1970-02-11

PRIVILEGE


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to the adjournment debate, and specifically to the adjournment debate of last night involving three grievances raised by opposition members.
The adjournment debate was instituted following a trial period to allow members on both sides to raise questions about problems to which the government had not given satisfactory answers. I am convinced that this procedure has worked well in the past. However, I am concerned that, because of the growing and obvious disregard of the government toward questions raised by backbenchers, not only is the adjournment debate being relegated to the position of being a useless appendage but the institution of Parliament is being downgraded as well. Likewise-and this is why I am forced to appeal to Your Honour at this time-the rights of members of this House are being disregarded to the extent that our usefulness, either in debate or in representing our constituents, is being aborted.
Specifically, in the adjournment debate last night I raised a question regarding the policy of the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications and the Post Office Department to close all low income post offices in the country. While agreeing to this policy as it relates to some low income rural post offices, I questioned the validity of the blanket policy of closing all such post offices. I cited three cases, and had time permitted would have added a fourth, where the closing of the post office not only had an unjust and an adverse effect on the community but where the rural route delivery replacement service would be more expensive than the cost of continuing the present rural post office. I also questioned the minister as to why he refused to seek the opinions of the citizens concerned, and why local officials who were familiar with the situation were not consulted before taking such action.
My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is simply that neither the Minister of Communications nor his Parliamentary Secretary were present in the House last night to hear my question. Instead, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport read a prepared statement which had no relevance whatsoever to the question I raised because it was prepared before my question had been heard. I believe that this is a transgression of the rights of the members of this House.
I would also say that the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley followed me with a question relating to the storage of grain, and again the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport read a prepared statement which was absolutely irrelevant to the question that was raised.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because you are the honourable custodian of our rights, and because you are the one to whom we must appeal when we are in difficulty, as we are here, I appeal to Your Honour to take note of this question of privilege and to take such action as is necessary to bring the government to recognize its responsibility to the members of this House in adjournment debates.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member for Red Deer has, according to the regulations and the Standing Orders, given me notice of the question he wanted to raise at this time in our proceedings, I think I should direct his attention and the attention of hon. members to the provisions of the relevant Standing Order 40(3) which refers to the proceedings at ten o clock. It states in part:
A Minister of the Crown, or a Parliamentary Secretary speaking on behalf of a minister, if he wishes do so, may speak for not more than three
The hon. member will recognize that the terms of the Standing Order, which is a regulation of the House, as it now stands actually allow any minister or a parliamentary secretary to any minister to answer a question posed to any other minister. Because of this it is quite in order under the Standing Orders as they now exist for a Parliamentary Secretary to reply to a question directed to any minister.

February 11. 1970
Privilege
Perhaps the Standing Order should be amended, corrected or changed in such a way that the discussion we have at the time of adjournment would be more relevant, but the Standing Order is there for the Chair to enforce. I have no authority, of course, to change it on my own initiative.
From time to time I have suggested that the procedures of the House and our Standing Orders might be looked into by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. This may very well be a Standing Order that should be considered by the members of this committee. I understand that the committee will be sitting in the near future. If it might be of assistance to hon. members I would certainly be pleased to mention to the House Leaders of the different parties the suggestion of the hon. member and invite them, if they think it could be of assistance, to consider the point raised at this time by the hon. member for Red Deer.
I think I should also bring to the attention of the hon. member who raised this question the provisions of Citation 181(3) of Beau-chesne. I am sure it is well known to the hon. member. It states:
A Minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal, and insistence on an answer is out of order, no debate being allowed. A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such refusal.
I refer to this citation to point out the fact that this cannot be raised as a question of privilege. In any event, I have received notice but no motion has been proposed to follow up the point raised by the hon. member. In these circumstances I think it would not be in order to have a discussion at this time on the point raised by the hon. member for Red Deer.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, may I make one clarifying statement on a question of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a further question of privilege I will allow him to put it. He should realize that if he is allowed to go into the matter further we might well get into a debate on the matter, and I suggest to him there should be no debate. If the hon. member has a question of privilege, then according to the procedures of the House I have to recognize him.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is not designed to precipitate a debate but rather to make a clarifying statement. I was not only appealing to Your Honour in respect of my question of privilege regarding the interpretation of the Standing Order to which you have referred in reference to Parliamentary Secretaries and ministers but also in respect of the fact that a prepared statement was read without my question having been taken into consideration. It could not have been considered because it had not been heard. It is this transgression and erosion of the rights of myself and other Members of Parliament that doubly concerns me.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should not again comment on the hon. member's further point. As he knows, it happens from time to time that not only are answers prepared a few minutes before they are delivered but questions are prepared a few minutes before they are asked in the House. It would be difficult for the Chair to determine whether the questions or the answers are spontaneous or the product of previous reflection. In any event, I appreciate the point raised by the hon. member. It is one of importance. To give effect to the suggestion of the hon. member I will consider it my duty to bring this point to the attention of the committee.


Mr. Nesbitt:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not quite hear part of Your Honour's remarks. Do I understand that Your Honour would entertain discussion on the ruling-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is the last thing in the world I would entertain at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table in both official languages copies of the closing statement of the national conference on price stability and to express my congratulations to the Prices and Incomes Commission for its participation in this conference.
February 11, 1970


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the minister intends to make a statement outlining the government's intention in respect of the closing statement of the conference?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Not a statement on motions, but I am here for the question period.



MAIN ESTIMATES, 1970-71 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE TREASURY BOARD

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1971, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board), and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in tabling the estimates referred to in the message just read I should like to point out that these estimates for 1970-71 amount in total to $12,910 million, approximately $892 million or 7.4 per cent more than the total estimates of $12,018 million for 1969-70. Statutory expenditures, those which result from firm commitments provided for in existing legislation, are going up by 11.5 per cent. On the other hand, growth in expenditures for which Parliament will be asked to appropriate funds-the category in which the government has flexibility in the allocation of resources-has been restrained to a rate of 3.8 per cent.
The comparable increase between 1968-69 and 1969-70 that I indicated when I tabled the 1969-70 estimates at this time last year was $1,032 million or 9.5 per cent. The year-to-year increase has therefore been reduced by $140 million, or by more than two percentage points.
The total supplementary estimates for 1969-70 are expected to be $160 million or about the same as the supplementary estimates of $152 million for 1968-69. This compares with $392 million in 1967-68 and even larger amounts in the preceding few years. Any requirement for supplementary estimates in 1970-71 to meet urgent and unforeseen needs will be kept to a minimum in line with the determination of the government to restrain expenditures as an anti-inflationary measure.
Statutory expenditures, those which result from firm commitments provided for in existing legislation, will amount to $6,323 million or 49 per cent of the total estimates.
Statement of Estimates Virtually all of the increase of $651 million in these expenditures falls under the following three headings:
1. Public Debt
Servicing charges 2. Payments to the Provinces	$195	millionFiscal transfers	156	rtHospital Insurance	95	"Medicare	70	"Post-secondary Education	49	"Canada Assistance Plan 3. Wheat Carrying costs on temporary wheat reserves and advance	38	rrgrain payments	44	"It can thus be seen that of	the	over-all
increase, $651 million, or 73 per cent, is taken up by statutory expenditures, and of that amount, $408 million is required for increased payments to the provinces.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
At this point I might mention that the provincial governments were asked during the last several weeks to provide us with the most up-to-date forecasts of their expenditures under the Canada Assistance Plan and the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and for medicare and post-secondary education. Their latest forecasts are consistent with the amounts shown in the estimates being tabled today.
The expenditures for which Parliament will be asked to appropriate funds, the category where the government has flexibility in the allocation of resources, amount to $6,587 million or 51 per cent of the estimates. Additional resources in the amount of $293 million are going to the following few programs to which the government is giving high priority:
Regional economic expansion, an increase of $75 million; bilingualism development, an increase of $52 million; postal services, an increase of $36 million; Indian and Eskimo affairs, an increase of $34 million; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, including police services for the provinces, an increase of $26 million; air services, an increase of $22 million; development and utilization of manpower, an increase of $21 million; international development assistance, an increase of $15 million; incentives to industry for technological innovation and development, an increase of $12 million.
Since the over-all increase in items requiring to be voted annually by parliament totals $241 million, and the above-listed priority

February 11, 1970
Statement of Estimates programs are increased by $293 million, the combined 1970-71 budgets ot all other programs in this category have been reduced from 1969-70 by a net total of $52 million, to an amount of $4,698 million. This reduction, and the resulting requirement to absorb salary and price increases within this lower total allocation means a considerable decrease in real terms of the cost of these programs.
Leaving aside the servicing of the public debt for which there is no option but to pay, the programs for which increases are provided relate to the basic priorities of the country: national unity, social justice, education and economic development here in Canada and in the developing countries.
The planned levels of strength in the Public Service continue the downward trend indicated in the estimates of 1969-70. The table which appears on page LXX of these estimates shows that this downward trend will continue in 1970-71 and indicates a reduction of about 7,500 in the planned level of continuing employment.
The tabling of these estimates marks a major step forward in an endeavour by the government to improve the process of resource allocation and to better inform Parliament and the people of Canada of the objectives, operations and costs of the departments and agencies of government. The form of these estimates is radically different from that which has been followed for more than half a century. For the first time the expenditure proposals respecting departments and agencies are clearly formulated in terms of programs. The objectives and sub-objectives of each program are stated and the nature of the program further amplified through a description of the activities carried on in pursuit of program objectives.
The aggregate of expenditures proposed to Parliament for each program is classified first in terms of these activities and second in terms of the portions of the aggregate to be devoted respectively to operations, to capital and to grants and contributions. Data are provided, under the same classifications, for the forecast expenditure for 1969-70 and the actual expenditure for 1968-69.
When a program involves large expenditures on capital there is provided a table listing the major projects and showing for each the expected total cost distributed between expenditures up to and including the current year, the expenditures forecast for 1970-71 and the subsequent total until completion.

In previous estimates all items for loans, investments and advances were grouped together at the back of the Blue Book. In the new form such items are shown alongside the related budgetary expenditures in order to be more informative.
Greater detail on manpower, on grants and contributions and on revolving funds for quasi-commercial operations is provided. Improvement has also been made in the information provided on Crown corporations.
The Blue Book contains for the first time an explanatory foreword which seeks to clarify the technical terms used which, in the past, may have been difficult to understand. Included in the foreword are a number of tables summarizing the details of the estimates which will help to provide a better over-all picture.
All of this material is contained in one bilingual volume replacing the separate English and French Blue Books of former years. I have no doubt that our experience in the House and in committees reviewing estimates will suggest further modifications in form. We will be glad to receive suggestions for further improvement.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the estimates in the form I am now tabling provide a clearer and more informative presentation than we have had heretofore of the proposed allocations of fiscal resources to the budgetary requirements of Canada.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my first remarks should be directed to the form of the estimates that are being provided to us. I think it will be an interesting innovation to handle them in this way. I do not want to appear to be nitpicking, but in the past the Auditor General's report was always deemed to be too thick and cumbersome and the books came apart and this year the Blue Book of estimates exceeds in size even the biggest report ever made by the Auditor General. It may be a matter of mechanics but we will see how it works out. That is my comment in that regard.
There is another comment I would make with regard to the form of the estimates. I refer to the insistence upon the publication of strengths of departments only on the basis of man-years required. I would say this is deceptive in many ways. It does not show the distribution of personnel within a department to the degree that is really warranted for the examination of the estimates and the various salary levels, now that we know that confidential instructions have been issued by the
February 11, 1970

Treasury Board with regard to salaries and the non-disclosure of salaries at certain executive levels, particularly with regard to premiums or merit pay. The presentation of the estimates in this form conceals information from members who are entitled to pass on the salary levels and conditions of employment of the government.
With regard to the size of the estimates I do not think anybody who has taken a good look at the totality of the estimates last year and in past years could doubt there would be an increase. The estimates are now approaching $13 billion. Last year the total was just under $12 billion, and with the supplementary estimates the amount will have gone just over the $12 billion mark.
When we consider that in 1963-64 the total estimates or total expenditures of the government were just over $6.4 billion we can see that the series of Liberal administrations has more than doubled government expenditures at the federal level. We have complained from time to time that this government follows the practice of taxing up to expenditures. It is for this reason that we are facing continuous surcharges or additional taxes. Now that the government tax proposals essentially increase tax rates under a so-called simplification of the tax tables-
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -it is part of the answer that we see this year an increase of some $900 million in expenditures.


