should not be looked upon as just another piece of legislation affecting one area of business enterprise. In fact, I believe that in an early clause, perhaps in the clause defining a co-operative, this bill should enshrine the principles to which co-operatives adhere. I am disappointed that the bill does not do this. I hope the minister and the committee will consider such an addition to the bill. The bill should recognize that co-operatives are something more than and different from ordinary business enterprises. I believe a full and proper interpretation of what co-operatives are should be spelled out in the provisions of the bill. The bill should clearly say that a co-operative is an association of persons working together to provide themselves with goods and services; that it has a different set of values as an enterprise, and that it operates to meet the common needs or goals of a group of people who voluntarily associate themselves in a co-op. In addition, it should say that the profit motive is not one of the principles a good co-operative follows.
There are still people in this country who would like to impede, prohibit or destroy parts or all of the co-operative movement. One has only to think of the Equitable Income Tax Foundation that comes from underneath its rock periodically to wage war on the co-operative movement. The most recent instances have been during and since the Carter report on taxation and the government's white paper on tax changes. The battle is not over yet and has not been completely won by the co-operative movement. There are many struggles awaiting co-operatives. Their growth is still impeded in too many ways. The principle of business for service is still not sufficiently recognized as opposed to business only for profit. I hope that this legislation will be a major step in assisting the co-operative movement across Canada to achieve this end. This bill can apply only to a limited number of co-operatives. No. one should think for one moment that there will be a stampede by hundreds of co-operatives, the day after this bill is passed, to become incorporated under it.
Many co-operatives will not want to, will not need to or will not be able to incorporate. But there are for example, in the first instance, the national type co-ops-I am thinking of the Interprovincial Co-operative Association-which will likely want to and be able to incorpo-

November 2, 1970
Canada Co-operatives Association Bill rate under this legislation. There are regional co-operatives, such as the Federated Co-operative, the Maritime Co-op Service and the United Maritime Fishermen, all of which likely will want to incorporate. All of these agencies likely will go into national organizations from the regional base they presently have. There will be the primary co-operative producers, such as Canadian CoOperative Implements Limited, which likely will want to come under this legislation since it is presently doing business in four provinces. I believe it also wishes to expand into two more Provinces as well as into some of the states south of the border. As a result of the royal commission on farm machinery, I think it is all the more important that Canadian Co-operative Implements Limited receive every facility of government, federal and provincial, to grow, expand and provide some real and meaningful competition and better products for the users of farm machinery.
My colleagues presently in this House and many of their predecessors for many years, Mr. Speaker, have raised this question. I know that hon. members in other places have done the same thing. I think it is fair to say there is no one in this House who will be opposed to this legislation or who will try to hinder it in any way. I believe this is a remarkable improvement over what occurred in our Parliament in previous years when attempts were made to obtain legislation designed to aid and develop the co-operative movement in Canada.
I hope the minister will do his best to have this bill sent to a different committee than the one presently envisaged or make an effort to get rid of many of the lawyers on that committee and substitute members who have been participants in the co-operative movement. I realize that this will be up to the parties and House Leaders, but any assistance the minister can give will be greatly appreciated by many members. In conclusion, may I say that we welcome this legislation. We hope the House will deal with it quickly and efficiently and bring about some improvements to it.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words at this stage to express to the minister and the government our satisfaction to see this bill introduced during the session.
Some hon. members who spoke before me said that this bill had been expected for more than half a century; doubtless the existing cooperative associations throughout Canada will welcome it. I hope that when this bill is considered by the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the cooperative associations will want to give evidence before it and will be invited to do so.
Mr. Speaker, the cooperative movement in Canada has a long and admirable history, because since cooperatives have been in operation, they have at times given consumers as well as producers a new direction to their lives. Very often, people are exploited by profit mongers, and co-operative associations were introduced to curb their greed.
I remember what I read several years ago about the beginning of a cooperative association for fishermen in the Gaspe area and in the Maritime provinces.
Thus, the credit union movement first had to educate people and give them new hopes. In spite of certain obstacles, it did succeed in improving the standard of living of the Gaspe and Maritimes fishermen.
In the field of consumption, for instance, numerous credit unions have managed to compete fairly with the great chain stores that had sometimes been exploiting the consumers.
Also, in the field of dairy products, people have been known to unite and achieve what they could never have done individually.
Naturally, abuses have been committed; however, they were no fault of the credit union movement itself, but rather that of the people who managed those particular credit unions.
Adoption of this bill and its referral to a standing committee of the House will be welcome not only by Parliament but also by all credit unions in Canada. The minister can rest assured of our co-operation in order that this bill be passed as soon as possible and become law before Christmas.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I want to make a few brief remarks about Bill C-177, echoing the remarks made by the minister and by other members who welcomed the long awaited introduction of this bill. In effect, it will become a charter for the Canadian co-operatives that wish to carry on in the interprovincial markets. The Gods grind slowly, but I am somewhat surprised that it took the good government across the way quite as many years as it did to produce a bill to regulate the co-ops carrying on business across provincial boundaries. However, fortunately the day of reckoning has finally come; we have the bill before us and I hope and expect that it will receive a fairly speedy passage, certainly since it is being referred to a committee.
Whether this bill should go to the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs where the minister customarily appears, or whether it should go to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs where the motion presently directs the bill is another matter. What is important is that it go to a committee where it can receive detailed examination. If it does, then I think the co-operative associations, which are a substantial industry in Canada, will welcome it.
As the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) said, the purpose of this bill is to complement provincial legislation, certainly not to replace that legislation. On that basis, I can support the motion and the principle of the bill. I hope the bill will expand the activities of the co-operative associations in Canada and

November 2, 1970

not restrict them. On that basis, I certainly can support the bill. It should enable co-operative activity to be extended across provincial boundaries and not hinder the development of the co-operatives which contribute so much to this country. On that basis also, I can support the bill.
There are many things I could say if I wanted to expound at any length on the co-operative movement, as did the hon. member who spoke for the Official Opposition, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who so aptly gave us his reading of history. It is the east that has contributed so constructively to the co-operative movement as a result of the challenge of disparity and economic disadvantage. We have had to develop new types of business organizations and new co-operative methods to compete with many of our more affluent neighbours, both in the coal mining industry and in the fishing trade in Nova Scotia. Certainly, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) knows about what can almost be called the Antigonish movement, a movement which has since gone far beyond the boundaries of Nova Scotia. He is aware of the impetus given the Cooperative movement by those in Nova Scotia who were vitally involved in it. My own constituency, the Annapolis Valley riding, has today some of the more basic and progressive branches of agriculture which are vitally involved and integrated with the co-operative movement.
I do not want to take up any more of the time of the House. In fact, perhaps the minister will get the bill through before five o'clock.


James Aloysius McGrath: There is no chance of that.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I do not want to elaborate any further, or to give facts and figures to indicate how much the co-operatives mean to my constituents and to the people of Nova Scotia. But certainly we who have pioneered in the co-operative movement in Nova Scotia welcome Bill C-177 in general, and say that perhaps it is long overdue.


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex):: I want to make one or two
short remarks on this bill. After listening to so many members talk about this wonderful bill and how long overdue it is, I wish to add that I heartily agree with them. I do so not for political reasons but as a result of my long association with co-operatives before I became a member of this honourable institution. I learned the fundamentals of democracy through my work with the United Co-operatives of Ontario in my home locality, a work that I enjoyed very much before becoming a member here. This is legislation for which we have asked for a long time. At the time I was director of the United Co-operatives of Ontario and the party of the hon. members who spoke previously was in office, we asked for this legislation, and I am glad to see it finally brought before the House.
I agree with the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) who remarked that he does not know how much the lawyers in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs know about co-operatives.
Canada Co-operatives Association Bill
I had hoped that at least we would have been given the opportunity to examine the bill. I just want to say that even if the minister is not persuaded that this legislation should not go before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, those who have some knowledge of co-operatives will be given an opportunity by the chairman of that committee to give their opinions.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: A
number of us have been asking for this legislation for quite a long time and we are very glad to see it now. I, for one, want to congratulate the minister on a piece of legislation which, so far as we can learn, is regarded very favourably by the co-operative movement. That is not to say that they do not find faults or shortcomings in it, but they certainly think it is good basis for a start.
At this stage I would like to add my voice to those of speakers who have urged the minister to send this legislation to another committee. I think that the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) made a good point when he said this is a good argument in favour of establishing a consumer committee which the minister would have all to himself.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: The minister is in agreement.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I do not set up committees.


Malcolm MacInnis: I do not know how we can proceed unless the minister asks or presses for it. If the minister would suggest the establishment of a consumer committee, he would receive support from many members of the House because such legislation has been referred previously to the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs which is overloaded with many other matters. Actually, this is a consumer matter more than anything else. Certainly, it should not be a happy hunting ground for legal people. I know they have had many innings already and have probably done very well, but now this legislation should go past the legal people to those who have been concerned with co-operative principles.
The minister said something rather significant in connection with this piece of legislation. He said that the reason the government decided to bring this legislation forward after so many years is that co-operatives have been under the aegis of the Corporations Act for too long and that the Corporations Act has been distorted too often to try to make it cover co-operatives. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I thought I heard him say. If that is so, than I really feel that this is a good reason for believing that co-operatives should have an over-all act. The point I am trying to make is that this is not just an addition to ordinary business legislation. This bill is a pioneer piece of legislation in the Canadian Parliament because it is the first federal over-all legislation which aims to deal with co-operatives. Co-operatives are not ordinary business concerns in any sense of the term. They are fundamentally and basically different. Their motivation is different. Their motivation

