1970-02-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Isabelle.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the air transportation tax. As the House will recall, a bill was passed by the House on December 11 last and later given Royal Assent which provided for tax on air fares, to be imposed directly on purchasers of fares and collected by the airlines. It was to come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
The Prices and Incomes Commission has asked governments to delay increases in charges that are intended to recapture a larger proportion of the costs of services provided to the public. As part of its response to this request of the commission the government has decided to defer proclamation of the air transportation tax until 1971.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River)-: Mr. Speaker, on December 11 last an amendment providing for a six months' hoist was moved by this party to the motion for second reading of the bill in question. That amendment was voted down. I am glad to see now that the minister has taken note of the very sensible words spoken then by the hon. member
for Edmonton West and other hon. members of the House on the opposition side and has decided upon the course of wisdom. I only hope that the minister and his colleagues will listen to us a little more frequently and that with the help of the additional research staff now provided for the backbenchers of the Liberal party, all of whom voted against us on that bill, we can hope for a little more discretion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we also voted against this tax so we too are glad that it has been postponed until next year. One dares to hope that the response the government has made to the request of the Prices and Incomes Commission is an indication that there will be no tax increases in next month's budget or, better still, some decreases.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table copies of the remarks made today by the Prime Minister, on the problem of inflation as seen by the federal government, to the federal-provincial conference.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce a change in the business for today. As previously indicated, the first item of business today will be the Supreme Court Act amending bill, C-182, which is government order No. 66. I had announced last Thursday as the second item of business government order No. 68, the shipping conferences bill. I regret to say that we will not be in a position to go ahead with it today. Instead we will go ahead with government order No. 61, Bill C-179, respecting investment companies, to be followed by government order No. 36, the Canada-Sweden Tax Convention.

February 16. 1970
Proposed Legislation LAW REFORM COMMISSION BILL



ESTABLISHMENT, OBJECTS, POWERS AND DUTIES, ETC.

Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-186, to establish a commission for the reform of the laws of Canada.


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


Donald Stovel Macdonald: for leave to introduce Bill C-187, respecting inland water resources in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill C-188, respecting the disclosure of financial interests by Senators, Members of the House of Commons and certain other persons.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on June 6, 1969, the Prime Minister said he would welcome constructive suggestions concerning the problem of conflict of interest. I believe that that request was made in good faith and this bill is a response in the same vein. Its purpose is to require that Senators and members of this House and certain other persons make an annual declaration of their outside financial interests so that the public will be able to judge whether a conflict of interest is involved in the formulating or the support of any particular piece of legislation.


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


Hon.  G. J. Mc@: the first reading of Bill S-19 (from the Senate), to amend the Parole Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TEXTILE LABELLING BILL


Donald Stovel Macdonald: the first reading of Bill S-20 (from the Senate), respecting the labelling, sale, importation and advertising of consumer textile articles.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Barnett: 1.	Have any organizations been in touch with the Canadian Government about building docking facilities at Herschel Island in the Canadian Arctic and, if so, what are the names of these organizations?
2.	Has the advisability of development of a loading facility at Herschel Island for Prudhoe Bay oil been considered by the government and, if so, what is the position of the government on this matter?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. No.
2.	Yes, it is being studied by the Department of Public Works.


LABOUR DISPUTES SETTLED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many labour disputes have been settled by federal government mediation and/or negotiation and/or assistance during each of the years 1960-1969 inclusive?
2.	What was the percentage increase awarded in each of the settled disputes?
3.	What was the average percentage increase awarded as a result of labour disputes in each of in the labour disputes in which the federal government was in any way involved?
February 16, 1970

4. What was the average percentage Increase awarded as a result of labour disputes In each of the years 1960-1969 inclusive in which the federal government was not in any way involved?
Hon, Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):
1.
Fiscal Year	Number of
Ending March 31	Settlements
1960	100
1961	67
1962	76
1963	74
1964	61
1965	86
1966	99
1967	112
1968	104
1969	141
2,	3, and 4. This information is not available. There are no tabulations of the type required and the creation of such statistics would involve a very substantial amount of work.


SPECIAL OFFICE FACILITIES, MINISTERS AND OTHERS
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many Members of Cabinet have special facilities such as kitchenettes, showers, after shower driers, bars, sleeping quarters, etc., attached to their offices?
2.	What are the names of the Ministers who have these facilities and what facilities does each Member in question have?
3.	How many Deputy Ministers, and Chairmen of Boards and Commissions, have special facilities such as kitchenettes, showers, after shower driers, bars, sleeping quarters, etc., attached to their offices?
4.	What are the names of the Deputy Ministers and Chairmen of Boards and Commissions, who have these facilities and what facilities does each person in question have?


Yves Forest: 1. 14.
2.	The Hon. H. A. Olson, facilities for heating water and warming a limited quantity of food.
The Hon. Eric W. Kierans, kitchenette.
The Hon. Ron. Basford, small cloakroom containing kitchenette.
The Hon. Jean Chretien, kitchenette shared with Deputy Minister.
The Hon. Bryce Mackasey, shower attached to West Block office and a kitchenette and a shower attached to his departmental office.
The Hon. John C. Munro, kitchenette.
Questions
The Hon. Jean Marchand, shower.
The Hon. Gerard Pelletier, kitchenette.
The Hon. G. J. Mcllraith, kitchenette.
The Hon. James Richardson, shower and kitchenette.
The Hon. C. M. Drury, shower.
The Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube, shower.
The Hon. Otto E. Lang, shower.
The Hon. Robert K. Andras, kitchenette.
3.	Five.
4.	Dr. J. R. Weir, Chairman, Fisheries Research Board, microscope laboratory facility.
Mr. J. A. MacDonald, Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, kitchenette shared with Minister.
Mr. J. D. Love, Deputy Minister of Labour, kitchenette.
Mr. H. R. Balls, Deputy Minister of Services, shower.
Mr. Jacques M. Desroches, Chief Commissioner of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, kitchenette.


INCOME SECURITY PLAN
Mr. Soulham: Is it the intention of the government to implement a new income security plan to replace the present system of public assistance as recently recommended by the Federal-Provincial Task Force?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The Government of Canada is presently conducting a study of federal social security programs. Any decisions arising from that study will be announced by the Government in the usual manner.


RECOMMENDATIONS OF BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM COMMISSION
Mr. Coates: 1.	What has been the total number of recommendations submitted by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, to date, and how many of these recommendations are (a) purely federal (b) federal-provincial (c) purely provincial in character?
2.	Of the recommendations submitted in the three categories above, how many have been acted upon and, in each instance, what was the recommendation and what action was taken by the federal government?
3.	Of the recommendations submitted by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism that have been acted upon by either the federal government or through federal-provincial co-operation, what has been the federal government's contribution financially?

February 16, 1970
Questions
4.	Has the federal government provided the provincial governments who have acted upon recommendations that were provincial in character with financial assistance and. if so. what were the recommendations and what was the amount of financial assistance in each instance?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: To date, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism has published three volumes of its Report. Book III was tabled on December 17, 1969; the Government has not yet taken any position regarding its recommendations.
Book I contained fourteen recommendations, of which two were directed to the federal Government. One of these recommended that English and French be formally declared the official languages of the Parliament of Canada, of the federal courts, of the federal Government and of the federal administration. The other recommended that the federal Parliament adopt a federal Official Languages Act and the Governor in Council appoint a Commissioner of Official Languages charged with ensuring respect for the status of French and English in Canada. Six other recommendations would involve both the federal and provincial Governments, and a further six were addressed essentially to the provinces.
Book II contained 46 recommendations. Of these, twelve were directed to the federal Government but will require federal-provincial co-operation to implement; the other 34 appear to be essentially in the provincial domain.
As the result of passage by Parliament of the Official Languages Act, the federal Government has taken action in respect of the two recommendations of Book I which were addressed to it-with the exception of the appointment of the Commissioner of Official Languages. In accordance with section 19(2) of the Official Languages Act, this appointment will be submitted to Parliament shortly for approval. The federal Government has also accepted the principles underlying the other recommendations of both Books I and II in which it is involved; they are presently under study by all the governments concerned.
To date, the federal Government has made two financial commitments to the provinces regarding these recommendations. The first of these commitments is to pay 50 per cent of the cost of preliminary studies undertaken by the provinces in this field. The second was announced in the House of Com-
[Mr Coates.]
mons by the Secretary of State on November 6, 1969; this statement appears as an Appendix to the House of Commons Debates of that day. Under this commitment the federal Government indicated its willingness to co-operate with the provinces in respect to provincial bilingualism programs in the field of education to the order of approximately $50 million for a full year of operation. Negotiations to this end are presently under way.


CANADA PENSION PLAN COLLECTIONS AND PAYMENTS
Mr. Orlikow: X. What was the total amount collected for the Canada Pension Plan in 1968?
2.	How much was paid out in 1968?
3.	What was the total amount collected for the Canada Pension Plan since its inception?
4.	How much has been loaned to each of the provinces during the total period?
5.	What is the total amount credited to the Canada Pension Plan, including all loans as at December 31, 1968?


John Carr Munro: 1. Contributions-$686,-017,000; Total Revenue-$765,344,000.
2.	$10,274,000 was paid in benefits for the calendar year 1968.
3.	The amount of contributions from the beginning of the plan up to the end of December 1968 is $1,840,433,000. The total revenue for that period is $1,962,718,000.
4.
Securities of or	Investments
Guaranteed by	in dollars

Newfoundland	34,523,000
P.E.I.	6,435,000
Nova Scotia	70,170,000
New Brunswick	53,487,000
Quebec	3,912,000
Ontario	1,042,945,000
Manitoba	108,247,000
Saskatchewan	82,576,000
Alberta	164,896,000
Bri.ish Columbia	267,942,000
Gov't of Canada	10,386,000
All Jurisdictions	1,845,519,000
5.	The balance of the Canada Pension Plan Account as of December 31, 1968 was $1,916,200,993.
February 16, 1970


OATH OF ALLEGIANCE, CYC PERSONNEL
Mr. Diefenbaker: Are members of the Company of Young Canadians required to take the Oath of Allegiance and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: The members of the Company of Young Canadians are not part of the Public Service. The requirement to take the Oath of Allegiance set out in the Public Service Employment Act would therefore not apply in such cases.


POLLUTION STUDY BY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources undertaking a study on pollution and, if so (a) have private consulting firms been engaged to conduct all or part of this study (b) what companies or individuals have been hired and what amounts of money are these to be paid?
2.	Was there any competitive tender for these studies and, if so, who were the other companies and what were their respective bids?


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1 and 2. A major part of the over-all Water Sector Program of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources consists of activities involving various aspects of environmental pollution, with particular reference to water pollution. These activities include a wide range of investigations and studies which are being conducted both inside and outside the Sector.
The question asks for particulars on "... a study on pollution...". Without more specific identification of the study referred to in the question, it is not possible to provide the requested information.


TELESAT CANADA ACT
Mr. Orlikow: On what information did the Prime Minister base his statement of November 21, 1969 at Harrison Hot Springs, British Columbia, that the Act which established Telesat Canada aroused no controversy and almost no discussion at the last session of Parliament?


James Edgar Walker: The reference to the Telesat Canada Act in the Prime Minister's speech of November 21st, 1969 was directed not to the quantity of discussion both inside
Questions
and outside Parliament at the time the Bill was under debate, but rather to the nature of that discussion. The speech discussed the social and political implications for Canada of certain events. The establishment of Telesat Canada aroused relatively more comment about the proposed corporate structure of the agency than about the implications for Canadian society of a satellite communications system. It was in this sense that the passage in the speech was intended to be understood.


VISIT TO CANADA BY THE QUEEN
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Was a formal invitation extended to Her Majesty the Queen to visit Ottawa when she is in Canada July 5 to July 15, 1970?
2.	Will the Prime Minister be on hand personally to welcome Her Majesty to Canada and, if so, what are the dates and what are the arrangements for this formal welcome by the Prime Minister?
3.	Did the Prime Minister state that the Details of the visit will be made public in the form of a press release and, if so, will it now be the practice of the government to refer to arrangements made for Her Majesty by press release, rather than by statements in the House of Commons?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1.	No. In view of the short time available to Her Majesty for this visit, it was Her Majesty's wish and the wish of the Government of Manitoba and the Council of the Northwest Territories that she spend as much time as possible at their centennial celebrations.
2.	The final program for the visit has not yet been approved by the Queen. However, it is planned that the Governor General and the Prime Minister will be on hand to welcome the Royal visitor.
3.	Announcements concerning Her Majesty's visit will continue to be made in the House. Detailed plans will be quite lengthy and the government has no objection to tabling these in the House at the appropriate time. It is the government's wish, however, to give the widest possible publicity to this Royal tour, including the issue of appropriate press releases.


LOANS TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. Mather: 1.	What is the total in dollars loaned to the Government of Canada by the chartered banks in the past five years?
2.	Can the Bank of Canada issue credit, in the form of loans, to the Government of Canada?

February 16, 1970
Questions


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.	The chartered banks do not make loans to the Government of Canada. They do buy and sell Government of Canada securities, and their holdings of such securities are published each month in the Canada Gazette.
2.	Under Section 18(1) of the Bank of Canada Act, the Bank of Canada may make loans to the Government of Canada but in practice has rarely done so. The bulk of the Bank's assets are in the form of Government of Canada securities and its holdings of such securities are published weekly and monthly in the Canada Gazette and in the Bank's own publications.


CANADIAN COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	When is it expected that Canada's communications satellite will be ready for launching?
2.	What is the current estimated total cost of constructing and launching the satellite?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1. Telesat Canada informs the Minister that more precise information on the launch date for the Canadian domestic communications satellite will not become available until after the contract for the project definition phase is complete. In the meantime, the Minister is given to understand that Telesat Canada expects that the first satellite will be launched in 1972.
2. As stated in the reply to part one of this question, precise information on costs will not become available for several months.


ADJUSTMENT TO PENSION PAYMENTS
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider repealing the 2% maximum on the cost of living adjustment to pension payments and replace it with an escalator clause directly proportional to changes in the Consumer Price Index?


John Carr Munro: As in the case of other policy decisions relating to the adjustment of pension payments, these matters will be considered and announced in the usual manner.


SASKATOON-LOW RENTAL HOUSING UNITS
Mr. Gleave: What is the amount to be contributed by (a) the federal government (b) the provincial government (c) the City of Saskatoon, toward construction of 50 low-rental housing units to be constructed in two projects in that City?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: The amounts to be contributed toward the construction of 50 low-rental housing units to be constructed in two projects in the City of Saskatoon are: (a) By the Federal Government, $402,825.00; (b) By the Province of Saskatchewan, $107,420.00; (c) By the City of Saskatoon, $26,855.00.


SASKATOON-HOUSING UNITS FOR RESIDENTS OF INDIAN AND METIS ANCESTRY
Mr. Gleave: What is the amount to be contributed by (a) the federal government (b) the City of Saskatoon, toward the acquisition of the 11 existing single-detached housing units to be made available to residents of Indian and Metis ancestry in that City?


Robert Knight Andras: The amounts to be contributed toward the acquisition of the 11 existing single detached housing units to be made available to residents of Indian and Metis ancestry in the City of Saskatoon are: (a) By the Federal Government, $91,500; (b) By the City of Saskatoon, Nil. The remaining 25 per cent will be contributed by the Province of Saskatchewan.


VALUE-ADDED TAX
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Will the federal government consider the "value-added tax" when the changes in the tax system are being considered?
2.	If the "value-added tax" is to be utilized, will it be effected at all levels of production (manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, etc.)?
3.	What advantage would such a tax have for Canada?
4.	How much money is it estimated could be obtained by such a tax?
5.	Would such a tax obviate the necessity of any other direct or indirect taxes and, if so, what ones and how much would be the financial loss of the other sources of taxation?
6.	How many countries now use the "value-added tax" and with what success or failure?
7.	Would the "value-added tax" apply to services as well as products and, if so, what services would be affected.
8.	Would such a tax in any way affect provincial tax revenue potential?


Edgar John Benson: 1.
The government studies various features of the tax systems of foreign countries to benefit from their experience, but consideration of any new tax would be a matter of government policy that would be announced at the appropriate time.
February 16, 1970

2.	See number 1.
3.	Not known.
4.	This would depend upon rate of tax.
5.	The replacement of one tax by another would be a matter of government policy.
6.	Nine countries in Europe now use or are in the process of introducing a value-added tax.
7.	This would be a matter of government policy.
8.	This would depend upon the form and weight of the tax.


LIVERPOOL HARBOUR, N.S.-DREDGING
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Is the government planning a complete dredging survey of Liverpool Harbour in Nova Scotia and, if so, what will be the extent of this survey, and to what depth will dredging be carried out?
2.	Has the government any plans for actual dredging operations in this harbour and, if so, what is the amount of funds that will be allocated for this project?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes from highway bridge to Fort Point including mooring area behind the public wharf. Dredge depths would be 14 feet below L.W.O.S.T. in mooring area behind wharf and 11 feet below L.W.O.S.T. in access channel area.
2. It is planned to include an item for $50,000 in the 1970-71 Estimates to cover. Execution will depend on availability of funds.


AMHERST, N.S.-NUMBER OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION EMPLOYEES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 884
Mr. Coates:: How many employees of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion are presently located at Amherst, N.S., and what will be the total employment on April 1, 1970?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: As of January 21, 1970, 40; As of April 1, 1970, 45.


VEGREVILLE, ALTA.-CLOSURE OF POST OFFICE FACILITIES
Mr. Mazankowski: What post office facilities in the constituency of Vegreville are presently under review for closure within the next fiscal year?


Eric William Kierans: Flat Lake, Alberta; Hazeldine, Alberta.
Questions


BANK OF CANADA-SALE OF TREASURY BILLS
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	How many offers did the Bank of Canada receive for the sale of $160,000,000 worth of Treasury bills on January 15, 1970?
2.	What were the highest and lowest bids?
3.	What offer was accepted?
4.	At what interest rate were they sold?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	There were 89 bids totalling $352,085,000 for $160 million of treasury bills offered at tender January 15, 1970. Of this total amount, bids of $259,085,000 were in respect of $130 million of 91-day treasury bills and bids of $93 million were in respect of $30 million of 182-day treasury bills.
2.	As stated in the regular weekly release published on January 15, the prices on the highest and lowest bids accepted were, for the 91-day bills $98,092 and $98,088, respectively, and for the 182-day bills $96,216 and $96,213, respectively.
3.	Answered by 2.
4.	As stated in the regular weekly release
referred to in 2 above, the average interest rate on the accepted bids was 7.81 per cent for the 91-day bills and 7.89 per cent for the 182-day bills.	,


CBC-ESTABLISHMENT OF TV TRANSMITTER STATIONS IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Marshall: 1.	What progress is being made by CBC in establishing TV transmitter stations in the Great Northern Peninsula in Western Newfoundland, in St. Anthony, Englee, Forrester's Point and Bonne Bay?
2.	Are transmitters being designed for installation at these points?
3.	When is it expected that they will be completed?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The Corporation has had a television transmitter (Frontier Coverage Package) in operation at St. Anthony since October 1968. Plans for an installation at St. Anthony which would provide live network service have had to be delayed because of budget restrictions imposed on the Corporation and at the moment it does not appear that such an installation could be in operation until some time in 1972. The permanent plan for St. Anthony calls for a rebroadcasting transmitter at Englee, as an intermediate step to bring the network

February 16, 1970
Questions
service into St. Anthony. The schedule for Englee has also been delayed for the same reason and the target date is 1971. Investigation is presently underway to determine whether or not it will be possible to provide live network service to St. Anthony on a temporary basis directly off-air from the distant CBC transmitter at Baie Verte. The Corporation filed an application with the CRTC in July, 1969, for a rebroadcasting station at Bonne Bay and is awaiting a decision from the Commission. In general, a 12-month period is required for construction and equipping of a station after CRTC approval is received. An installation has been planned for Forrester's Point and an operational date has been tentatively set for late 1972 (subject to availability of funds).
2.	No.
3.	See 1 above.