Mr. Stanfield:: I thought they were going to reduce them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In the
Department of National Health and Welfare hospital insurance, of course, is costing close to $100 million more this year and medicare $70 million more. The President of the Treasury Board did not disclose whether any provision had been made for possible expenditures if the province of Quebec should come into the medicare program. If that were to be the case then any remarks he has made with respect to supplementary estimates would be quite irrelevant because they would certainly be a long way off the mark.
We will see in the press tonight, after its members have had an opportunity to examine these estimates in detail, comment on the
Questions
highlights of this program. I trust that the committees of the House will also look at these estimates very closely, Mr. Speaker.
As a general conclusion may I say it seems to me that once we see which departments have been given their head and what is happening to them as far as their personnel and spending programs are concerned, we will be able to judge whether the austerity program initiated last August was a true austerity program or an attempted exercise in public relations.



PRIVILEGE


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wellington, that the question of privilege raised by myself earlier today be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous
consent.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


Mr. Trudeau:: I did.


An hon. Member:: You fellows get used to saying no at home.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Winch: 1.	What expenditures were made on all aspects of the planning and design of the Department of National Defence Building that was to have been constructed in Lebreton Flats?
2.	What are the expenditures both actual and estimated, to date, required to redesign the proposed Department of Transport building to suit the needs of the Department of National Defence?
3.	Were any on-site preparations undertaken for the proposed Lebreton Flats building and what were the costs?
4.	What, if any, are the plans for the use of the Lebreton Flats site formerly intended for the Department of National Defence?

February 11, 1970
Questions
5.	Would the government of Canada reconsider its decision and give first priority to the construction of the Department of Transport building?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. $1,355,885.95.
2.	Accommodation requirements for the Department of National Defence are presently under review.
3.	In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: Costs of soil investigation and surveys $40,355. No other on-site preparation was undertaken by the Department of Public Works.
In so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned: To make the site available for NDHQ or other uses, the NCC has been proceeding with a program of relocation of Hydro and Telephone trunk services at an estimated cost of $692,000.
4.	The use of LeBreton Flats for a combination of public and private uses is now under study by the NCC.
5.	No.


PUBLIC SERVICE LANGUAGE TRAINING
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many Individuals have been provided with language training in the Public Service of Canada who have completed their training and how many were provided with training in English and how many with training in French?
2.	How many individuals in the Public Service of Canada are presently taking language training in (a) English (b) French?
3.	How many individuals in the Public Service of Canada have been informed that they must secure a working knowledge of a second language, or (a) they will not be able to continue in the position they presently hold, or (b) they will be dismissed from the Public Service and, in each instance, was the second language requirement English or French?
4.	How many individuals have received demotions in the Public Service of Canada because they did not have a working knowledge of a second language and, in each instance, what was the language of the individual in question?
5.	What has been the total cost to the federal Treasury for the provision of language training to members of the Public Service since the inception of the language training program and what is the breakdown between the cost of providing training in English and in French?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Public Service Commission, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the National Film Board as follows: 1. The number of Public Servants and employees of Crown Corporations who have been provided with

language training in each year since the program was initiated in 1964 is as follows:
Year	In English	In French	Total1963-64	10	32	421964-65	83	625	7081965-66	368	2,425	2,7931966-67	766	2,422	3,1881967-68	1,320	4,322	5,6421968-69	1,034	3,491	4,525
Of the above, 549 have completed English training and 455 French training at the Advanced Level. It is not known how many Public Servants may have been enrolled in second language training programs not falling under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission.
2.	Between July 27, 1969, to December 17, 1969, 400 Public Servants and employees of a number of Crown Corporations have been attending English courses and 2,950 French courses. It is not known how many Public Servants are presently enrolled in second language training programs not under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission.
3.	At the Public Service Commission no one has been informed that he (or she) must secure a working knowledge of second language or he (or she) will not be able to continue in his (or her) present position or that he (or she) will be dismissed from the Public Service.
However, administrative trainees are informed during their interviews that a working knowledge of the second official language is part of their employment contract. To this day none have refused to honour this part of their employment contract. The Commission presently employs six administrative trainees whose mother tongue is French and six whose mother tongue is English.
During the current staff reductions in the Department of Veterans Affairs two stenographers in Montreal have been declared surplus, partly because their language skills are only in English. Both of these employees have been offered alternative positions in the Department.
4.	None.
5.	From 1964 to the mid-point of the 196970 fiscal year, the total expenditures of the Language Bureau in providing language training to members of the Public Service will be about 15 million dollars. No precise breakdown can be given with respect to the training expenditures for English and French.
February 11, 1970

Pro-rated on the basis of enrollments, approximately 25 per cent would have been spent on teaching English and 75 per cent on teaching French.
In addition to the Public Service Commission's expenditures the National Film Board spent $112,000 for French training and $28,000 for English training.


INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTRE
Mr. Nesbitl: 1.	What is the estimated cost of the proposed International Development Research Centre?
2.	Where is this Centre to be located?
3.	Is consideration presently being given to changing this proposed site and, if so, to what area?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. A minimum of $30 million would be allocated for the administration and programs of the IDRC over the first five years.
2.	National Capital Region.
3.	No. Bill C-12 provides that the Board of Governors, with the approval of the Governor-in-Council, may move the location to another place in Canada.


TERMINATION OF SERVICE NOTICES, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Diefenbaker: How many veterans of World War II, by provinces, have received notices terminating their services in the Department of Veterans Affairs since September 1, 1969?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows: Newfoundland, none; Nova Scotia, four; Prince Edward Island, one; New Brunswick, two; Quebec, ten; Ontario, 18; Manitoba, 13; Saskatchewan, four; Alberta, three; British Columbia, three.


AIRCRAFT CRASHES INVOLVING FIRE
Mr. Mather: 1.	How many aircraft crashes involving fire occurred on or at accessible locations near Canadian airports during the past ten years?
2.	How many fatalities resulted from such crashes?
3.	How many Canadian airports are without firefighting equipment?
4.	How many are without fire-fighting equipment to handle jet traffic crash fires?
5.	Has the federal government authority to order fire-fighting equipment at any airport?
Questions


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliameniary Secretary fo Minister of Transport):: 1. Fifty-eight.
2.	Ninety-five.
3.	Out of a total of 799 airports in Canada (water, land and heliports) seven privately owned airstrips are without fire fighting equipment.
4.	Of the 799 Canadian airports, the great majority are not suitable for use by jet aircraft. All airports handling scheduled jet traffic are equipped with fire-fighting equipment to varying degrees of sophistication. The needs of crash fire protection for such traffic are constantly under review by the Department.
5.	Yes, as a condition of licensing or operation.


BANK OF CANADA OFFICERS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who are the principal officers of the Bank of Canada and, in each case, what is his annual salary?
2.	Who are the heads of the various departments within the Bank of Canada and in each case, what is his annual salary?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1
and 2. The principal officers of the Bank of Canada, and heads of the various departments, are listed below:
The salary of the Governor was recorded in Hansard of December 3, 1969 in answer to question No. 489. The salary of other officers and officials is a matter of internal administration only which it is not considered necessary or appropriate to publish.
Officers: L. Rasminsky, C.C., C.B.E., Governor; J. R. Beattie, Deputy Governor; R. B. McKibbin, Deputy Governor; L. Hebert, Deputy Governor; R. W. Lawson, Deputy Governor; G. K. Bouey, Deputy Governor; B. J. Drabble, Adviser; L. F. Mundy, Director of Administrative Operations; G. Hamilton, Secretary; R. F. Hirsch, Auditor; A. J. Norton, Chief Accountant.
Secretary's Department: G. Hamilton, Secretary; P. D. Smith, Associate Secretary; C. H. Richardson, Deputy Secretary; I. G. L. Freeth, Chief of Computer Services; E. L. Johnson, Personnel Officer; Miss M. K. Rowland, Personnel Officer; S. S. Carroll, Curator, Numismatic Collection.
Department of Administrative Operations: A. J. Bawden, Chief; R. F. Archambault, Deputy Chief; S. V. Suggett, Special Assistant; E. B. Hodge, Superintendent of Premises; Currency Division: H. F. Butler, Chief; T. D.

February 11, 1970
Questions
MacKay, Deputy Chief; Public Debt Division: H. W. Thompson, Chief; A. Rousseau, Assistant Chief.
Research Department: G. R. Post, Chief;
J. N. R. Wilson, Deputy Chief; I. A. Stewart, Deputy Chief; G. S. Watts, Research Adviser; W. A. McKay, Assistant Chief; Miss E. M. Whyte, Assistant Chief; D. B. Bain, Administrative Assistant; T. I. Norton, Special Assistant; Miss D. J. Powell, Special Assistant; P. R. Andersen, Research Officer; J. E. H. Conder, Research Officer; A. G. Keith, Research Officer; A. C. Lamb, Research Officer; G. G. Thiessen, Research Officer; J. A. J. S. Vachon, Research Officer; C. E. Strike, Graphics Officer; Miss H. Costello, Librarian.
Securities Department: D. J. R. Humphreys, Chief; A. Clark, Deputy Chief; J. M. Andrews, Deputy Chief; A. W. Noble, Securities Adviser; J. A. J. Bussieres1, Assistant Chief; D. G. M. Bennett, Assistant Chief; R. C. Page, Securities Officer; C. G. Perry, Securities Officer; V. O'Regan, Securities Officer; Toronto Division: J. T. Baxter, Chief; J. Kierstead, Securities Officer. Montreal Division: T. G. Boland, Chief; J. E. J. Clement, Deputy Chief. 'F. Faure, Vancouver Representative.
Foreign Exchange Department:	A. M.
Jubinville, Chief; A. C. Lord, Deputy Chief; A. F. Pipher, Foreign Exchange Adviser.


* QUEEN'S PRINTER
Mr. Diefenbaker: Is it the intention of the Government of Canada to discard the title "Queen's Printer"?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no.


*CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PERSONNEL
Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys): 1.	What are the names, addresses and positions of the management of the Cape Breton Development Corporation?
2.	What were their salaries and expenses in the last fiscal year?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Cape Breton Development Corporation as follows: 1. Mr. Robinson Ord, President, Sydney, N.S.; Mr. Gerald Blackmore, VicePresident, Coal Division, Sydney, N.S.; Mr. F. J. Doucet, Vice-President, Industrial Development Division, Sydney, N.S.; Mr. B. A. 
Graham, Executive Secretary, Sydney, N.S.; Mr. Neil MacPherson, Comptroller, Sydney, N.S.; Mr. K. M. Pack, Assistant to the President, Ottawa, Ont.
2. It is not the practice of the corporation to disclose data on salary or other payments to corporate officials and staff.


AIRCRAFT REGISTRATIONS AND PILOT LICENCES
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	For the calendar year 1969, what were the total number of (a) Student Permits (b) Private Pilot Licenses (e) Commercial Pilot Licenses issued by each of the six DOT Regional Offices?
2.	For the calendar year 1969, what were the total number of aircraft registration markings allocated?
3.	As of December 31, 1969, what were the total number of (a) government (b) private (c) commercial aircraft registered in Canada?
4.	As of December 31, 1969, what was the total number of (a) Private Pilots (b) Commercial Pilots (c) Commercial (Senior Commercial) (d) Airline Pilots, holding Canadian licences?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. (a) Atlantic, 439; Quebec, 1,243; Ontario, 2,821; Central, 984; Western, 1,096; Pacific, 1,118. (b) Atlantic, 299; Quebec, 721; Ontario, 1,782; Central, 737; Western, 677; Pacific, 731. (c) Atlantic, 79; Quebec, 159; Ontario, 239; Central, 127; Western, 139; Pacific, 198.
2.	1,141.
3.	(a) 200; (b) 7,404; (c) 3,168.
4.	(a) 23,756; (b) 4,631; (c) 696; (d) 2,664.


CAMPBELLTON, N.B.-CANADIAN NATIONAL BUILDINGS
Mr. Corbin: 1.	How much did it cost to construct the new Canadian National buildings in Campbellton, N.B.?
2.	What services will they house?


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Following the Company's general practice proposals for the redevelopment of railway real estate in Campbellton were invited by published advertisement. Subsequently a lease of property was entered into with Restigouche Centre Limited and that Lessee has constructed an office building and shopping centre. The railway did not bear any of the cost.
2. The railway has, leased space from the developer in the office building for area offices and station and telecommunication facilities.
February 11, 1970


AGRICULTURE-STORAGE OF BUTTER
Mr. Lamberi (Bellechasse): 1.	How many pounds of butter are presently stored in Canada and in the Province of Quebec?
2.	What is the market value of butter so stored?
3.	Where are the warehouses in which this butter is stored and how many pounds of butter are stored in each (name of warehouse, location and quantity stored)?
4.	(a) How long has the butter been so stored in each of these warehouses (b) how much is paid out annually or monthly per pound for the storage of this butter (c) what amount is paid to each of the warehouses?
5 How much was spent during each of the last five years on the storage of such butter?