November 2, 1970
Canada, Co-operatives Association Bill is not competition, it is co-operation. Their purpose is quite different. Their purpose is not to make a profit for those people who engage in them. Their purpose is to provide goods and services at cost to their members.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In addition, they have a whole different set of values. Their idea is that people develop and grow, and society develops and grows harmoniously and well through people working together to achieve a purpose which is in the interests of all of them. This is quite different from the ordinary concept of business along orthodox lines as we have it in Canada. I certainly could not put it more succinctly and briefly than a little pamphlet which I have here from the co-operative movement of Saskatchewan, titled "Co-ops are People." This title is a good reason for not sending the bill to the legal committee but to the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare if the minister is not quite ready yet to have his own committee put into operation. However, I am very pleased to know now that he wants his own committee, and a bill such as this is an important reason for establishing it.
This pamphlet reads in part:
When a person joins a co-operative organization he automatically enters the co-operative movement, a worldwide brotherhood of people in all walks of life, all with the same basic purpose and accepting the same co-operative principles. He has become a member of a great international society dedicated to the belief that ordinary people can co-operate in managing their own economic and social affairs.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that is the basic differentiation between the co-operative movement and all other organizations and business ventures. It believes that ordinary people can manage their own economic and social affairs.
A co-operative is an open and voluntary association in which the members organize to supply their needs through mutual self-help. The motive of production and distribution is service.
Like families, co-ops are groups of people sharing advantages and responsibilities. Co-ops form a broad "community" engaged in marketing, manufacturing, distributing, consuming, finance, service and education.
This legislation introduces something new, and the minister is quite correct in believing that the time has long been overdue for a bill of this kind which recognizes that the co-operative movement is basically different from the ordinary business concern.
From talking to people in the co-operative movement some of us have learned that the absence of federal co-operative legislation of this character has meant that the pattern of co-operative development in Canada has gone along provincial and local lines rather than federal. Now, the movement has grown to the stage where it needs co-ordination, and where it is ready for the federal umbrella which this legislation will provide. Co-operatives are not an end in themselves. They are a method to help those who participate in them to grow and mature, to improve the quality of their lives, and to strengthen their freedom and independence. The role of the government should be to help co-operatives achieve these important objectives.
I believe that the scope and consequences of this legislation will go far beyond what we may foresee at the moment. For instance, I think this legislation will help people to run and direct their own affairs. All decisions made by the members of a co-op are made by them and no one else, after discussion of the facts. One of the needs of which we are terribly conscious in Canada is to have people participate in the running of their own affairs at the local level, and all the way up to the federal level. The co-operative movement can encourage people, through practical participation in co-ops, to learn this particular skill.
In the second place, and I think this should be dear to the heart of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the co-operative movement can become an even greater force than it is now in helping people become intelligent consumers. The minister, quite rightly, is always giving advice to consumers, telling them that if they do not want to be taken in by various marketing practices they should become intelligent and sharp consumers.
Members of co-ops learn to do this not just merely by comparing prices on shelves but by participating in group discussions on their own affairs where they learn about marketing practices, buying practices, and good consumer practices. The minister wishes that we had more Ralph Naders in Canada. By promoting co-operatives we can help with the birth, development and maturing of Ralph Naders all over Canada.
Co-operatives could help Canadians in other ways. When they are strong enough they can be an effective factor in controlling prices. These days the minister worries about methods of doing that without appearing to effect direct control.
Some years ago when I was on a visit to Sweden I learned how Swedish co-operatives, in a number of instances, had been able not only to hold prices constant but to reduce them. One specific example was that of General Electric which had a monopoly to manufacture electric light bulbs in that country. The Swedish co-ops decided to break that monopoly. They built a factory which they called Luma. Even while the walls of the Luma factory were rising, the price of bulbs began to come down in Sweden. By the time the Luma factory was producing its own light bulbs, the prices of bulbs had been greatly reduced. Other successes like this have been achieved by the Swedish co-operative movement.
The co-operative movement has been acting as a brake or steadying factor on run-away prices, and a factor in reducing prices of goods and services to the ordinary consumer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, it being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.
[Mrs. Maclnnis.l
November 2, 1970



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Gerald William Baldwin: 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I launch into the few remarks I want to make, I wish to point out that while the motion which I have placed before the House is of fairly limited application, if there is a disposition on the part of hon. members and the House generally to think that there is a good case to be made for a review of the principles and the Standing Orders under which we now deal with Private Members' Public Bills, I would be quite prepared to consent to any form of change or amendment which might mean that the whole subject of Private Members' Public Bills could be considered by the Standing Committee.
I am reinforced in my view on that because last session, during the course of an exchange, Your Honour had occasion at one time to refer to this problem and to indicate that it might well be a subject of discussion for the committee. I am always glad to call upon profound authorities to support my views. Mind you, I do not always agree with profound authorities but most of the time I do. I recognize that without the co-operation of the government members this matter will simply be discussed briefly now and vanish into thin air, possibly to be revised at some other time. Speaking generally, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have a great belief in the contribution that individual members may make to this House through their proposed recommendations. What I have to say now is said without animosity and is a general statement, but it is because governments tend to stupidity, to deceit and procrastination that the affairs of mankind move slowly. I make these observations with regard to all governments, the aggregation of people. I realize that in the very nature of government this must happen, but it is because of the capacity of individuals to do better things that mankind moves at all. It is in that sense that I feel there is an opportunity in this House for private members to do much to improve the role of this House of Commons in dealing with the problems of society.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, let us not delude ourselves. Today in this country, as in others where there are legislative groups which meet and which constitute a forum for the debate of the problems of the people they represent, there has been an increasing feeling of the irrelevancy and the failure of these legislative assemblies to do the work for which they were designed. I do not agree with this 23226-51
Public Bills
altogether, but there is enough substance to it to give us all fear and grounds for concern.
Certainly, the opportunity for the private member to make proposals which can be advanced to the stage where a decision can be made in this House, is slight. These proposals may deal with people who are racially disinherited, the economically deprived, the young, people who suffer from inequality of any kind. There is a feeling amongst many of these people that Parliament does not faithfully produce, in a form which is acceptable to them, an opportunity to discuss, to debate and to decide. I am sure that in the United States there must be the same feeling with regard to their Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I think my motion has a remedy for this situation and I ask the House to look at it carefully. At present I have this hour available, and tomorrow there will be another hour devoted to some other aspect of a private member's business. This is a useful means of bringing forward subjects for discussion but it is highly unsatisfactory in that it does not provide that at least some of them may be brought to a stage where a decision is made. This does not necessarily mean a decision binding upon the government-I do not seek that-but an opportunity where the government may feel that what is proposed is acceptable to them; securing a decision of this House and possibly of the Parliament. There is a desperate need to do something about this, Mr. Speaker. I am not charging hon. members, but there is a measure of over-all hypocrisy in our approach to private members business. I hope we can do something about this and I have some suggestions to offer.
If we are to make ourselves useful, relevant and believable, we must make some provision in this House for a meaningful debate so that the people I have mentioned will have their day in court, that court being the court of Parliament, the greatest court of last resort in this country. Though I might feel that what I bring forward on behalf of people in my constituency is a valid case, I might not be successful in persuading even my colleagues in my own party to accept it. However, I am convinced in my experience of human nature that if the case is presented well and a decision taken, these people will have had their day in court and even vicariously there will be a measure of satisfaction. This is not the case at the moment, Mr. Speaker. What I propose, of course, is only one method of achieving this type of reform; there are many others, and it might be well to look at some other jurisdictions.
In the United States, there are a great many opportunities for Senators and members of the House of Representatives to tack on to appropriation bills measures which can not only be voted on by the House or Senate, but which can carry with them a measure of spending. In other words, under the system which prevails there, it is possible to approve expenditure on a private members bill in the Senate or House of Representatives. Of course, such is impossible here because of our constitution and because under our parliamentary system the government has the responsibility with respect to the expenditure of

Before sitting down, I wish to say that in the United Kingdom there are other means for dealing with private members public bills. Members there can, of course, bring forward private members public bills which will not be balloted on but which will be simply exposed to public scrutiny, as is often the case here. In addition, there is what is known as the ten minute rule. Every Tuesday and Wednesday, any member who has given notice for at least one week before that date, may introduce a bill. If he has given the proper notice he may debate it for ten minutes after the question period. Any member who seeks to speak in opposition to it may also speak for ten minutes. The bill, therefore, is debated for a total of 20 minutes. If the bill appeals to hon. members, they either put the legislation through or make sure that it can be dealt with at a later stage if time permits. In other words, in addition to the balloted bills, two of these ten minute bills are available to the House each week.
Instead of our present system, there might be one under which we might limit the number of bills that are brought in so as to permit members who are given this opportunity to have the proposal which they feel is worth while brought forward, discussed and adopted. I must say that if this were to happen, Parliament would be given credit for trying to persuade the people of Canada that private members have some useful and effective role to play in this House. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because the events of the last two or three weeks in this country, and events that have taken place in the United States and elsewhere, have caused people, and particularly young people, to say, "Is democracy functioning as we think it functions and as we believe it ought to function?". I am not saying that what I propose is, by itself, the answer; but it would give this House and Parliament a meaningful opportunity to bring forward issues and decide on issues which private members think are important, and that would be done without in any sense infringing on the rights of the government. I think that would be one of the many things which would persuade people that the processes and instruments of democracy have an effective place in our lives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: I should be delighted to.


James Alexander Jerome: I wonder if the hon. member would address himself to this question. Instead of bringing a specific proposal of this sort before the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, does he not think, expecially since the matter is further narrowed by the allusion to voting, that it would be better to empower that committee to deal at all times with all aspects of the rules instead of with this particular aspect?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time of the hon. member for Peace River has expired. Does he have the unanimous consent of the House to answer?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Public Bills


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like nothing better than for the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to be given terms of reference entitling it to deal with all aspects of the rules and for this reason: the first "attempt" we made at changing the rules two years ago was at the request of the government. It was to enable the government to expedite its business, and the result brought considerable loss, in my view, to the democratic process. It is high time that those rules were looked at which deal with the rights of private members. I would be delighted if this were done. However, my fear is, and I base it on experience in the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, that unless these general terms of reference are also clarified by requests to look at certain specific problems, it is likely that those things which concern the private members most may not be dealt with.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I am prepared to have the motion amended to provide that the committee be authorized to look at all aspects of the existing Standing Order, but with special reference to priority of certain items. If not, I am convinced that many members from both sides of the House will feel that those matters which are important will never be dealt with or discussed.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see this motion brought into this House by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) dealing with the subject of the private members1 hour and handling of private members' public bills. I am sure all members of this House share with him a feeling of frustration with regard to the way the business in the-private members' hour is handled. Too often we see bills talked out on the floor of this chamber which seem to have merit and which should perhaps have received a better fate.
I think when some younger members of this House first listen to the private members' hour they come to the decision that it serves no real purpose because when the government business is completed, they disappear from the chamber. They do not take part in the discussion during this hour. Nevertheless, over the years it has been an excellent opportunity for new members to get to their feet and find out what it is like to debate in this chamber while members talk to each other, pace back and forth, read their newspapers or disappear from the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Grant Deachman: That is a very unnerving situation for a young man entering this House. Up until that time the few people he is able to gather in his constituency to listen to his speeches, mostly his solid supporters and many of them pensioners, listen to his words avidly. They meet him at the door and shake his hand afterwards. They tell him they hope he will repeat that message when he gets to Ottawa. When he gets to Ottawa he faces a phalanx of empty chairs. Therefore, the private members' hour is an excellent opportunity for the young parliamentarian to rise to his feet to speak.

November 2, 1970
Public Bills


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I point out to the hon. member that the only person now in the press gallery is reading a paper.