JASPER NATIONAL PARK-COST OF GATEHOUSE
Mr. Sulatycky: What was the cost of building the structures used as the gate and gate-house at the west entrance to Jasper National Park?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Kiosk Cost, $2,500; Power plant and transmission lines, 9,000.


JASPER, ALTA.-COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LEASES
Mr. Sulatycky: 1.	How many commercial leases actually used for commercial purposes are there in existence in the townsite of Jasper?
2.	How many residential leases are there in existence in the townsite of Jasper?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. There are 95 commercial leases in Jasper Townsite.
2. There are 510 residential leases in Jasper Townsite.


BANFF, ALTA.-COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LEASES
Mr. Sulatycky: 1.	How many commercial leases actually used for commercial purposes are there in existence in the townsite of Banff?
2.	How many residential leases are there in existence in the townsite of Banff?
[Mr. Pelletier.!
3.	How many residential leases are there in existence in the townsite of Banff held by persons who do not reside permanently in Banff and what are the names of those persons?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. There are 160
commercial leases in Banff Townsite.
2.	There are 760 residential leases in Banff Townsite.
3.	It is not possible to separate the nonresident lessees from the resident lessees without making a search of records dating back several years and inquiring from each leaseholder as to his actual residence at the present time. Disclosure of the names of lessees would be a breach of confidence.


FEDERAL GRANTS TO COOL-AID
Mr. Goode: Has the Government of Canada made any grants or grants available to a Vancouver-based organization known as Cool-Aid which provides assistance to alienated and transient youth and, if so, under what terms and conditions were such funds granted?


John Carr Munro: Yes. The Department of National Health and Welfare approved a grant to The Greater Vancouver Youth Communications Centre Society (known as Cool Aid) in Vancouver for the fiscal year 1969-70. The grant is for an experimental demonstration project and was awarded under the terms and conditions for such projects as specified in The Welfare Grants Rules 1969 P.C. 69-11/777.


BOEING OF CANADA LTD.
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 945-Mr. Burton: (Supplementary)
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
February 16, 1970

Industry, Trade and 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, Alicia. Street, Arnprior, Ontario; W. M. Allen, Director, c/o The Boeing Co., Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., W. J. Kane, Director, c/o The Boeing Co., Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., R. W. Thar-rington, Director, c/o The Boeing Co., Vertol Division, Morton, Pa., U.S.A.; K. R. Patrick, Director, Bedford, Quebec; R. G. Peers, Director, 630 Dirchester Blvd., Montreal 2, Quebec; J. K. Prince, Director, c/o The Boeing Co., Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.; J. S. Ciechan, Director, c/o The Boeing Co., Vertol Division, Morton, Pa., U.S.A.; H. S. Tremper, Director, c/o The Boeing Co., Vertol Division, Morton, Pa., U.S.A.
4.	97.0 per cent non-resident owned.
5.	The Boeing Company, United States.


NOVA SCOTIA-ESTABLISHMENT OF SATELLITE PARK
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to establish a satellite park along the coast of Nova Scotia as a supplement to the facilities provided by Kejimkujik National Park and, if so, what will be the location of the satellite park and what is its estimated area?
2.	How much money has been set aside for the development of a satellite park?
3.	On what date does the government estimate development work for a satellite park will be undertaken?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. The National and Historic Parks Branch have conducted field studies in the Cape La Have area of Nova Scotia. The study results are not yet complete.
2.	None.
3.	Until an agreement with the Province of Nova Scotia has been negotiated, no development can be undertaken.


CAPE BRETON-THE SYDNEYS-PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The: Sydneys):
What projects are planned by the Department of Public Works for the coming year in the constituency of Cape Breton-The Sydneys?
Questions


Arthur Laing: Location
Project
Sydney	Marginal Wharf-Paving
Marginal Wharf-Warehouse floor repairs Old Naval Building- Alterations
North Sydney
Alder Point
Public Wharf-Fender repairs
Indian Beach-Dredging
Public Wharf-Approach improvements
In addition minor maintenance will be carried out at various locations as required. All are subject to the availability of funds.


RCMP VESSEL &quot;WOOD&quot;
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to decommission the RCMP patrol vessel Wood and, if so, at what date?
2.	At what yard was Wood built, when and at what cost?
3.	Where is she stationed and what area does she patrol?
4.	How many miles has she logged, per year, on patrol duty?
5.	What repairs or refits has she undergone, in what yard or yards, and at what costs?
6.	What is her complement of officers and crew?
7.	As a result of her patrol work, how many charges have been laid, what was the general nature of such charges and how many convictions resulted?
8.	What is the approximate cost of operating her for a year?
9.	If the answer to Part 1 is in the affirmative, for what reason or reasons?
10.	If the answer to Part 1 is in the affirmative, what disposition will be made of the vessel and will there be any restrictions on the type of would-be purchasers?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: 1.
Yes, by April 1, 1970.
2.	(i) George T. Davie & Sons Limited, Lauzon, P.Q.; (ii) Commissioned June 28, 1958; (iii) $1,513,833.
3.	Stationed at Halifax, Nova Scotia. Patrols Canadian Atlantic Coast from Canada-U.S. Border to Northern Labrador, Gulf of St. Lawrence and St. Lawrence River.
4.	Average 15,145 miles per annum since commissioning.
5.	Refit April, 1961, D.N.D. Halifax, N.S., $7,912.; refit Jan., 1962, Halifax Shipyards,

February 16, 1970
Questions
N.S., $14,781.; refit Feb., 1963, Purdy Bros., Halifax, N.S., $11,892.; refit Feb., 1966, Steel & Engine Products, Liverpool, N.S., $8,000; refit Feb., 1967, Purdy Bros, Halifax, N.S., $6,500.
6.	Officers, 1; Crew, 35.
7.	No statistics available as this vessel carried out a support service for land-based personnel enforcing Customs Act, Canada Shipping Act and Migratory Birds Convention Act for five separate R.C.M. Police divisions.
8.	$355,097.
9.	Operation of this vessel by the R.C.M. Police can no longer be justified due to changing operational and enforcement requirements which can now be effectively met by smaller vessels, and thus a ship of the Wood's size is no longer necessary.
10.	The Wood will be disposed of through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, who will be able to advise of any restrictions on the type of would be purchasers.


REMOVAL OF PLATES OVER SERIAL NUMBERS ON TRACTORS IMPORTED FROM ENGLAND
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 959
Mr. Skoberg:: 1.	Has the RCMP been advised of the removal of plates over the serial numbers on tractors imported from England as reported at page 2531 of Hansard and, if so, what were the results of the investigation?
2.	If the person or the persons involved have been identified, have there been any charges laid?
3.	If the person or persons have been identified, and there have been no charges laid, for what reason?
4.	Is the investigation proceeding and, if not, for what reason?


George James McIlraith: 1.
No.
2, 3 and 4. Not known.


CAMPER TRUCKS AND TRAILERS AND PRIVATE BOATS ENTERING CANADA
Mr. Reid: 1.	How many camper trucks and camper trailers entered Canada during 1969, 1968 and 1967?
2.	How many private boats entered Canada, either by being pulled on a trailer or on top of cars, during 1969, 1968 and 1967?
3.	How is this information obtained?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. Statistical records not maintained. Camper trucks and camper trailers when temporarily imported by non-residents for health or pleasure purposes are documented on temporary entry permits at high-

way ports of entry for control purposes only and not for statistical reasons. Since the control is exercised by the issuing ports, a central record is not maintained of articles so imported.
2.	Statistical records not maintained. Private boats entering Canada temporarily, either by being pulled on a trailer or on top of cars, are documented on temporary entry permits at highway ports of entry for control purposes only and not for statistical reasons. Since the control is exercised by the issuing ports, a central record is not maintained of articles so imported.
3.	Not applicable.


RETIRED ARMY CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES- APPLICATION OF PENSION INCREASE
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Will civilian employees who retired from employment with the Army since 1952 get the 2 per cent increase which was announced in December and, if so, what will be the annual increase for civilian employees who retired from the Army during 195253-54-55-56 for those who earned six thousand dollars per year?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of Treasury Board):: It is the Government's intention to present to Parliament legislation that would provide increases to pensions paid under the Civil Service Superannuation Act or Public Service Superannuation Act, effective April 1, 1970, to former civilian employees including those having retired from work with the Army.
Employees in the above category who retired on full pension in the years shown below after having 35 years of contributory service, for example, with an average salary of $6,000 over their last ten consecutive years of employment would receive the following amounts as an addition to their monthly pensions if this legislation is approved by Parliament.
Retirement	Monthly $
1952	149.80
1953	139.09
1954	131.95
1955	121.24
1956	110.53


POLLUTION CHARGES LAID UNDER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS 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
February 16, 1970

responsible for the enforcement of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys 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?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: 1. None.
2. Not applicable.


POLLUTION CHARGES LAID UNDER INTERNATIONAL RIVER IMPROVEMENTS 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 International River Improvements 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?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: 1. None.
2. Not applicable.


CHARGES LAID UNDER NATIONAL PARKS 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 National Parks 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?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. One charge was laid against an individual in Jasper National Park.
2. The charge resulted in a conviction and a fine of $5.00.


RESPONSIBILITIES OF MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO FROM YORK-SCARBOROUGH
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What are the responsibilities of the Minister without Portfolio from York-Scarborough?
2.	Does he have any responsibilities related to the Privy Council Office?
Questions


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. As announced by the Prime Minister on October 15, 1969, the Minister without Portfolio, the member for York-Scarborough, assumed "particular responsibility for the work of the Secretary of State Department in the field of citizenship. This involves questions of naturalization and the citizenship courts, and also the department's developing program to encourage and assist various groups of residents, including ethnic groups, to play a more active part in the life of Canada."
On February 10, 1970, the Prime Minister announced in the House that the minister would also, in respect to Information Canada under the Supply and Services Department, "take responsibility for its planning and development to be as ready as possible for operational status at the beginning of the new fiscal year."
2. No.


ESCAPES FROM SPRINGHILL MEDIUM SECURITY INSTITUTION
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many escapes have taken place at the Young Offenders Medium Security Institution at Springhill, N.S., and in each instance (a) what was the date of the escape (b) how many inmates were involved (c) what was the length of time the inmates in question were at large?
2.	Was the general public informed of the escape of an inmate or inmates from the institution in each instance and, if not (a) in which instances was the public informed (b) what reasons were there for not informing the general public?


George James McIlraith: 1. Eight, as follows: Escape No. 1: (a) 8 May 1969; (b) One; (c) 6 hrs. 30 min. Escape No. 2:
(a)	8 June 1969; (b) One; (c) 2 hrs. Escape No. 3: (a) 17 Sept. 1969; (b) One; (c) 14 hrs. Escape No. 4: (a) 23 Sept. 1969; (b) Two; (c) 6 days. Escape No. 5: (a) 17 Oct. 1969; (b) One; (c) 14 hrs. Escape No. 6: (a) 6 Nov. 1969;
(b)	Two; (c) 5 days. Escape No. 7: (a) 12 Nov. 1969; (b) Three; (c) 1 hr. 30 min. Escape No. 8: (a) 18 Jan. 1970; (b) One; (c) 30 min.
2. See sub-paragraph (a) below, (a) In all cases except Escape No. 2 and No. 8: (b) In both escape No. 2 and No. 8, the escapee was seen to run into small woods near the institution, all sides of which were easily kept under surveillance, thus permitting the early apprehension of the prisoners without the public being exposed to danger because of lack of knowledge of the escape.

February 16, 1970
Questions


CONSTRUCTION OF POST OFFICE, WENTWORTH, N.S.
Mr. Coales: Is it the intention of the government to construct a post office at Wentworth, Nova Scotia and, if so, when does the government intend to call tenders for the construction of this post office?


Arthur Laing: No.


ST. LAWRENCE CENTRE FOR THE ARTS
Mr. Gleave: Did the Canada Council contribute funds to the St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts in Toronto and, if so, in what amount?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: The Canada Council has awarded the Toronto Arts Foundation, on behalf of the St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts, the following grants: in 1968, $15,000 for the development of the theatrical program of the Centre; in 1969, $140,000 for the first theatrical season of the Centre which should begin on February 26, 1970.


SALES TAX ON STAPLE FOODS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is margarine subject to the 12 per cent tax?
2.	What other staple foods are subject to sales tax?
3.	Is it the government's intention to remove sales taxes on staple foods as a part of the campaign to fight inflation and reduce the high cost of living?


Edgar John Benson: 1.
Yes, except for consumption in the Province of Newfoundland.
2.	None.
3.	This is a matter of Government policy. If the Government should decide to propose an amendment to exempt margarine from sales tax it will be announced at the appropriate time.


EXPENDITURES UNDER REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Under the Regional Development Incentives Act, in what places or areas in (a) Manitoba (b) Quebec (c) New Brunswick (d) Newfoundland (e) Ontario, were expenditures of moneys approved up to the end of December 31, 1969?
2.	What was the amount of such expenditures for each of said projects?
[Mr. Mcllraith.l


Abram Ernest Epp: This information was contained in the reports respecting the Administration of the Regional Development Incentives Act tabled on October 27, 1969, December 4, 1969, and January 12, 1970.


REMOVAL OF SALES TAX ON POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider the feasibility of removing the sales tax on pollution control equipment in order to create an incentive to control pollution?


Edgar John Benson: Equipment described in part XIII of Schedule III of the Excise Tax Act is exempt from sales tax. If the Government should decide to propose addi ional exemp ions from sales tax it will be announced at the appropriate time.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND-ADVERTISEMENTS WARNING AGAINST FRAUDULENT CLAIMS
Mr. Paproski: What was the name of the advertising agency employed to prepare advertisements, which were published recently in national newspapers, warning against fraudulent claims against the Unemployment Insurance Fund?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Goodis, Goldberg, Soren Ltd., Toronto.


SUBSIDY PAID TO TURKEY PRODUCERS 1960 TO 1969
Mr. Robinson: What was the total subsidy paid to turkey producers during each of the years 1960 to 1969 inclusive?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Nil.


SASKATCHEWAN-REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE GRANTS
[Stage Direction]
Question No 1,142-Mr. Southam:
1.	How many Regional Development Incentive Grants were awarded in Saskatchewan in 1969?
2.	Where were the locations and what was the amount of grant in each case?
3.	How many Regional Development Incentive Grants will be awarded to Saskatchewan in 1970?
4.	Where will they be located and what will be the amounts?
February 16, 1970
Abram Ernest Epp: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the reports respecting the Administration of the Regional Development Incentives Act tabled on October 27, 1969, December 4, 1969, and January 12, 1970.
3 and 4. This information will be contained in subsequent monthly reports, as offers are accepted.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister's remarks to the federal-provincial conference this morning contained no positive proposals for controlling inflation but only general expressions of intent, does the government intend to make such positive proposals to the conference before it terminates?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, one of the main items on the agenda, from the remarks made by the Prime Minister, is measures to contain inflation. This is the purpose of the federal government and we hope also of the provincial governments. This is a time when I think there should be co-operation and that the federal government should seek co-operation and not, of course, order them about which would be impossible in any event.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. No one, of course, is suggesting that the federal government order anybody about. They cannot do it.


Mr. Baldwin:: Except their own backbenchers.


George Harris Hees: I would ask this supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government suggesting positive measures to the provinces involving ways by which the federal and provincial governments can control rising unemployment, both regional and national?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman knows very well that the Prices and Incomes Commission has proposed a
Inquiries of the Ministry series of steps affecting business and government, and these are under discussion at the conference.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question. I asked the Acting Prime Minister if the federal government was going to propose measures for controlling unemployment?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought the hon. gentleman was referring to inflation. So far as unemployment is concerned, of course it is the desire of the government to minimize unemployment and that, of course, is one of the reasons we are working so hard to control inflation, because the outcome of inflation is unemployment.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government asking the provincial governments to limit their increases in expenditures this year to the 9 per cent by which the federal government is increasing its expenditures this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we hope we shall have the co-operation of all governments in measures to contain inflation. Certainly, one of the most important measures is that expenditures under the control of each government should be limited as far as possible.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of a report from Houston, Texas, that there is now a 50 per cent chance that the Manhattan will make another voyage through the northern waters of Canada in April, can the minister say whether the government has now received any requests, communications or intimations in connection with this proposed trip?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the information we have is rather the same as the report that has been referred to by the hon. member. We have heard that there may be a chance that the Manhattan will travel through our northern waters again but we have not yet had a definite request; we understand that Humble Oil Company has not yet made up its mind whether the ship will make the voyage.
3624	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government taking any action in the meantime by way of strengthening the regulations to make sure that if there is such a voyage there will not be a tragedy involving the pollution of our northern waters?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I believe that experimental voyages of the kind undertaken by the Manhattan are very much in Canada's interest. The ship will carry no oil cargo but only that oil it will need for itself. It is very important for us to find out the conditions under which these waters can be used safely. That is why the government welcomed the first voyage of the Manhattan. If the company wishes to undertake a second voyage, we would co-operate and welcome the effort because we believe that as the result of such voyages we will find out the conditions under which it will be safe to traverse these waters.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What price Canadian sovereignty! Heaven help us!


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister used the words, "our northern waters", is it the position of the government that the Manhattan or any other oil tanker must seek permission from the Canadian government in order to make a voyage through the Northwest Passage?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in the past they have sought our co-operation, which I am sure is the best evidence that they understand our position in the north.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the position of the government that the Manhattan or other similar vessels must seek the permission of the Canadian government before going through what the minister described as "our northern waters"?


Mitchell William Sharp: There seems to be some misunderstanding about this.


Gerald William Baldwin: Not at all.