Mr. Florian Cole (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Insofar as the Canadian Dairy Commission is concerned, the answers are: 1. In Canada, on January 1, 1970 -75,885,748 lbs. In Quebec, on January 1, 1970-71,353,726 lbs.
2.	Sixty-five cents per pound.
3.	Quantity stored in each warehouse is regarded as confidential.
4.	(a) Period during which butter has been in storage varies from less than one month to seven months, (b) Rates paid for storage vary from 12.50 to 16.80 per month per box of 56 pounds, (c) Payment to individual warehouses is regarded as confidential.
5.	1965-66, $1,582,866.01; 1966-67, $1,054,020.59; 1967-68, $1,052,463.14; 1968-69, $971,177.67; 1969-70 (to Dec. 31, 1969), $1,177,711.21.


BOEING OP CANADA LTD.
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 945
Mr. Burton:: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to "Boeing of Canada Ltd." and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of "Boeing of Canada Ltd." and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of In-21701-101
Questions
dustry, Trade & Commerce as follows: 1. and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	As of December 31, 1968, the directors and executive officers of Boeing of Canada Ltd. are: H. P. Burress, Vice-President and General Manager and Director; W. M. Allen, Director; W. J. Kane, Director; R. W. Thor-rington, Director; K. R. Patrick, Director; R. G. Peers, Director; J. K. Prince, Director; J. S. Ciechan, Director; H. S. Tremper, Director.
4.	97.0 per cent non-resident owned.
5.	The Boeing Company-United States.


WATER POLLUTION CHARGES LAID UNDER CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Mr. Harding: 1.	For the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, how many charges were laid against individuals or companies by persons in the department responsible for the enforcement of the Canada Shipping Act and Regulations regarding violations of the Act and Regulations dealing with pollution of waters?
2.	How many of the above charges resulted in (a) convictions (b) dismissal of the charges (c) withdrawal of the charges?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. 1963, 12; 1964, Eight; 1965, 11; 1966, 16; 1967, 20; 1968, 19; 1969, 19.
2. (a) 1963, 11; 1964, Eight; 1965, 11; 1966, 15; 1967, 19; 1968, 17; 1969, 18. (b) 1963, One; 1964, None; 1965, None; 1966, One; 1967, One; 1968, One; 1969, One. (c) 1963, None; 1964, None; 1965, None; 1966, None; 1967, None; 1968, One; 1969, None.


WATER POLLUTION CHARGES LAID UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT
Mr. Harding: 1.	For the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, how many charges were laid against individuals or companies by persons in the department responsible for the enforcement of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and Regulations regarding violations of the Act and Regulations dealing with pollution of waters?
2.	How many of the above charges resulted in (a) convictions (b) dismissal of the charges (c) withdrawal of the charges?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. The Navigable Waters Protection Act is not concerned with pollution of waters but solely with the protection of navigation. Consequently, no

February 11, 1970
Motions for Papers
charges have been laid regarding violations dealing with pollution of waters.
2. (a) (b) (c) Nil.
SUBSIDY TO HOG PRODUCERS 1960 to 1969


Mr. Robinson: What was the total subsidy paid to hog producers during each of the years 1960 to 1969 inclusive?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Subsidy paid to hog producers, 1960-1969: 1959-60, $8,227,898; 1960-61, $6,585,775; 196162, $7,055,615; 1962-63, $5,445,407; 1963-64, $7,479,484; 1964-65, $8,307,060; 1965-66, $8,239,021; 1966-67, $8,872,441; 1967-68; $10,250,577; 1968-69; $6,438,418.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	For the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 (a) which and how many non-resident owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants or incentives under the Industrial Research Assistance Program administered by the National Research Council, and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
2.	For the same years (a) which and how many Canadian owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants under the Industrial Research Assistance Program, and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
Return tabled:


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 208, 318, 336 and 344 are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notices of motions Nos. 203, 318, 336 and 344 be deemed to have been adopted.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


RIGHTS OF NATIVE INDIANS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 208-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all statements made by the Prime Minister relating to the subject of aboriginal, hereditary, usufructary or similar rights of native Indian people.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 318-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Kates, Peat and Marwick and Company undertaken for the Department of Finance regarding the administration of Canada's Student Loans Plan as mentioned in answer to Question Number 2,452 of the past Session.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 336-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the December, 1969 Order-in-Council regarding work extension under the Canada Labour Standards Code of St. Lawrence River and East Coast of Canada transportation of goods by ships.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 344-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the December, 1969 Order in Council regarding hours of work extension under the Canada Labour Standards Code for the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 11 and 358 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential papers and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notices of motions Nos. 11 and 358 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


NEWFOUNDLAND REFINING CO. LTD. TAX CONCESSIONS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Orlikow:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland, and Shaheen Natural Resources Inc. of New York or its subsidiary the Newfoundland Refining Co. Ltd. of St. John's regarding tax concessions for a refinery to be built on Trinity Bay, Newfoundland.
Motion agreed to.
February 11, 1970

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 358-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report on Student attitudes to Indian people by certain people at Glendon College.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 1, 171, 174, 194, 202, 205, 217, 228, 259, 271, 300, 308 and 343?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


COPPER EXPORTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all export permits granted for copper exports for the period January 1, 1969, to September 30, 1969.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the member that details of applications for export permits have always been treated as confidential and are communicated only to persons legally entitled to such information. In view of this, the minister would ask the member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Salisman:: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that Members of Parliament were legally entitled to such information.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY COST STRUCTURE STUDY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 171-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by economist David F. Smith of the Mechanical Transport Branch, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on "The Effects of Canada-United States Wage Parity Upon the Cost Structure of the Canadian Automotive Industries''.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member that this study is an internal departmental document which contains privileged information received in confidence from the
Motions for Papers
industry and therefore cannot be tabled. On this basis, the minister would ask the member to withdraw his motion.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be transferred for debate because of the shaky nature of this industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


PROGRAM TO ENHANCE PRODUCTIVITY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 174-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the preliminary cost-benefit study on the new program of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to enhance productivity (PEP) as referred to in reply to Question No. 1,955 as reported in Hansard of June 4, 1969.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member that this study will not be tabled. This program is still in the early stages of development and subject to change, and it would not be in the public interest to table a preliminary analysis outlined in an internal working document. The minister hopes the hon. member will withdraw his motion.


Max Saltsman: I agree to withdraw, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


DEVELOPMENT OF ANTI-SMOG DEVICES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 194-Mr. Skoberg:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., provided to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs by the United States Justice Department on anti-combines matters related to auto manufacturers and a conspiracy to delay development of anti-smog devices.
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the material called for by this motion constitutes privileged communication between two governments, the publication of which would impair the usefulness of such exchanges. I ask the hon. member to consent to withdraw the motion.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the minister's explanation is not acceptable. Please transfer this motion for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

February 11, 1970
Motions for Papers
TRADE PROMOTION COST-SALES RATIO	CANADIAN TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Motion No. 202-Mr. Broadbenl:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study on the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce trade promotion policies showing a 12:1 cost-sales ratio as stated by Mr. P. Schutte, Chief of the Trade Fairs Abroad Division of the Department.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member that the documents and reports from which this information is derived are internal working matter provided to the department by private firms on the understanding that they will be kept in confidence and used internally only. Publicizing such information would be a breach of this confidence and would make it difficult to obtain such data in the future. In view of this, the minister would ask the member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
accept the statement that publicizing these documents would constitute a breach of confidence. I therefore refuse to accept the answer and ask that this motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


COMBINES-QUININE-CORRESPONDENCE PROVIDED BY U.S.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 205-Mr. Saltsman:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., provided to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs by the United States Justice Department on anti-combines matters related to international drug companies and the price of quinine.
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the material called for by this motion constitutes privileged communication between two governments, the publication of which would impair the usefulness of such written exchanges. I hope that the hon. member would consent to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I do
not think he will, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

Motion No. 217-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Gherzi Textile Organization on the Canadian textile industry undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal year 1966-67, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC RELATIONS STUDY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 228-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Public Industrial Relations Limited, a public relations study, undertaken for the Department of Labour in the fiscal year 1968-69, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE BOARD LOANS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 259-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the list of the 77 firms receiving loans from the Adjustment Assistance Board as mentioned in answer to Question Number 2,490 of the past Session.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member that it has always been the practice of the Adjustment Assistance Board not to reveal the names of its borrowers. This policy is in line with that taken by term lenders in the private sector. In view of this, the minister would ask the member to withdraw her motion.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, since our taxpayers provide the funds for this board I think they have the right to know who obtains the loans. May this be transferred for debate, please?


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


RESEARCH STUDIES, CRTC ECONOMICS BRANCH
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 271-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the research studies by the Economics Branch
February 11, 1970
[Stage Direction]
of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission on satellites, CATV, microwave and CATV, commercial policy, extension of service, FM radio, integration and rationalization of Canadian broadcasting, mentioned in answer to Question Number 82 as reported in Hansard on page 1137, November 24, 1069.
Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission advises me that the studies mentioned in notice of motion No. 271 for production of papers are based on privileged financial information communicated to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics Act.
For the above-mentioned reasons and as a result of the request made by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, I would ask the hon. member to kindly withdraw that motion.


Mr. Rose:: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is withdrawn. Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


REPORT ON ATTITUDES OF INDIAN PEOPLE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 300-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report on attitudes of Indian people based mainly on a visit to the Six Nations Reserve on July 16, 1969, submitted to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development by Berger, Tis-dal, Clark and Lesley Ltd., as referred to on page 6 of the quarterly report on public relations activity, June, July, August, 1969 by the said Berger, Tisdall, Clark and Lesley Ltd.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


FEASIBILITY REPORT ON ALBERTA-MONTREAL PIPELINE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 308-Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the feasibility report prepared in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding the construction of an oil pipeline from Alberta to Montreal.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, as the House was informed in response to a similar inquiry earlier last year, internal working papers have been prepared from time to time on various oil policy questions. However, these papers are privileged matter and cannot be tabled. In view of this,
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would hope the hon. member would withdraw his motion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has quoted from this report and has made known what purports to be the conclusion of the report, it seems to me hon. members are entitled to it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


TARIFF BOARD REPORT ON BINDER TWINE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 343-Mr. Salisman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Tariff Board Report on Binder Twine for Bailing Farm Produce.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker the requested report was tabled in the House by the Minister of Finance on June 20, 1969 as sessional paper 85B. In the circumstances perhaps the hon. member will agree to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, at last we have found out how to obtain information: We must ask for something we already have.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who I am sure will be very frank and full in his disclosures.


Mr. Bell:: Mostly full.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would ask the minister whether the government, having virtually reviled and spat upon guidelines as an instrument for fighting inflation for two years while inflation galloped along, is now prepared to
February XI, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry adopt as a guideline tor 1970 the consensus reported to have been widely adopted yesterday and the day before with regard to price restraint?


Edgar John Benson: Who spat on the Prices and Incomes Commission?


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the question as asked is not proper. If he will refer to the relevant references and citations I am sure he will agree with me that the question was perhaps not in accordance with the procedural requirements of the House. However, since the question has been asked, perhaps the minister might now reply.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I congratulated the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission yesterday on the announcement that was made. I think it represents an extremely useful initiative. There are many implications flowing from the statement on pricing criteria made last night. We shall be meeting within the next few days with members of the commission to consider what implications there are for government. We shall also be discussing with all provincial governments the implications flowing from the statement. We shall be discussing them with the provincial premiers on Monday.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House what sort of proposition the government intends to make to the provinces with regard to the guideline or consensus which was achieved? Specifically, what support does the government want from the provinces?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have said in the House before that I hope we shall make the program of the Prices and Incomes Commission as effective as possible. What the government of Canada's position with the provincial premiers will be on Monday and Tuesday is, I think, a proper subject for the Prime Minister to deal with.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to propose any legislation to the House with regard to this matter? Does the government intend to rely simply on moral suasion or does it propose to take punitive action, if necessary, in order to enforce this consensus?


Mitchell William Sharp: What do you advocate?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I must repeat what I have said. We are studying with the commission the implications of what has taken place-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You have no policy at all. Sit down.


Edgar John Benson: You have no ideas either.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -and whether further action is called for or not will be announced in due course.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You have no policy.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I should think, from my reading of the hon. gentleman's speeches over a period of time, that he would welcome the statement that was made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You have no policy. We have had two years of talking and doing nothing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister about the price stability conference which concluded its hearings yesterday. Inasmuch as the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission indicated that the next step is to take this matter to the federal-provincial conference, does the government of Canada intend to ask the provinces to take concurrent action to give to the Prices and Incomes Commission the power to make the agreement reached in the last few days applicable, to use Dr. Young's words, to the entire business economy? Does the government intend to ask the provinces to give the commission the power of sanction so as to deal with price increases which have already been put into effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs just said-


An hon. Member:: He has not said anything.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No. He has not said anything.