Grant Deachman: I suppose they sometimes have to read them if they are going to write for them.
The private members' hour is not all futility. Many propositions in the form of bills have been debated in the private members' hour and, although they have been talked out session after session, they have gradually molded opinion in this chamber and played a role in molding opinion in the country.
When I first came to the House of Commons in 1963, I think it would have been impossible to have a divorce bill passed. At that time, the divorce was the basis for various private members' public bills and motions, and they were debated in this chamber. At that time the private members' hour was a public sounding board. It was one way of hearing a topic debated and of testing public opinion. From time to time, these debates provoked newspaper articles, comments and editorials. They gave light to a proposition again and again as this subject was debated in this chamber. The private members' hour was as instrumental as any other device in the molding of public opinion which eventually led to the passage of reformed divorce legislation in Canada. It served a very useful purpose in that instance.
Although technically it did not take place within the private members' hour, it was a private member's bill which was used to introduce the subject of reform of capital punishment in order that members of the House of Commons on both sides might have an opportunity to have a free vote on that subject. It was a private member's public bill, introduced by an individual member during the private members' hour, which changed the name of Trans-Canada Air Lines to Air Canada.
When the Canada Elections Act was massively overhauled last session, the subject matter of a considerable number of private members' public bills dealing with various amendments to the Canada Elections Act were referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. One bill for which I was responsible was referred to that committee. The bills were not referred to the committee, only the subject matter.
By this device a member was able to appear before the committee to debate a particular point of change that he wanted brought about in the Canada Elections Act. I was interested in students who had been disenfranchised in the 1965 election due to a peculiarity in the act. A change was made and this will not happen again to students. This resulted directly from a private member's public bill.
Despite some of the frustrations we may see in this hour, it is not entirely futile. It serves a good purpose. It would indeed be a worthy improvement to our rules if this hour could be made more effective. Perhaps the vast number of private members' public bills could be reduced to a meaningful number which could receive more debate and progress from second reading to third

reading in the manner described by the hon. member for Peace River.
The hon. member referred to the number of bills passed in the United Kingdom parliament. I understand that these bills tend to be non-contentious. The government allocates ten days in the course of a year for debate on private members' public bills. It is apparent that a subject that is non-contentious in nature and which, for example, amends a piece of government legislation in a manner that in the eyes of the government is desirable, stands a very good chance of moving through during the private members' period. In fact, by letting such debate take place the government is extending its own time; it is using the private members' period to carry a bill that otherwise it might have desired to place on its list of government orders. So in reality one wonders how many of the bills that go through the British House are really bills that are initiated by a private member to explore new areas of legislation, or are simply a device to permit a private member to carry through in private members' hour a bill that might otherwise have to be handled under government orders and in the government's own time.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I think we should look carefully at the very great value there is to be had from exploring, in private members' hour, new ideas-new ideas in social legislation, new ideas that need testing in the House before they become law. Of particular interest, of course, is the current concern over the subject of amending the law of abortion. This is a sensitive area in the mind of the public, for many reasons, and is one well worth exploring in private members' hour. The idea of a guaranteed annual income is another subject of considerable sensitivity, one that needs exploration in debate by private members. One can think of many more subjects worthy of debate and of broad consideration by private members in this hour.
It is therefore worth while this afternoon to consider the motion of the hon. member for Peace River, which moves in the direction of suggesting that we should find better ways of employing the time used in this chamber to carry on debate in our own way without the guidance of a motion by the government. I would welcome any suitable reference for sending on to the Committee on Procedure and Organization leading to a general consideration of the way to handle this period more effectively. As the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned a moment ago, I think the motion now before the House may be on the narrow side and that what we should look for is a general reference to enable us to discuss in broader terms the rules of the House and our evolving procedure in a way that can make private members' hour more meaningful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Deachman) on his catalogue of achievements that have resulted from the use of private members' hour by the members of this House. I think he
November 2, 1970

gave a legitimate defence, though I confess I should like to add a few items to his list.


Eugene Whelan: So would I.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So would another hon. member. Legislation respecting motor vehicle safety is a good example of a subject that has been brought forward for discussion by private members in private members' hour in the form of bills or resolutions. I would also point out that for many years the Order Paper had on it bills respecting all the various aspects of the Labour Code. I hasten to add that they were not all my bills; there were bills moved by Liberals and Conservatives too, depending on which party was in power. In this way we have through the years popularized several ideas in the area of establishing a federal Labour Code.
In addition to this, we put through income tax deductibility for trade union dues some years ago through the use of private members' hour. We also had accepted the right for recipients of unemployment insurance to continue to draw unemployment benefits once they became sick-provided, of course, they had started to draw the benefits before the sickness occurred. This is a matter we are now trying to extend in committee.
I am not suggesting, any more than the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra was, that the bills or resolutions brought in in private members' hour were passed; when it came to legislation it was usually in the form of a government bill. But I think it is fair to say that through the use of this hour, private members popularized an idea which it sold to Parliament generally and to the government in particular.
Many pension matters have been dealt with over the years in this way. Hospitalization was one subject, and so was medicare. A few bills did not succeed: I have yet to get rid of the Senate by means of a private member's bill, though at least last year we had a vote and a few good men and true from the other side joined us on the vote. So at least we are on the way. I
I do not wish to take more time since other members want to speak, but I give my wholehearted support to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I appreciate the goodwill and the good intentions of the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra in their suggestion of a broader reference; but judging from my own experience on the Procedure and Organization Committee during the last two or three years, I do not think this would work. We had a broad reference last time, and under this broad reference some of us raised the question of doing something about private members' hour. However, we were told that other matters had higher priority. I am afraid that on a committee with a government majority and with a reference that covered everything, we would again be told there are proposals of the government that take top priority.
I would not mind my hon. friend's resolution being broadened to include further matters of concern to pri-
Public Bills
vate members; but I think I speak not only for the members of the opposition but also for the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) and others when I say that in addition to bills and resolutions we could do other things under the rules to strengthen the position of private members.
We are not trying to take away the power and initiative of the government in so far as the introduction of legislation is concerned. But we do think that something better than just talking out private members' bills in this hour should be found. I am glad the hon. member for Peace River did not put specific proposals in his motion, though he did indicate some of the things that might be done. It seems to me that at this point, rather than giving a general reference which would result in priority being given to matters of concern to the government, in the name of the private members on both sides of the House we should have a study made by the Committee on Procedure and Organization on ways and means of improving the lot of private members and improving the chance of getting their proposals properly considered by the House of Commons.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak to this motion because I had understood via the "grape vine" that it was going to be accepted. It now appears the motion is going to be talked out, though I stand to be corrected on that. The fact it is going to be talked out is, surely, proof in itself of the futility and the failure of private members' hour. Here we are, discussing a motion that all hon. members who have spoken so far seem to agree with, yet it is not going to be accepted on any terms. As I say, that in itself is an indication that private members' hour is not working.
I am not going over the history that has been very well outlined by previous speakers. Members on both sides of the House have been involved in the private members' hour and there is a record of some success in respect of various subjects that have been introduced not only in bills but in motions. I deplore the lack of attention that is given private members' hour by ministers of the Crown. I recall the day when a certain minister-I do not think I should hesitate to mention his name; he was a former Minister of Justice, Hon. Stuart Garson-never failed to speak on a motion that had any connection with justice. We all gave him considerable credit. In many cases he talked the bills out, but it showed the importance he attached to private members' hour.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
During the years, this hour has fallen into a different position of importance here. I gave the government considerable credit last year when it started to refer some of these bills to committee. I thought this was a step in the right direction. It was rather mysterious that most of the bills seemed to be from the government, but nevertheless it was a move in the right direction. I only hope that this very commendable motion does get before the committee in a very forceful and definite way.

November 2, 1970
Public Bills
There are just two brief suggestions I have to make. I was quite surprised that the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) put so many bills on the Order Paper this session. This brought home the fact that there should be a limit on the number of bills a member can put on the Order Paper. The table knows I have campaigned for three or four years for such a limit. There should perhaps be a limit on the position that each member gets in the draw, similar to as the practice in the United Kingdom.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? I wonder whether he would agree with the suggestion that each member should have the privilege of submitting two bills for what we euphemistically call the ballot, and that any other private member's bill should go to the end of the list. In other words, there would be a maximum of two for any individual member that would be in fact assigned to come up for debate.


Thomas Miller Bell: I think this suggestion has some merit. Perhaps we could make a choice as to which suggestion is acceptable. I am not an authority on the British House, but I think in some way these measures are brought forward by unanimous consent. I think if there ever was a time when there was unanimity in this House, it was when these matters of interest were brought forward. This would have to be done by unanimous consent. I know there is disagreement as to the final outcome of this procedure, but it is worthy of consideration. A bill of current and important interest might in some way be brought forward.
If we adopted this suggestion the interns we have in the House could work very well. They are really conscientious young fellows. This system came about through a private member's motion and I think it is worthy of commendation. There has been discussion about the interns, or a group of them, interesting themselves particularly in the private members' hour. It might not be very thrilling to pass this subject off to some of them, but they might take it on as their special interest. There might be one from each party to see that we do a better job, by giving us a little of their thinking of the situation as viewed from the gallery. In other words, by appointing them to study the private members' hour we might ourselves benefit.
I commend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for having the fortitude, perseverance and insight to bring forward this motion. I am quite sure the luck of the draw was involved, because it was one of the first to come forward. That is the only good sign I can see, because as I look across the Chamber I sense that the motion will be talked out.


Mr. Ralph Sfewari (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to speak on this subject, but it is unfortunate I have to do so during private members' hour. We are wasting an hour of private members' time, just as we wasted an hour on Friday talking about procedure, when private members have all kinds of ideas which should be brought before the House. This is a matter
which should be discussed by the committee. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says he has been sitting on the Committee on Procedure and Organization for years. I cannot help wondering why this subject has not been discussed in the committee before now. I cannot understand why a number of these questions have not been discussed by that committee.
The fact that a young upstart from Cochrane put 40 private member's bills on the Order Paper seems to have upset the whole applecart around here. It seems that up to now nobody thought these ridiculous rules needed to be changed. They not only need to be changed with regard to the number of bills each private member may have; they also need to be changed with regard to the number of bills put forward per party in the House. This was something I was trying to offset because of the silly unbalance we had before.
It seems to me that in respect of this question of private members' bills and their number there have been some very good suggestions by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). If there is an allotment and a limitation according to the number of members in the House, it could not help but be in line with the number of members in each party. In that case, I think this is a good suggestion.
What I cannot understand is why there is so much consternation among some members of this House, and even on the part of the Chair, when a number of private members' bills are introduced according to the rules. I cannot understand why the rules have not been changed before. Why should it take a young upstart to bring this matter to the attention of the House? How long will it take and how many more upstarts will have to get up and speak about the ridiculous spectacle of a Speech from the Throne being made to a half empty Senate, with 264 Members of Parliament fighting to get through the door, before something is done?
How many other stupid rules do we have in this House just because some of the old fogies who sit here feel they have to continue with the old traditions of Parliament? There are 100 young members in this House-I have raised this matter on a number of occasions-who did not come here to sit and look at the old-fashioned ways of doing business. We came here with the intention of bringing forth ideas to reform this place.
Just as the leader of the Liberal party said during the last election, we are going to reform the rules of Parliament. There are some of us who want to reform those rules. I wonder if it is necessary to go to the extremes we have had to in order to bring about reform. I suggest that a subject such as this should be constantly before the Committee on Procedures and Organization. There are any number of rules of this House that should be changed. Why do we make statements on motions? We call them motions, but they are statements. We call public bills private bills, and private bills public bills.
There are any number of things which to the uninitiated who might walk in here would cause them to say that we in the House of Commons are a bunch of nuts. How many Canadians come here and say that, because of the

November 2, 1970

illogic of some of our procedures? We say we maintain these rules and procedures because of tradition. That is a lot of nonsense. We are more British than the British. The British change their ways, but we do not. This is like being more Catholic than the Pope.
It seems to me that subjects such as this should not be debated during private members' hour. Private members' hour is a time when we should be able to bring forth good ideas. When I had my 40 bills covered, 38 on one subject, at least one of my reasons was to show how stupid these regulations are. Another reason was that we must use every means at our disposal to bring a good idea before this House. This is almost impossible to do. As other hon. members have said, whenever a member comes forward with a good idea, it is talked out.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I remember an occasion when I had a good idea which had a good deal of support in this House. It had to be brought forward in a way in which it could receive a little more attention. Another idea I put forward during private members' hour was that our flag be presented in this House of Commons. There again it was a matter of a young upstart coming forward with an idea which nobody had thought of before, and therefore no attention was paid to it. That particular question is one which I am sure would receive the approval of just about every member of this House. I refer to the placing of the flag of Canada in the House of Commons, as is done in the legislatures of other countries.
This idea is now away at the bottom of the list, where it will remain, never to be discussed. Such a suggestion should not have to be made in the form of a private member's bill. It could be done without a private member's bill. If Mr. Speaker wanted the flag in the House, he could have it put in. But oh, no; this is an idea originating with a young upstart who has been here only two years. I believe it is time we changed our rules, because some of us are becoming fed up with this situation and with some of the snide remarks that are made when one attempts to take the bull by the horns. I am fed up, and there are many other members who are fed up. I suggest it is time the few people holding the reins in this Parliament decided to take the bull by the horns so that discussion might be opened up on some of these ideas. Something certainly should be done about the basic rules of this House so that they might be more meaningful to the individual member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate merely to support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and the remarks made by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart). I do not want to talk out the motion, and therefore I shall sit down right now if I have the assurance of this House that the motion will be permitted to come to a vote.