Mitchell William Sharp: When ships pass through our waters, wherever those are, they do not seek the specific approval of the Canadian government. They are assumed to be on innocent passage and we do not question them. We assume that the Manhattan, if it is to go again, will undertake an innocent passage.

DEBATES	February 16. 1970
Indeed, the purpose of the voyage would be to find out, by way of this experiment, what conditions are like in the north. That is why we welcome it and have co-operated and given our permission in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: What price Canadian
sovereignty!


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Secretary of State communicate with his colleague, the Minister of Transport, to make sure that if the Manhattan does make the voyage she will fly the Canadian flag when in our waters, something that did not happen on the last trip?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member is making a representation rather than asking a question.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister ascertain whether the Department of Transport or the' government has received a direct request for the use of Canadian icebreakers in the event this voyage takes place?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I explained in answer to the initial question, we have not yet been told whether the Manhattan will undertake a second voyage. There is uncertainty about it because I do not think Humble Oil Company has yet made up its mind. It is clear that if the ship were to undertake the voyage it would have to have the co-operation of Canadian icebreakers. These, of course, would be available.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question concerning sovereignty over our Arctic waters. Is the government considering the reinstitution of the policy of the Mackenzie King government of issuing licences to ships and aircraft going through or traversing the Canadian Arctic sector? I refer to licences such as those issued by the Canadian government under Mackenzie King to the MacMillan-Byrd expedition?


Mitchell William Sharp: I shall take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: A supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government prepared base lines for the Arctic islands area? If so, when will the government be proclaiming them?
February 16. 1970


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of areas where the government has not drawn base lines. It is not the intention to complete the map at the present time.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Mitchell William Sharp: To do so in some areas would be to take an action that might compromise the position of the Canadian government in future declarations.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Will the department responsible review its position in relation to the call by the Canadian Wildlife Federation for a partial moratorium on oil and gas exploration in the Arctic region until it has acquired the information, technology and trained personnel as well as adequate safeguards to ensure the fullest protection of our Arctic ecology?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government will give consideration to this suggestion. Of course I cannot say that we will follow it, but we will certainly look at it.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I ask him whether his department and the government have received a request from the Royal Canadian Legion, that because of the desperate circumstances of many veterans across Canada receiving war pensions and war veterans allowances, for an interim increase of 10 per cent in the basic rate of war disability pensions and a 15 per cent interim increase in war veterans allowances? If it has been received, will he give sympathetic consideration to the plight of these veterans across the country who find themselves receiving little or no consideration, especially having regard to the increases that have been provided for retired civil servants and the like?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have received these representations. We have also
21701-19J
Inquiries of the Ministry read the editorial in The Legionary. I repeat what has already been said in the House, that the whole structure of social legislation is at present under review by the government of Canada. The same attention and sympathy which have been shown by this government to veterans will continue in the future.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister does not suggest that war veterans allowances and war pensions for disabilities are in the same category as social legislation? These are matters that deserve consideration and should not be postponed by a procrastinating government.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: In
view of the requests that I am sure all hon. members have been receiving from veterans receiving war veterans allowances and other pensions, is the government considering some form of increase, albeit temporary or interim, until such time as its review is complete in order that the present pensions will at least keep up with the increased cost of living?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is repeating in substance what has already been asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to ascertain whether, until such time as the government has completed its review, it is considering granting a temporary or interim increase?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: The government is considering all possibilities, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: In the meantime the veterans starve.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Soulh Shore):: I wish to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the imminent closing of the naval base at Argentia, Newfoundland, what special plans does the government have to cope with the additional unemployment which will be created by the closing of this base?


Mitchell William Sharp: All the departments concerned are on the job-the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of Manpower and Immigration and all the others. They have been given special instructions to
3626	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry do everything possible to see that Canadians who are released find alternative employment or are offered retraining facilities and whatever additional help can be provided.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question. In view of the fact that Mr. Roberts of the United States Federal Reserve has warned that the kind of austerity measures being implemented by the United States and Canada could trigger a serious recession and further unemployment, has the federal government received similar advice from the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Rasminsky?


Mitchell William Sharp: The advice received from the governor of the Bank of Canada is, of course, confidential unless it is published by him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is there an agreement between the Canadian and United States governments with regard to these austerity measures which are now bringing about regional and national unemployment in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Obviously there can be no agreement that our fiscal, monetary or other policies should be the same.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Is the Canadian government extending an invitation to members of the Commonwealth to hold the forthcoming Prime Ministers' Conference in Ottawa?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am happy this question has been asked, because there have been some misleading reports in the papers that Canada is reluctant to have the meeting in Ottawa. This is not so. We would be prepared to fall in with the consensus among the heads of government as to the location of the meeting. If it is to be in Ottawa, we would welcome it. We have taken part in some discussions, of course, about the timing; we would prefer that it be at a time when the weather is agreeable, and we would prefer 1971.

DEBATES	February 16, 1970


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Having regard to the accusation, perhaps false, that Canada's foreign policy is orientated toward a continental approach, would the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether Canada intends to actually invite the Prime Ministers of this multinational commonwealth to meet in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: There seems to be a fair interest in coming to Ottawa; I think it is sufficient for us to say they would be welcome here. We would welcome the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, as I am sure we should all do, if they care to come here. They know they are welcome. A special invitation is not necessary.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister speaks in fulsome terms about welcoming the Prime Ministers Conference. Did not the government of Canada in 1969 refuse the opportunity to have the Prime Ministers Conference here?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INVITATION TO PRESIDENT OF FRANCE TO VISIT OTTAWA
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs; it is related to the same theme of reconciliation. In view of the fact that the President of France is visiting the President of the United States next week, has Canada extended an invitation to President Pompidou to come to Ottawa either before or after his visit to Washington?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that this question has been asked before. However, the Acting Prime Minister might wish to reply.


Mitchell William Sharp: I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the question put by the right hon. member for Prince Albert was out of order but I just want to deny the validity of the statement he made.


John George Diefenbaker: The denial is not in accordance with the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps that is a matter for debate. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Mr. Fairweather:: What about the President of France?
February 16, 1970


Mitchell William Sharp: I answered a similar question some time ago. The President of France visited Canada and the head of our government has not since visited France. I think the invitation ought to be the other way.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: In the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister arising out of the strike at Pacific Press in Vancouver. Is the government aware that Leroy Norton, a professional strikebreaker from the United States, has arrived in Vancouver to help break the strike at Pacific Press?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the question as asked is in order. The hon. member is asking whether the government is aware that a certain individual has arrived in Canada. I doubt whether the question, simply stated in those terms, is in order.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Would the government look into these circumstances having regard to the fact that this individual came to Canada for a similar purpose on another occasion?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is my understanding that this strike falls within provincial jurisdiction. My attention has not so far been drawn to the report.


Winona Grace MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this question directly involves the entry of an individual into this country from the United States.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Sl. Barbe):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State. In light of representations made to the minister by the Newfoundland Teachers' Association, will the hon. gentleman indicate whether he intends to take action to relieve the financial burden which will fall upon Newfoundland schools by deferring or removing rental fees charged by the National Film Board for films needed by these schools which will otherwise be denied the use of this educational service?
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Here again, I have the impression that the question has been asked before. Nevertheless, the minister might be allowed to answer.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I can but repeat the reply which I gave the last time-it was on Thursday last, I believe-namely that this policy had been studied. Unless new factors intervene, no change is foreseen.


Jack Marshall: Does the minister not feel that something should be done to help schools which will not be able to afford to rent these films in future? Is this not a factor which ought to be taken into consideration?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's supplementary is in the form of a representation or submission and he has to assume it will be taken into account.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the Secretary of State is saying there is to be no change in the policy, will he kindly advise me why, in a letter he wrote to me, he tells me the matter is subject to review and that there may be a change in the decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the question is argumentative.
Mr. R. Gordon L. Fairweather (Fundy-
Royal): I have a supplementary on this subject which I should like Your Honour to rule out of order so that it can be debated at ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will realize that he has not yet asked his question, so there is no assurance it will be debated at the time of the adjournment.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.
Would he have some statement to make concerning charges made last Saturday against the Prime Minister of Canada by the Premier of Quebec who said that the federal government was interfering in provincial affairs, especially as regards relations between Ottawa and the municipalities, which fall under provincial jurisdiction?
3628	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member is merely inviting a minister to comment on a statement made outside the House, and such a question is normally not allowed.


MARIJUANA-REFERENCE OF NON-MEDICAL USE TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I have a question I wanted to address to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In his absence, perhaps the hon. gentleman's Parliamentary Secretary could take it as notice. Is consideration being given to referring the issue of the non-medical use of marijuana to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I assure the hon. member I shall bring his representation to the attention of the minister.


FISHERIES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: My
question is intended for the Minister of Fisheries; in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. It relates to the minister's press release of February 9 in which he stated that all ICNAF member nations will be limited to a quota of 12,000 and 18,000 metric tons of haddock in two areas. Could the Parliamentary Secretary inform us whether a procedure to cover record-keeping and enforcement of this quota program, including the type of fishing gear used, has been worked out and agreed upon by all ICNAF countries?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: I shall have to take that question as notice. I have listened to some of the discussions; I do not think they have yet been completed.


INFORMATION CANADA
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I wish to ask the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada whether Information

DEBATES	February 16, 1970
Canada will be issuing a news release at the close of the dominion-provincial conference tomorrow?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio. In view of the minister's statement on television on Saturday evening assuring the people that Information Canada would not promote anything that had not been passed by Parliament, I should like the minister to say how he can justify taking over the administration of a new body which itself has not been established by Parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is argumentative.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the decision announced by President Nixon in respect of extending the ban on germ or chemical warfare weapons to include chemical toxins, will the Acting Prime Minister consider making a statement to the House concerning the position of the Canadian government in respect of the production, development and storage in Canada of such chemical and biological weapons.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The government has under consideration a statement on its whole position in this field which includes the problem involved in the question asked by the hon. member. I should think it would be included in the statement Canada would be making at the opening of the resumed disarmament discussions in Geneva.


POST OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. Could he tell us if the mail is now moving in Montreal or whether he has any report on the present situation there?
February 16, 1970
Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that the situation has deteriorated in Montreal this morning. As a result officials of the department have been in touch with the CSN. I have asked them to come up here tomorrow morning at which time I intend to make clear to them that if the illegal, irresponsible and violent strike of recent weeks does not terminate the government will have no choice but to take extraordinary measures.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or his Parliamentary Secretary with regard to the question I asked last Friday. Has the minister yet completed his inquiry into the allegations of irregularities on the part of departmental officials made by Indians of the Assumption Band Reserve, allegations which were made some time ago? Is he able now to report on this matter?


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, the inquiries are still continuing. The minister hopes he may be in a position to report tomorrow.


Gerald William Baldwin: In view of the fact that the telegram from the Indian Band Council contains a request for a parliamentary inquiry, would the parliamentary secretary bring to the attention of the minister and the chairman of the appropriate committee the desirability of having a very careful and detailed parliamentary inquiry in respect of these allegations?


Russell Clayton Honey: This will be given consideration, Mr. Speaker.



PRIVILEGE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege arising out of the answer given today to question No. 1,033 which was placed on the Order Paper on February 2. The question was:
1. Under the Regional Development Incentives Act. in what places or areas in (a) Manitoba, (b)
Inquiries of the Ministry
Quebec, (c) New Brunswick, (d) Newfoundland, (e) Ontario, were expenditures of moneys approved up to the end of December 31, 1969?
2. What was the amount of such expenditures for each of said projects?
The answer is not in keeping with the rules and indeed is a facetious brush-off. It is as follows:
This information was contained in the reports respecting the administration of the Regional Development Incentives Act tabled on October 27, 1969, December 4, 1969, and January 12, 1970.
Sir, I submit that the fact the government will have egg on its face if it answers properly is no justification for such an answer.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to inquire into the matter and report on Wednesday.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In his absence may I direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary who may wish to take it as notice and reply tomorrow. Now that a consensus has been reached among the provinces regarding optometric services, can the minister advise when these services will be acceptable for cost-sharing payments under the national health plan?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.



NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the observations made by the chairman of the board of trustees of the National Arts Centre regarding use of the centre by unemployed persons, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he would urge the board to give favourable consideration to use of the centre by people in the low income brackets such as old age pensioners and others?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a representation which he must assume will be noted by the minister.

February 16, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion I should like to direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. Could the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House whether a decision has been taken on proposals made recently to extend designated areas in Saskatchewan under the Regional Development Incentives Act? If so, could he inform the House of the decision?


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out that it has been suggested on previous occasions that this kind of information should be given by way of a statement on motions or the question might be placed on the Order Paper. If there is particular urgency in respect of the specific question, the minister might be allowed to reply.


John Stratford Burton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that there have been developments since this subject was last referred to in the House. It is a matter requiring urgent consideration and I would hope the Parliamentary Secretary might be able to respond.


Abram Ernest Epp: I will bring the question to the minister's attention.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Labour indicate whether there is any hope for an early conclusion of the Vancouver longshoremen's strike?


An hon. Member:: It is over.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It was over on Friday and the men returned to work on Saturday.



ROYAL VISIT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I had better preface my question to the Solicitor General by saying I have been home during the past week and therefore the information I am about to seek may have been given. I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether the government, in taking

account of Her Majesty's visit to Canada this year, is considering the use of the Royal prerogative to grant a special amnesty to inmates in federal prisons?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. I will pay attention to the representations made by the hon. member, but I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave a week or ten days ago.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Has the minister completed the inquiry into allegations of improper activity by officers of the RCMP in respect of the deportation of three Americans on January 25?


George James McIlraith: No.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Could the minister indicate to the House when he expects the completion of the inquiry?


George James McIlraith: I expect to have the report within a few days-the sooner the better. However, until we find all the witnesses it is useless for me to use a crystal ball.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Will the minister undertake to make a statement on motions to the House when the report is completed?


George James McIlraith: I have already said in answer to the hon. member who raised the question a few days ago that I would give an answer to the questions posed by him. The nature of any answer and whether it would be on motions or otherwise will have to be determined when we see what the information is.


John George Diefenbaker: When the minister said he was endeavouring to find the various witnesses, did he imply that the three individuals who were allegedly deported unlawfully will be consulted as potential witnesses, or that then-side of the question will be reviewed and considered?


George James McIlraith: It is very doubtful whether we will be able to interview them, but I should add that I am quite sure the right hon. gentleman would be the first to check me if I were to attempt to bring in an incomplete report to the House.
February 16, 1970


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, of course I want a complete report, and they are the people who know all about it.



AGRICULTURE


John Leroy Skoberg: I have a question for the Solicitor General. In view of the answer given by the Minister of Agriculture, as recorded at page 2531 of Hansard, with regard to the removal of serial plates on tractors imported from England, in which the minister suggested that "the police were informed of that some time ago", and in view of the answer received today that the RCMP had not been informed of this incident, will the minister now say whether or not he will have a complete investigation conducted into this affair?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor Generali: No,
Mr. Speaker, but the Solicitor General will look at the answer given today to see whether the representation made by the hon. member requires attention, and if it does it will be given immediate attention.



CANADA LABOUR (SAFETY) CODE INQUIRY AS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATIONS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. It relates to the Canada Labour (Safety) Code which Parliament passed, because it was urgent to do so, three years ago last December. Can the minister say whether the various sets of regulations to be passed under that Act have not been put into effect?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: As the hon. member pointed out, there are various sets of regulations. If he would put the question in writing I would be able to give him a detailed report. I would prefer to do it that way so as not to mislead the House unintentionally.


Stanley Howard Knowles: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With the information which he has on his desk, can the minister tell the House whether the safety regulations respecting the railroad industry have been passed?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The information on my desk does not tell me this, however, I will find out for the hon. member.
Supreme Court Act


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to suggest to the hon. member and to the minister that perhaps this is the type of question which should normally be placed on the Order Paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would take a year.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-182, to amend the Supreme Court Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Briefly speaking, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to broaden the access to the Supreme Court of Canada, particularly on matters involving disputes in law, mixed law and fact, and in disputes that may originate from federal administrative tribunals in this country. While broadening the access to the court, the bill tends to reduce those appeals involving matters of fact alone that would now get there "as of right", in order to allow the Supreme Court of Canada more opportunity in its heavier role to deal with matters involving the constitution, matters of federal and provincial statutory import, and matters of legal importance. In other words, this would relieve the court of some of the burden of reviewing cases involving mere factual appraisal and would give the court more opportunity to review matters of law.
I might say that in matters of import, any provincial court of appeal can still grant leave and will be able to grant leave to the Supreme Court of Canada on any matter, whether of fact, of law or of mixed fact and law, and indeed the Supreme Court of Canada retains its power to grant leave to appeal to the highest court in this country on matters of law, mixed fact and law, or matters of fact. So, by leave of the Supreme Court of Canada or of the provincial court of appeal there will continue to be complete access to the highest court. What we are doing here is eliminating to a certain degree appeals "as of right" involving mere factual matters.
The Bill does not deal with the structure of the court or with the constitutional position of the court but merely with certain

February 16, 1970
Supreme Court Act
housekeeping items and certain methods of appeal from the lower courts to the high court.
I wonder whether, before I give a cursory explanation of the bill-because the bill if adopted on second reading here will go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-I might, with the consent of the House, include two tables in Hansard. One table deals with the numerical summary of cases heard by the Supreme Court of Canada between 1955 and 1969, and the second table lists the number of motions heard in the Supreme Court of Canada between 1955 and 1969; in both cases the years are inclusive. These tables will illustrate, for the benefit of
the House, the increase in the volume of business before the Supreme Court. Perhaps I might have the consent of the House to have those two tables printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The text of the foregoing tables is as follows:]
Motions heard in Supreme Court of Canada, 1955-1969: 1955, 10; 1956, 10; 1957, 12; 1958, 48; 1959, 66; 1960, 89; 1961, 73; 1962, 104; 1963, 87; 1964, 89; 1965, 110; 1966, 99; 1967, 130; 1968, 139; 1969, 129.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Numerical Summary of Cases Heard by the Court 1955-1969
1955	1956	1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964	1965	1966	1967	1968	1969Western	
37	24	18	27	30	27	31	27	42	37	18	47	51	41	40Atlantic	
7	4	6	1	1	9	8	3	10	3	3	3	1	6	5Quebec	
24	17	35	35	42	38	50	44	37	29	27	22	44	30	39Ontario	
31	69	44	38	47	36	32	36	32	38	66	34	55	53	59Total	
99	114	103	101	120	110	121	110	121	107	114	106	151	130	143Numerical Summary for Last 3 Five Year Periods 1955-59	1960-64	1965-69Western	136	164	197Atlantic	19	33	18Quebec	153	198	162Ontario	229	174	267Total	
537	569	644
The above summaries do not include motions in Court which have increased from 10 in 1955 to 129 in 1969. This increase results from amendments to the Criminal Code and the Supreme Court Act in 1956.