Mr. Crouse:: Neither has the Prime
Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously you do not want information.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission indicated that the
February 11, 1970	COMMONS
agreement reached in the last few days must now go before the federal-provincial conference, may I ask what proposals the Prime Minister intends to place before the provincial premiers in order to make any agreement that was reached effective for the entire Canadian economy?


Mr. Woolliams:: He does not know the
answer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister does not seem to have any information today, may I go back to the well that was proven dry awhile ago, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can he say if the moratorium on increases in copper prices, freight rates and the prices of other commodities which was to be effective until March 1 will expire on that date or continue for the balance of 1970 in compliance with the agreement reached yesterday?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The agreements made
between the government and these particular companies to roll back prices, as announced by the Minister of Finance, run out on March 1. Their status after that date will, I think, depend on the reaction of the governments next week to the proposals which were agreed upon last night.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since industrialists, businessmen and bankers who took part in the price stabilization conference seem to take this matter seriously, being satisfied to lunch on a sandwich or a bowl of soup, is not the government considering as an austerity measure to launch such a practice for ministers, hon. members and officials in parliamentary restaurants?


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Has the minister been requested by any of his colleagues to consider the form of any legislation which might be required to give effect to any consensus which may have been arrived at, or any arrangements which may be reached with the provincial governments? Has he asked the law officers of his department to consider the drafting of such legislation?
DEBATES	3479
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. John N. Turner (Minisier of Justice):: do not think I can answer the question in those terms. We are, of course, concerned to see that anything the federal government does to ensure the economic stability of this country is done in a constitutional way.


Gerald William Baldwin: Am I to take it that no consideration has been given so far to bringing in legislation?


John Napier Turner: Well-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Are you sore this went so well?


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: May I
direct a supplementary question either to the petulant Prime Minister or to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and ask either one of them whether the contents of the agreement reached at the close of the conference yesterday were discussed with the government or with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, or whether the contents of the agreement were entirely in the hands of Dr. Young and his associates on the commission?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I told the House some time ago that there had been close discussion between members of the commission and officials of the various departments of government. I told the House on Monday, I believe, that officials of my department and other departments were present as observers at the conference.


David Lewis: I did not ask whether they were present as observers. Would the minister inform us whether the officials of his department or of any other department participated in the conference which led to the particular conclusions reached, and whether they advised Dr. Young and his associates, or whether the commission acted entirely on its own, away from those officials?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The departmental officials were there; they were observing and they were aware of the documents put before the commission and the positions taken.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
After increases in prices and interest rates, here we have 250 businessmen, bankers, etc. who reach an agreement. Can the minister say whether the agreements made during the
February 11, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry conference will prompt the government to consider the real problem of Canadians: the consumer's chronic lack of purchasing power?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this question may be allowed. The minister might ponder the hon. member's proposition.



INFLATION-ACTION TO SEEK CO-OPERATION OF UNIONS

Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
As labour leaders did not participate in the discussions with the Prices and Incomes Commission, what steps does the Canadian government intend to take to initiate talks with union leaders with a view to having them take part in this voluntary restraint program?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would hope, as I am sure all Canadians would, that the union movement in Canada will be as helpful as possible.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question following that one I directed earlier to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Are there at present consultations or meetings between officials of his department and the unions in order to discuss the voluntary restraint program suggested by the Prices and Incomes Commission a few days ago?


Stanley Ronald Basford: For the present, the Chairman of the commission is meeting with the government with regard to the implications of the statement which was made last night. I do not think a new initiative will be taken along the lines suggested by the hon. member until at least the federal-provincial conference is over.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I had one question I wanted to put to two ministers, and thus save time. The Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport were the ministers I had in mind. But in the absence of the Minister of
Labour, may I direct my question to the Minister of Transport, and perhaps there could be some discussion about it between him and his colleague. In view of the fact that there is a legal strike in process at the Fort Garry Hotel in Winnipeg, and in view of the fact that management is flying in personnel from other parts of Canada, which seems to be an effort to break the strike, will the minister and his colleague let us know whether it is government policy to engage in strike-breaking of this kind?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may realize that his question contains allegations of some kind. However, the minister may wish to reply to the substance.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: I shall be glad to look into the matter. This is the first intimation I have had concerning it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister discuss this with his colleague the Minister of Labour because, after all, both departments are certainly concerned?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



VANCOUVER LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON SITUATION

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Labour will be back shortly, or whether he himself will report to the House now or delegate somebody else to do so concerning what is going on in the port of Vancouver? I know that hon. members to my left are sympathetic to the situation in which the western farmers find themselves, but the ports are still closed and I think we are entitled to get an answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The minister is due back in the House on Monday, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Rome burns while the Prime Minister fiddles.



TRANSPORT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My
question is for the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask the minister whether his attention and the attention of the government have been drawn to the application of a

February 11, 1970

United States railway company, the Great Northern, to build a right-of-way in British Columbia for the purpose of hauling Canadian coal destined for Japan? If so, what action has the government taken on the matter?
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of
Transport): Of course our attention has been called to it. It is a matter which is now before the Canadian Transport Commission. The commission will deal with it in the normal way, and until such time as they have dealt with it it does not appear that any action is required either on the part of the Department of Transport or on the part of the government.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question. Inasmuch as the government of British Columbia seems to be closely involved in these matters, could the minister indicate whether he has had conversations with representatives of that government?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the neutrality of the Canadian Transport Commission in matters of this kind, since it is a judicial body, does the minister not think that the Department of Transport or the government of Canada should be represented by counsel acting as an intervener or holding a watching brief?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, that proposal is worth consideration and I will be glad to give it such consideration.



MOVEMENT OF GRAIN THROUGH PORT OF VANCOUVER

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport appears to be the only minister, other than the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who has not taken the vow of silence. Therefore I ask him, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, whether he can make any report that will give hope to the farmers of western Canada that transport will continue to be provided and that the loading of wheat will continue at Vancouver between now and Monday next, when the Minister of Labour will return once more to the House.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, all I can say in reply to that question is that the National Harbours Board, for which I report, is ready
Inquiries of the Ministry to proceed as soon as a decision is made about the settlement of the strike. I assume that the only thing that can be done at the moment is to wait until the result of the vote is released tonight. If the result is satisfactory, we will move at once; if not, as the Minister of Labour has indicated, other steps will be taken.


John George Diefenbaker: If the vote is not favourable, will the House and the country have to wait until the minister returns on Monday?


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the interval, while the government is dilly-dallying, could some boxcars not be diverted to Thunder Bay, rather than waiting for a decision with regard to the west coast ports?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I would scarcely call an appropriate and proper procedure, in terms of voting, "dilly-dallying". If there is a delay beyond tonight, an indication has already been given in this House that steps will be taken to get the grain moving as fast as possible.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour undertake to report tomorrow to the House and to the people of Canada the result of the vote.


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I will be in touch with the Minister of Labour this afternoon and will take that matter into consideration.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A couple of weeks ago, I believe, the minister indicated that the government of Canada had not at that time decided whether to make representations to the government of the United States, as it did on a previous occasion, expressing opposition to the United States decision to explode a massive nuclear bomb underground in the north Pacific. Is the minister prepared to make an early statement on Canada's position?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on February 4, in answer to a similar question by the hon.
February 11, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry member for Fundy-Royal, I said we were expecting to obtain from the United States the results of the previous explosion, and that we would examine these results before deciding whether it was appropriate for us to make any further representations.


POLLUTION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the minister could clarify conflicting statements as to the position of the stern of the tanker Arrow and what is happening to it in view of what he said on Monday about moving it out to sea and sinking it or pumping out the bunker oil.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at the hon. member's confusion. I have had the suspicion sometimes that there are times when he cannot tell his bow from his stern. Apart from that, the position at the moment is that there are very high winds and 15-foot waves prevailing in the area. Three tugs have a line aboard on the stern portion of the ship. It is shifting on the rock ledge but has not yet moved off the rock ledge. The intention is to keep it on the ledge until the bad weather subsides. It is still floating. As I indicated yesterday, if we can see a way in which to pump the oil into another vessel so that the oil will not have to be either burned or dumped into the water, we will take appropriate action. However, this will not be possible today since weather conditions are such that salvage activities are virtually at a standstill.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it from what the minister has said that the situation is now under control. Yesterday he said that it was not.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is slightly more under control. When there are 3,800,000 gallons of oil around, the situation is never under control until the oil is disposed of. It is under control to the extent that the seepage from either the bow or the stern sections has been considerably reduced as a result of the ability of the salvage experts to seal off some of the cracks in the hull.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question to the genial minister. I make no bones about the fact that I do know where my stern and my bow are, but from the minister's explanation it sounds as though he is still at sea. In view of the conflicting statements that he made on Monday and Tuesday I ask him whether the department has considered bringing the stern section of the tanker that is floatable to the shore and draining it of oil on the shore, or burning it in a controlled way on the shore, rather than taking the stern farther out and dumping the oil in the deep sea where it will still cause pollution?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, all these possibilities are being examined and tested by experts both in the ecological field and in the salvage field. Whichever method proves to be the least harmful will be the one employed. Certainly, the least harmful method of all, if it can be achieved, is to keep the stern afloat until the oil has been pumped into another container or ship, and this is what we are trying to achieve.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Transport. Is it correct, as has been suggested, that the rock was marked by a buoy until a few weeks ago, when the buoy was removed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
answer that question directly. As I said yesterday, a study is under way; an investigation is being made of the entire incident. As soon as a report is available, I will see it is provided to the House and the public.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Since the present legislation does not provide for unlimited liability insurance to be carried as protection against accidents of this type, could the minister inform the House what is the total liability insurance carried by the Arrow in respect of both vessel and cargo? I also ask whether the minister believes, as does his colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that the polluter in such cases must pay.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that the second part of the question is in order. If the minister has the information, he might respond to the first part of the hon. member's supplementary.
February II, 1970


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The position as I understand it-and I will be meeting with representatives of an international group this afternoon-is that an international fund has been established for this purpose. As I understand it, it is contributed to by major oil companies and has been established for precisely the purpose of covering the costs involved in this kind of clean-up operation. For myself, I have no problem in stating that in my view the responsibility is clearly that of the shipping company and the oil company. Every effort will be made, within whatever powers we possess, to make sure that they pay the costs.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's statement that he does not know whether this rock was marked by a buoy at the time of the disaster, or traditionally, rather than keeping the House and the country waiting for a formal report would the minister undertake to report to the House the next time he is here whether this rock had been traditionally marked but the buoy had been removed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will report as fully as possible, consistent with whatever are the legal implications of the inquiry. I simply point out to the hon. gentleman that there are many issues involved here with regard to liability and the like. I do not want, as perhaps he might be suggesting, to jeopardize any legal claims that might be made by people in his own province of Nova Scotia.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the loss of the Arrow on the east coast, will the minister consider placing radar reflectors on the top of spar buoys along the coast of Atlantic Canada, in view of the fact that spar buoys are placed there in the wintertime to replace bell buoys and other markers which might be affected by shore ice? Will the minister consider installing radar reflectors in place of spar buoys, because this might in future prevent occurrences such as we have experienced?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into that suggestion.




Mr. David Anderson (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the loss
Inquiries of the Ministry of the Arrow emphasizes what the Minister of Transport said yesterday, that shipwrecks occur regardless of the measures and precautions taken, will he instruct our ambassador to the United States to vigorously protest the proposal of the United States government, or certain segments of it, to ship nerve gas by sea through the Strait of Juan de Fuca?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been in consultation with the United States about the shipment of nerve gas. We have been informed that a decision has been made to make the shipment, although the date has not yet been fixed. I am instructing our ambassador to obtain all the information he can as to the safety precautions that have been taken so we can satisfy ourselves that there is a minimum of danger to the people of the United States and to the people of Canada.


David Anderson: I appreciate the hon. minister's reply, but has he instructed the ambassador to protest this decision by the United States authorities?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, not yet. It may be that on the basis of the information we receive from the United States we may have a reason for protest. The people of the United States have exactly the same interest as we have in maximum safety. If we satisfy ourselves that the precautions are not adequate we will make a protest, but not otherwise because we assume that the people of the United States have just as great an interest in the safety of the movement as we have.
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact it is anticipated that the route of the ships transporting the nerve gas will be through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and through Canadian territorial waters, will the minister assure the House that he will make representations to the government of the United States urging that until the government is satisfied that all the necessary protective measures have been taken the ships will not go through these waters but will proceed directly to the United States coastline?