An hon. Member:: Then sit down.
Public Bills


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as members do we have not the right to grant unanimous consent to this bill maintaining first place on the list? I think it is too important a subject for a member having to stay seated in order to not take up time discussing it. I remember what I went through in an effort to have a private member's bill discussed in this House. If we can have unanimous consent, I shall not say anything further.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, for perhaps 4| minutes let me add my views to those already put on the record. As I indicated earlier in my question, the particular aspect I wish to discuss for a few moments concerns the powers of the Committee on Procedure and Organization to explore the rules of this chamber. I particularly address myself to hon. members who participated in this debate and spoke about the subject of reform of the rules of this chamber, because that indeed was one of my major objectives in coming here as a new member in 1968.
I felt very honoured indeed to be appointed to the special committee which sat during the first session of this Parliament under the very capable chairmanship of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). That committee worked very hard during long hours. The sponsor of this motion was a member for the committee as was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has participated in this debate.
I think any member would support me when I say that the accomplishments of that committee were numerous and very significant. In fact, the only change recommended by the committee that met any serious opposition in this House was in connection with the rule dealing with the programming of debates in this chamber. There was a very searching examination and full recommendations by that committee which brought about changes in several of the fundamental functions of this chamber, not the least of which was the approach to money resolutions and the elimination of the resolution stage which all members embraced as a worth while amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker,
would the hon. member permit a question? Would he not correct that sentence? Did we not agree to some rules affecting the programming of the business, and was there not just one particular aspect about which we did not agree?


James Alexander Jerome: The answer to that question is a little complex. The hon. member who asked the question sponsored a compromise position on the programming rule which set up the possibility of a decision in respect of the business of a committee of the House being made on a majority basis. One of the difficulties that has been widely discussed in this House since that time is that within the special language of the rule it does not contemplate that the government must be a member of that majority, although the hon. member has graciously accepted in the past that that was his intention at the

November 2, 1970
Canada Co-operatives Association Bill
time. I know he does not now associate himself with that position.
Within these limits, the hon. member is perfectly right. It is just that aspect of programming that has raised itself as a difficulty and an impediment to some of the package which the government wanted to see introduced in the House of Commons in order to expedite the business of this chamber as well as the business of the Standing Committees.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy
Council): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the leave of the House to deal with this matter. In the question period I stated it was the intention of the government to send the emergency powers bill to Committee of the Whole. No objection was taken at that time, but in order to clarify the situation I should like that to be made an order of the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that this be made an order of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-177, respecting co-operative associations, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, when this debate was interrupted at five o'clock I was outlining some of the conditions in Canada that might be affected by the co-operative movement coming

under the umbrella of this new federal bill. I was going to mention the fact that nowadays we are greatly concerned about people in low-income groups, including people in our urban centres and native peoples, and about ways and means in which they can be helped to control their living conditions and their financial situation. We do not want these people to live in poverty and despair and to depend upon social allowance for their livelihood.
The Co-operative Union presented a brief to the Senate Committee on Poverty earlier this year, in which they pointed out the value of the co-operative movement to people in these groups. I know that in my own city of Vancouver-which is also the minister's city-there is among low-rent housing tenants in one project, at least, a co-operative buying club which is applying the co-operative principles. The tenants of the housing project are taking part in this co-operative endeavour, with very good results in reducing the cost of their groceries. '
Also in this brief which was presented to the Committee on Poverty, the Co-operative Union of Canada mentioned the good co-operative work that is going on among the Eskimos, the Indians and the Metis. I do not intend to deal at any length with this matter, but I just wanted to mention the fact that co-operative associations will have an ever-increasing impact on our way of living in Canada. Their purpose is not merely to reduce the cost of consumer goods but also to help the people who are using the co-operatives to gain control of their own affairs.
There is one further aspect of this question that I would like to mention. We are greatly concerned today about the question of participation in the processes of democracy and how we can keep them alive and vigorous. I do not think we have begun to realize what the co-operative movement can do in that direction, what its nature is and how it can grow under this new bill which will deal with nationally incorporated co-operatives and ones that do business in more than one province. I do not think we have begun to realize the effect this can have on democratic processes and on furthering them in this country.
It would be far better to put this point in the knowledgeable language used by a leading member of a cooperative association. Some time ago an article was published by J. T. Phalen of the Co-operative Union of Canada. I want to read a couple of paragraphs of it, because he describes so well the way in which co-operatives can help to handle the question of the tight, monopoly control of industry and also the importance of the participation of people in our democratic government processes. The article reads in part as follows:
We insist on democracy in dealing with each other in political terms but we are slow to accept the fact that democracy in economic dealings also has validity and purpose.
The present trend toward greater and greater economic power in the hands of fewer and fewer people must certainly be a source of concern to all of us. Our neighbours to the south are now facing a situation where each of a number of giant American corporations controls more wealth than the United States government. A spokesman of one of these is reported to have said what is good for my corporation is good for the United States.
November 2, 1970

The co-operative movement's answer to this is that the ownership of productive assets should be in the hands of the users. This will result in a diffusion of earnings among the people and the democratic nature of the organization will put the power in the hands of members. In this case it might be said that what is good for the organization is good for the country. If it wasn't, the people have the method and the right to change the situation.
Further on he says the following about participation: Each of us must answer for himself an important question: "Am I satisfied to let others plan for my welfare-deciding what is good for me, how much money I should make and how I should live. Or do I wish to participate in and thereby influencing the whole range of activities that have a bearing on my wellbeing?'' In political terms a benevolent dictator decides all of these things for the citizens and by definition in their best interests. In our society we reject "out of hand" the idea of turning so much power over to one or a few individuals. We prefer to deal with the political situation democratically. We haven't been as careful about our position in the business world. Here we are allowing tremendous power to pass into a few hands and not necessarily into the hands that might be described as benevolent. Most of their decisions are based on how to get more out of the public rather than how to help meet the needs of people. Are we to be spectators in our world-at best, orchids that depend upon the gardener for protection and pampering or at worst objects to be exploited and hoodwinked by those who have their own selfish interests at heart?
The co-operative structure provides the method by which people can participate in the economic decisions which have an important bearing on social conditions and personal well-being.
There is one more short paragraph that I would like to quote. It reads as follows:
The reasons for supporting co-operatives and encouraging others to understand and participate are complex and at the same time quite simple. In political terms our total society subscribes to the principle of democratic action. We are simply saying that the same principle is valid in economic activities which in turn has a direct bearing on our social system. We wish to have power of all types controlled democratically. The democratic system demands participation and responsibility. If we are not prepared to accept responsibility, the system is not the right one for us. If we do accept the responsibility, the economic and social opportunities are unlimited and the opportunities for personal development will unfold like the pages of a book as we go about the task of meeting human needs as brothers rather than as competitors.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
This is something of the philosophy underlying the co-operative movement, and this bill is designed to further it. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the co-operative movement feels that this bill represents a good starting basis for federal legislation. In Great Britain special cooperative legislation was introduced a long time ago, in fact as far back as 1852, but at the outset it simply gave co-ops a legal status on which to exist and there was a long struggle before the distinctive characteristics of co-operatives were recognized in law. It will probably take a long time before this legislation in Canada is made to fit exactly the needs of the co-operative movement.
People connected with the co-operative movement are worried about several points in the bill. This afternoon the minister stated that under this legislation, as a rule no member of a co-operative shall have more than one
Canada Co-operatives Association Bill vote. But the interpretation given in clause 3(l)(d)(i) is as follows:
-except in the case of an association the charter by-laws of which otherwise provide, each member or delegate has only one vote-
In other words, a large exception is written right into the legislation. A few years ago the Co-operative Union of Canada laid down the principles which it stated were important for incorporation into any forthcoming federal legislation. They said quite clearly that the principle of one member, one vote should apply and that the legislation should provide for a system of delegate voting with all the usual provisions required by co-operatives. This is a cornerstone of the co-operative movement. I contend that the co-operative movement is justly worried about this legislation, which breaches the principle of one member, one vote by providing:
-except in the case of an association the charter by-laws of which otherwise provide, each member or delegate has only one vote-
This definition will require a great deal of explanation in committee. The matter of proxy voting is also wor-riesome to the co-operative movement. Again today the minister explained that no member as a rule shall vote by proxy, but in the interpretation section of the legislation we find the following provision:
no member may vote by proxy except that a member of an association may vote by proxy for the election of directors if the charter by-laws of the association so provide-
The Co-operative Union of Canada recommended that voting by proxy should be prohibited. This is one of the matters to which attention must be directed when the legislation gets into committee. The co-operative movement is very pleased to see safeguards provided regarding the use of the words "co-op" and "pool" where they form part of the name of a co-operative association. Other features of the legislation fall in line with co-operative thinking. When the legislation goes to committee I hope the committee will hear representations from the co-operative movement on a large scale.
In conclusion, I appeal to the minister to change the referral of the bill so that it may be sent to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs instead of to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. We do not have a consumer affairs committee. Let him do with this bill what he has done in recent times with the subject matter of his other legislation, namely, send it to the health and welfare committee. It is true that that committee has a lot of work to do, but co-ops essentially deal with people; they come under the heading of consumer matters. Sending the bill to the health and welfare committee would save the minister the trouble of taking all the lawyers off the legal committee and putting consumers on it.


Mr. Louis-Boland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-177 is certainly extremely detailed and
806

November 2, 1970
Canada Co-operatives Association Bill very interesting to read. But there is no need to study it in depth to see that it should make it possible to control quite well the operations of these associations.

It was interesting to note the comments made this afternoon suggesting that reference of this bill be to another committee. The minister has stated he does not have a committee under his department, but the minister on his left tonight, whose responsibilities have been greatly reduced, could put half a committee at his disposal; and, really, consumer and corporate affairs seem to be much more important. It is also interesting that there are four ministers in the House tonight, Mr. Speaker. It is not very often we see so many here.
It is my understanding that the Co-operative Union of Canada has had consultations with officials of the department urging passage of legislation of this general type. I understand there are some objections concerning its details, but these things can be ironed out in committee. As was pointed out by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and others, basically we have no objection to this bill. I understand that co-ops in general now fall under provincial legislation, and if they operate in more than one province they come under the Corporations Act. Bill C-177 deals with the interprovincial cooperative movement. I am glad that the bill will provide protection to co-operatives which use the word "co-op" in their title. Many so-called co-ops have sprung up in recent years, such as housing co-ops and other, but they really are not co-operatives in the true sense.
This bill provides the framework within which the co-operative movement can expand, but as I read the 107 pages of the bill I see the word "minister" far too many times.