John Napier Turner: Without
going into a clause by clause analysis of the bill, which would be trespassing on the rules of the House at this stage, I should like to describe four amendments of primary significance. The first is that all the applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada shall in the future, with the exception of cases involving an offence punishable by death, be heard by three judges of the Supreme Court. It is the general rule now that three judges should be petitioned for leave to appeal, but there are still a number of statutes on the books which allow a petition for leave to appeal to be heard by one judge alone. It seems to me that this is too [Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).l
restrictive and that one judge of the Supreme Court of Canada should not himself have the jurisdiction to decide whether the court should hear a matter of importance. As I said, applications for leave to appeal involving offences punishable by death will continue to be dealt with by a quorum of five judges.
The second matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the House is the amendment I have already described to section 36 of the Supreme Court Act which is the general section giving a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on matters of law, mixed law and fact, and fact.
Under the present law that section gives a right of appeal "as of right" when the matter
February 16, 1970



in dispute is over $10,000. The proposed amendment will confine the grounds of appeal to questions that are not questions of fact alone. As I said, section 36 deals with appeals "as of right". The fact that we are restricting "as of right" appeals to matters of fact alone does not mean that factual cases cannot still get to the Supreme Court of Canada by way of leave granted by a provincial court of appeal or by leave granted by the Supreme Court of Canada if, in the opinion of either court, the matter is of sufficient importance, albeit a factual matter, that it deserves to be heard by the court.
The third aspect of the bill to which I should like to draw the attention of the House deals with habeas corpus. The Supreme Court Act now vests jurisdiction in the judges of the court to issue writs of habeas corpus in criminal cases. This jurisdiction is concurrent with that of the judges of the superior courts of the provinces. By that is meant that an imprisoned person may seek a writ of habeas corpus from either a judge of the Supreme Court or a judge of a provincial superior court.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Prior to 1965 there was no appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of habeas corpus in criminal matters from decisions of Superior Court judges of provincial courts, but in 1965 the Criminal Code was amended to provide for appeals in matters of habeas corpus from provincial superior courts, through the appeal procedures to the Supreme Court of Canada. Now that access to the Supreme Court from judges of superior provincial courts is provided for, respecting habeas corpus in criminal matters, it is considered unnecessary that the concurrent original jurisdiction should be continued.
Finally, by way of a fourth point, appeals may now be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada which circumvent provincial courts of appeal with leave of those courts if the parties consent and the amount in controversy exceeds $2,000. It is proposed that the granting of leave be vested in the Supreme Court rather than the provincial courts and that the requirement concerning $2,000 be dispensed with.
The bill contains a number of additional amendments of lesser significance which might be described as housekeeping amendments relating to notices of appeal, deposit of security, supplementary rules of procedure and the use of law stamps. With two excep-21701-205
Supreme Court Act
tions, the amendments contained in this bill are the same as those included in the bill to amend the Supreme Court which was introduced in the Senate as a government measure on September 24, 1968, and passed by the Senate on October 23 of that same year. I want to deal with the two differences.
The first exception is that in the Senate bill it was proposed to amend section 36 of the Supreme Court Act to provide that the right of appeal thereunder was on a question of law alone. As already indicated, this new bill amends section 36 to provide that an appeal lies on a question that is not a question of fact alone, thereby allowing for appeals as of right under that section on questions of mixed law and fact. This change was made after receiving representations from the Canadian Bar Association which struck a special committee to review the earlier bill, and that committee was of the view that to provide a right of appeal on a question of law alone was too confining.
The Senate bill also proposed increasing the figure of $2,000 to $10,000 in respect of those appeals already mentioned which can be taken to the Supreme Court without prior determination by provincial courts of appeal. This would have brought the monetary figure of those appeals in line with those in section 36.
This proposal ran into considerable opposition when the bill was before the Senate, and indeed from certain hon. members in this chamber, on the ground that it would reduce the public's access to the Supreme Court. As leave to appeal to the Supreme Court will have to be obtained, from the Supreme Court it is not considered necessary to have any monetary limit. If on an application for leave to appeal the Supreme Court considers the appeal has merit it should and will go forward regardless of the amount involved.
That is a brief summary of the purport of the bill, Mr. Speaker, and if the bill receives approval on second reading and moves to committee, then of course in the usual way we can deal with the clauses in detail.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I might say at the outset that we on this side of the chamber certainly endorse the bill going to committee, and we wish to congratulate the minister on the changes that he has made from the bill that was debated in this House on October 7, 1968. I am very happy to see the monetary requirement taken out of the previous bill. As I said on that

February 16, 1970
Supreme Court Act
occasion, when the Senate proposed to change the amount from $2,000 to $10,000:
I am against such a step on two grounds. Over the week end Senator Roebuck said-and I agree with him-that we are really shutting the door of justice in the Supreme Court of Canada to citizens of the country if we enact a provision stipulating that cases before that court must involve $10,000 or a question of law. The average citizen of Canada will be denied the right to go before the highest court of the land, which to me is a very dangerous approach to justice.
There is no doubt that the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are over-worked. But there are two ways to get around the problem. One is to increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court, and the other is to provide them with the assistance that U.S. Supreme Court judges receive. In the United States, Supreme Court judges have the assistance of young lawyers of top scholarship, who help in the writing of their judgments. Here in Canada with respect to the Supreme Court we must preserve what is good. As Thomas Jefferson once said:
We owed it to do, not what was to perish with ourselves, but what would remain, to be respected and preserved through other ages.
The proposed amendment to the original bill S-8, which is now S-182, which changes the words "on a question of law" to "on a question which is not a question of fact alone" is a good amendment.
It is a fundamental principle in any appellate court, whether it be in the appeal court of a province or whether it be in the Supreme Court of Canada, where there is a question of fact and fact alone there can be no appeal. As Your Honour knows, the trial judges are the lords and masters of the facts. Once they have properly and in accordance with the rules of evidence found the facts, those facts are the facts of the case. However, if wrong inferences are drawn from the evidence, or a finding of fact by a trial judge is based either on no evidence or wrong evidence, then that becomes a question of law, or at least a question of mixed fact and law.
It has always been a good rule of law that the Courts of Appeal are in as good a position to draw inferences as a trial judge. Therefore, I congratulate the minister on accepting our viewpoint, and agreeing to appeals, to use the proper terminology, "on a question which is not a question of fact alone."
I have said over and over again in this House, and maybe that is one contribution which I have made, that there should not be a law for the rich and another one for the poor.
[Mr. Woolliams.l
It is in the application of the law that discrimination arises. Therefore, to base the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada on monetary amounts is wrong in principle, contrary to natural justice, and is a carryover of the old laissez-faire philosophy.
I hope that when this bill is studied by the committee it will be seen that the appellant will have two methods of proceeding. One is to apply for leave to appeal prior to the hearing. That of course cuts down the costs because it does not require that the appeal books be printed. On the other hand, if the appellant wishes to appeal direct without that leave, I trust the bill provides that he may do so but he must satisfy the court that the matter involved does not concern a question of fact alone.
I do not know of any better rule than that the trial judges should be the lords and masters of the facts. But it does give a trial judge real power, and it is a known fact that sometimes facts are shaped and trimmed, stated and restated in order that an appeal cannot go any further because the facts are all tied up. The finding of a fact by the trial judge is all powerful, and as I understand reviews of the appeals of the Supreme Court of Canada made by a research group, and covered recently in Maclean's magazine, trial judges' judgments in Canada are restored more often by the Supreme Court of Canada than the reverse.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Always.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody says always, and he is correct. Putting it another way, when provincial appellate courts endeavour to interpret the facts as being a mixed question of fact and law, the Supreme Court of Canada very often reverses the Provincial Appellate court. It is, therefore, important, in the light of this fact, that our appeal courts be made up of very strong men and good men. We have a good court of appeal in western Canada. If I may digress I would say that the new judge, Mr. Clermont, Q.C., an able lawyer who has been appointed to the Appeal Court of Alberta, will be an asset to that court. His appointment is in keeping with the high tradition which has been followed by the various ministers of justice throughout time.
I now turn to a recommendation I should like to make. Having congratulated the minister, I must now say that I feel one thing has been overlooked. I should like to refer to a case that stands unchallenged and unchanged
February 16, 1970

by this bill, and I hope the committee will do something about it. The case is Goldhar v. The Queen, and the citation is 1960 Supreme Court of Canada Reports, page 60. This appeal concerns the right of the Supreme Court of Canada to hear an appeal as to sentence. It was held, with dissent, that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a sentence imposed for the commission of an indictable offence. Now, on the face of it, one would say you have your courts of appeal in the provinces and that would be sufficient review. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention and to the minister's attention the situation which results from a social problem now existing in our society. Because of the widespread use of drugs by young people across the nation, certain apparent injustices occur.
If we had a computer and fed into it the data covering all the charges laid concerning drugs, the election made by Crown counsel whether to proceed under the Narcotics Control Act or the Food and Drugs Act-which makes an awful difference to the kind of sentence handed out-the age of the people charged, whether 15, 16, 17, 21 or older and whether the trial was by judge and jury, judge alone or magistrate, we would be shocked at the variation between the sentences imposed in one part of the country as against another, on an identical charge. Sentences vary from a fine, a heavy fine, to incarceration for a year or two years. When the courts deal with incarceration, because of the provisions of the Narcotics Control Act, sentences for trafficking vary from seven years to life. This is entirely different from the Food and Drug Act under which it is much easier to proceed by summary conviction and that could lead to a variation in sentence from one year to five years for 18 and 16 year olds.
What we need, Mr. Speaker, is uniformity in sentencing, whether a man or woman lives in British Columbia, the Maritimes or Ontario. If the charge is identical, then so should the sentence be. Of course, without being critical, you cannot get uniformity by merely passing an act which provides a maximum of seven years or life for trafficking in a narcotic. What you can do is try to get uniformity in the courts of appeal and in the decisions of trial judges.
Now where does the Goldhar case fit into the situation? Since the minister has taken my advice on the amendment with reference to the monetary situation, I hope he might
Supreme Court Act
also take my advice with reference to the Goldhar v. the Queen case. The decision in that case reads:
This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a sentence imposed for the commission of an indictable offence.
The indictable offence in this case involved trafficking in narcotics in British Columbia. The sentence was appealed on the grounds that it was too stiff. The Supreme Court of Canada never considered the duration of the sentence but only whether they had a right to hear the appeal.
The first point I want to make clear is that if the Supreme Court of Canada were given the right to review the sentence-under certain circumstances it may be more a question of asking for leave than getting some rules laid down-we should not find a situation where a person charged with trafficking got anywhere from one to five to seven years, depending on the judge or how the people in that particular region feel.
When this bill comes before committee I would hope it would be amended to make certain that the Supreme Court of Canada can hear appeals as to sentence. The law is not an exact science and in the Goldhar case the present Chief Justice, a very distinguished jurist and scholar, dissented, but the court ruled that:
This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a sentence imposed for the commission of an indictable offence.
After reviewing the law, Justice Fauteux, who wrote the judgment for the majority, stated:
For these reasons, I am clearly of the view that nowhere in the relevant provisions of the new Code-
He is not referring to the last amendment, but when the Code was completely overhauled a few years ago.
-did Parliament indicate, either in express terms or by clear implication, any intent to alter the prior state of the law, under which there is no appeal to this court in the matter of sentence.
In other words, section 44 of the Supreme Court of Canada Act did not change the law and there is no right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, either with leave or without leave, on a question of sentence.
In Alberta, young men and women were given five years for various offences under the Narcotics Control Act. The Appeal Court reviewed those sentences and cut them to two years less a day. This is a great difference. As the minister pointed out, some of the young

February 16, 1970
Supreme Court Act
people did not have the means to retain counsel. One young person has written to me that he pleaded guilty before a magistrate and got three years. This was before the decision by the Court of Appeal. Another young person was sentenced to four years, signed a waiver of appeal and now has no right of appeal. His offence was no more serious than some others who did have counsel and had the money to go to the Appeal Court. Surely, that is injustice. The only hope I have lies with the parole board which does such a fine job in these cases, sometimes allowing young people daily leave in order that they can take employment.
I have told the minister that I will go along with the changes in the act but that we should make certain that anyone who has been found guilty or who has even pleaded guilty to an indictable offence and feels that he did not get justice should be able to take the matter further, even to the Supreme Court of Canada. Rules should be laid down to be followed by trial judges in order that there be uniformity in the law. This is my recommendation, Mr. Speaker, and my party's recommendation. Since the minister accepted our other recommendations, I trust the committee will accept this one.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, the amendments proposed in Bill C-182, an act to amend the Supreme Court of Canada Act, are largely concerned with technical matters; a tidying up, not really earth-shaking legislation. I suggest to the minister that while we appreciate this and are in general agreement with the proposals, the act nevertheless requires a thorough going revision and review. Anyone who has had occasion to worry about the Supreme Court of Canada Act knows it is complicated, obscure and antiquated. Although the bill seeks to tidy up the act, may I commend to the minister, in the spirit of the federal law commission he has just announced, that the act be looked into as a whole. I think it ought to be rationalized, brought up to date and made clearer for those who wish to understand it.
It is also true that the present act does not raise any fundamental issues with regard to the composition of tribunals. May I sound a conservative note here and say that when this matter is considered I hope we will not rush headlong into the United States practice of having such appointments considered by the Senate, the House or any committee of either
[Mr. Woolliams.l
body. I would sooner rely on the good sense of the minister, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues, no matter what party is in power, to avoid partisan and improper appointments, than see appointments to the judiciary treated as a matter sensitive to political agitation.
Before dealing with the actual amendments before us, may I say a word about the Supreme Court of Canada as an institution. We hardly appreciate in Canada that this institution is of major and fundamental importance to our entire parliamentary democracy and that it is a tremendously important part of our constitutional set-up. Yet in the words of the poet whose name I forget, it is unwept, unhonoured and unsung. Not only that, but the proceedings of our Supreme Court of Canada in large part are unobserved. I think that is wrong. In our country the Supreme Court of Canada is as important an institution as the Supreme Court of the United States is in the United States. The names of United States Supreme Court judges are household words. Hordes of tourists pour through the United States Supreme Court buildings, and they have to be turned out at 15 minute intervals. The personalities of the judges are scrutinized to see if they are of conservative or liberal temperament-and I use these terms in the non-political sense.
Yet in Canada, somehow or other, our people overlook the importance of this most important institution. If the government sums up enough courage to bring in a firm form of income control, the whole matter could become a constitutional issue which the court will have to determine. It is my hope that it will be determined quickly by a reference. If the government does what I think is its duty to combat inflation, it will deal firmly and effectively with this subject. The matter of whether the government, under the constitution, has authority to bring in such a far reaching measure is also something the Supreme Court of Canada may have to decide.
We hear much these days about the subject of pollution and the House has before it a bill respecting water quality. Before the Committee on National Resources and Public Works, experts the other day were discussing the question of who has jurisdiction in this field. Personally, I am of the view that the co-operation of all levels of government is necessary. But in the final analysis, I believe that there is a firm constitutional responsibility on Parliament and the Government of
February 16, 1970

Canada to deal with this all pervasive subject of pollution. If it is to be dealt with, then sooner or later and I hope sooner rather than later, it will have to be considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. The life, fate and well-being of Canada rests with that court. The Supreme Court of Canada is a very human institution, but it is a great institution nevertheless.
I know of no man who was more highly respected as a judge than the late Chief Justice Duff, before whom I had the honour, as have other hon. members here no doubt, of appearing on several occasions. There have been few greater minds in any court in any part of the world. Also, I think it is appropriate at this time to pay a tribute to the Chief Justice of Canada, Chief Justice Cartwright, who is to retire I think at the end of this month. He is a great judge and a great gentleman. In view of his imminent retirement, I think it is perfectly proper for me to pay a tribute to him in this House.
The Supreme Court of Canada has been the guardian of the fundamental rights of Canadians. One could refer to a whole line of cases that bears this out. The court brought down what is known as an unofficial bill of rights; it struck out the infamous Padlock Act; it decided against the Press Act of Alberta; in the Boucher case it brought down a judgment which limited sedition to a reasonable scope and prevented charges of sedition being used to suppress fundamental freedoms of speech. In the Roncarelli case a provincial prime minister was required to pay damages for intimidation of the man who was only trying to assist in administration by giving bail to a witness of Jehovah. In a recent case involving only $10 the Supreme Court of Canada gave leave to an appellant to appeal because the court was of the view that a fundamental right was involved, the right of a citizen to post on his own home an election sign saying, "Vote for Joe Bloe", or whatever the name might be. The Supreme Court of Canada, by a five to four decision, held that what was done constituted an attempt by way of municipal bylaw to infringe on political rights of Canadians. Having been a successful counsel, I naturally think that this was an excellent decision.


John Napier Turner: Your client had a perfect right to post his notice, but he showed bad political judgment.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have said enough to indicate that what we are now discussing, the jurisdic-
Supreme Court Act
tion of the Supreme Court of Canada, is of very great importance. The court itself is most important as a Canadian institution.
Perhaps I ought not to deal with the details of the bill since I can speak on those when the bill goes before the committee. I submit that the provision that applications for leave to appeal must be heard by three judges is excellent. In the Truscott case only one judge made the decision with respect to leave for appeal. I think the Supreme Court of Canada ought to have reviewed the case ab initio instead of reviewing it only after great public clamor. I approve of the amendment to section 36 which provides that appeals to the Supreme Court lie on questions that are not questions of fact alone. That makes sense. The Supreme Court, after all, is a most important tribunal and must deal with important matters involving the constitution. It is primarily a court of law and must determine what the law is. I think it is well to allow the lower courts to determine questions of fact as a general rule.
The amendment with regard to habeas corpus sounded very reasonable and logical according to the ministers' explanation, but I shall have to look into it more closely because, after all, habeas corpus is a writ affecting the liberty of the subject and we must examine carefully this ancient right. We know that appeals from provincial courts may be adequate in such matters; nevertheless, I reserve my right to comment on this amendment at a later stage in the proceedings. There is a provision which would allow appeals to circumvent provincial courts, to use the language of the minister, and make the hearing of them depend on leave instead of a monetary limit. That is sound. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) that appeals should not be measured out by the exact monetary amount involved.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
We will not obstruct or delay the passage of this particular bill. It is a small bill, a tidying up bill. We not only take this opportunity to pay tribute to the court, but also to say to the minister the court could be even more effective if a thorough job was done in revising this act. By relying on the tidying up processes, there is sometimes a tendency to confuse the unfortunate members of the law profession, because they have to follow all the amendments from time to time. That is not

February 16, 1970
Supreme Court Act
easy. I would like to see the whole act subjected to careful scrutiny, rationalized and made dependent in nearly every case on the leave of the Supreme Court of Canada because that court is best able to judge the cases which have significance as a whole. I think they can be trusted to grant leave to appeal where real issues of law or liberty emerge, and where issues of the rights of Canadians are seriously endangered.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the House for the speedy disposition of the last bill. I have had it indicated to me from all sides of the House that there is a willingness to move into the private members' hour at this stage because of the change in the order of business. I wonder whether that agreement has been relayed to Your Honour?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed the House now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is understood that according to the Standing Orders there is a limit of one hour for the consideration of private members' business which will be before the House at this time. I have been given to understand it is the wish of the House that we rise immediately thereafter to give hon. members an opportunity to prepare for the debate which will be called later on.
Pursuant to special order, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, public bills.