Mitchell William Sharp: First of all, I should like to reassure the hon. gentleman and the House that there is no intention that the ships will go through Canadian waters. The problem is, however, that in the Strait of Juan de Fuca the waters are narrow. Therefore, we have a legitimate interest in seeing that safety
February 11, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry precautions are adequate. If we are satisfied that they are, we will accept them; if we are not so satisfied, we will protest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we have had a number of supplementary questions on this subject and that we should go on to another matter. If we have time, perhaps we can return to the very important matter raised by many hon. members.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is he in receipt of a communication from the general representative of the CB of RT, Cape Breton, Mr. Gilbert MacIntyre, taking exception to a recent statement the minister made in the House regarding this union and asking for an official apology and, if so, can he advise what consideration he has given to the request?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I received such a letter, and its contents are based on false assumptions. When the hon. member himself mentioned the name of a union, on January 27, it was not Local 510, but the retired coal miners pensioners union and that is the question to which I replied. There was never any reference to Local 510 in my reply, and I owe nobody any apologies, it was merely a question of misinterpreted facts.


Robert Muir: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister's statement is completely erroneous. He has accused me of something of which I am not guilty. I did refer to local 510 of the CB of RT, and with your indulgence I should like to go further into this matter at the time of adjournment.


Jean Marchand: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I point out that the question put on January 27 by the hon. member was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the first minister. Has the right hon. gentleman received a written complaint from the retired coal miners pensioners union at Sydney-

The hon. member did not refer to local 510. This is the answer to his question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has raised a question of privilege and the hon. member has raised a point of order and given notice that he will pose the question again at the time of adjournment. I suggest that the matter be allowed to rest there for the time being.


Robert Muir: With all due respect to you, sir-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Robert Muir: I am
rising on a question of privilege, sir. If the minister will look at the appropriate part of Hansard he will see that I did not refer the question to the Prime Minister. The matter to which I had reference was raised on another day. On that occasion the minister went on to refer to a group of old men, superannuated miners, pensioners and so on. I then pointed out to him that it was the union local 510 of the CB of RT whose employees are at present employed in the coal mine in Cape Breton for which the minister is responsible, in case he does not know. I suggest that he correct himself on the point he has raised regarding what I have been talking about. When I posed the question to the minister in this House it was on another day. I shall give him the appropriate pages in Hansard but I should still like to be heard on the late show.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate that the hon. member still wants to consider the matter at the time of adjournment. I have respectfully suggested to the minister and the hon. member that this appears to be a very interesting point of debate. I certainly do not think it should be pursued as a question of privilege at this time.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker following the announcement by General Motors of Canada today that a number of employees, many with up to 17 years seniority, will be laid off at Oshawa on Friday after only a period of two days notice, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour
February 11, 1970

whether the government is contemplating legislation during this session which would compel companies in this country to give substantial advance notice to employees who are about to be laid off?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the first part of the question I cannot comment on a statement of facts of which I am not aware, but I will discuss them with the Minister of Labour. I suggest that the legislation referred to by the hon. member is something he should be proposing to the provincial government, not the federal government.


FINANCE
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of President Nixon's proposal for a new federal-municipal financing arrangement that in five years will provide every community which needs it with secondary waste treatment, and also special additional treatment in areas of special needs, including communities on the Great Lakes, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the federal government will match this proposal with a real drive to assist all Canadian municipalities to clean up their sewage problems in five years, with special assistance to those Canadian areas where special need is indicated, such as the Great Lakes system?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to suggest to the hon. member that, while the minister obviously wants to reply, the hon. member is inviting the minister to make a statement which to my way of thinking would be of a rather general nature and ought to be made on motions.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, might I ask the minister if he would make a statement on motions and when?


Edgar John Benson: would very much like to look at the statement of Mr. Nixon which I have not seen to date. The federal government has been assisting with sewage disposal for municipalities for I believe about eight years now, so we are probably about eight years ahead of the United States.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr.   Gaelan-J. Serre@Nickel Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
In view of the fact that the National Film Board's decision to set charges for the use of their films, which would prevent a very great number of citizens from using that precious service, does the minister intend to make representations to the NFB, urging them to reconsider their decision?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have already replied to that question several times. Barring new developments, the NFB's decision has already been reconsidered and, as far as the NFB is concerned, reconfirmed. If however new factors are brought forward, it may be changed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
Was he consulted before the NFB took that decision?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


TAXATION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, in light of the statement reported last evening and attributed to the Prime Minister of Ontario, which reaffirmed Ontario's calculation of $1.3 billion as the figure of increased revenue represented by the white paper, whether the minister has altered his calculation or can he report any progress to the House with regard to reaching a consensus on the matter?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I reported to the House, from a cursory glance at the Ontario figures I found an error of $200 million. We offered to meet with the provincial officials immediately and they asked for a postponement of ten days to check their figures.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In light of the statement of the Minister of Finance and the fact that he is sticking to his position, I wonder whether he is prepared to disclose to the House the
February 11, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry research and material upon which the government's calculation is based so that the country will be in a position to judge who is right?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest that this information could be given by way of a statement on motions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I simply asked whether the minister is prepared to disclose this information to the House. He is a very forthcoming minister and might be prepared to do it.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest he should not forth-come at this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not wish to be difficult or stubborn about this, Mr. Speaker, but I simply asked not whether he is prepared to make a statement but whether he is prepared to disclose this material at his convenience.


Edgar John Benson: Immediately Ontario came out with different figures we offered to compare our figures with theirs and they took some time to supply us with the details of their calculations. When they did there was an obvious error of $200 million and perhaps many more errors. We then offered to meet with them to compare the figures and they asked for a ten-day postponement. My officials are appearing before the parliamentary committee. The committee has the right to ask for any formation it wants with regard to calculations and so on. I understand my officials have been co-operating completely with the committee.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Some days ago he informed the House that certain individuals were looking over the situation in northern Quebec and Ungava in connection with the Eskimo population there who apparently are destined to be brought under provincial control. What has been the result up until now of the discussions which have taken place? Second, will he give assurance to these Eskimo people that before action of this kind is taken they will have the right to vote concerning whether or not they wish to continue exclusively under federal jurisdiction, which is constitutionally


their right, or have certain portions of the jurisdiction over them transferred to the province?


Hon. Jean Chreiien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the right hon. member's question, officials who have been assigned to this task by the federal and provincial governments are soon to leave for discussion of this problem with the Eskimos. We have undertaken to consult them on this matter, and this is the reason why we have not reached any decision. Nevertheless, I want to assure the House that any renting of services by the federal government from the provincial government, aimed at giving better service to the Eskimos, will not take away from them any constitutional right. They will continue to be protected by the British North America Act.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not the question I asked. I asked what right the government of Canada has to move these people around as if they are chattels without having a vote on their part to accept. Consultation is all right but approval is a different matter and they have a right to a vote.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, under the agreements reached by the federal and provincial governments in 1964, it was decided that the Eskimos would be consulted about the development of this procedure and this is what we are doing now. I said that they were being consulted and that is what we are actually doing.


John George Diefenbaker: But they have to have the right of agreement. They cannot be pushed around like that.


AIR TRANSPORT
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to either the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the Canadian government to make representations to the Spanish government under the bilateral air agreement with regard to the action of that government in imposing
February 11, 1970

a punitive surcharge of flights by Canadian companies with the result that the Canadian companies have suffered extensive losses?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The Canadian Transport Commission, I understand, has requested the Department of External Affairs to make inquiries of the Spanish government along the lines the hon. member mentioned.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In the
interval is the government contemplating any action vis-a-vis Spanish airlines coming into Canada so that Canadian interests shall not be affected adversely with impunity?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will take a look at that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order having to do with our plans for today. I put it in the form of a question to the President of the Privy Council. In view of the fact that the Parliamentary Press Gallery has invited us all to a reception this evening-and it has done so without any discrimination-can the President of the Privy Council assure us that the House will not sit beyond six o'clock so that we can accept the invitation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued with the fact that the hon. member is keen to get a drink, but I will do my very best not to disappoint his rather unusual request.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They serve orange juice, you know.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government orders:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill C-179, an act respecting investment companies-the Minister of Finance.
Gerald William Baldwin: February 11, 1970
Investment Companies
(2), according to which the message and recommendation of the Governor General should be printed in the Notice Paper and in Votes and Proceedings when any such measure is to be introduced. In other words, there has been compliance to the extent that it was printed in Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day on January 16, and it may well be printed in the original bill. I do not know, because the original bill is in the custody of the Chair and I am not aware of this. It does appear in the copies of the bill which have been circulated. Whether or not it appears in the original bill, I do not know. This may well be where the mistake lies. However, it does not, as it must, appear in Votes and Proceedings.
It seems that there is an incurable defect which, it may well be suggested, can be cured because the text of the recommendation did appear in Routine Proceedings. But that is not enough. Votes and Proceedings is the journal in which this House records officially the proceedings of the House. On a very controversial and contentious measure of this kind, this omission may well be challenged in the courts. There is certainly one particular aspect which requires the recommendation; the one providing for the $200 million guarantee to which there is a great deal of opposition, certainly from me. However, that deals with the substance of the matter, and we are debating the procedural issue. If this matter is challenged, the courts must go to Votes and Proceedings to determine whether there has been compliance and to show that the BNA Act has in fact been complied with.
I submit very simply that at the time the bill was introduced, this did not appear. To show the contrast, let me point out that yesterday we finished dealing with the Expropriation Act bill which was introduced for first reading on November 3, 1969, and in Votes and Proceedings No. 8, at page 54 the following notation appears:
Mr. Mcllraith for Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton), seconded by Mr. Sharp, by leave of the House, introduced Bill C-136, an act respecting the expropriation of land, which was read the first time and ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
Then follows the text of the message and recommendation of the Governor General which is printed pursuant to Standing Order 62 (2). On examining Votes and Proceedings from time to time I note that this new practice, which was established in 1968 under the revised Standing Orders, has been followed throughout this session.

As I said, it may well be that this bill in its original form-I am not seeking justification but explanation-was introduced last year in the other place and there it was amended very substantially. But this year the government reintroduced it in the House with a number of changes, one of which dealt with what in my submission is a financial measure and therefore requires the addition of a recommendation. The recommendation was obtained, but I have some doubt whether the original bill contained the recommendation. This may well account for the fact that it does not appear in Votes and Proceedings.
I make that argument. If Your Honour accepts my recommendation, you might feel unanimous consent might be given to cure the defect, if hon. members are willing to give it, and I do not know that they are. I urge Your Honour to consider that the omission of the recommendation is very dangerous because, as I have indicated, the fact is that this is a constitutional requirement and failure to observe it might strike at the legality of this measure, not only in the House now but in the future. For this reason it seems to me that if Your Honour upholds my view the matter may well have to be reviewed and a decision taken upon it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has raised a point of order of which I had not previous notice, so I have not had the opportunity to consult with the officials of the table and to examine the original bill. Therefore, I cannot speak about the actual documents which are in the possession of the officials of the table and the staff of the House. I wish to make several points in this regard, to the best of my knowledge. The hon. member implied in his remarks that there was an irregularity because there was no recommendation last year but there is one this time.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was just explaining how this omission might have happened.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The recommendation occurs because of the further additions that were made to the bill in the current edition. I suggest that a distinction should be made with respect to the requirements of Standing Order 62 (2) and the suggestion as to constitutionality. I agree that before a bill is introduced involving an expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, under our constitution the recommendation of the Governor General is required.
February 11, 1970