Stanley Ronald Basford: But he is a good minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Alexander:: That is the overstatement of the year.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Louis-Roland Comeau: The minister has to stick up for himself; nobody else will. What bothers me a little is that the word "minister" seems to be in there too many times. The bill appears to give to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-not particularly this one, but whoever it may be-detailed powers and, quite frankly, I do not understand why all the regulations have to go through the hands of the minister. In that sense the bill is too dictatorial and this aspect of it must be well scrutinized in committee. I will give the minister the benefit of the doubt and hope that this will be exactly the type of legislation that the co-ops want, but it seems to me that the minister has too much control under the bill as it stands. I
I should like to know whether the existing co-ops have the choice to opt out. I know there is a clause in the bill about transmission, and so on. As I understand it, at present the co-ops operate under the Corporations Act,

and I wonder whether they can still do that and whether there are any real advantages in operating under this new bill. It would be interesting to see the type of bureaucracy set up to deal with a bill as detailed as C-177. Although the word "minister" appears in every second paragraph, I am sure the minister cannot be expected to attend to every little detail. Therefore, it will be interesting to see exactly the type of body established to deal with this legislation. I hope it can be done without too many civil servants.


Gerald William Baldwin: Don't kid yourself.


Louis-Roland Comeau: The hon. member asked me not to kid myself, but I just mention this to warn the minister not to set up the type of bureaucracy we see so often around here.


James Aloysius McGrath: The fastest growing empire in the west.


Thomas Miller Bell: Like the Prime Minister's office.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I have very high regard for the co-operative movement, which is certainly important to the community life in Canada-to the Atlantic area, the west and indeed to all provinces of Canada. The Maritime Cooperative, for example, which is involved in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, has done a tremendous amount of good in the communities and has been very successful. The United Maritime Fishermen has also done an effective job and I hope it will be able to continue its good work under this bill. I have a very high regard for these co-operative movements and hope this bill will give them a boost and generate the interest of the public.
As was pointed out this afternoon, the co-operative movement was started in Nova Scotia. We have now a very extensive program at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, and the work being done there is to be praised. A few Canadian universities offer courses on co-operatives and some conduct extension work in this field. None of these, however, offers a course as extensive as that of St. Francis Xavier. Since the early 1930s it has offered an extension program to organize and assist co-operatives, and in more recent years a variety of courses have been developed to train people in the work of co-operatives. Some of these are short courses for directors and managers of existing co-operatives and credit unions; others are offered as an integral part of university work. In addition, special courses are offered for visitors from other countries who wish to learn about co-operatives in Canada. There is the Coady International Institute, for example.
I believe that the co-operative movement is to be encouraged, but we must be careful about the type of bureaucracy set up to deal with this legislation. I hope the committee will scrutinize the bill and make sure there is not too much control by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, whoever he may be at the relevant time. An interesting point was brought out by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Macln-
November 2, 1970

nis). That is the well-founded rule, when dealing with co-operative movements, of one member, one vote. The hon. member pointed out exceptions to this rule on page 2 of the bill, and also raised the matter of proxy voting. These are questions that will have to be answered by the committee.
In general, however, Mr. Speaker, I think that the objectives of the bill are good and we will support it, but I hope the minister will be very careful in administering this type of legislation.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the minister for bringing forward this bill on co-operatives. It is another important measure to bring social justice and economic power to the people of Canada. During the twenty-seventh Parliament I sat on the Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on Consumer Prices with the minister who at that time was one of the joint chairmen.


Thomas Miller Bell: He was never there. Senator Croll did all the work.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister just took the credit.


William Warren Allmand: Someone said that the minister was not there. I should like to make it very clear to this House that the hon. member who was the joint chairman of the committee with Senator Croll was there morning, noon and night working persistently-


Gerald William Baldwin: How many nights?


William Warren Allmand: -with the committee to bring out what I believe to be one of the best reports of any parliamentary committee. During the hearings before that committee there were many requests from consumer groups in Canada for legislation to assist co-operatives. One of the principal recommendations of the committee report was instrumental, I believe, in leading to this bill.
Ever since my days as a student at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, I have been an enthusiastic supporter of the co-operative movement. I note that the hon. member who spoke before me referred to that particular university. In Antigonish I had the good fortune to observe the work of Coady, Macdonald, Boyle, Laidlaw and many others who worked with fishermen, miners and farmers in Nova Scotia and taught them, in the words of Monseigneur Coady, how to be "masters of their own destiny" through the work of the co-operative movement. As the hon. member who spoke before me pointed out, in Antigonish at the Coady International Institute people from all over the world are being taught about the co-operative movement. I found it a thrilling experience going down there two weeks ago.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Nova Scotia is always great.


William Warren Allmand: I agree with the hon. member. I was there with the Committee on Constitution and at that
Canada Co-operatives Association Bill time I had an opportunity of examining the work of the Coady International Institute. I was thrilled to see that a movement begun by the people of Nova Scotia to help other people had spread to the far corners of the world.
May I also say that several years ago I had the opportunity to be involved in a study program in India. We visited a small town in India where they decided to show a group of students from all parts of the world a film on the co-operative movement. The film they showed us in that small town had been prepared in Antigonish, Nova Scotia. The film was being used in that village project in India to teach people how to gain economic power for themselves through the co-operative movement.
I think that the pioneers of Rochdale and those of the Antigonish movement to which the hon. member referred, as well as those in Scandinavia and many other parts of the world, have proved that through co-operatives people can to a great extent be masters of their own destiny. They can have greater influence over their economic circumstances through means of their influence over production, marketing, investments and savings.
Co-operatives have been extremely effective in breaking monopolies and in keeping the opposition honest, to use a football phrase. They do not always need to correct injustices. Merely by being there they keep those with whom they work "on the level" and keep the market honest. Co-operatives in Canada and elsewhere have been successful in the area of production. This is particularly true in respect of farmers, fishermen, people with orchards and others engaged in basic types of production. They have been extremely successful in the field of the consumer, right in my constituency in Montreal. There, many people with low incomes are organizing consumer co-operatives in an attempt to overcome ever-increasing prices of consumer goods. I have personally encouraged them to carry on their work, although it is difficult at this time for people in cities to organize and keep the cooperatives together.
I have also been impressed with attempts that have been made over the years to establish co-operatives in the field of housing. Again, one should look at examples in Nova Scotia where I believe there have been successes in the field of co-operative housing. Credit unions are another type of co-operative venture. Caisses populaires in Quebec have also done much to help their people in this regard.
On the whole, Mr. Speaker, I think this is very good legislation. The co-operative movement in Canada has been requesting it. Many of its details will be examined in committee, but in principle the basis of this legislation is sound. I do not wish to speak too long; I merely wish to say that I am gratified the bill is before the House, because I worked for some months with the Joint Committee on Consumer Prices in 1966 and 1967 and I have been waiting for this legislation to come forward. I congratulate the minister for bringing it forward at this time.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to participate in the
23226-52J

November 2, 1970
Canada Co-operatives Association Bill debate on the federal co-operatives bill because I feel that this is a historic day for the co-operative movement in Canada. There are many people in my own constituency of Regina East who are very much interested in the success and future of the co-operative movement. I might say that one characteristic of the co-operative movement which is present in my constituency, and which has been present in the co-operative movement all across Canada, is that it has gained support from many quarters of the community. It has gained support from all ethnic groups, from different religious groups and from people of varying political philosophies and outlooks.
The co-operatives, in this sense, have served as a unifying force throughout the community. They have been the vehicle for a useful and important role in furthering community action and in bringing about better conditions and improvements in communities across Canada. My interest in the subject of co-operatives is well known as an active member of co-operative organizations and as a former director and one-time employee of a co-operative organization.
I found it of interest, Mr. Speaker, to refer back to my first speech in the House of Commons, my maiden speech in this chamber on September 23, 1968. Speaking in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, the reference I made to the federal co-operatives bill was as follows:
There are, of course, some items in the Speech from the Throne which I welcome.
That reference is to the 1968 Speech from the Throne. I continued as follows:
The long-awaited federal co-operatives act will be welcomed by most people in Regina East. This act, which has been just around the comer for so many years, will enable co-operatives to play a more adequate role in the national economy. I trust that the promise of such legislation in this session will not meet the same fate as similar promises for such an act on numerous occasions in the past.
As a matter of fact, that promise in that session met the same fate as the promises of previous years. Nevertheless, since we now have the bill before us we can say, "Better late than never". I certainly hope that it will be carried through to final passage and royal assent.
Co-operatives, Mr. Speaker, have played a very important role in the development of my province of Saskatchewan. The story of the co-operative movement is part of the very fabric of the history of the province of Saskatchewan. Indeed, as was pointed out by the previous speaker, the movement played an important role in the province of Nova Scotia. I mentioned that it is a unifying factor in the province. It has welded together people of varying political outlooks, varying religious outlooks, varying ethnic outlooks as well as people with widely diverse backgrounds. The co-operative movement has brought them together. Thus, it has made a very material and important contribution to the development of my own province, Saskatchewan, and to Canada as a whole.
Throughout the history of the development of the cooperative movement in my province, it has concentrated much of its activity in the rural scene. This is where much of the original impetus for the development of the
movement took place; and this was probably quite natural because of the nature of the problems that were faced on the rural scene in Saskatchewan. However, in recent years we have seen a transition to a greater interest and participation in urban affairs. I think it is quite evident that the change in population patterns in Canada, the influence of technology and economic developments have all forced co-operatives to change and to develop a new, broader and more extended outlook.
Some reference has already been made, Mr. Speaker, to the length of time it has taken to introduce this legislation into the House. Finally it is now before the House, and I should like to make a passing comment on that matter. I think it is a tribute to the co-operative movement that they very rigidly adhered to the democratic process in terms of their demands and request for this type of legislation. I think it has been stated, and stated accurately, that co-operatives are the very bulwark of democracy and that they enhance and further democracy. I think it is well to remember this particular point during these times of stress in Canada. I think there are lessons to be learned from the patience that was shown by the co-operative movement in pressing for this very important piece of legislation that was so important to them. The lesson is that they have faith in democracy.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we should take note that there is a need to show a quicker response to economic and social needs in Canada in dealing with our problems at the present time and in the future. Nevertheless, I think it can be said, to the full credit of the co-operatives, that they have adhered and will continue to adhere to the democratic process in carrying on their activities within Canada.
I hope that this legislation will be passed before too long. It will, of course, pose new challenges to the cooperative movement. They will be called upon to fill a wider role in Canadian society and to come up with some answers regarding the needs of society. They must grow correspondingly in areas of need and in terms of their own efficiency of operation. I hope that the bill now before us is evidence of a growing federal interest in the co-operative movement and the role that can be played by co-operatives in dealing with our social and economic problems.
We should examine the present role of co-operatives in Canada and the new role that we see for the co-operative movement. As I mentioned earlier, the co-operative movement has played a traditional role on the rural scene. That is where some of the roots of the movement are, particularly with respect to those people engaged in the agricultural and fishing industries. Today there are new roles that have to be played by the co-operative movement. They illustrate why this legislation is necessary and overdue. In the area of urban needs and today's consumer economy there are many needs that can be filled more effectively through the activities of the cooperative movement.