Yves Forest: I understand the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) is on his way and will be here in a minute to discuss his bill. He is ready to proceed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We have just been too fast, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Brewin.l


Mr. Speaker:: I find it difficult to agree with that suggestion. If it is the wish of the House, we shall wait a moment until the hon. member for Parkdale arrives so that the motion can be put to the House.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Stanley Haidasz: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the feasibility of allowing residential taxes on owner-occupied homes and rental payments of accommodation by tenants to be deductible from federal personal income tax up to a maximum allowable of five hundred dollars each year.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to introduce again in this House a motion designed to come to the relief of the over-burdened Canadian taxpayers. In doing so, I hope to bring to the attention of the federal government, and especially to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), the urgent need to ease the great burden of the Canadian taxpayer who is not only heavily taxed but, in some cases, the victim of double taxation.
It is my opinion, one which I believe is shared by many people, that those who dwell in owner-occupied homes as well as those who live in rooming houses and apartments deserve favourable consideration from the Minister of Finance. The growth of our cities in Canada is reaching a critical point. The federal government has a stake in the provision of financing for houses as well as the provision of incentives leading to the creation of greater employment opportunities for city dwellers and to lend money to the municipalities to enable them to provide such essential services as education, protection, and measures to reduce pollution. However, the extent to which the federal government can be involved in the affairs of our cities is limited by the terms of the British North America Act, and provincial governments, which have most responsibility for land use planning, regional economic planning, regional servicing and education have, unfortunately, not yet produced adequate policies and programs to deal with the problems of our urban areas.
Most of these fields have traditionally been left to local municipalities whose power to
February 16, 1970

raise money to keep abreast of the demand for more services caused by increased industrialization and growing urban population is limited. And so we are subjected to increased municipal taxes every year. In his inaugural address to the Toronto City Council on January 7, 1970, the Mayor of Toronto stated:
If there was one message which came through loud and clear during the last municipal election, it was the appeal from home-owners of this city that they cannot afford to pay higher taxes.
Among other things, Mr. Speaker, the mayor also stated that he was most disappointed to see no mention in the federal government's white paper on tax reform of a resolution which was considered by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities calling for a new provision to allow municipal property taxes to be deducted from individual taxable income. Such a provision is allowed in the United States and it avoids the injustice of forcing a homeowner to pay a tax on income which had already been taxed.
A person paying property tax is, in effect, paying a double tax. The hard-earned money with which Canadians pay their property taxes has already been taxed to death by provincial and federal governments. Many tax experts have described residential taxes as being inequitable and regressive bearing heavily upon those who can afford to pay them least. At the present time, property taxes paid by businessmen are deductible; property tax paid by apartment-owners is also a deductible item. Single-family zoned homes rented to tenants fall into the same category. Furthermore, the owner of an apartment building can take advantage of corporate tax law by deducting his operating costs, mortgage interest costs and municipal taxes whereas dwellers of owner-occupied homes, like tenants in boarding houses and apartments, get no such relief when computing their federal income tax.
Reading the speeches and resolutions of the mayors and councillors of Canadian municipalities it becomes obvious that there is a growing dissatisfaction with the senior levels of government for failing to give the subject of municipal taxation the attention which it deserves. The rumblings of discontent are growing louder each day. I believe it is imperative that the Minister of Finance, together with his provincial counterparts, give this matter serious attention, and, I hope, favourable consideration.
House and property stand at the centre of most people's lives. Proper shelter means
Income Tax
security. It also means independence and privacy. It contributes to a better family life and to conditions which make it more satisfactory to raise a family. Unfortunately, the increase in the housing costs index between 1964 and 1967 showed it to be the most rapidly rising component of consumer prices in that period.
Senior citizens are particularly at a disadvantage as far as municipal taxes are concerned. I am sure hon. members would agree that inflation has most affected those who lived on fixed incomes. Older people with limited retirement incomes are obliged to exist on small pensions. In their earlier years senior citizens denied themselves many things in order to pay off mortgaged homes. Today they find themselves faced with ever-increasing municipal taxes. Many of them are forced to sell their homes and live in apartments. But tenants in apartment houses also face rent increases whenever municipal taxes rise.
By supporting this motion, hon. members will make it possible not only for those who reside in owner-occupied homes but also for people who live in boarding houses and apartments to claim an exemption in connection with their personal income tax. This would ease the intolerable load of taxation which is now such a heavy burden on Canadians. I believe the finance committee of the House of Commons should consider the subject matter of this motion in the course of its study of tax reform. I hope the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray), who assists the Minister of Finance, will support my motion as he supported a similar motion which I presented to the House during the last session of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, this is a rare opportunity for us to reduce federal income taxes. I am sure the people of Canada would welcome action of the kind proposed in the motion, and this is why I appeal to all hon. members to support it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I had not intended, Mr. Speaker, to take part in the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), but I learned of it earlier this afternoon while I was on the plane with him, and I thought it was a particularly interesting motion inasmuch as the opinion expressed in it has been a platform of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
What originally concerned me was that in referring to tenants there might have been a

February 16. 1970
Income Tax
certain amount of discrimination with the result that one section of society, the householders, would be given a tax advantage while another, those who were renting accommodation, would receive no such benefit. I was, therefore, pleased to see by the terms of the hon. member's motion that there is to be no such discrimination-that the proposal covers both householders and those who are renting. In these circumstances, I am pleased to speak in favour of the motion; it appears that even though the government is attempting to discourage home ownership, to judge from some of the proposals in the white paper on tax reform, here is a parliamentary secretary who believes the time has come to give a break to those who own or rent homes.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I should like to say that, on the one hand, we have a government member attempting to bring relief or some incentive in respect of home ownership, while at the same time, his party is proposing reforms or changes to our tax structure which would hamper the small businessman. It is unquestionable that he has played a great role in respect of home ownership. Further, we say that this white paper, in effect indicates there is a desire on the part of the government to bring homes into a proposed capital gains structure. These two things indicate there is something wrong in respect of the thinking of the government. I am glad to see that my hon. friend has now set the government back on a proper course. Perhaps he might refer the matter to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), and the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing, and they might look upon his motion with some sympathy.
I think it is time we started to realize that the home owner, as was so adequately stated by the parliamentary secretary, has been undergoing tax frustration which leads him to the point where he says, well, what is the sense in owning my home. It is not necessary to refer to the white paper. However, I think this motion would give an incentive to the home owner in the form of some tax relief. What about those on fixed incomes and those on pensions who also need a break? Apparently they are not to be given a break. It would appear to me that if the government were sympathetic to the hon. member's motion, relief would be given. The government might then be in a position to say, this is the just society and we are attempting to bring the legislation into line to show that we

are giving some thought to those people on the bottom of the economic ladder, that we have heart, contrary to what a former secretary of state actually indicated.
I should like to mention another point with regard to the motion. There has been a suggestion that the government cannot move in respect of the municipalities because the municipalities are the creatures of the provinces. It is suggested this creates a constitutional hang-up, which is amazing. Here we have a motion, the effect of which would be to give direct assistance to those affected by urban living. In this motion we are saying that, regardless of the constitution and the fact that the municipalities are creatures of the provinces, we can become involved and therefore can entertain such a motion which would give some assistance. I should like to point out that although it might seem at times that the constitution can be a barrier in terms of direct government intervention, in many instances this is not so. Here is one instance in which it is clear that the federal government can intervene to relieve the frustration of urban living.
I hope, as stated by the parliamentary secretary and the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing, that the Minister of Finance will be sympathetic to what we believe is a very commendable motion in view of the frustrations resulting from increased urbanization. In view of the lack of enthusiasm in respect of the government's proposed changes in taxation, and even if the government is insistent on these changes, I hope we are now at a stage, where some relief can be given those who own and rent homes. Since some members on the government side believe in this proposal I hope we are at the stage where we can say that a home can still be a man's castle and not subjected to undue taxation.


Mr, Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be impossible for anyone who comes from a residential urban area and who represents people on modest incomes, as I and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) do, not to be entirely sympathetic with this resolution. The resolution calls upon the government to give consideration to granting relief in respect of taxes and rents. I should like to point out, as I believe most hon. members are aware, that no group in our population is more frustrated or feels more unhappy than that group of people on small fixed incomes whose home ownership is being threatened by the ever-rising burden of
February 16, 1970

Income Tax
real estate and income taxes and, for that matter, the rising rentals. I do not suppose there are any members from urban areas who do not receive almost daily cries of anguish from those suffering from this situation.
I think the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) is to be warmly commended for bringing in this resolution, I believe not for the first time, and for bringing this human urban problem to the attention of the House. I am not completely satisfied about the limits he proposes. I notice all that is being asked is that the government should give consideration to this matter. The government is not being asked to legislate in this regard. Certainly I think we in this party can support the resolution, although as I said 1 am not quite happy about the $500 deduction as the overall amount. As I read the resolution, this $500 would be deductible from the tax and not from the taxable income. I suspect some people might be beneficiaries in this regard who do not need to be beneficiaries and who are more able to pay their proper real estate and income taxes. I think that should be looked into. I think the limit of the benefits to be given should be considered. I should like to hear what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has to say about the effect of this proposal, although after having heard him I might disagree with him.
I would suggest to the hon. member who introduced this resolution there is another aspect in respect of the exemption which should be looked into. I have in mind the giving of an incentive through income tax deduction or exemption to those who improve their houses. One reason for the so-called decay or deterioration of housing in urban areas is the fact that the cost of repairs is a tremendous burden. With the tax and other burdens many owners feel they are unable to maintain their houses at proper standards. I think the matter of an exemption in respect of those home owners who spend money on repairing existing housing should be considered. The Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing is not here, but I never like to let an opportunity pass without saying in respect of the whole field of housing management that attention should be paid to the question of rehabilitating the existing stock of housing as against the necessary but not more important question of building more public housing, in particular for those in the lower income brackets.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we in this corner- perhaps I should not speak for the whole corner because I might easily be repudiated for adopting too wide a constituency, and therefore perhaps I should say we in this party-think this resolution is worthwhile because it deals with a vitally important subject. It aims in the right direction in using our tax laws to assist and benefit those who need it most. We think this is an eminently proper subject for discussion. If this resolution is passed, it might well be referred to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs so they can examine the matter and suggest alternative proposals to do what we know is of basic importance if there is to be a just society in this country, and that is to relieve the burden on the small home owner and the small income tax payer of this country.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that this motion has two objects: one is to help the citizen with his problems in financing his house, and the second is to bring about a more equitable Income Tax Act or a reformed tax act. While I am sympathetic to both goals, I do not know whether this motion is the best way of accomplishing these ends.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Here comes the hatchet.


William Warren Allmand: I am listening to the very interesting comments of my friends in the opposition and I will deal with them a little later.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With the oh, oh's?


William Warren Allmand: I agree fully that many Canadians are having difficulty in financing their housing. They are having difficulty with their mortgage payments and their residential and school taxes. But, as I said, I have doubts as to whether this type of motion will best help these people. Last year the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) had a similar motion on the order paper but, if I remember correctly, he did not have the $500 maximum. He is nodding that he did. Several years ago I spoke on a motion such as this in which there was no maximum of $500 and which did not apply to rental. At that time I objected to the motion because I felt that the people who needed help most were not getting it. For example, those who had $100,000 or $50,000 homes were getting much larger deductions

February 16. 1970
Income Tax
than those who had $10,000, $15,000 and $20,000 homes. I did not think it was fair that the measure to help people with their housing should be based on the value of their homes, as residential taxes are. I felt that if we wanted to help people with housing, there were better methods of doing it than merely-allowing them to deduct their residential taxes.
The motion today puts a $500 maximum on this proposals, but I still feel that it does more to help those with bigger homes than those with smaller homes. While I approve of the motion because it merely states that the government should give consideration to the feasibility of these measures, I have a real question in my mind as to whether this type of measure is the best way of helping those people who have trouble in financing their own homes or in paying their rent.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We will be discussing it in the committee.


William Warren Allmand: That may be the best way, but this is not a motion for second reading of a bill which automatically goes to a committee. It is a motion that the government should give consideration to a certain measure, and I feel that this debate is an occasion when members of the House can put forward then-counter proposals and their doubts concerning the motion.
As I said, like many hon. members I am very sympathetic to the problems of people who are trying to pay for their homes, and I am particularly sympathetic to those who have lower incomes and cannot purchase a home. I feel that if we introduce measures, they should be directed more to those people, and this motion does not really deal with the problem. It might be better to provide direct grants to people who are having difficulty, let us say by amending the National Housing Act, so that we might directly subsidize those on low incomes who need housing. It may be that we should give tax credits to those on medium or low incomes to help them finance their housing, or we could even provide exemptions or deductions as proposed in the motion to be applied only to those who are 65 years of age or over.
I have noted recently that several municipalities around Montreal have decided to freeze residential taxes once a person goes on pension. I think this is very worthwhile because most people buy homes in the early years of their working lives, when they are in their 30s and 40s. They buy a home looking

forward to a certain income which will allow them to pay up their homes and to pay their taxes. However, what is happening is that people retire at the age of 65 on company pensions or government pensions which are more or less fixed. They have these large homes which they purchased in previous years and on which residential and school taxes are increasing, but their incomes are fixed. I congratulate those municipalities which have recognized this problem and decided to freeze residential taxes for those who have retired. Perhaps we should give this proposed exemption for rental or for taxes to people who have retired at the age of 65. Perhaps that would be more equitable.
I have other suggestions also. Perhaps for people on lower incomes we should give tax credits, or perhaps we should restrict the measure to those who really need it rather than apply it to all those who own their own homes because, as I mentioned, those with the larger homes would get larger exemptions.
This brings us to a real difficulty whenever we talk about reforms and exemptions. It is very easy for a member of Parliament or for a politician to approve new exemptions for this and new deductions for that. This is an easy way of becoming popular with a group of constituents. However, if we are to be responsible, when we propose exemptions and deductions which will mean that the government will lose a large amount of revenue- and if this measure were to be accepted the government would lose a very large amount of revenue-and if we want to maintain our government services at the same level, we should think of ways to make up that loss in revenue.
That has been one of the difficulties we had in the debate on the white paper on taxation. Many people approved increased exemptions, for example, for those people on fixed or low incomes or exemptions for people who work and who need to have day care for their children. It is easy to approve such exemptions, but those people also disapproved of the necessary measures to make up the lost revenue. As I said, if we are serious about motions such as this and we want to grant exemptions to people in certain areas in this country, if we want to grant them deductions which will cost millions or perhaps billions of dollars, we have to be ready to increase taxes in another area in order to maintain our revenue at the same level and to give the same services. Otherwise, we are being irresponsible and acting as demagogues, even
February 16, 1970

though we are catering to the legitimate wish of everyone to lower the tax burden. But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot lower tax burdens and also increase services to the public. You have to deal with both problems.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) said some very fine things. However, I was a bit disappointed when he stated that the government was attempting to discourage home ownership. I thought that was very unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether he really meant that. I do not see how anyone can seriously say the government is attempting to discourage home ownership when only two weeks ago in this House the minister responsible for housing introduced a budget for CMHC which increased its funds by $200 million. In this inflationary period, I think the government is doing its best to shift priority to housing, and within that area is attempting to shift priorities from general housing programs to public housing programs.
When a government is dealing with limited amounts of money its real problem is to allocate that money according to proper priorities. We cannot go on suggesting that exemptions be given in many, many areas, which might all be laudable, if we are not also prepared at the same time to suggest methods of making up the losses in revenue.
As I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I think we should implement measures to assist the Canadian people with their housing, but I think that those measures should be implemented through the National Housing Act and not through the Income Tax Act. However, I would support this motion since it only states that the government should give consideration to the proposals contained in it. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the doubts I have raised in this debate are without foundation. Perhaps we can help those on low income by proposing amendments to the Income Tax Act to allow them exemptions such as are suggested here. But while I support the motion, I have a feeling that its adoption would do more to help those who have larger incomes, who have larger homes, and would not really help those who are having difficulty either purchasing their own homes or paying the high rentals in effect today.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record as saying that perhaps in my enthusiasm, listening to the hon. member when he began his remarks, I
Income Tax
jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and threw in an "Oh, oh." I would like to withdraw that "Oh, oh" because I see that he is in favour of the motion, with certain misgivings.


John Leroy Skoberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the House allow the hon. member who introduced the motion to clarify the $500 each year, whether it is deducted from the taxable income or the tax?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid that option is not open to us at this stage.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, of late I seem to be on my feet quite often congratulating Liberal members-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Wait for the break-for taking a personal stand which is often at some variance with the stand taken by the government. Some years ago I suggested it might be a good idea if we had an all-party caucus once a month and cleared some of the items which come up from time to time upon which there is little difference of opinion between wellmeaning members of Parliament. I think this is one of those items.
There is hardly a person who does not know that the Canadian homeowner is carrying a terrible burden of double taxation. I know the argument that we have to look after the deep pocket. That is a fine argument in a socialist minded country, but it is not the only answer. There is some such thing as equity. Just because a person has made a few honest dollars I do not think governments at any level, municipal, provincial or federal, have any God given right to take all that money.
Half of the letters I get these days are about taxes. I would say that every third letter I get concerns the high taxes on private property. I am glad to see that this motion proposed by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) comes right to the point, and covers both home owners and those who rent their accommodation. Rents are exorbitantly high for the middle and lower income Canadian, who is told by his landlord that he, the landlord, faces a crushing burden of taxation. For this reason I wholeheartedly support the motion. I would not be consistent if I did not, because during every budget debate in the last 12 years I have mentioned the crushing burden of double taxation.
We often make comparisons with the situation in the country to the south of us. In the

February 16, 1970
Income Tax
United States, some relief is given to home owners because their mortgage payments are taken into consideration in calculating income tax. Mortgage interest charges are deductible from taxable income in the United States. I am not particularly touched by the desire of the government to lend people money to build houses, because we know that the current rate of interest is 9 per cent, if not more. A sum of $200 million will not build all the houses we need in Canada, not by any means. The people who need the money the most are not in a position to pay 9 per cent interest on it.
Some 20 years ago I lived in Ottawa. At that time I could have bought any number of lots within commuting distance of Ottawa at anywhere from $200 to $300. Today those lots sell for $4,500. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) or the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) are looking for other places to find money I suggest they should heavily tax the land robbers, the people who are buying up farm land around our major cities, and making young people pay $4,000 for 50 foot lots.
At present if you do not have $5,000 in hand to buy a lot you are no longer a Canadian; you have no right to live here. Or you may need to borrow $5,000 at 9 per cent interest just to buy a 50 foot lot. A great many of our young people just starting out cannot afford this, let alone the cost of a $15,000 or $16,000 house on such a lot. What are you going to do when you retire? The 500,000 civil servants in Canada today have no security of tenure. What are they going to do if they have a $5,000 lot and a $15,000 home with all the burdens of increasing taxation.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Only ten years ago I built a home in a village and my taxes were $200 a year; today they are $700. I am not blaming the municipality since everybody is asking for services and the municipalities are carrying a great deal of this cost. When the federal government wants to escape responsibility, after having brought in many socialistic ventures like medicare, they just pass the cost on to the municipalities who find it a crushing burden. Why take the money from the homeowner? Why not go where the big money is being made? Every Canadian has a right to own a home but at the present time faces a crushing burden if he earns $6,000 or $7,000 a year and is trying to raise a family.