I suggest, however, that if the recommendation of the Governor General has in fact been received-and I have not had the opportunity to check on this fact-we would have to decide whether the provisions of Standing Order 62 (2) are directory only with respect to the carrying on of the business of the House, and do not involve a fundamental defect in the procedure of the House to the extent that the matter could not be proceeded with. I suggest that the provisions under the Standing Order do not involve a constitutional matter; they are with regard to the Votes and Proceedings and Orders of the Day only.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Of course, as Your Honour knows, Votes and Proceedings are not under my direct control. There may have been an omission in Votes and Proceedings on that particular day, an oversight in their preparation. I suggest it is an oversight of a directory character only and does not go fundamentally to the propriety of receiving the bill. Not having had any opportunity to give the matter advance consideration, I regret I cannot bring an argument to bear more fully on it for the benefit of the Chair. But I suggest that we proceed with discussion of the bill. I assure the House that if it be decided that there is a formal defect in the introduction of the bill, it would not be the government's intention not to proceed with the legislation but we would reintroduce it.
I suggest that while the records of the House may be examined with regard to the hon. member's point of order, and while you, Mr. Speaker, may have an opportunity of considering the procedure in this regard, we should proceed with the debate as scheduled this afternoon so that we can at least have a preliminary discussion of the matters involved in the proposals put before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting point of order that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has raised. Like the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), I had no advance warning that it was coming, but I suppose that does not deter me from getting into the discussion. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is pretty hard to get around the language of Standing Order 62(2) so far as our procedures are concerned. To that extent I concur in the argument that has been put forward by the hon. member for Peace River. However, I feel I cannot support
Investment Companies
his argument that there is any danger of a court case over a piece of legislation because some of our Standing Orders were not followed.
Not having had time to look things up or bring the citations here, I have not got them in front of me; but I know. Citations exist which state that once a bill is finally passed, provided it is within the terms of the constitution the courts do not look back into our procedures to determine whether or not we kept every one of our rules. My, oh my, the courts would be busy if they had to do that. I submit, therefore, that the question of the constitutional requirement being kept really does not come into this question.
Section 54 of the British North America Act says that a money bill is not lawful unless there has been the recommendation by the Governor General. The bill itself, in the printed form that we have it, carries that recommendation, and it may well be a defect that Votes and Proceedings does not show that that recommendation was actually noted by the Chair when the bill was given its introduction. I believe that that is the form that Your Honour usually follows in these bills. Usually, when a bill of this kind is introduced, Your Honour makes a note of the fact that it has been recommended to the House in this session by the Governor General. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think I am bound to take the position that it is not a constitutional problem but it is a procedural one, and I think either one of two things should be done, or perhaps both. On the one hand, the practices of the table in this matter perhaps should be looked into. It may be that when a bill of this kind is introduced, Votes and Proceedings should note that the recommendation was referred to by the Chair. The other thing is that perhaps Your Honour will say again that this is something you should refer to the Committee on Procedure and Organization to see whether the rule does not need to be refined.
In other words, I am not worried about the constitutional angle but I think there is a point so far as the procedural angle is concerned. But if this is the position, perhaps we could resolve it this afternoon by giving unanimous consent to proceed with the legislation at this time, and that is what I suggest.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether other hon. members wish to participate in the procedural discussion, but I believe I am sufficiently guided to reach a decision. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)

February 11, 1970
Investment Companies
looks in the direction of the Chair with his customary quizzical glance and I assume he would like an opportunity to participate in the debate; therefore, I will recognize him.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how we can set aside this particular rule requiring notice of the recommendation because, after all, the rules govern how we are to conduct our business. If there had not been 48 hours notice we could not proceed, and it is just as important to have the recommendation in Votes and Proceedings as it is to have a copy of the bill itself. That recommendation goes to the heart of the bill.
I was concerned in rulings given in this House just the other day when certain amendments were brought forward to a bill and they were not included in the recommendation concerning the bill. It is here that the recommendation controls the ambit of the bill and it seems to me just as important to have the recommendation in Votes and Proceedings as it is to have it in the bill.

Mr. Andre Foriin (Loibinierel: Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 62 (2) is self-explanatory and reads as follows:
The message and recommendation of the Governor General in relation to any bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenu or of any tax or impost shall be printed on the Notice Paper and in the Votes and Proceedings when any such measure is to be introduced and the text of such recommendation shall be printed with or annexed to every such bill.
Mr. Speaker, it does seem that this text contains no ambiguity, whereas the arguments put forward by the President of the Privy Council are ambiguous and offer nothing new.
I feel that the case made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is logical, for his point of order emphasizes that, in his opinion, Bill C-179 is contrary to the provisions of Standing Order 62 (2).
As for us, from the Ralliement creditiste, we do not want to delay the debate or to influence your decision. We just want to abide by your good judgment, Mr. Speaker, while hoping that you will as usual apply the spirit as well as the letter of the Standing Orders.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for the views they have expressed on the very important and interesting point of order raised by

the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I should say at the outset that the Chair agrees that the requirements of the Standing Order have not been followed. As hon. members have mentioned, Standing Order 62(2) requires:
The message and recommendation of the Governor General in relation to any bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax or impost shall be printed on the Notice Paper and in the Votes and Proceedings when any such measure is to be introduced and the text of such recommendation shall be printed with or annexed to every such bill.
It is obvious that it was not published in the Votes and Proceedings which I have before me. For the record I wish to point out that this is not an error on the part of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), and that the officials of the Chair and of the table recognize that this is an error on their part. We take the liberty of considering it a clerical error. I realize it is perhaps more than that. It is obviously a procedural mistake; but we have to take the responsibility, entirely and exclusively, for the fact that the recommendation was not published, as it should have been published, in the Votes and Proceedings of this House.
This having been said, I go back to the argument proposed by the hon. member for Peace River who referred to the fact that the recommendation	of His Excellency is
required. I have before me the original submission which came from the office of the President of the Privy Council, which does include with the draft bill the recommendation of his Excellency the Governor General recommending to this House the measure which is now before us for consideration. That is the constitutional requirement. So I suggest that if there is a point before us now, it is a procedural point of order and the suggestion that the adoption of this bill would not be constitutional, or would in some way be illegal, is not correct. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested that any procedural difficulty, any procedural mistake, would be corrected by the passing of the bill, and he is obviously right.
e (3:50 p.m.)
All this having been said, I recognize that an error has been made, that we have not published the recommendation in Votes and Proceedings as should have been done. In view of the fact that this is basically a procedural difficulty, I suggest that it can be cured by the
February 11, 1970

unanimous agreement of the House. If there is no unanimous agreement, I am not too sure how it can be corrected except by the publication of an errata as an appendix to the proceedings of this day and the bringing forth of the same measure tomorrow. That is the only alternative. We either do that or we have unanimous consent to proceed with the bill at this time. If there is no consent, the Chair in consultation with the table officers will find a way to publish a correction in the official records of the House, and the bill could proceed tomorrow or whenever hon. members agree it should be proceeded with.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) whether, in light of the information he communicated to us earlier today, he is in a position to make the full statement he intended to make, or a truncated version? Our consideration today is bound to a great extent by the decision of the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I would hope that the decision taken by the House would be based on the procedural aspect and not on whether the minister will make a long or a short statement. I suggest that hon. members should agree whether they want to proceed or not on the basis of the argument proposed to the House and the decision of the Chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest, in light of the assurance that the table, or clerical error will be corrected, that we proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a general view to proceed with this bill. In any event, the error could be cured by giving unanimous consent to having the omission made good in the Votes and Proceedings of today. That inclusion would to all intents and purposes be regarded as a fulfilment of Standing Order 62 (2). The failure to include this particular recommendation in Votes and Proceedings at the appropriate time might well be considered a failure to comply with section 54 of the BNA Act. However, we are prepared to give unanimous consent. If that consent would include having it put on the Order Paper or in Votes and Proceedings for today, that is all right.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River. Is this agreed?
Investment Companies


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Herb Gray (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-179, respecting investment companies, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish a system of reporting, inspection and supervision applicable to a class of federally-incorporated companies that are acting in a substantial way as investment intermediaries and that are not otherwise supervised. The class of companies to which the act would apply may be described broadly as those companies that raise money on debt instruments and use some or all of the money so borrowed for investment purposes.
There now exists extensive legislation providing for supervision and inspection of most types of companies under federal charters that solicit funds from the public on the basis of contracts calling for repayment of the funds at some time in the future or payment of insurance benefits. Such companies include banks, trust companies, mortgage loan companies and insurance companies. The absence of a system of reporting, inspection and supervision applicable to companies that do not fall within any of these classes, but nevertheless borrow funds from the public for investment purposes, represents a gap in the existing pattern of supervisory legislation. The fact that such a gap can have serious consequences has been illustrated by a number of failures of financial institutions within the last few years. Fortunately, these were not under federal charter but we feel action should be taken to avoid such a possibility with respect to federally chartered companies in this category.
Perhaps the main type of company that would be covered by the act are those commonly referred to as sales finance companies. These are companies that engage, to an important extent, in the business of purchasing instalment sales contracts from merchants and in purchasing other types of obligations arising from the sale of goods. The act will, however, apply to certain other types of companies also, where the money raised by borrowing is used for investments of other types.
It should be noted that the act would apply only to companies that raise funds on debt instruments. Thus, it would have no application to those companies that are acting as investment intermediaries but on the basis of funds raised by the sales of shares, including mutual funds. The purpose of the legislation

February 11, 1970
Investment Companies
is to see to it that companies remain solvent and able to meet their obligations. Thus, it has applicability only if a company has debt instruments outstanding. Shareholders undertake to follow the fortunes of the enterprise in which they invest and there is no obligation to repay any fixed amount to them.
In outline, the legislation defines the classes of companies that would be subject to it, requires such companies to file annual statements with the Department of Insurance and other information that may be requested from time to time, and authorizes the Superintendent of Insurance to examine the condition and affairs of companies when he considers this necessary. Companies coming under the legislation would be required to obtain a certificate of registry as a means of identification and control. The superintendent would be required to report to the minister in any case where he thought the company's ability to meet iis obligations was inadequately secured, and the minister, if he agreed with the opinion of the superintendent, would have the authority to take one or more of several courses of action leading to improvement of the company's financial position or, if the case if serious enough, leading to the termination of the company's activities.
The legislation does not propose to impose any restrictions or limitations on the operations of companies with the exception of a prohibition against investments and loans where there may be a conflict of interest. The general purpose is to establish a reporting and inspection procedure rather than to impose a series of specific rules or regulations with which companies must comply. The expenses of administering the act would be assessed against the companies in proportion to their assets. This is in accordance with the practice now followed as respects supervision of other types of financial institutions.
The bill contains certain provisions that are applicable to sales finance companies only. First, for those sales finance companies that are not now under foreign control, the legislation would limit transfer of shares to nonresidents to ensure they remain under Canadian control. The limitations would put a maximum on the total holdings of shares by non-residents of 25 per cent of the issued shares of the company and a maximum on the holdings by any one non-resident of 10 per cent of the issued shares. Existing shareholdings would not be disturbed, but if they are now in excess of the named limits no further increase would be permitted.

Second, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation would be empowered to make loans to Canadian-controlled sales finance companies for the purpose of enabling them to meet emergency liquidity requirements, and would be empowered to borrow money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, through the Minister of Finance, for this purpose. Such loans would only be made against adequate security and only for the purpose of shortterm liquidity needs, and as he just said this borrowing is done by the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation.
These remarks are a general outline of the nature and purpose of the legislation. Further remarks will now be made in respect of certain aspects that are of particular importance. The act will apply only to federally-incorporated companies and only to companies that are transacting the business of investment or that have been incorporated primarily for that purpose. The act defines the business of investment as the borrowing of money on the security of debt instruments and the use of some or all of the proceeds of such borrowing for making loans or investments, including the purchase of real estate for investment purposes and the purchase of conditional sales contracts, accounts receivable and other obligations arising from the sale of merchandise.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Certain exemptions are provided in the bill. The exemptions are designed to exclude from the application of the act companies where the borrowing or investment activities are a minor part of its business, or where the company confines itself to borrowing from banks and substantial shareholders.
To be more specific, a company carrying on the business of investment, but having less than 40 per cent of its assets in the form of loans or investments, would not be subject to the act. The figure of 40 per cent is the same criterion as is used in the Investment Companies Act in the United States. This figure will have the result of including within the act those companies for which a major part of their assets represent investment-type instruments as distinct from property, equipment or inventory used in the transaction of a company's business.
Also excluded from the application of the act would be companies that have borrowed money but whose outstanding debt is less than one-third of the capital and surplus. This would mean that where the borrowing is
February 11, 1970