November 2, 1970

We also have to consider the situation and the condition of the urban poor. There are many things which need to be done. The co-operatives are interested in playing a role in dealing with the problems of the urban poor. They have placed proposals before the government of Canada and various committees and agencies stating how they might help in tackling the problems of urban slums, and so on.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) referred to the role played by co-operatives in dealing with the problems of our native peoples. I think it is to their credit that co-operatives have pioneered in certain work among the Indian and Eskimo peoples of Canada. It might be noted that the philosophy of the co-operative movement and approach is very amenable to people with Indian and Eskimo backgrounds.
Thirdly, I refer to the role that can be played by co-operatives in international development. This matter has already been referred to by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). Co-operatives are suitable for many types of activity in the job that must be done on the international scene-helping to erase inequalities that exist among nations of the world. Overall, co-operatives have a very fundamental and important role to play in dealing with the whole problem of poverty. They can play a crucial role in eliminating many of the conditions of poverty in the world today. After all, the co-operative movement works with people. As well, the co-operative movement can help to overcome much of the alienation that is so prevalent in our society. It is important to remember that the co-operative movement is based upon service, not upon profits.
In my view this bill establishes a very important principle. We must keep in mind that co-operatives are a different way of doing business. That principle is recognized by the very existence of this bill. It has been correctly concluded that co-operatives cannot be dealt with adequately, in terms of public controls and the legal framework within which they have to operate, through ordinary company law embodied federally in the Canada Corporations Act. A special act is needed. This special act must be suited to the needs and principles of the co-operative movement. It should be parallel to company law with respect to some of its mechanical provisions and with respect to various questions of public interest. It should be adapted to the special nature of the co-operative movement so that co-operatives can carry on their operations without being unduly restricted and without having to give in on points of principle about which they feel strongly.
If the principle is established for the legal framework of operation such as we have in this bill, I hope it will establish a principle with respect to other areas of law, such as tax law. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) has pointed out that tax law is not involved in this bill. I note that co-operative representations have been made both in respect to company law and tax law. They are not asking for special favours. They are only asking that they be allowed to operate as co-operatives consistent with their principles
Canada Co-operatives Association Bill and within the framework of a determination of the public interest. This is set out in some of the material prepared by the Co-operative Union of Canada wherein it is stated:
Generally speaking, what co-operatives want is legislation that will permit them to conduct business by well recognized cooperative principles and methods, which the present Canada Corporations Act does not provide for. Entrepreneurs and investor-oriented groups applying for incorporation based on joint stock company rules have appropriate legislation in the Canada Corporations Act. Canadians who wish to incorporate a business based on co-operative rules and practices do not have a legislative vehicle appropriate to their needs.
I wish to refer briefly to the study of tax law made this year by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, of which I am a member. This committee considered certain proposals made with respect to the co-operative movement, taxation of co-operatives and also some of the proposals placed before them. I will quote briefly from one section of the majority report of this committee. This point was approved by all members of the committee. I mention this matter because, as is known, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Salesman) and myself submitted a minority report with respect to the white paper study. All members of the committee approved of this one sentence. It illustrates the principle involved in dealing with this legislation, although applied to another area. It reads as follows:
The committee recommends that the basic principle to be followed should be that co-operatives, caisses populaires and credit unions should have no tax advantage in the tax system but that adequate provision be made to ensure that the operations of such organizations are not unfairly hampered and to ensure that they do not suffer a tax disadvantage.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has already raised several points with respect to the bill now before us. Many of these points can more adequately be considered in the committee. I wish to deal with a couple of the very important and fundamental points involved in this bill.
Under the list of definitions in clause 3 of the bill,
reference is made to "co-operative basis". Subclauses (d) and (d)(i) provide as follows:
(d) "cooperative basis" means the carrying on of an enterprise organized, operated and administered in accordance with the following principles and methods:
(i) except in the case of an association the charter by-laws of which otherwise provide, each member or delegate has only one vote-*
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
As correctly pointed out already, this deals with one of the fundamental points of operation for the co-operative movement-one member or one delegate, one vote. I suggest it is a very poor principle when you are writing this very fundamental feature into the definition to leave a wide-open door to any association, at its discretion through the passage of a bylaw-subject, of course, to certain controls-to vary its rules from this particular provision of the legislation. It seems to me that if a case can be made for an exception to the rule of one member, one vote, that exception should be spelled out in this clause of the bill.

November 2, 1970
Canada Co-operatives Association Bill
The only possibility that occurs to me is that there may be instances where co-operative organizations are completely owned, or principally owned, by other co-operative organizations. I have in mind organizations such as a central co-operative organization or a manufacturing plant which is jointly owned by a number of different co-operative organizations. There may be some room in such circumstances for making an exception to this particular rule, but it seems to me that any such exception should be spelled out in the legislation. The second qualification in defining "co-operative basis" reads as follows:
(li) no member may vote by proxy except that a member ot an association may vote by proxy for the election of directors if the charter by-laws of the association so provide-
As pointed out, this feature of the subclause is contrary to the request of the co-operative movement that no proxies be provided for in the legislation. As noted, there may be room for providing for a system of delegate voting; but it seems to me that this is different from providing for a proxy structure within the farmework of this legislation. The third qualification in the definition of *"co-operative basis" reads:
(iii)	interest or dividends on share or loan capital is limited to the percentage fixed in the articles of incorporation or application for continuation, or by-laws of the organization-
Again, it seems to me that here is a very important point to keep in mind. One of the very important principles of the operations of co-operative organizations is that there be a limit on the amount of dividends or interest paid on share capital. Possibly loan capital requires other considerations. It seems to me there is a need for further widening of this particular clause to spell out the maximum interest rate in the legislation, as is in fact the case in some provincial acts, though I concede there is a case against spelling out a specific figure of 4, 5, 7 or 8 percent. One alternative might be to give the minister discretion to set a maximum rate. But it is important that a maximum rate be spelled out, particularly with respect to interest or dividends paid on share capital.
I suggest one possibility is to authorize the minister to set a maixmum rate based on a formula such as that used in establishing rates in certain other legislation, such as the Farm Credit Act, fisheries legislation, and so on, where the maximum rate is related to the bank rate through a suitable formula. One further point I should like to make with respect to the definition of "co-operative basis" is that we underline the importance of the fourth subclause, which begins with the words:
(iv)	the enterprise is operated as nearly as possible at cost after providing for reasonable reserves-
The subclause then goes into detail. This is an important feature of co-operative organizations which needs to be kept in mind. There are other aspects of this legislation which will be considered in the committee study. I certainly hope this bill meets with a better fate than previous attempts to pass a federal co-operatives act. I have been pleased to see the degree of support for the measure that is present tonight on both sides of the
House. I hope the bill does not meet with the same fate in the other place that was the case on one or more previous occasions.
Allusions have been made to the reference of this bill to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. I am open to discussion on this particular point. I think there is no need for rigidity in referring the bill to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. I do not need to remind the minister that last year the Canada Corporations Act was referred to the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee of the House. I am not raising this point in terms of myself, as a member of the committee, looking for any further work. However, it seems to me that the important thing is to get on with the job and put this legislation through the House as rapidly as possible in a committee composed of hon. members who are quite prepared to see this type of enterprise or business given its place in Canadian society and recognized by the laws of Canada. That is an important point. I hope that everything possible will be done to expedite passage of this bill.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a sentence or two in support of this bill. This past weekend I was in my constituency and while in Saskatoon I noticed a sign at a service station which read "100 per cent Canadian owned". This station was a co-operative service station. I should like to deal with this aspect of co-operatives in my support of the bill.
I feel that co-operatives are one way to deal with the problem of foreign ownership in Canada. We have in Saskatchewan today industries that have become big business because little people have joined hands to build collectively a business of which they can really be proud. I have in mind the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool which is one of the largest grain handling organizations in the world. There are many retail and wholesale outlets in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan also has an oil refinery built by the businessmen of the province. Credit unions and other co-operatives function in the province very well. Dividends from these organizations are paid to Canadians. There are no arguments about money leaving Canada in the form of dividends to foreigners, and I think this is one reason we should encourage the growth of co-operatives in Canada.
One other problem that arises when foreign companies in Canada decide to close down their plants is what to do with the employees who worked for them. These co-operatives have evolved a pension plan under which an employee, after five years, service with a co-operative, will receive a share of his employer's contribution to the plan should he decide to leave. In effect, this means a truly portable pension. After the employee has worked with the co-operative for ten years, he receives not only the total amount contributed by his employer but his own contribution as well should he decide to leave his employment. I think this idea could well be used by other industries in Canada. It has proved quite effective and is a scheme that a Canadian co-operative has evolved.
IMr. Burton.]
November 2, 1970

[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
This is a system we should consider in connection with firms which decide to close down a Canadian plant. In an age of automation and change, this is something which should be considered in connection with all industry. Many people would move from one industry to another readily if they knew they could take their pension, which they no doubt earned, from the company. I do not want to belabour the matter but, rather, just to mention the Canadian ownership angle which is good for all of us. For this reason, we in this group will support the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the House that if the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) speaks now, he will close the debate.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words in closing the debate. First of all I think hon. members who have contributed to the debate, for the points they have raised. In so far as the technical points raised very ably by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) are concerned, I think it might be better if I deal with those points in the Standing Committee, where they can be discussed back and forth with answers given in detail, rather than on the floor of the House.
I do want to make reference to the fact that much has been said during the debate about the appropriate committee to which this bill should be referred. First I want to say that I, of course, do not determine this question or say to which committee a particular bill should be referred. That is a job for my colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).


An hon. Member:: You mean its all his fault?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am not blaming him at all. I am giving him credit for this decision. Having listened to the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton), I know that if the bill gets to the committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, he is so fond of talking that it will never get out. Surely there is merit in having it go to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. This is the decision of my friend the President of the Privy Council, and as House Leader for the government I think he has made a very wise decision. We have heard much this afternoon about the Antigonish movement and the co-operative movement at St. Xavier. We heard from a number of distinguished graduates from St. Xavier. I wish we could have heard from one of the more distinguished graduates we have in this House, and perhaps the most distinguished lecturer, the Government House Leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: That hon. member has throughout his life exhibited sympathy for the co-operative movement as well as support and great leadership. We do not do this very often, because we cannot, but I compliment him for the
Canada Co-operatives Association Bill support, guidance and friendship I have had in steering this bill through interdepartmental and cabinet discussions. It was the decision of the House Leader that this bill should go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I would agree with the remarks of my very close friend, the hon. member for St. John's East, that we should have in this House a standing committee on consumer affairs. I should like nothing better than to have such a committee, but there are a number of committees of the House now and they are determined by a committee of this House. We have had numerous committees considering the rules of this House. They have been all-party committees and they have come in with recommendations. Not one of those committees has recommended the establishment of a standing committee on consumer affairs.
I wonder where the members of the Conservative party were when these committees studied the rules of the House. Where were the members of the NDP when these committees considered rule changes? These committees never recommended a committee on consumer affairs. Were these members sitting silent on those committees? Do we only hear from them here on the floor of the House? I wish they would get busy on the committees which study these matters and bring in a recommendation. I assure them that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I take it that the minister's references to the committee are relevant to the question of to which committee this legislation is to be referred. If I am not correct in that assumption, I think the minister might very quickly bring his remarks back to relevancy.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your bringing the House to order, and I appreciate the fact that you did not have the benefit of hearing the debate this afternoon. It was suggested that this bill be referred to a standing committee on consumer affairs, but there is no such committee. I was addressing myself to the suggestion that there should be such a committee and why there was not, namely, because the opposition members have not done their job on the various committees. This House has had a considerable number of revisions to the rules, and it is a House committee that decides what committees we should have.
I am quite happy with the motion before the House that this bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. There have not really been any valid arguments presented as to why it should go to another committee, or which suggest there is any greater expertise on co-operative matters in any other Standing Committee. The Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, for which we must all have the greatest esteem, has no greater expertise on co-operative matters than has the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs has no greater expertise in these matters than the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. We do not want to get into

November 2, 1970
Canada Co-operatives Association Bill
competition between committees as to where bills should go, but I do want to point out-


Gerald William Baldwin: Why not the External Affairs
Committee?