There is nothing wrong with the principle of equalization of taxes if everybody gets the same services. In Alberta, however, you pay the same taxes in a village as in a city. For the city dweller, there is the advantage that all the family can live at home while attending school and university while it usually costs the country dweller $3,000 to $5,000 a year to send a child to university in the city.
I want to compliment the member for Park-dale for bringing up this matter. One of the reasons there is such a poor attendance in the House today is that my party has people at the Chateau Laurier working on the white paper. No doubt when the press write their reports it will be said that the Conservative Party is against the white paper and tax reform; that we represent too many of the landed aristocracy of Canada and the multimillionaires. This is nonsense. We represent tax reform on a sensible basis and we believe that taxation in Canada today is inequitable. I think we should come up with an answer and get the money to run the cities, the provinces and the country at the place where exorbitant profits are made, wherever that may be.
Before I get any suggestions from the labour side, I have a message for labour as well. I want them to draw the line somewhere. I attended a labour conference once and all I heard was that they wanted more.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: More is not good enough when you are getting enough. I am not afraid of the labour vote. Labour votes for me because I tell them the truth, that every labouring man in Canada is entitled to a good living and entitled to relief from double taxation. That is why I am even agreeing with my so-called political enemies, but my enmity remains inside this House. When I go out I shall compliment the member for Parkdale for taking a maverick stand. If enough members took the same stand we would not be down-graded by governments of all kinds, as we are. I am a maverick in my party, too. I am not afraid of big government, whether it be Conservative, Liberal, CCF, NDP or Social Credit. Give them too much power and they will abuse it.
One thing that alarmed me more than anything else was being told in this chamber that I do not amount to anything. I do not mind that; my skin is thick and my shoulders broad and I am sure I shall take worse criticism before I die. But to say that the seat I fill is not important to the people of Canada
February 16, 1970

is another thing. I may not be filling it well, but the responsibility to the people of Canada remains where it has been for the last thousand years. This is the only institution I know of that lies between the taxpayers of Canada and greedy governments, call them what you will.
Members today, unfortunately, are only too prone to be yes men to the faceless group behind the government. In the 12 years that I have been here I cannot track them all down, but somewhere somebody seems to be calling the punches and some way we seem to be able to do very little about it. I still think that if every one of the 265 members got up in their places and talked they would prove that the most powerful weapon on earth to get things done is the human tongue.
I suggest that it may be important that we have an all-party caucus. It is not good enough to take the important issues facing this country and hide them in committees or in committee reports which will rest on the table forever. The only way I know that we can be effective is to get somewhere behind closed doors and get things done. We cannot wait 20 years for relief from double taxation and I do not even think that we can wait until we get a consensus in the Chateau Laurier this afternoon. Even if we did get a consensus, there are 70 Conservatives down there and we know that when they come up with their report it will be misinterpreted. Someone will say that we are against this sort of relief. But we know where the crux of the matter lies; we are not taxing the proper people. If it is socialism to say that the fellow who is making the big profit should pay big taxes I will go along with it. But I will not say it is a sin to work or to put your back into the job, and that the fellow who does the work should pay the shot for everybody who does not want to work.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Sooner or later we shall all have to say to the Canadian government that we want fewer white papers and more green paper in each pocket. Canadians want more money left in their pay envelopes after they have payed taxes to all three levels of government. It is our responsibility to tell those attending the federal-provincial conference that all three levels of government are taking more than 50 per cent out of every man's wage dollar. As members of Parliament, members of provincial legislatures or of city councils, we have
Income Tax
arrogated unto ourselves the right of spending the taxpayers' money on project A, B, C or D or on this priority or that. I do not think the people of Canada will stand for this much longer. They do not want to see us hiding behind the constitution. We say, "Blame the provinces.". The provinces say, "Blame the federal government", and everybody says, "Blame the municipalities". The cities are here to stay and we must find some rational way of financing them. I hope the provinces are here to stay, because I would not like to see the federal government becoming so strong that provincial rights will not be respected. Believe me, regional disparities will never disappear unless the provinces remain strong and in control of their own affairs.


Mr. Gilbert:: Don't talk it out, Jack.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We cannot shrug off our responsibility by blaming someone else.


John Gilbert: Don't talk it out.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: No. I will not talk it out. I have just about finished. An examination of these questions is long overdue. We should give homeowners of Canada and those paying rents in Canada immediate relief from double taxation.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 40 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Social Security-Inquiry as to tabling of white paper; the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir)-Cape Breton Development Corporation-Request by union official for apology by minister; the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin)-The Canadian Economy-Inflation- Alleviation of fiscal burden.
The hour for consideration of private members' business having expired, pursuant to special order of the House made earlier this day I do now leave the Chair until 8 p.m.
At 4.37 p.m. the House took recess.

February 16, 1970
Investment Companies AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, February 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray (for Mr. Benson) that Bill C-179, respecting investment companies, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those rare parliamentary occasions when the background of the proposed legislation and the circumstances surrounding its introduction are more revealing and important than the terms of the bill itself. Because of this I would like to recall briefly some of the origin of Bill C-179, a pale and bloodless mutation of Bill S-17 which died unlamented at the end of last session.
In its original form as introduced by the government in the other place, the bill was sufficient to have completely altered the economic and political power structure of Canada if it had become law. The original definition of an investment company in that bill, the extraordinary powers invested in the Superintendent of Insurance-a non-elected departmental official-and other features contrary to the spirit of a democratic, free enterprise economy would have given the government more power over the general economy of the country than any Canadian government has ever had in time of peace. If Bill S-17 has passed into law in its original form, it would have affected a larger number of Canadians more directly than any other economic measure with the exception of the budget. Its true intent, I believe, was the socialization and control of investment in Canada.
It will be recalled that members of the other place became so alarmed by the radical changes proposed by this legislation that they took the unprecedented step of bypassing the law officers of Parliament and hiring outside counsel to redraft it. The bill was studied at length and in detail in committee and many expert witnesses were called. It is significant

that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) stubbornly declined to appear before the committee to explain the bill about which he spoke freely outside Parliament at the time. Also, the deputy minister of justice was not permitted to appear to explain the complex legal ramifications. Thanks to the alertness and determination of members of the other place, the bill was almost completely shorn of its most objectionable features and was passed on to us. It died, however, when the House of Commons rose to end the session last July. For all practical purposes the bill we are considering today is identical to the version finally accepted by the other place.
I have felt it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to recall these circumstances because I believe the original government concept of taking over a large measure of control of private investment in this country, as reflected in the original Bill S-17, is one piece in a carefully plotted program of all-embracing state control. We see signs of this in other measures the government has brought in or is planning to bring in, such as the amendments already in force to the estate tax system and the proposed tax reforms contained in the white paper.
For that reason, I do not believe this government will be content with passage of the legislation now before us. At a later date we may expect to see either tough amendments to this bill or completely new legislation that seeks to achieve what failed with the emasculation of Bill S-17. I do not believe for a minute that this government will be satisfied with anything less than complete domination of the social and economic life of Canada- overwhelming, centralized, socialist power.
As to the provisions of the bill as it is now before us, there are many points to criticize in varying degree. One of the most important omissions in the bill is that no provision is made to make privileged the information obtained from corporations by government under its terms. Communication of such information, except perhaps in certain very special circumstances, should be absolutely prohibited and penalties for breaching this prohibition should be provided in the bill. Precedents for this are to be found in the existing Statistics Act and in the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.
In addition, there should be a provision that no public servant who during his stint with the government had access to investment companies' confidential information could divulge such information should he leave the
February 16, 1970

government service for a position outside. The need for this provision is obvious in view of what occurred shortly after Bill S-17 was originally introduced. Mr. A. B. Hockin, the then assistant deputy minister of finance responsible for economic analysis and government finance who was intimately concerned with the passage of Bill S-17, left the public service on January 1 of this year to take a position with a large New York city investment house.
Such a situation would be most unjust and unfair were this bill to pass and a public servant, privy to confidential information obtained unders its provisions, decided to leave to take a position with a company that was a competitor with the others with whom he had been dealing as a representative of government. Any investment company that could lure away the Superintendent of Insurance, with no provision to make information acquired under this bill confidential, would score a great coup. There are many other areas of objection, Mr. Speaker, but many of these have already been dealt with by other speakers. I would simply make it clear that I believe the few areas where correction is indicated for the public good could be adequately taken care of by amendments to existing statutes. I do not think a new piece of legislation is necessary.
What I am chiefly concerned about is the trend, apparent in most of this government's legislation, to encroach more and more on private business and to ever further inhibit private and individual decision and initiative. We are in an era where our economic health and national development depend upon flexibility in commerce and industry and upon the ability of quick business decisions being made in order to adapt to changing circumstances. It seems to me that in legislation such as this we are continually smothering this ability.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The dead weight of bureaucracy is crushing private enterprise. Gradually, the central government is acquiring more and more control in areas it has no legitimate excuse for entering. No doubt legislation such as this will be greeted with unqualified approval by members of the New Democratic Party. After all, the theory behind legislation such as this was taken from their political manual. I hope the Canadian public will wake up and realize that the guiding principles underlying the creation of the so-called just society are socialist principles, and that today's Liberal philosophy
Investment Companies
aims at realizing the shop-worn socialist dream of rigid, centralized state control of every aspect of life. I shall watch the progress of this bill through committee with considerable interest, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments before this bill receives second reading, as I suppose it will. I do so more in sorrow than in anger, though there is good occasion for anger.
First of all, I wish to point out in a related context that when the government talks about the great urgency of its legislative program-the necessity of putting through 74 bills in 73 days-we ought to view these claims with great caution. On Friday, for example, we gave second reading to an amendment to a bill which had been put through the House last June on the basis that it was desperately required. Yet when we came to debate the amendment we discovered that the bill had never been proclaimed.
Today, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray), a very genial minister-if I hesitated then for a moment, it was not because I do not really consider him to be genial but because I was looking for another adjective to accompany the word-told the House that a bill which had been passed here two months ago, and which had been sent to the other place, would not become operative for the very reasons which we on this side had indicated were valid reasons for opposing it.
We have before us a bill which has had a most extraordinary and chequered career, as my hon. friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has pointed out. It was introduced in the other place last year. It was torn to pieces by the members of the other place and almost completely re-written. Then it was introduced in this House for first reading only. Today we find it brought back incorporating most of the changes made by the Senate, together with additional changes. There is no doubt we would have been led to believe that this, too, was an important measure which had to be passed last year. In view of all this, one can readily understand that we on this side are doubtful about the honesty and legitimacy of the government's claims in connection with its legislative program, and we intend to scrutinize closely whatever program is proposed to us.
As my hon. friend from Edmonton West stated, this bill was changed substantially in the Senate and is now introduced in completely different form-

February 16, 1970
Investment Companies


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I would prefer at least some of the conversations now being held between hon. members to take place behind the curtain. I am finding it difficult to hear the hon. member.


Gerald William Baldwin: I thought hon. members were agreeing with what I have to say, Mr. Speaker. It might well be they could agree by voting later as we would wish them to vote. The fact remains that we are considering this evening a measure in line with a trend which has been developing for years, particularly during the present session. I have looked at this measure and I am shocked at the extent to which it would assign to the government extraordinary powers in so many ways.
I checked the bill clause by clause, and without debating the clauses in any way I wish to run down the list in order to substantiate the claim I am making. This is a government which is hungry for power. It secures power in a great many ways, particularly through its legislative program. Your Honour will find that each bill is really little more than a regulatory clause surrounded by other clauses. The one before us is a typical example.
In a dozen or more clauses authority is given to the minister and to the officials of his department to act as their whim might dictate. It is true that general and vague guidelines are laid down, but in the final analysis, with one exception where provision is made for appeal to the Exchequer Court, the minister and his officials are given complete discretion in dealing with these corporations. I do not stand here to defend the investment corporations; I hold no brief for them. I point out, however, that the two companies in respect of which problems arose and large losses were incurred by creditors, shareholders and others, were both provincially-incor-porated companies. To my knowledge, no federal investment company has been required to seek assistance because of financial difficulties.
This is not to say, of course, that such a situation could not arise. Indeed, I think it is wise that a government should take precautions to protect those who need to be protected. But when we consider the extraordinary extent to which the government has gone to demand power and authority, we cannot but ask ourselves where it is going and what does it want. For example, clause 2 provides that where a company has borrowed money on the security of its bonds, the money shall be

presumed to be borrowed for the purpose of investment within the meaning of the act unless the minister is satisfied to the contrary. The minister is given unrestricted discretion in deciding whether he is satisfied on this point.
I turn now to clause 3(2), which is the clause giving the minister power to grant exemptions. It states that the minister may grant exemption from the application of this act to any investment company if it is satisfied that certain things have been brought about. This discretion is given to the minister to say to a company, "We can take you out of the provisions of the Act," if he is satisfied that such-and-such are the facts. I do not know who will administer this provision. I do not know whether it will be my hon. friend or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). It may be administered by perfectly good and respectable people, but I say there should be no right to give to people involved in political life the uncontrolled power to make these judgments or decisions.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Subclause 3 gives the minister the power to revoke the exemption if he is satisfied of certain conditions. Clause 5 gives the officials of the department, particularly the Superintendent, power to require necessary information and facts. I can understand that there is a need under certain conditions for information to be made available before the provisions of the act are invoked; however, when one reads this clause one notes it permits the officials of a minister to call for company information at their uncontrolled discretion or whim.
I say that this adds to the general dangers which are built up in this legislation because of the extent to which the government is clothed with unnecessary powers. The minister is given the right to call upon the company auditors, not only for the information which they are by law compelled to give to the company but for any other particulars which the minister wants at his sole discretion or on the recommendation of the Superintendent. This is a very unusual departure in dealing with companies of this type.
The next clause is a further right on the part of the minister to grant exemptions. Clause 9(4) reads as follows:
Where any person or group of persons is a substantial shareholder of an investment company and, as a consequence thereof and of the application of this section, certain investments are prohibited for the investment company, the minister may, by
February 16, 1970

order, on application by the investment company, exempt from such prohibition any particular investment or investments of any particular class, if he is satisfied that the decision of the investment company to make or hold any investment so exempted has not been and is not likely to be influenced in any significant way by that person or group and does not involve in any significant way the interests of that person or group, apart from their interests as a shareholder of the investment company.
That is not the kind of power which should be placed in the hands of an elected politician, no matter who he may be. Hon. members of this House who have sat idly by during discussion of legislation after legislation and have permitted these powers to be given to the government some day will have to answer to the people of Canada.
In clause 15 there is a right given to the minister to prohibit any sale. 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. This, also, is not the kind of power which should be placed in the hands of an elected politician. I shall not make a suggestion in respect of alternatives here, but it seems to me these are powers and authorities which heretofore have been vested in the courts. It may well be that the reasons are adequate if the government should say that for certain reasons there should be a tribunal established. But a tribunal independent and free of government influence should have the right to make these decisions. It is wrong to leave this power in the hands of the government.
The minister has the sole right to issue certificates of registry and to revoke certificates of registry of companies. Clause 21 (1) reads:
Where, in the opinion of the Superintendent, the financial condition and affairs of an investment company that applies to the minister for a certificate of registry are such that the ability of the company to repay all moneys borrowed by it on the security of its bonds, debentures, notes and other evidences of indebtedness that are then outstanding and to pay all interest thereon is inadequately secured, he shall make a special report to the minister recommending against the issuing of a certificate-[DOT]
That, then, can be revoked later by the minister. By virtue of clause 22, when it comes to the attention of the Superintendent that there are problems, and the Superintendent believes any of these assets are not satisfactorily accounted for, he may take control of the assets of the company and maintain such control on his own initiative for a period of seven days or, with the concurrence of the
Investment Companies
minister, for any longer period the minister considers necessary in the circumstances. From this decision of the minister there is an appeal to the Exchequer Court.
Clause 29 provides that the minister may under regulations and conditions approved by the Governor in Council authorize advances to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. These advances may be up to $200 million. Finally there is the usual compendious clause, clause 32 which reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may make regulations to ensure the proper carrying out of the provisions of this act.
I think that clause is improperly drafted. Who is to judge what is the proper carrying out of the provisions of the act? I think the committee which dealt with the matter of statutory instruments suggested a form of wording, and these certainly are not its words. The minister should give consideration to changing this clause to read; "The Governor in Council may make regulations to ensure the carrying out of the provisions of the act". I think the "proper carrying out" is something which should be left to the discretion of the cabinet.
I have probably covered as many as 25 subclauses in the bill where discretion and control is passed to an elected official of the government. I think it is completely wrong that this bill, like all other bills dealing with companies, corporations and financial institutions, should be so framed. There is a case to be made for security and for certain precautions to be taken, but I strongly suggest the people of this country would feel a good deal happier if this were done by and the decision left in the hands of a tribunal independent of elected officials.
The power of the minister to do many of the things proposed in this bill at a time when an election is approaching is, I suggest, a power which we in this House should regard with apprehension. I have mentioned this matter on other occasions. I do not know what effect my continuous repetition will have on the government-very little, probably-but nevertheless it is my intention to make a continuous case of my assertion that this is an unnatural and improper power which the government does not really need to carry out the objectives in this legislation. That point should be brought to the attention of the public.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The only other comment I want to make is that I have very grave doubts about the

February 16, 1970
Investment Companies
necessity of making $200 million available. I do not see why the taxpayers of this country should have to establish a kitty for any company which is in difficulties. I agree with my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton West, and I would go a little further. There is a case to be made for reviewing the provisions contained in the Porter Royal Commission which pointed out that the way to deal with problems of this kind was to invoke the right to bring the so-called near banks under federal jurisdictions and make them subject to the provisions of certain of the precautionary legislation; and, of course, also make them eligible under the provisions of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.
I think this would be far better than leaving in the hands of the minister and the Superintendent of Insurance the right to pay amounts up to an aggregate of $200 million in order to bail out corporations which may be in trouble. I think it would be much better to establish those corporations as near banks, characterized in that way, thereby giving them the protection which is available. As to provincial institutions, they could by application, if their assets and financial statements are such as to make them eligible, take advantage of the same provisions.
For this reason I am very dubious about parts of the legislation. I hope the committee will scrutinize it with care. Having in mind our experience in the past, I trust that the points I have mentioned will be the subject of discussion by the committee. I assume the bill will be given second reading tonight and will go to the committee. I hope that when the committee has finished its examination, it will have spent some time in considering these aspects of the measure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the House that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think that hon. members opposite would like me to take a few minutes at least to respond to some of the comments they have made.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised a question regarding the authority given in clause 15 of the bill, as did the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). As the House will recall, this clause specifies that 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.