small in relation to the company's resources, the act would not apply. Nearly all companies borrow to some extent from time to time, and it is intended that this act apply only to companies that are significantly acting as investment intermediaries.
Investment dealers or brokers would be exempt from the act if they are licensed by a public authority. Such organizations do not act as investment intermediaries in the normal sense of the term, although they may borrow money and may have a substantial portion of their assets in the form of investment-type instruments from time to time. It is thought that they could be exempted if they are licensed by some public authority. Firms that are members of the Investment Dealers Association would fall into this category.
A further exclusion would apply to companies that borrow only from banks or from substantial shareholders. Substantial shareholders are defined as persons who own more than 10 per cent of the voting stock of the company. Companies that borrow only in this way are not raising funds from the public. Most companies borrow from time to time from their banks, but may not be acting as investment intermediaries in any ordinary sense of the term. The exclusion in favour of bank-borrowing would therefore avoid requiring the act to apply to a great many companies that are not of the type where supervision is required or justified. The exclusion in favour of companies that borrow only from substantial shareholders would leave out private companies for the most part.
Another exclusion would be in favour of companies incorporated under part II of the Canada Corporations Act, that is, companies that are formed without share capital for charitable, religious or other similar purposes. The minister responsible for the act would also have the right to exclude a company if he is satisfied that the business of investment is carried on by it in only an incidental way or is of a very short duration.
The purpose of these rather elaborate provisions dealing with the application of the act is to confine its application to companies that are acting as investment intermediaries in a significant way and have a significant amount of debt instruments outstanding.
In order to avoid applying the act to an industrial organization that is set up in the form of a holding company with subsidiary operating companies, provision has been made for regarding the investments by a parent company in a subsidiary as not being
Investment Companies
investment type instruments for purposes of testing the application of the act so long as the subsidiary is not itself a company that has more than 40 per cent of its assets in investment-type instruments. Thus, a holding company that borrows money from the public and uses the money to finance its operating subsidiaries would not be subject to the act.
Companies subject to the act would be required to file an annual statement with the federal Department of Insurance within four months after the close of its fiscal year. The statement would be in such form as the Superintendent of Insurance determines, but he has the authority to accept a copy of the financial statement and the auditor's report as submitted to the company's shareholders if he considers that this gives satisfactory information. He may also call for such additional information as he may require to carry out the purposes of the act.
The act would require the auditor of a company to be an accountant who has at least six years' experience and who is a member in good standing of an institute or association of accountants incorporated under the authority of a province. This is the same qualification required of auditors under the Bank Act. It may be noted here that companies subject to the Investment Companies Act would also be subject to the Corporations Act, and consequently would also have to comply with the audit provisions specified in that latter act. The minister would have power to enlarge the scope of the audit if he thought that necessary and could obtain reports from the auditor. The Superintendent of Insurance would have power to examine companies subject to the act when he considers that necessary.
The only provision modifying the powers of companies in any way would be a provision preventing investments and loans that are not at arm's length. This provision is the same as that included in the bills to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, the Trust Companies Act and the Loan Companies Act that are now before Parliament. In essence, this provision would prohibit an investment company lending money to an officer or director or a member of his immediate family, and from lending money to any person who owns more than 10 per cent of the voting stock. If more than 10 per cent of the voting stock is owned by a corporation, the investment company could not make investments in that corporation.

February 11, 1970
Investment Companies
The investment company would be barred, also, from lending money to or making investments in another corporation if an officer, a director or a substantial shareholder had a significant interest in that other corporation. A significant interest would be considered to exist if the person concerned owned more than 10 per cent of the capital stock of the other corporation. This provision is intended to prohibit the investment company from lending money or making investments where the persons who make the investment decision, or who may be presumed to influence the investment decision, have a personal interest in the investment. Investments and loans that are not at arm's length have been one of the sources of trouble where companies have got into difficulties. It is not sufficient to rely merely on disclosure of the interest of the officer or director in such cases since the problem is to protect the creditors of the company rather than the shareholders.
Companies would be required to apply for and obtain certificates of registry under the act. A limited period of time is given within which a company must make application for a certificate. After the expiration of this period a company is not permitted to increase its indebtedness unless it holds a valid certificate, so long as it remains an investment company.
Where the superintendent forms the opinion that the financial condition and affairs of an investment company are such that its ability to meet its obligations is in question, he is required to report to the minister. The minister, if he agrees with the views of the superintendent and after giving the company a chance to be heard, then has the option of taking one or more courses of action. These would include specifying a period within which the company is to remedy the matters criticized, the imposition of conditions on the company, the withdrawal of its certificate, a direction that the company cease carrying on the business of investment and a direction to the superintendent to take control of the company's assets.
Control of assets of a company by the superintendent would not mean that the company would be out of business. It would put the superintendent in charge of the assets, but it would be expected that the company would continue to carry on its normal business activities until further consideration could be given as to the next step. The superintendent would not have the power to dispose of any

assets or initiate any action. His approval would be required before any disbursement or investment could be made.
Where any company has its certificate of registry withdrawn or fails to apply for a certificate of registry within the time provided, the Attorney General would be empowered to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for a receiving order under the Bankruptcy Act. An appeal would lie from any action by the minister in connection with the imposition of requirements on the company. The appeal would be to the Exchequer Court. The superintendent would be required to make an annual report to the minister on the administration of the act. A list of the companies registered under the act would be published annually in the Canada Gazette.
One special class of companies that would be subject to the act merits particular comment, and I think I should make an additional comment. These are of the class that are usually called sales finance companies. They are defined in the bill as companies having at least 25 per cent of their assets in the form of loans or in the form of purchased conditional sales contracts, accounts receivable, bills of sale, chattel mortgages, bills of exchange, promissory notes or other obligations representing some or all of the sale price of merchandise. Conditional sales contracts issued by a company in connection with sale of its own merchandise would not be considered as investment for purposes of the bill.
As I said, in the case of those sales finance companies that are now under Canadian control a limitation would be placed on the transfer of their shares to non-residents. This limitation is a maximum of 25 per cent of the shares to all non-residents and a maximum of 10 per cent to any one non-resident. This limitation and the terms of the legislation applying it are practically identical with a similar limitation applicable to life insurance companies, trust companies, mortgage loan companies and banks.
At the present time there are operating in Canada a number of sales finance companies that are under foreign control and a number that are under Canadian control. In proposing this legislation the intention is to retain under Canadian control those companies that are now so controlled in order to retain a significant Canadian element in the industry. The proposal would not protect the Canadian-controlled companies from competition but would prevent Canadian-controlled companies from being taken over by non-residents.
February 11, 1970

[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
A further provision relating to sales finance companies, and in particular to Canadian-controlled sales finance companies, should also be mentioned. Sales finance companies must be able to raise funds in order to carry on their business by way of loans or provision of credit for purchase of merchandise. To retain a Canadian-controlled element in the industry, Canadian-controlled companies must be able to compete on more or less equal terms with the foregoing-controlled companies in order to borrow funds in the market. It sometimes happens that the foreign-controlled companies have access to funds outside Canada, through parent company organizations, which are not available to Canadian-controlled companies. Also, in raising money in the Canadian market foreign-controlled companies can sometimes give the guarantee of their parent company as additional security. This may put the Canadian-controlled company at a disadvantage.
The bill therefore proposes that to give added confidence in the debt instruments issued by Canadian-controlled sales finance companies, and thus put them in a more nearly equal competitive position vis-a-vis foreign-controlled corporations, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation would be empowered to make loans to such companies where loans are necessary to meet short-term liquidity needs. Such loans will have to be adequately secured and would be for terms not exceeding six months. The CDIC would be empowered to borrow from the Consolidated Revenue Fund moneys which might be needed to carry out this function. The maximum borrowing power would be fixed at $200 million.
This emergency lender-of-last-resort facility corresponds to facilities which are available through other legislation for banks, trust companies, mortgage loan companies and investment dealers. It is not expected that any company would have to rely on it except in unusual circumstances, and the lending power is not intended as a substitute for lines of credit which a sales finance company should get and maintain with its bankers. It will, however, provide an emergency facility should unforeseen events cause some liquidity crisis.
This facility should be looked at in light of the whole structure of the act establishing a pattern of supervision and inspection. This structure would be used to keep a close contact with companies and to detect trends in
Investment Companies
their operations which seem to be carrying unusual risk as far as liquidity is concerned. Thus, it would be expected that information would be available and action could be taken in advance of any emergency liquidity crisis. However, unforeseen events do sometimes occur and it is considered that this lender-of-last-resort facility will add to the confidence in the Canadian-controlled sales finance companies and in the strength of the industry generally.
I would be happy to answer questions or respond to comments made by hon. members in the course of the debate either by way of a reply at the conclusion of this discussion here or, certainly, before the finance committee. I therefore ask the House for its support of the bill at this time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this bill has had a chequered history. It has had a long legislative history, If the House were aware of just what has happened to it, or the form it took when it first came before Parliament and the purpose of the government in introducing it, I believe we would be in a better position to appreciate what is before us, notwithstanding the remarks of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) who is associated with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).
This measure appeared in the Senate on November 12, 1968, as Bill S-17. After undergoing considerable revision it was passed and sent to this House in June of 1969. Here, it was given only first reading. Today it is brought forward again. It has come to us in a revised form; there are several changes which we ought to consider. Let us examine them in some detail.
At one time I think it was suggested that the bill be given the title, "An act to Provide for the Quiet Concentration of Enormous Economic Power in the Hands of the Government." What happened was this: the bill was introduced, not by the leader of the Senate but by another hon. senator who read a statement to the effect that the purpose of the bill was to protect Canadian investors from the collapse of federally-incorporated companies, primarily of the finance and acceptance type, which were not presently regulated or supervised by statute.
Senator Desruisseaux said in the other place:
Recent collapses of several companies of this type, although essentially involving companies under provincial jurisdiction, have underlined the danger of

February 11, 1970
Investment Companies
such a vacuum. Many investors have suffered losses and, on occasion, confidence in the stability of our financial institutions has been shaken.
In the committee hearings in the other place the Superintendent of Insurance candidly admitted that no federally-incorporated company of the provincially-incorporated Prudential and Atlantic Acceptance type had ever been in difficulties to his knowledge. In other words, this was a bill, presumably, to ensure that the sun would rise tomorrow somewhere in Canada. The superintendent also admitted that the scope of the definition of "investment company" went so far beyond the ordinary meaning of those words that all companies federally-incorporated, with certain exceptions, would be included.
I am told the bill originated with the idea that certain amendments should be made to acts dealing with trust companies, loan companies, insurance companies and investment companies. We were told by the Minister of Finance in a speech delivered on May 26, 1969, to the Canadian Life Insurance Association at the Seigniory Club, Quebec, that the philosophy behind this legislation was the protection of the public. Financial institutions and the services they provide are undergoing new developments, the minister said. These changes carry risks and dangers to the public. The new difficulties and dangers magnify government problems in attempting by legislation to give the public the protection it needs. The government, he went on, must have a tool to apply necessary compulsion upon management where the safety of the public is threatened, a tool to correct or clear up difficult situations which would otherwise be damaging to the public and to a whole industry.
Let us see what the minister had to say later in that speech. What we heard on that occasion, I suppose, was a statement of government policy and an attempt to equate that policy with the protection of the public as being the common denominator of the various bills before Parliament, including the one now under discussion. Other bills were before the finance committee at that time. The minister said:
The proposed Investment Companies Act now before Parliament is intended to complete the general pattern of supervision of financial institutions. It would establish a system of reporting and inspection applicable to those companies (not otherwise supervised) which borrow funds from the public and use these funds, to an important degree, for investment in other enterprises. A wide variety exists in this area, although the principal definable group are the sales finance companies.

[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The bill before us is a complicated one. It defines what is an investment company and, for that matter, what is not an investment company. There are also provisions for applying the legislation. The minister made it quite clear that the bill deals with federally-incorporated investment companies and none other. Certain companies that will be incorporated after the coming into force of the act, primarily for the purpose of carrying on the business of investment, are exempted from the terms of the act.
On going through the bill we see that certain statements have to be made to the Superintendent of Insurance by companies. There are certain requirements as to auditors. The auditors may also be required to make special statements, not to the shareholders of a company but directly to the minister or to the superintendent.
Provision is made for the appointment of examiners who may enter the premises of any company at what is described as a reasonable time, in order to examine the books. Strangely enough, in this regard the government is not giving these examiners the power to seize the company's books, as they have in the case of examiners and inspectors who are appointed by other legislation that came before the House this session and last session. In fact, the bill provides that examiners shall have a certificate of identity, something that examiners appointed under the atuomobile safety regulations are not required to possess.
As the minister has indicated, certain types of loans are prohibited. I think the basic intent of this provision is good. However, I should have thought the government would have been further ahead if it had listened to the advice given it when the Bank Act was being revised in 1966 and 1967 and if it had followed the recommendations of the Porter Commission on Banking, that such companies be placed under federal jurisdiction. We know that a great number of companies are carrying on business under provincial charter, and these are the companies that have been causing difficulty.
If one of the activities of such companies is the carrying on of some form of banking- and some of these concerns do actually receive deposits from investors-why should they not be brought within the provisions of a general Bank Act, instead of being subject to provisions that relate to chartered banks? If that were the case, there would be appropriate supervision of these companies.
February 11. 1970