Stanley Ronald Basford: It could well go to the Committee on External Affairs as suggested by the House Leader for the opposition. If he had been listening to the debate he would have learned about the great contribution the co-operative movement has made to developing countries. This would be a matter of very great concern and interest to the External Affairs Committee.
We all know that in this House it is the party whips, of whom there are four, who determine the membership of committees. I hope this bill will be referred to the committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. If the official opposition whip wants to change the party membership on the committee in order to have some members with expertise in the co-operative movement on the committee, he is free to make that change. To effect such a change, all a party whip has to do is table a piece of paper. This applies to the NDP, the Ralliement Creditiste and the government party.
We have to select the committee for the bill to go to. I feel the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is a good one. Let me point out that last spring that committee dealt very expeditiously with a bill proposing a change in the Bills of Exchange Act which came into effect yesterday, November 1. This has changed the rights of every consumer who has signed a time-payment contract. I think that committee can deal expeditiously and equitably with Bill C-177. If there are any problems about the membership on the committee from the opposition's point of view, then the whips should change the membership on the committee.
o (9:10p.m.)
I want to make only one other point before I sit down. It is with reference to some remarks by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) who suggested that the co-operative movement may well have some amendments to suggest to the bill. That movement may very well have such amendments to propose. We have tried to consult them. We have had working on this question various lawyers who are expert in advising the co-operative movement.
We hope the bill meets generally the wishes of those who are involved in the co-operative movement, concerning the kind of general legislation we should have at the federal level to govern the incorporation and operation of co-operatives. No bill is perfect and the government does not suggest that this bill is perfect. Every bill can be improved. I am not the judge, nor do I govern the committee; therefore, I do not know whether or not the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will call witnesses.
I would hope that I, as the sponsor of the bill, would not be surprised by any amendments which might be brought forward. If people have amendments and
changes to suggest in respect of the bill, concerning how it might be improved in any way-I hesitate to suggest this would be probable, knowing those who drew up the bill, but possibly it can be improved-I would ask, as I think anyone sponsoring a bill must ask, for sufficient time to consider such changes so that we are not taken by surprise.
For example, there are very complicated constitutional issues involved in this bill. If there should be suggested changes which involve these constitutional issues, we should have time to consult the law officers of the Crown and consider whether as a government we can accept or reject them. So I would go along with the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre in respect of his suggestion that there may be improvements which could be made to the bill.
I do not know whether the committee will hold public hearings. That is up to the chairman and the members of the committee. However, if changes are to be suggested, or if improvements are to be made, I hope those changes and improvements will be discussed with me and my officers so that we will not be taken by surprise and will have time to consider them carefully and in depth to determine whether we should accept them.
With these remarks I commend this bill to the House and the committee with the confidence, unlike the feeling of some members of the opposition, that it will be dealt with equitably and expeditiously.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that Bill C-176, to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-176 to establish a National Farm Products Marketing Council and, hopefully, marketing agencies is essentially the same-indeed, almost exactly the same-as the bill that was considered by this House during the last session. Then, of course, it was Bill C-197.
A great deal of discussion took place during the last session concerning this new departure in respect of federal government legislation. For a number of reasons I do not intend to repeat the arguments advanced during those debates in this House and, indeed, in the Standing Committee on Agriculture during the last session. However, there have been some very useful discussions-and I appreciate the discussions I have had with spokesmen of all parties in this House-concerning the need that is

November 2, 1970

becoming more apparent every day, to set up the kind of structure that is envisaged under Bill C-176 in order to resolve some of the very severe marketing problems in relation to agricultural products in the country.
A great deal of evidence was given by witnesses who were called by or volunteered to appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture during the past session. While the committee during that period did not reach the clause-by-clause study of the bill, I believe the time spent, even while the House was not sitting, was very useful. I again wish to express my appreciation to the House Leaders and to the agricultural spokesmen of all parties for the kind of attitude they have shown me in respect of getting on with the passage of this bill.
During the discussions which have taken place on this subject I have been asked how some of the marketing plans that would be set up may or, indeed, could operate. Mr. Speaker, I have had prepared in some detail the principles that would be involved in the marketing plans that would be proposed, not only for the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture but also for the provincial governments which also have a great deal of interest in this bill, because it is designed in such a way that the marketing agencies that would be established under its authority could also receive similar, delegating legislation from provincial jurisdictions.
I wish to advise hon. members that when Bill C-176 reaches the committee I will be prepared to give a detailed outline of how we anticipate some of these marketing plans could operate. In addition to that, I would advise that I have agreed to some suggestions that have been made by some of the farm organizations across the country, as well as to some of the suggestions made by members of the opposition. First, I am prepared to accept amendments to this bill respecting the provisions in the clause which deals with the definition of agricultural products to the extent that cattle and calves would be excluded from the provisions of the bill.
I am also prepared to consider and, indeed, accept amendments to certain other clauses to make much more explicit the appeal procedure that producers would have in the event they felt aggrieved or wished to complain about marketing orders made by the marketing boards that would be set up under the legislation. I am also prepared to consider favourably amendments to other parts of this bill that would provide statutory provision for membership and the relationship of that membership to certain interested groups, particularly the producers, on marketing boards, commissions or whatever other structure is set up under this bill in the clause that deals with membership of these boards.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, there is a great deal of direct interest by the provincial governments in this bill. It may be useful for the committee to consider some method by which various types of provisions are provided in the legislation relating to specific commodity marketing boards. I say that because I do not believe the marketing boards and, indeed, the regulations would be identical for all commodities. I realize that it may be necessary to have different kind of structure and perhaps
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill different types of rules contained in the regulations with respect to marketing agencies that are dealing, for example, with potatoes, honey, maple syrup, tobacco or any other agricultural product that may be involved.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
It seems to me that we should have enough latitude in drawing up those regulations, which will really be the bylaws of any particular marketing agency, so that there can be an input by the provincial governments, which have an important role to play in this marketing legislation, as well as by producer groups that are particularly interested in a specific commodity. I think that is necessary because in practice until this year, 1970, many types of marketing structures have been set up for various commodities. In my view, they should at least be respected as we move forward in trying to co-ordinate the provincial legislation so that it is applied reasonably and uniformly across the country for a specific commodity.
I want to suggest, also, that we reinstate the evidence respecting marketing legislation that the committee heard in the last session. This evidence was heard from the witnesses only about four or five weeks ago, and in my opinion it is still valid. I hope hon. members will feel disposed to reinstate that evidence in this session of Parliament so that we can achieve two things: first, save time and, second, save the expense of the witnesses who travelled long distances to Ottawa to give that evidence.
I conclude by expressing the hope that we will send this bill to the committee very soon, and that we will get down to the clause-by-clause discussion of it which we did not achieve the last time. Then we can amend some of the clauses that members have expressed an interest in amending and bring the bill back to the House for final approval.
Then we can discuss specific marketing plans for particular commodities with the provincial governments and the farm organizations involved, so as to put these plans into effect as soon as possible. This should be done as quickly as possible because in my view, while a number of suggestions have been made on how to come to grips with some of the very severe marketing problems that we have today, by putting into effect the provisions of this bill and by beginning to solve some of the problems through agreement between the provincial and federal authorities, we will find the most useful and productive way of dealing with those problems in the interest of the producers.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for having put forward Bill C-176 in this session, and I commend him for his part in the consultations which have taken place among all parties in the House. We all realize that this is a very important measure and that it could serve as a useful tool in some of the trying circumstances in which agriculture finds itself today.
The fact the minister has indicated that the government is prepared to accept some major amendments to this bill is, I think, a vindication of the stand taken in

November 2, 1970
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
this House when the bill was introduced in its original form and when opposition members said it should not have a hasty passage because of its complexity and the necessity of giving ample time to various agricultural commodity groups, not only to study the regulations contained in the bill but to study the implications it might have on the entire agricultural industry.
The minister has been very optimistic about the bill and the power which it would give, as well as the answers it would provide to many of the problems facing Canadian agriculture today. The various groups that appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture during the summer varied in their approach from almost complete support of the minister and his contentions to the other extreme, almost total opposition to this bill. Although the bill has a great deal to offer the Canadian producer, I have grave reservations whether it will provide all the answers so earnestly sought today.
I am particularly interested in the fact that the minister has indicated both inside and outside the House that the reason the bill should receive speedy passage is to help solve, in the immediate future, the pressing questions of today regarding overproduction of two or three commodities in two or three of our major provinces. He has indicated that this measure will in itself provide a ready answer to what we consider to be a constitutional problem, that is, whether the provinces or the federal government control interprovincial trade.
We are well aware that under the terms of the BN A Act, trade between provinces comes within the federal purview, but as a result of recent action taken in various provinces, the provinces-through the powers that are inserted into the regulations-have seized, to a large extent, control of interprovincial trade and have in some instances erected effective barriers against the free flow of trade between provinces. We on this side of the House are curious why the government has not immediately referred this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada in order that there might be an early determination regarding the power of the provinces to stop or restrict this free flow which we consider to be an erosion of federal powers.
To rely on a bill of this nature to solve such a constitutional problem leaves many questions in the minds of the official opposition. Indeed, together with the assurances of the minister that this bill could be a vehicle by which to settle these perplexing problems, there has been tremendous pressure exerted by two or three of the main commodity groups in Canada, and by some provincial governments, for speedy passage of the legislation in order to arrive at a solution to this problem.
We have grave reservations, on two counts: first, that this bill could provide any kind of solution to this perplexing and legal problem and, second, that the very complexity of the bill will make it almost impossible, once the bill is proclaimed, to set up the necessary machinery to put the bill into effect and to provide ready aid to agriculture.
The bill as presented to Parliament today is, in the minister's own words, an almost exact replica of Bill
C-197. No doubt there are many very pertinent facts which have made it necessary for the bill to be introduced in its present form. But I, and many of the leaders of farm organizations across Canada, wonder why the minister did not take advantage of the recess and of all the information of a highly technical nature that was so ably presented to the Standing Committee on Agriculture by commodity groups with years of experience-information which they presented after months of preparation. We wonder why he did not direct his department to take advantage of this pertinent information which outlined the weaknesses in the bill and the areas where it was thought the bill would cause hardship to producer groups, and so bring in a brand new bill that would solve many of the perplexities that were presented to us when the original bill was introduced.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
There may have been good and sufficient reason why the minister did not follow that course of action. Perhaps time was a factor; perhaps there was not sufficient time to redraft a bill of this nature. But if time was a factor, that makes it all the more necessary for us to take time in committee when dealing with the bill. This bill is so serious and important to the agricultural industry of Canada that it must be the very finest bill that the government, backed by its civil servants and with all opposition parties working together, can produce in order to try and solve some of the perplexing problems of present-day agriculture. This is a necessity, and therefore the bill will not have rapid passage through the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The minister indicated that he would like to have all the evidence presented to the committee last session referred to the new committee. I have no opposition to this, provided one or two safeguards are put into effect. The first safeguard must be that the government does not intend to shut off the presentation of evidence, based on the contention that we already have the evidence before us. If a commodity group or an interested party that has not made a presentation requests an opportunity to do so, they should have their voice heard. The second safeguard is that if an interested group which has already presented evidence thinks it has something further to add, or wishes to change some of its recommendations, it should be allowed to do so. If there is no restriction in these two areas, we on this side would have little difficulty supporting the minister in his request to have the evidence that was presented last session made available to the committee.
I was encouraged to hear the minister speak of some of the amendments that he is prepared to consider. Some of the basic objections that we had are in part met when an attempt is made by the government to allow some-I do not say in total, but some-primary producer representation on the agencies. It may not be possible to have direct primary producer representation on the council itself, due to the fact that the membership must be limited and that all sections of Canada must be represented on it. But this does not hold true for an agency which may be dealing