The hon. member for Edmonton West expressed concern that this requirement might cause delay in implementing any purchase or sale. He thought it was reasonable with respect to the sale of the entire business of the company because he recognized that it would be tantamount to selling control of it. But he appeared to be objecting to the fact that ministerial approval would be required for the sale of even a small part of a sales finance company which would be under the jurisdiction of this act.
Let us remember that the purpose of the clause is to prevent the sale or control of a Canadian sales finance company to non-residents. It was considered that if the way were open to sell the business, little would be accomplished simply by controlling the sale of shares of the company. As I have said, this provision has also been criticized by the hon. member for Peace River. He suggested that this is a new and unusual form of power to give to the government or to one of its ministers.
I would point out to the House that there are precedents for this requirement in the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, the Loan Companies Act and the Trust Companies Act. Under these acts, the sale of all or part of the business of a company under their provisions requires governmental approval. At present it is the approval of the Treasury Board that is required, but amendments to these acts propose that this be transferred to the appropriate minister, recognizing the change in responsibility of the Treasury Board in recent years. I am informed that no difficulty has arisen in the past concerning delays in obtaining approval from the government for the sale of all or part of the assets of companies coming under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, the Loan Companies Act and the Trust Companies Act.
The hon. member for Edmonton West also raised a rather interesting point about the provision in the bill before us giving the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation authority to make loans for short-term liquidity purposes as a lender-of-last-resort to Canadian sales finance companies. The hon. member referred to clause 27(3) on page 36 of the bill. He noted that the Superintendent of Insurance is required to report to the minister on the administration of the act, and he also remarked that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is required to report to the Superintendent on the activities of the corporation
February 16. 1970

pursuant to this act. He went on to assume that there would be no other report concerning the activities of the corporation. However, clause 27(3) specifies that the report of the CDIC is submitted to the Superintendent "for incorporation by the Superintendent in his report to the minister under subsection (1)".
The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) made some rather sweeping assertions, as did the hon. member for Peace River, with respect to the purpose of the original bill, and for that matter the purpose of the bill presently before us. I would point out that both the original bill that was before the other place, and this bill, would have covered only companies coming under federal legislative jurisdiction. Neither bill, therefore, would have had the effect of permitting the government, as I think the hon. member for Dauphin suggested, to take over all investment in the country, since obviously there are many companies the activities of which would fall within the definition of "investment company" under the bill before us which would remain under provincial jurisdiction.
Let us remember that the purpose of this legislation is to ensure the greater protection of investors in companies of this type that come under federal jurisdiction, and to protect the public generally from the bad effects that would come about if one of these companies should collapse, as has happened to several companies under provincial jurisdiction. Certainly the purpose of the legislation in protecting investors would also mean the preservation of their investments. Therefore, I suggest that it is not a sound argument, which the hon. member for Dauphin attempted to put forward, that this legislation in some way would threaten the system of private property in this country. It seems to me that the effect of this legislation is just the opposite, to create conditions which would help preserve institutions of private property and investment in Canada.
The hon. member for Dauphin suggested that there might be the possibility for officials to make improper use of information which they obtained in administering this legislation. If I am not mistaken, officials are already bound by oath under other legislation which would prevent their making use, either while officials or after they leave government employ, of any information they obtain while in the service of the government. The hon. member for Dauphin made reference to a gentleman who was a very capable and respected civil servant who, some months
Investment Companies
after leaving government service, went into another position with an investment firm.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I am sure that his reputation for integrity is such that aside from the requirements of his oath there could be no problem about the way he would deal with any information he might have obtained if this legislation had been in effect when he was a government employee. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, a previous Superintendent of Insurance after leaving the employ of the federal government went on to become an executive of a large insurance company, and there was no suggestion that he was in a position to do something that was not appropriate. In fact he is a gentleman who continues to have a high reputation in the insurance industry generally.
If I am not mistaken, in the United States similar legislation has in fact existed for many years, and as far as I am aware it has not hampered investment or business activity. On the contrary, it has helped because it has provided a basis of security and safety and encouraged the creation and maintenance of a climate which in general encouraged the making of investments. I would suggest that if we have similar legislation in Canada, at least so far as the companies under federal jurisdiction are concerned, it would help to continue an appropriate climate of confidence in them that would encourage rather than harm investment.
If I might say so, Mr. Speaker, legislation of this type prevents people from misusing opportunities that may come to them through the existence of a market economy, and helps strengthen the existence of such an economy in the interests of the public generally. The hon. member for Peace River went on to review certain clauses of the bill in an attempt to show that they gave unwarranted power to the minister and the officials. But after referring to certain clauses he weakened his argument somewhat when he discovered that in fact there was the right of appeal, at least with respect to certain of them.


Gerald William Baldwin: Just one.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Several of them, I think, not just one. I would like to point out to the hon. member and the House, Mr. Speaker, that if I am not mistaken authority of the type which he complained about is found in legislation governing the operations of trust and loan companies, and banks for that matter-legislation that has been on the statute books for

February 16. 1976
Investment Companies
many years-and I do not recall hearing complaints about the abuse of this authority. Instead, there has been generally the highest praise for the Superintendent of Insurance and his department for the way they have carried out their duties. If anything, the call from the public has been to give the Superintendent greater authority to make sure there is not a misuse of assets, or the power to carry on business under these acts in a way that would threaten the investment of shareholders and depositors or cause harm to the public generally.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is not the Superintendent who worries me; it is the minister.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would also tell the hon. member that, again if I am not mistaken, with reference to the trust and loan companies legislation, insurance companies legislation and the Bank Act, there is authority given to the minister to make decisions of the very type about which the hon. member is complaining at this point.
The hon. member for Peace River says that no federal company that would come under this legislation fortunately has as yet had the problems that occurred with respect to several companies that are under provincial jurisdiction, and he seems to be putting this forward as an argument against the adoption of legislation of this type. Surely, he and his party are not suggesting that we wait until something happens along the lines of the Prudential Finance collapse before we act in this Parliament? This is a strange argument, but it is the one he seems to be making. I think the public generally, and the depositors in companies of this type, desire us to act and to ensure that nothing like that does happen in future with respect to companies that will come under the legislation that is now before the House.
The hon. member has said that the government will have to account to the people of Canada for proposing such legislation. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that not only this government but particularly the official opposition will have to account to the people of Canada if there should happen to be the collapse of a company of the type that would come under this bill, and because the attitude of the official opposition impeded the placing of adequate legislation to protect the investors on the statute books of the federal government.
But finally, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River was willing to admit there is a case for some type of legislative action. I

believe he used the term "a case for security." We suggest that if he is right in this- and he is-the government must have the authority to move quickly to protect depositors and the public generally. I think that those who held certificates in Prudential Finance would have been very happy if the Ontario provincial government had had the legislative authority to move quickly along the lines of the authority proposed in this legislation to protect their interests.
Mr. Speaker, dealing with a further point raised by the hon. member for Peace River, he referred to the authority of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to borrow up to $200 million from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister would not wish to mislead the House but he referred to depositors with respect to sales finance companies. The public buy only certificate from sales finance companies, or they participate in their shares. These are the only two forms of investment that can be made by the public in sales finance companies.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I used the term because many people who buy certificates might well feel they are doing something in the form of depositing. But the hon. member's point is well taken. The people who held certificates in Prudential Finance thought they were making a form of deposit for which they had protection. I thank the hon. member for his accurate terminology. People who buy certificates could well feel that they are making a form of deposit guaranteed by the certificates, and I think we should not overlook this aspect. But I do not quarrel with the hon. member's words of precision.
If I may continue, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the power of borrowing of last resort by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, I would like to point out that the figure of $200 million is a maximum figure. We are putting an upward limit on the borrowing that can be made by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. The authority to make use of this power to borrow is spelled out in very precise terms in the legislation, and basically it could be used only under very limited conditions through lending by way of last resort; and if I am not mistaken, it is not the minister-contrary to what has been suggested by the hon. member for Peace River-who has the right to carry out such borrowing.
February 16, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not say the minister had a right to make provision for the borrowing. It is the minister who under regulations laid down by the Governor in Council gives the money to the corporation.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mir. Speaker, I understood the hon. member to refer to the minister in the terms that I have spoken. If my recollection is not correct, I stand corrected. Hansard of course, will speak for itself. But it is basically the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation that would be borrowing from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and would be making use of these moneys, as a lender-of-last-resort under certain very specific conditions to Canadian-controlled sales finance companies to ensure that they are in no worse position because they remain under Canadian control.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, as hon. members have said it should be possible to give the clauses of the bill very detailed scrutiny in the finance committee of the House. I certainly hope this will be done. I expect it will be done. As I said earlier during second reading, this bill will fill a gap in the pattern of legislation designed for the supervision and inspection of financial institutions under federal jurisdiction, and will therefore help carry out the obligations of the federal government to protect the interests, not only of those who hold such certificates in them but those who invest in such companies, and the public generally. I therefore ask the support of the House for this measure.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


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


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that Bill C-156, to implement a supplementary income tax agreement between Canada and Sweden, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think the House will expect me to provide some explanation of this bill. Briefly, as its title indicates, the purpose of the bill is to give legislative effect to the recently signed supplementary income
Income Tax
tax agreement with Sweden. In substance, the bill is similar to the bills implementing income tax agreements or supplementary income tax agreements between Canada and other countries that have been approved by the House since 1942. Canada now has in force 15 comprehensive income tax agreements, several of which, including the Canada-Sweden income tax agreement, have been amended by supplementary agreements.
The purpose of the present supplementary agreement, which forms the schedule to this bill, is to provide an exemption from Swedish income tax in respect of remuneration paid by a Canadian province to a provincial public servant for services he renders to the province while he is resident in Sweden. This will, in particular, give tax relief to an official of the government of Ontario who has been resident in Sweden but has been taxable by Canada as a deemed resident of Canada pursuant to section 139 of the Income Tax Act.
To ensure a measure of reciprocity, the supplementary agreement provides that a similar exemption will be given by Canada for remuneration paid to officials of political subdivisions of Sweden; but since Sweden has no political subdivision like a province, it also provides that both countries will give an exemption for remuneration paid to officials of local authorities of one of the countries posted to the territory of the other country. The existing agreement provides a reciprocal exemption for the remuneration of officials of the national government of one country serving in the other country.
The amendment proposed by this supplementary agreement would bring the agreement into line on this matter with the terms of most of Canada's other income tax agreements, which contain an exemption for remuneration of provincial officials and, in some cases, for remuneration of officials of local authorities.
The general policy of the government in recent years has been that income tax conventions should not be revised until the tax reform program is nearer to completion. An exemption has been made in this case because the matter is not a major one and the change is unlikely to conflict with decisions of Parliament on tax reform. And we have, of course, been pleased to be able to help provincial administrations in this way with the co-operation of the Swedish government and Parliament.

February 16, 1970
Income Tax
The supplementary agreement will come into force after it has been given legislative approval in both countries. I understand that such approval has already been given by the Swedish Riksdag. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am asking this House to support the bill at this time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of making any extensive remarks with regard to this bill, except that I think it will not be necessary for it to go to committee. It seems appropriate, therefore, for me to move, as I did the other day, that the motion of the minister be amended by the following words:
That this bill be read a second time and be considered by the committee of the whole.
In fact, the provisions of the bill are so simple that it would be a sheer waste of administrative time to send the bill to committee and have it come back here. Therefore, we are quite prepared to consider the amendment. Whilst I am continuing my remarks, perhaps the wording of the appropriate amendment could be worked out. I am sure all of us in the House are so disposed, and as soon as I have concluded my remarks I will make that amendment.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if I might rise on a point of order to respond to the hon. member's suggestion, perhaps the House would grant unanimous consent to having the original motion amended.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is what I would do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I intervene at this point. My understanding was that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) would make that proposal at the conclusion of his remarks. Perhaps I should ask the House whether there is unanimous consent to so amend the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Lambert, Edmonton West) agreed to.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I think there is no question that this bill will cover public service pensions and service pensions, and not the old age pension because that does not come into it at all. I think it is quite salutary to have such agreement between the two countries. I would point out, however, that this measure clearly shows up

some of the difficulties that will arise upon implementing the proposals in the white paper on taxation.
It has been clearly admitted by a number of officials and by the minister that some proposals hinge on amending tax treaties, particularly with the United States. This very simple amendment to the Canada-Sweden tax agreement will take months to negotiate and process before it comes into law. If Canada is to renegotiate, as the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) said, 15 or 16 tax treaties with various countries, whose interests are not identical, because Canada proposes to change its tax system, there will be a period when it will be absolutely impossible to forecast the incidence of tax on individuals or corporations in any country involved in a tax treaty with us.
If it is the government's intention to somehow or other complete public hearings and the preparation and enactment of legislation for January 1, 1971, particularly with respect to capital gains, there will be a very long period in which the provisions of tax treaties will override the taxation system and more inequities will be introduced into the system. I merely cite that as an example provided by this bill.
I am sure that the Canadian government and the Swedish government started negotiations with respect to this treaty a considerable time ago, but it still has some distance to go before it becomes law. All I say is, let us not be fooled. In the white paper we will find admissions, particularly with regard to the United States. It will be a long, hard and difficult process to negotiate the changes that Canada will want in the tax treaty, in the event that it is able to enact the legislation proposed in the white paper.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
What sort of deal have we there? I suppose it will be confusion more confounded than before. In so far as this bill is concerned, we will have no further observations to make unless, of course, some of my colleagues wish to make personal remarks about Sweden. In any event, I commend the bill to the House and shall later commend it to the committee of the whole.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the bill now before us, and no wish to hold up its passage. We agree with the proposition that it be considered in committee of the whole instead of by
February 16, 1970

the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, which is already loaded down with work.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to give us details of the specific application of this bill and the reasons for bringing it in at this lime. I take it that some special cases must have been in mind when this agreement was concluded, particularly in the circumstances outlined by the hon. member for Edmonton West when the bill was being considered for second reading.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I shall be happy to do that. First may I thank the hon. member for Edmon.on West for his very constructive suggestion which led to the decision of this House to consider the bill in committee of the whole and thereby has helped expedite the business of the House in a positive and constructive way.
May I now respond to the question raised by the hon. member who has just spoken. The Ontario Department of Economics and Development asked the Canadian government to do what it could to secure an exemption from Swedish income tax for their trade representative in Stockholm. I am informed that the only feasible way for the Swedish authorities to do this, since the Ontario representative did not have diplomatic status, was to amend the income tax agreement.
The supplementary agreement makes two other changes. The present agreement is onesided in that Sweden gives an exemption for officials from Canada regardless of their nationality, whereas Canada gives an exemption only if the officials are citizens of Sweden. The supplementary agreement, therefore, will provide a truly reciprocal regime by restricting the exemption given by Sweden to exclude citizens of Sweden and broadening the exemption given by Canada to include citizens of third states.
In other words-perhaps this will explain the point a little more simply-the exemption will in future not apply to remuneration paid by the sending country to citizens of the exempting country, but will apply to remuneration paid to citizens of the sending country and also to any citizens of third states who are employed by the sending coun'ry. I should add that the exemption for citizens of
Income Tax
third states is required by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which Canada has ratified. I hope these remarks will provide the information which my hon. friend has requested.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I want to correct a wrong impression. When speaking previously I used the word "pensions". I should have said, "other t.hau pensions". In my speech before second reading I mentioned pensions paid by governments. I should not have referred to pensions because what is involved is merely salaries paid by governments, since income of other kinds is also excluded.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, in this bill we have a perfect example of co-operation between two great nations of the world. I wanted to put that remark on the record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
what is the hon. member's name?


John Leroy Skoberg: The minister previously suggested that there are similar agreements with 15 other countries. I am wondering whether there are any exceptions in addition to the ones he referred to in his opening remarks.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, the 15 agreements I referred to are with the following countries: The United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, Trinidad and Tobago, South Africa, Ireland, France, West Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Japan. I have been informed that a number of these agreements in the past have been amended by supplementary agreement for purposes similar to those which led to this bill being before us. I regret that I do not have the information with me at the moment which would enable me to tell my hon. friend the content of the supplementary agreements, but I would be happy to try to provide this information to him directly, outside the House.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: By
leave, now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?
3656	COMMONS
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: the third reading of the
bin.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BROADCASTING OF DEBATES BY RADIO AND TELEVISION

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, in consultation with Mr. Speaker, be directed to study the question of radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees, including the legal, procedural and technical aspects thereof, and the question of arrangements made for reporters for the electronic media in the Parliament buildings.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe I had had the floor for about 30 seconds when this motion was being debated on February 2. Some of my friends are wondering whether I intend to speak for another 39 minutes and 30 seconds. I assure them that I have no such intention.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
As I indicated on February 2, the members of this party are happy to support this motion for reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization of the whole question of radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of this House, its committees and interviews within this building. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, some of us have supported this idea for a long time. Some of my colleagues who are here at the present time have presented motions in previous sessions for the broadcasting of the proceedings of this House, and some of us have to admit that we were urging that the proceedings of the House be broadcast by radio back in the days before there was television. Therefore, it is good to see this motion, which is in line with views some of us have held for a long time.
There is one particular reference in the motion which I would like to commend in a special way. I refer to the requirement that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, when it deals with this matter, should do so in consultation with Mr. Speaker. I am quite aware of the reasons for the change that was made a few years ago providing for our committee on procedure to be

DEBATES	February 16, 1970
chaired by a member other than Mr. Speaker, but I still think there was merit in the pattern we used to follow in having Mr. Speaker as the chairman of committees on procedure. His presence always produced a certain unifying effect that was not completely there in all the proceedings of our committee in the last session or two. This issue is such an important one that I think it is particularly advisable to have Mr. Speaker meet with the committee, and I am glad that has been included in the motion.
The rationale for considering the broadcasting by radio and television of our proceedings, both of the House and of committees, has been stated a number of times, Mr. Speaker. One hardly needs to repeat it tonight. Let me simply say that although there was a day when there was no Hansard record of what went on in the Parliament of Westminster, and although there was a day when the press were not allowed to cover Parliament, the fact of the matter is that those days were superseded and it came to be recognized that the public had a right to know what its Parliament was doing. Surely just as in the past the public had the right to know what Parliament was doing through the medium through which people got their news, namely the press and the printed word, so the public has that right today through the electronic media which are the main ways by which people know what is going on.
Whether we like it or not-and we may as well like it because it is here-we are in an electronic world. People know what is going on, whether it is in the educational, religious, sport, political, international sphere or what have you, and they know it instantaneously by hearing it on radio or seeing it on television. If it is important for the people of Canada to see the Stanley Cup play-offs or Grey Cup game instantly on their television screens, I think Parliament is also important to the people of Canada and they should have the right to hear and see what is being done on their behalf and in their name in this place. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues I want to register our wholehearted support of the proposal that this matter be studied as set out in the resolution that is now before us.
I would like to emphasize the point that there will be problems and difficulties. They are bound to arise, but that is no reason for our not going ahead with this. As a matter of fact, not only will there be problems to iron out but if, as I believe we will, we get to the
February 16, 1970
COMMONS DEBATES	3657
point of broadcasting, for example, the proceedings of this chamber, it will make a real difference in how we perform in this House of Commons. It will probably make a more significant and substantial difference than anything that has yet happened to this House of Commons. I have been here long enough to have seen two physical or mechanical innovations, both of which made a difference in the character of this House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Three, if you include the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do
not regard this government as an innovation. I regard it as a throw-back.