I have no respect at all for the opinion that since certain companies are incorporated byprovincial legislatures, the provincial government in question for ever and ever has jurisdiction over them. What is important, I think, is the function of such companies. If these companies carry on activities which normally fall under federal jurisdiction, then similarly they should be supervised by federal authorities. However, the absence of such provision remains because this bill is intended to govern federally-incorporated sales finance companies only or, shall I say, investment companies.
The bill also makes a curious change in clauses 10 to 17, where we find provisions relating to the control of the sale of shares in sales finance companies. Last fall the Minister of Finance made a statement which had the effect of prohibiting acquisition by nonCanadian residents of controlling interests in Canadian sales finance companies. I think that step was to be welcomed. There is no question that Canadian sales finance companies should be under the control of Canadian residents or citizens, just as should our banks, insurance companies and loan and trust companies. I have no quarrel with that proposition. However, I do quarrel with clause 15 of the bill, which provides as follows:
No sale or disposal of the whole or any part of the undertaking of a sales finance company is of any effect unless and until it has been approved by the minister.
At one time it was thought that there was nothing to prevent the management of a sales finance company selling the undertaking or the assets of the undertaking to a foreign concern. That would be the same thing as selling the shares of the company, because you are selling the business of the company. For example, supposing a sales finance company wants to sell certain assets that are no longer profitable within its portfolio to a competitor. In order to do so it must first get the approval of the minister. However, no provision is made as to the period within which the minister should make his decision. The minister can delay for as long as he wants, to the prejudice of all concerned.
In addition, no provision is made for appealing the minister's decision. In this case the decision of the minister is absolute, whether it be given capriciously or otherwise. I think provision should be made for giving relief to the parties in this regard. No reference is made to the minister withholding his approval because, for example, he considers that the price being paid is too low. He can
21701-11J
Investment Companies
withhold approval for all sorts of reasons. The parties to the transaction have no means of getting recourse if everyone but the minister is satisfied.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is brought into the picture, with regard to sales finance companies, as a lender-of-last-resort. We all know the history leading to the establishment of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. It has a curious history because it arose as the result of legislation outside the Bank Act and the government of the day did have the moral rectitude or fortitude to recognize that it had sole jurisdiction over money and banking and no provincial government had the right of intervention in respect of deposit insurance.
In any event, we have the curious creation of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation being conditional upon provincial consent in so far as concerns trust companies and other deposit receiving institutions which participate under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. This is not the purpose of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, being merely a lender-of-last-resort under the provisions of the legislation covering sales finance companies. In this role, what is it entitled to do? Under the provisions regarding a lender-of-last-resort to a sales finance company, such a company would be entitled under certain conditions to obtain a loan from the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to enable it to obtain the liquid funds needed to discharge its maturing debt obligation; in other words, the deposit certificates it may have. There is nothing in the bill about shares. It refers to maturing debt obligations. That does not mean the company would necessarily remain solvent. In other words, there would still be a lot of people who could lose a great deal of money, although there are limitations on loans.
The attention of hon. members should be drawn to these particular sections. The measure says there shall be a certificate of registration for such companies. These are issued for a limited term. These certificates may be refused, but I suggest a good deal of explanation must be given as to the working of these certificates and the powers of the minister in regard to registration.
I shall now make some remarks in respect of the general penalty clause. There is no relief here whatsoever. An absolute penalty is provided under clause 37 of the bill whereby

February 11, 1970
Investment Companies
every investment company which fails to apply for a certificate of registry within a period of time is guilty of an offence and may be fined up to $10,000. I agree that a person who makes a false statement from the director's office, a servant or an auditor of an investment company, should be penalized financially or otherwise. There is a general provision that every person who causes or permits to be done any matter, act or thing contrary to any provision of the act, the regulations or any order or requirement of the minister or the superintendent, shall be guilty of an offence. But there is no relief; there is no provision for cases of inadvertence, an act of omission or commission which is committed innocently. In any event, a person who is guilty of such an offence is liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding $5,000.
Such a provision should carry some relief in that a mistake or act committed innocently, contrary to the provisions or regulations, should not be the subject of this type of penalty, particularly when we consider the powers of the minister to make regulations under clause 32. We do not have here the usual type of clause which is provided in government omnibus bills of this kind. Usually the Governor in Council has the authority to make regulations to ensure the proper carrying out of the provisions of an act. We should like an explanation of this change in wording.
There is in clause 27 a very curious provision in respect of detailed reports. The superintendent, after the termination of the fiscal year, shall make a report to the minister in such form as the minister may direct on the administration of this act during that fiscal year. In other words, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation shall submit to the superintendent a report, in the form prescribed by the minister, of its operations during the year. A report by that corporation pursuant to the act shall be a sufficient report of the activities of the corporation under the act. The clause states that these activities shall not be reported on by the corporation in its report.
I now refer to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act. It has reference to the activities of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and provides that the report be made to the Superintendent of Insurance. That is where it stops. There is no provision for the publication of an annual report to Parliament. It is very curious that this should
[Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) .1
be the case, because the provisions of the act allow the corporation to lend up to $200 million of public funds for the purpose of tiding over one or more sales finance companies. The use of $200 million is not just an everyday occurrence, yet Parliament is not to know about it. No report is to be made to Parliament under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act; it merely requires a report to the Superintendent of Insurance.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I would put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Superintendent of Insurance does not, then, report to the minister with regard to this provision. If I should be wrong and there will be an ultimate report, I am quite prepared to accept the correction. However, according to the way I read the legislation there is no such provision.
In resume, let us look at this bill. The Senate made vital changes to the bill. There were certain additions. One was the reduction of the application of the bill by providing an exemption clause in respect of companies which met certain criteria. There was restriction of the government power to enact further legislation by Order in Council. As I said, Bill S-17 as rewritten was passed by the Senate and we now have a new bill. There have been minor grammatical and phrasing changes because the Department of Justice prefers certain grammar and phraseology. There are minor administrative changes. There is the inclusion of one administrative subclause that was not in the Senate bill. I refer to clause 27(3) which is inserted due to the non-Senate, sales finance companies provisions which have been tacked onto the Senate bill.
Somehow or other it seems we had the investment companies coming forward as part of the package of trust companies, loan companies and insurance companies, and suddenly last fall they thought about the sales finance companies. We have the question of trying to withhold changes in ownership. I should point to other things. First of all, there is the system of payment by investment companies for policing whereby each company would be assessed according to its mean assets. There will be difficulty in defining that provision. There will be a difficulty in defining a subsidiary, a firm whose shares are 75 per cent owned by another company. I am satisfied that a subsidiary can be controlled by much less ownership than that. We will see in the committee what the reason is for this 75 per cent.
February 11, 1970



There is a requirement in the bill that the Minister of Finance approve an investment company's supplementary letters patent. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this would provide just one more hurdle to overcome when solicitors and auditors are trying to satisfy a client's need for fast action from the government in Ottawa.
Clause 4 of the bill is the one to which reference is made in general terms. It would seem to me this is subject to the charge of patronage, because when one reads the clause one finds the following:
Letters patent shall not be issued under any act of the Parliament of Canada to incorporate a company primarily for the purpose of carrying on the business of investment without the consent of the minister; and no supplementary letters patent shall be issued, in respect of a company that holds a certificate of registry that has not lapsed or been withdrawn, without the consent of the minister.
It would seem to me this introduction of ministerial discretion in respect of this and other types of companies lends itself to the possibility-I am not pointing the finger at any present or past minister-that with regard to sales finance companies the issuance of or amendment to letters patent could be achieved by the right kind of friends making application to the government. After all, one does not have to be born yesterday to acknowledge that this can be done. It seems to me the withholding of consent by the minister could be dangerous.
There are many other provisions in respect of which there will be comment. I am not satisfied that it is simply an administrative bill that the government would like to bring forward. I am not satisfied that there is not included in it an attempt by the ministry to get further and further control over one type of business in this country, as there is in respect of other types. We know changes are going forward to the Corporations Act which would give the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs very extensive powers to examine companies on his own initiative without there being any indication of anything wrong; that is, he could do it merely on the basis that he feels it is in the public interest.
This form of big brotherism has crept in. It is all part and parcel of a course of conduct by this administration in respect of Canadian business. In any event, we intend to examine this bill very carefully in committee. I have, and I am sure my colleagues will have, amendments to propose in respect of certain clauses.
Investment Companies
I think that on the whole we must pass the motion for second reading and referral to the committee with reservations. We are not impressed by the legislation but we are prepared to let it go to the committee and to see what happens when it gets there and when it returns to the House.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, in looking at the bill before us we get the feeling we have seen it before. It is very similar in many ways to other financial bills which have come before the House in respect of investment companies, trust companies, loan companies, mortgage companies, finance companies, and to some extent the Corporations Act. As these bills are introduced, a number of questions are raised in my mind concerning whether all that is being done is a little housekeeping. The government seems to be trying to protect the investors of these companies. This in itself is a very good thing and should be commended.
I believe we should be going beyond this point in light of the important influence these companies have on our society. We should be asking questions about financial bills beyond the extent to which they protect investors. One difficulty which faces anyone who examines a specific bill is the overlapping which is apparent. For instance, we now have in the trust companies bill indications of overlapping into banking, consumer credit and other business areas. Insurance companies will be investing. Virtually all the finance bills we have looked at include the power to invest; they have blanket clauses in respect of that power. It is difficult to draw the distinction between an insurance company and a company in the investment business. I know that in the other place that difficulty was overcome by changing it from 25 per cent of their activity to 40 per cent. It seems that this has made the situation worse rather than better.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Even corporations that are not considered to be financial institutions carry out a fair amount of investing with their surplus funds. As we examine the economic prospect in the next few years and consider the need to use our investment funds to the best purpose, we must agree that one cannot have financial bills just for the protection of investors, worthwhile as that may be. Financial bills must also reflect the public interest and ensure that the investment funds of this country are used in the best interests of all Canadians. This has not been done in the past.

February 11, 1970
Investment Companies
If we agreed with this principle and did so in the future, we would move ahead much more quickly. We would have more say about inflation and about the nature and extent of growth and productivity. I think the time has come when these overlapping distinctions between financial institutions and corporations should be put together in one corporations act so we could recognize that to some extent they perform similar kinds of functions. To the extent that they are different, special clauses could exist within the framework of an over-all corporations act which would take into account the specific functions of institutions which may be somewhat more specialized than others.
In some ways the different approach to financial institutions under a corporations act might bring beneficial results, particularly with regards to foreign ownership. I find it very difficult to understand the logic of the government and of the other place that financial institutions should be protected from foreign takeovers, but the industry of Canada, the basis of our wealth and prosperity, requires no such protection.
It seems to me that a finance company exercises less influence on the destiny of this country than does investment in automobiles, mining, or pulp and paper, to give a few examples. Therefore, we should be looking at a corporations act that picks up some of the good features of these financial bills and encompasses a total philosophy that we can develop toward the nature and operation of corporations of all kinds in this country. I know that generally this is not done and probably there is not much precedent in other countries for so doing.
When the minister spoke it was quite obvious that some of the bills that come before us-and this one in particular-were to some extent modelled on legislation south of the border. It is time we did something that made more sense for Canada than copying what other countries are doing. We should be developing a philosophy within the framework of an over-all corporations act.
There is another problem that arises in the examination of finance bills, and perhaps it arises in the examination of almost any piece of legislation before the House. I refer to conflict of interest. It has been sensibly pointed out on a number of occasions that everyone has a conflict of interest. Certainly everyone in this House, and perhaps every citizen in Canada, has a conflict of interest. If you are going to insist that people who examine

this legislation be absolutely free of conflict of interest, you will never find anyone who can do this kind of work. But it should not end there. While recognizing the difficulties involved in this conflict of interest, and that it is almost impossible to say that anyone who has the slightest conflict should not be involved in drafting this legislation, we can ensure that everyone states their position when they examine the legislation.
If this were done, much of the suspicion that surrounds financial bills and some provisions of the legislation passed in the House would disappear. In my opinion it is not necessary to exclude people per se, because they are involved with financial institutions, from examining them. It may be their experience would be of some help. What is important is that the public know what is their involvement in financial institutions, so they can be judged according to the suggestions they make and the kind of votes they pass on such legislation.
There is not much time this afternoon to do more than make these few brief remarks and to point out that there will be adequate opportunity for us to examine this legislation in the committee. But I urge hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the two main plants that I have tried to make: first, that institutions tend to blend into each other so that it is becoming very difficult to differentiate one from the other. Therefore, we need an all-encompassing corporations act that will take this fact into consideration. Second, in order that absolute confidence be maintained in the decisions taken in the House and in the other place, members of both Houses should be required to state their interest in any legislation.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have now had some time to consider this bill. Unanimous consent, which was essential so that the matter could be placed before the House today, was not withheld. This is a very important bill, and as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said, some of us have grave reservations about certain aspects of it and would like to re-examine the bill in light of what the minister has said. In view of the fact that this progress has been made, I believe there is a disposition that Your Honour call it six o'clock, rather than the time which now appears on the clock, so that the bill could again be brought forward at such time as the government sees fit.
February 11, 1970

I say quite frankly that there is no chance that it can be completed today. In any event, the minister would want to respond to the very reasonable statements which have been made by the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Salts-man). I therefore hope that the House in its
Investment Companies
infinite wisdom will recommend to Your Honour that you now call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 12, 1970