November 2, 1970

with a small region or regions. In that case we could expect active representation by the producers.
We should never lose sight of the fact that when we are dealing with agriculture we are not dealing strictly with the primary producer. We are dealing with all the marketing facilities that must be taken into consideration; and when we discuss food we must never forget that other segment of Canada's population that is so important in this context, the consumer segment. We must see to it that the consumer has something to say about the way these proposals will control and distribute food in Canada.
One of the things we were very upset about in connection with the previous bill was that it did not seem to put any direct power in the hands of primary producers in making decisions as to whether there should be agencies set up dealing with the product with which they were concerned. But when listening to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) I gathered the impression that he was prepared to consider ways and means by which it could be ascertained whether or not a major portion of the primary producers concerned did require an agency, and a determination on how the agency should be set up.
The minister also indicated that his department had been working very seriously to incorporate appeal procedures in the bill, through which any primary producer, or group of producers, could appeal against any regulation made by an agency which seemed to be working a deliberate hardship on that producer or group of producers. This will meet a major objection of producers. Although such a procedure may have existed in the original bill, it was so skilfully hidden by legal verbiage that the ordinary producer was not convinced that he had recourse to appeal. This part of the bill will require intensive examination. If it shows that an appeal can be taken against direct government action, the bill will have less difficulty before the committee.
In my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, I said I was not optimistic that this bill will provide everything that the primary producers and the agricultural industry in general feel they need, because in the main one of the basic purposes of the bill is supply management. I think this is necessary. I think the bill was introduced to try and obtain a better and more regular price for goods and services provided by the agricultural industry.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is right.


Harold Warren Danforth: This seems to be the entire basis of the bill. In order to do this it will be necessary, and it has been proven necessary in the Wheat Board and the National Dairy Commission-the forerunners of this council-to introduce supply management. But here again, Mr. Speaker, grave doubts arise. In order to introduce supply management successfully in respect of a primary product in Canada, it is only natural and logical to believe that the agency or farm council will direct its attention to a forecast of domestic consumption and normal international trade and consider this a goal for total production. This is a prime objective. It would indeed be Utopia, because then we could allocate produc-
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill tion on a quota system, although there could be tremendous problems in trying to allocate quotas interprovin-cially. But once we knew the amount necessary for domestic consumption and the international export picture, the government would know what could be allocated to the provinces.
The thing that could upset this principle is the fact that we have no indication of any power in the bill to control imports. I am well aware, Mr. Speaker, that there are powers in other bills and in other sections of government management with regard to the control of imports. However, experience has shown it to be very difficult indeed to create an impediment to the flow into this country of imports of food, because immediately you come into direct conflict with consumer hopes. This is because you may be creating a managed market and a price fixing market, and because nations which trade with Canada and buy Canadian products normally take a very dim view if there is any curtailment imposed upon the products they ship into Canada.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
We are very vulnerable in this country, Mr. Speaker, because even with our major resources for production we import anywhere from $800 million to $1 billion worth of food. To curtail this importation would be extremely difficult because then we would be running contrary to the GATT agreements and to what might be considered the best interests of the consumers of this country. Nowhere in this bill is there an indication of implicit power in an agency, council or even in the minister himself, to control imports. This is a major weakness. If you cannot control imports, it renders almost valueless attempted supply management, and when you do not have supply management you must wonder how much can be accomplished under the terms and provisions of this act. I see this as one of the basic weaknesses.
The second basic weakness is the fact that one should have supply management, and once you have an indication of the total supply that would normally be necessary in Canada you come up against the very difficult problem of allocating quotas either provincially or regionally. It is all very well for the minister to state that this can be done by arbitration and agreement among provinces or regions, but there are other extenuating circumstances which enter into the picture which make such agreement almost impossible.
Province "X", if I may use that designation, having been delinquent in the production of a certain product over the years has through economic necessity found that it must do something about it and has in the past poured tremendous sums of provincial money into the production of that commodity. These are the very products we can be in trouble with today, Mr. Speaker, and there is no indication that such a province or the representative of such a province would easily or voluntarily accept restriction in the production of the commodity in the face of their efforts to increase it. Therefore, it seems very difficult to appreciate that any progress whatsoever could be made. This is another of the weaknesses of the bill.

November 2, 1970
Farm, Products Marketing Agencies Bill
The third weakness-I hesitate to call it a weakness but it is one of the pivots on which the bill must turn-is that because marketing has been, and is, under provincial jurisdiction, in some instances there cannot be any national marketing agency unless with the complete cooperation of provincial governments. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it may be that they will have to turn over much of their legal jurisdiction to federal authorities. Through the years experience has shown that provincial governments very jealously guard their provincial jurisdictions and are loath to turn them over to federal agencies. There are many provinces in this country, and it would require the abstention or opposition of only one of the provinces concerned with the major production of any primary product to almost invalidate and render the agency useless on a national scale.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have this very precarious position: the success of this bill must hinge upon co-operation of the provinces and proper utilization of their powers. It is further complicated by the fact that the provincial legislatures differ greatly, and there would have to be a meeting of minds and uniform legislation among the provinces before a national agency or even a farm council could function.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, I think you have some indication of the complexity of this bill. It is not a simple piece of legislation, and the powers envisaged under the regulation are great. Indeed, in his evidence before the committee I think the minister indicated it would be necessary to negotiate a contract, almost, between the federal government and the provinces with respect to some commodity groups in order to achieve any success.
Since the success of the measure hinges on the voluntary entry by a province into the terms and regulation of this bill-there is nothing compulsory-you see how nebulous a vehicle we are dealing with and how precarious and long the negotiations could be. The negotiations must be done by men of good will, Mr. Speaker, men with the determination to make an agency work; and they must be done on a provincial basis, almost setting aside provincial aspirations.
I am rather inclined to follow those who believe that the enactment of legislation of this type, rather than solving on a national scale the marketing problems of primary producers today will have the opposite effect. I think it will almost force provinces to become ever more self-sufficient in regard to production within their own borders. If this takes places, Mr. Speaker, the bill will bring about a result exactly opposite to that intended.
As legislators, it is not for us to determine whether the agricultural industry of our country should have this legislation; that should be determined by the primary producers themselves. I believe that our responsibility is to see that if the majority of the producers of this country wish this type of vehicle to promote their ends, then by close scrutiny, by inquiry and questions we must provide the best possible bill that we can, with the least possible government interference into the normal course and trade of the agricultural industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: We must have the end in view of solving some of the problems facing the commodity groups today on a national scale. We will not be able to accomplish all this, of course. It is impossible under a single vehicle to deal with the majority of products in many provinces with different conditions. It is impossible to bring about Utopia. But if we make some progress we shall have served our end as parliamentarians and rendered a service to the industry.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
We shall try to work, in co-operation with the government, to produce as fine a piece of legislation as we can. We know, after we have done this, that the bill will not be perfect and that it will need to be brought back to the House in future for amendment. We hope we can provide this service to the agricultural industry, to our consumers and marketing agencies. It is an experiment which must be undertaken. It must function in order that we may see where the weaknesses are, and so we may either cure those weaknesses or eliminate this type of legislation altogether. Whether it will serve its purpose we do not know. It appears to me and to my colleagues that the legislation must be enacted, that its powers must be illustrated, so to speak, and brought to bear on the industry for a period perhaps of several years in order that we may determine whether it is successful.
We feel that we are gambling with the future of the agricultural industry by bringing in legislation of this type. But we also feel that if the primary producer is seeking this type of legislation, he ought to have the opportunity of working under it. We therefore hope that along with other parties of this House we shall be permitted to bring in amendments before the Standing Committee on Agriculture. We want the opportunity to bring in amendments, in a solemn and serious manner, which will be designed to make this legislation workable. We shall co-operate with all other parties in their amendments when they have the same goal in view as my party. I was very much impressed when the minister said tonight that the government is prepared to accept this type of approach to the bill.


An hon. Member:: He is learning.


Harold Warren Danforth: He feels that perhaps amendments are necessary and that the government should consider them. With an approach such as this, I think we shall see a measure of success in the committee stage of the bill.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? When he referred to management control of farm produce, was he suggesting that the federal government should become involved and should control produce through these boards, in the way it has become involved with the Canadian Wheat Board and the National Dairy Commission?


Harold Warren Danforth: No, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the minister set out some of the
November 2, 1970

changes which he would welcome to this bill when it is considered in committee. Some of us are quite prepared to reinstate, as you might say, the submissions that were made to us in the previous session with regard to how the bill should operate. Those submissions came from many organizations and individuals who expressed their point of view and their position with regard to the commodities they were producing.
I would also say that if it appears to the committee that there are reasons why one or other of those witnesses should be recalled, that should be done. If it appears that there are others who have something new to offer, who have new points of view to place before the committee, the committee ought to be willing to consider hearing them. We for our part will be placing considerable emphasis, when the bill is in committee, on the necessity of seeing that the producers are adequately represented in respect of a bill such as this which will become marketing legislation.
I believe one can scarcely justify giving powers as wide the very real protection of being in control of what the agency does and how it does it. I do not accept the philosophy that is becoming current, that farmers and those in the agribusiness, packers and consumers, are all as these to a marketing agency unless the producer has one big, happy family and that the farmer should be quite willing to sit down, pretty much like a sheep among the wolves, and be prepared to be a good fellow. The sad thing about the farmer and the producer is that he has been a good fellow for too long and now he is being plucked like a chicken.


An hon. Member:: The vanishing American; that's what he is.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The vanishing American is a good term for the farmer. You find this situation is the butter
Business of the House
industry and the egg industry. The rapid transition of the industry has taken it out of the farmer's control. We are also very concerned about another aspect of the bill, that is, the method of setting up commodity marketing boards and the question of how effectively they will operate. One matter we ought to have concerned ourselves about in the bill, and on which we have not touched at all, is the question of a marketing agency such as this bargaining directly with the government for support prices or price maintenance. We have not dealt with the point at which the government comes in; we have left this to the Agricultural Stabilization Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, that there does not seem to be disposition to continue any longer tonight.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, before the House is adjourned may I ask, on behalf of the opposition House Leader, what the business is for tomorrow and Wednesday? There was a hiatus in that regard in last Thursday's announcement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I gather that one or two more members wish to speak on the bill that we have been discussing. If that is the case, we would call it first tomorrow and then continue with the business I have already announced, which is the packaging and labelling bill. On Wednesday we would call the emergency powers
bin.
At ten o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, November 3, 1970