Gerald William Baldwin: I meant mechanical.


Stanley Howard Knowles: started to speak on two mechanical innovations that have come into this chamber in my time here. The first of them was the introduction of the loud-speaker or amplifying system that we have in this House. I forget how many years ago it was installed, but when I came here and when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Mcll-raith) came here, we did not have the amplifying arrangements. We had to get by under our own steam and Mr. Speaker had to hear me even though I sat in the back row pretty near the end of the chamber.
The result of it, Mr. Speaker, was that in those days participation by members in all parts of the House was not as widespread or universal as it became once we got the amplifying system. Those in the back row that could not be heard were far more discouraged than the backbenchers think they are today. Those with weaker voices who could not be heard had to go back to their constituencies and say that they did their work in committees instead of on the floor of the House.
When we got the amplifying system it created a surge of equality. Some of us who could shout and be heard thought we were losing our advantage when the timid people could also be heard. The fact is it was good and produced a change in the House of Commons. It became not just a place where the few down front or the few with loud voices took part; it became a place where everyone could take part on an equal footing.
The second mechanical change was the introduction of our instantaneous translation system. This, too, produced a change in the House. I give credit to the right hon. member
21701-21 j
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates for Prince Albert who was Prime Minister at the time this system was introduced. It did far more toward making this chamber a bilingual place than anything else which has been done.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Back in the days before we had instantaneous translation it used to be, as old-timers will remember, that the English version of Hansard contained in an appendix at the end the English translation of what had been said in French that day. On many days there was no appendix; no French had been spoken. It was difficult for the French-speaking members to use the French language because they were not immediately understood, so they tended always to use English or not to speak at all. This chamber has been made more broadly representative; it has been made a place in which the two languages are equal because of the introduction of this mechanical arrangement for instantaneous translation.
The point I am making is that these two mechanical innovations have brought about changes in the actual character of the House of Commons. There is no doubt in my mind that if television is brought in it will have the same effect. It may do something for our attendance. I do not think we would be very excited about being on television tonight, with the number of members who are here at this moment-and this is a pretty good attendance for a Monday evening when the business of the day has not been particularly exciting.


Mr. Nowlan:: They knew you were going to speak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
hon. member says they did not know I was going to speak.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: They did know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: stand corrected; I am now told they did know. But even this would not provide very good entertainment, the attempt the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) and I are making to engage in some sort of banter.
I think it will have this effect: if we waste time, if we fool around, if we engage in trivia and nonsense the mail will be terrific; we shall be put in our places far more effectively than at the present time. 1 think it will be good for Parliament to be seen and to get the reaction of the public. I think it will bring
3658	COMMONS
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates about a change in the way we perform in Parliament, and that is all to the good. As a matter of fact, it may do something which all of us want to happen: it may put Parliament back into an important place in Canadian life.
There is a lot of talk today about Parliament not being relevant, not being concerned about the people, and it is said the people no longer consider it to be important. Maybe one of the reasons is this: the public sees sports events, panel discussions, events in the international field, church services, wars and tragedies-people see all these things on television but they do not see us. One of my hon. friends says this is the funniest show of all, the best in town. But they do not see us. I suggest that once they do it will put Parliament back into the centre of Canadian life. They may turn us off, but that will be a challenge to us to do something about the kind of performance we give in this chamber.
We have lately made an attempt to reorganize the work of this House so that more of the detailed work is done in committees, leaving this place as a debating forum for the important and major issues. We have moved a long way in this direction by sending virtually all bills to standing committees instead of dealing with them here in committee of the whole. It is true that an exception was made tonight. But it still seems to me that too much unimportant detail is discussed here amid the trappings of this building and this institution. Put in television terms, it would look better if details were dealt with in a small committee room where men and women were working on the particular items before them at the time.
This proposed innovation would involve not only changes in the way in which we perform, in how we speak, in how we look, and all the rest of it-including, perhaps, even the way in which we dress-but it would produce changes in our rules, in particular, changes in the relationship between the House of Commons and its various committees. I am not afraid of this. I hope none of us is afraid of it. Parliament may change so greatly that if Mackenzie King were to come back he would not recognize the place. Some of us may not recognize it as the kind of place it was when we first came here. But it is not important simply to keep things as they are. What is important is that we should make this institution responsive to the needs of the Canadian people. What is important is that it should serve the Canadian people and make them feel there is some affinity, some relationship,

DEBATES	February 16, 1970
some understanding between them and ourselves as their Members of Parliament.
Maybe I am being too hopeful; maybe I am reading too much into the possibilities of the use of the electronic media. But we can certainly go a long way. We cannot go downhill any more; we can only go up. I like the idea that if this motion carries, the people are to have the chance to see their Parliament in action and to become more a part of it than at the present time. I therefore have much pleasure in supporting the motion now before the House.


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad tonight to say a few words on this motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). I believe that coming from the government, as it does, this motion will certainly bring more rapid results than if it came, say, from a private member of any party.
I certainly think that the Committee on Procedure and Organization, which includes government and opposition members will seriously consider the matter and report to the House which, after considering the report and possibly amending it, will make some excellent recommendations to the government.
Of course, I would like to share the enthusiasm of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as regards the results this measure might bring. I do not readily see those effects, because several problems arise. This evening, I should like to express my opinion on that subject. As I said, I am in favour of this motion. It is possible to provide the Canadian people with better information while prompting hon. members to make the debates more interesting.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Having said a few words in favour of this motion, I intend to make some comments so that the Committee on Procedure and Organization might become aware of the views of hon. members. In my opinion, it would not be easy to arrange for the television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House.
Mr. Speaker, my remarks may be desultory because I do not want to take too much of the time of the House. Besides I would like to give my colleagues who are concerned about that matter an opportunity to make suggestions.
I believe that some purely technical problems will not be easily dealt with. Indeed, who will choose the speakers on the matters to be discussed? Would all sittings be tele-
February 16. 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	3659
vised or only parts of them? Who would do the editing of the debates if not all sittings were televised? Who would decide of the time and the day when such debates would be televised?
In Great Britain, this problem has been widely discussed. No final decision has yet been reached in that connection. I have been told by some hon. members at Westminster that the debates will probably never be televised. Others are more optimistic and hope that part of the discussions will be televised. However, I did not have the opportunity, during my brief stays in London to meet the members who were in favour of the complete television broadcasting of the debates.
As for the broadcasting of the committee proceedings, I would answer in the negative. Instead, we should televise the proceedings of the House of Commons.
I believe it is technically possible to televise some debates of the House. For instance, I can imagine quite well, while a bill on air and water pollution is under consideration, a one hour program in the course of which te minister or his representative, and the leaders of the opposition parties, or their spokesmen, could express their opinions.
I would like to share the optimism shown by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about the Grey Cup and the Stanley Cup games, but I very much fear that the viewers would not take as much interest in the debates of the House of Commons. I would be agreeable to have, in the course of one week, two periods of televised debates previously recorded in the House at a given time.
On the other hand, I would view with a critical eye the live broadcasting of debates, on account of the high costs involved. As a matter of fact, one channel would have to be set aside for that purpose, since our debates usually go on from 2 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.
In addition, I do not see how we would get the housekeepers interested, in the afternoon, in the broadcasting of the House debates, when other programs are scheduled and when ladies have other things to do. I do not see either who would be interested in watching the House proceedings at 7 p.m.
I think there should be, at least at the beginning, some-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow a question?


Mr. Lachance:: Certainly-
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
English-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, has the hon. member considered the possibility that just as we now provide Hansard, in particular the blues, for the whole day to the press, and the press makes a decision concerning what to publish, maybe we should provide a television tape of the whole day and let the television people decide what to broadcast?


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting suggestion, but I do not think that we should always leave it to reporters to decide what should be televised.
I feel that if tomorrow we televised the Oral Question Period, there would be at least 200 members-the Prime Minister and the other Cabinet members being unable to do so -who would rise to ask questions. Some of these questions would certainly be important and urgent, but I am afraid that, on the other hand, there would be a run for publicity.
In my opinion, it is up to the hon. members to decide what should be telecast, and I will say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that I do not object in principle to have all debates telecast. After all, it is purely a technical matter of operating costs and publishing.
I think that hon. members would agree to have debates televised were the government to reach that decision, but the spending of some $100 million to telecast all our debates and all the meetings of our committees would surely be criticized.


Mr. Horner:: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would permit another question. He just said he is sure hon. members would agree with him if the government put it forward. I wonder if he would be prepared to declare a free vote on the question and let everybody decide according to their own wishes, rather than having a government motion to this effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, an excellent suggestion. I believe that if a free vote was taken in the House, it should be
February 16, 1970

Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates on this matter, because votes have not always been as free as the members would have liked.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Oh! oh!


Georges-C. Lachance: I have carefully weighed every word. I am afraid members have not always had all the freedom they would have wished for, but that does not mean there has not been any freedom at all.
I am happy the Government has introduced this motion, because it can be passed quicker than if it had been introduced by an ordinary member.
I know that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) made a detailed study about this question. He submitted reports. I had the honour to sit on the standing committee on procedure which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Center mentioned earlier and that was presided over by the Speaker of the time.
In my opinion, the debates might be broadcast twice a week at a time when serious people, those who are really interested in the commonwealth would be able to look at those programs which might be scheduled for 11.30 p.m., so that the viewers might choose between more or less interesting moving pictures and the broadcasting of the debates in the House which, that goes without saying, would be given all the appropriate publicity.
Furthermore, after such a program, just like after a hockey or football game, the parliamentary reporters or the representatives of the electronic media could discuss the bill after the spokesmen of the government and of the opposition had set forth their viewpoints. We could even then choose the three stars and select the best speakers.
There is surely some way of rousing the interest of a certain part of the population for public affairs.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You have not scored any goals tonight.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I have no illusions as to the rating such programs will achieve, for they will certainly never have the rating enjoyed by hockey and football games. They will be information programs rather than public entertainment programs on which the tremendous publicity is subsidized by Canadian taxpayers.

I am not against this practice but one must nevertheless give the facts and recognize that those magnates who own the hockey or football clubs are the ones who get the profits. And even if that is a part of the game of democracy, with which I agree to a certain extent, I suggest that when it comes to informing the public about the nation's business or public affairs, we should be concerned about the cost.
I do not think that we could get sponsors who would be ready to pay large sums of money for the broadcasting of the debates of the House of Commons. We would have to know whether such advertising would be shown. Would it be after the speech made by the head of the government, after that of the leader of the opposition, or after those of the leaders of the various political parties?
With regard to the premises which could be used for the television broadcasting of our proceedings, we must admit that this House has no such facilities. It is possible to set them up. We could easily reduce the size of the public galleries which, sometimes, are not even large enough to accommodate all the people who wish to come in. However, it is possible. I have had the opportunity to visit other more modern parliaments where special rooms have been set up in order to facilitate the television broadcasting of the proceedings.
I am thinking, for instance, of the Parliament in Vienna which is equipped with wonderful broadcasting studios. However, they are not much used because it has been realized that it was not very easy to televise the debates.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of televising our proceedings as an experiment which would become permanent only if all hon. members were willing to co-operate.
I am also in favour of a scientific experiment. I think that we should show Canadians that we observe the proprieties.
The House of Commons is not a theatre, but a place where the representatives of the people gather to express their opinions. They are not bound, however, by the opinions of their constituents.
We have all noticed that the committees sometimes sit at the same time as the House. There are times when we play hosts to delegations, represent the government or the House of Commons at interparliamentary meetings abroad; it is not always possible for us to be present in the House of Commons.
It is not easy to reconcile all interests when, for instance, a certain bill is to be introduced
February 16, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	3661
at a given time. The purpose of televising the debates is not to show how smart we are, or that we are present in the House, but rather to inform the public on what goes on there.
We all know that at a certain time, on such a date, a newscast will be televised on a certain bill to inform the public. This is somewhat similar to when the House of Commons is to be photographed for the pamphlet on the House of Commons: everyone manages to be present.
If the members attach such importance to a mere photograph, how much more enthusiasm they will show if every Monday night, at eight o'clock, by mutual agreement with the leaders of the parties, the proceedings on a bill are televised. This will encourage the members to attend the sittings of the house, and we can then make a better impression on Canadian citizens.
This could also be improved by televising a beautiful political "match," provided of course we give the required facilities to the producers.
We must admit that we do not provide the pressmen with all the necessary facilities, because nowadays, they must observe a rigorous discipline while playing an essential role.
I hope that the committee on procedure and organization will study this problem seriously and that it will soon present a report to the House.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in the limited time left at my disposal tonight I will endeavour to state why I am opposed to this motion. It was interesting to listen to the previous speaker. He spoke at length on the subject matter of the motion, mainly in opposition to the principle, but from time to time affirmed that he was in favour of the principle. It was nice that he did so, because one could not reach that conclusion listening to him. That is why I asked whether his party would allow a free vote on the matter when it came back to the House, or would allow a free vote with no whips when the subject matter was considered in committee. I doubt it very much, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the members appointed to the committee from all parts of the House will in the main be members who support the idea of televising the proceedings of the House. I am against this principle.
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates
I would like to deal with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said. He believes our proceedings must be televised so that the people of Canada will know what parliament is doing. Does he for one minute think that Parliament makes decisions as to how the country is administered? Surely a man of his experience in the House knows better than that. He went on to say that this is a major debating forum. The people of this country want to know where the decisions are made, where their protest letters should be sent, and how best they can get their problems considered. I will deal later with the question of how best they can have their problems dealt with and considered.
The hon. member went on to say that television in this House would significantly change the role of Members of Parliament and would even go so far as to change the dress of members. What is this place: is it a stage on which we are all prepared to act a part? We know some members of the House are already being handed scripts. Are they now to be handed the right coloured tie and shirt, along with the script to read, and act a part? Are they to be told, "This is a speech on wheat. The western farmers are mad. Be sure you act mad"? Are they to be told, "The middle-class will be confronted with a terrible burden because of the white paper on taxation. Be sure you act as if you are concerned and annoyed"? Is that the role of Members of Parliament? Mr. Speaker, we are representatives of the people. If we in this House forget that principle, we can no longer lay claim to the fact that we have representative government.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre went on to say that the same problems were posed when Hansard was first introduced. Television in this House would in no way be similar to Hansard, for a number of very clear reasons. The written word is far different from watching a picture and seeing the words spoken. The old adage of seeing is believing is still very true in Canada.
Today, because we have been subjected to the written word so much by the newspapers, people have become somewhat sceptical of what they read in the newspapers. Things are quoted out of context, which amounts to misinterpretation. It is said that seeing is believing. Hansard records what I say; it does not record how many people listen to me. Television will record how many people listen
February 16, 1970
3662	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to a speech that is being made. It will record the number of supporters in a member's party who are listening to him, and the number of people in the House generally.
If a member is making a very logical plea on behalf of the taxpayers he represents, and he finds that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is chatting away in the back row and not listening to him, on occasion that may be all right; but if this shows up on television, one quick picture will discredit the whole worth and logic of his argument. I would dwell on other differences between television and Hansard if time permitted, but may I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the debate that we have just had, I suppose it is appropriate to remark that we have now reached the time of the late show, for those who are still up and still able to see what there is to see and decide whether or not to believe it. My subject for tonight's late show arises from a question that I asked on Thursday, December 18, as indicated in Hansard at page 2130.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
May I say at the outset that there are times when a minister or a parliamentary secretary in replying to a late show question complains that the questioner brought forward material that had not been introduced when the original question was asked. I admit there are times when we on the opposition side do expand our questions. But may I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, because I assume he is answering my question tonight, to the fact that when I asked this question on December 18, it had two parts. I hope he can reply tonight to both parts.
The first part of my question had to do with the tabling of the white paper on social security. I urged, indeed, that it be tabled without further delay and expressed the hope


that it might be tabled when we came back in January. That, of course, did not happen and we are now in the month of February. I still urge upon the government the early tabling of this white paper on social security but I may say-this is an enlargement of what I said on December 18-that we over here feel we should not only have the white paper on social security but we should be given in public the Willard report which we understand is the basis for the white paper.
I stress the point that in these days when we are being sold the idea of Information Canada and being told that this government wants to give us all the information it can, it just is not in keeping with that stance for us to be refused an important document like the Willard report on social security. Mr. Speaker, if there is anything to this talk of participatory democracy, if there is anything to the idea that the government agrees to the recommendation of the task force on information that all reports should be made public, here is an opportunity to show it. The whole question of social security is a terribly important area, and I submit we are entitled to see the Willard report and to have the government white paper on social security with the least possible delay.
Mr. Speaker, the other part of my question on December 18, was in these words:
May I again ask the minister whether, in view of the delay in tabling the white paper, the government will consider providing for an interim increase in the old age security pension?
I received no answer to that question on that occasion just as I received no answer two nights before, so I put it again, Mr. Speaker. Everyone knows that our older and retired people are having a most difficult time to keep up with the rising cost of living. They are mentioned every time the subject of inflation comes up-the poor pensioners, the people on fixed incomes. I commend the government for recognizing this need in the case of retired civil servants whose pensions are to be increased in April this year. I submit that this need is real for all our retired people. It does make sense in today's conditions to come through with an increase in the basic amount of the old age pension, and I urge that this be done.
I do not know what the Willard report recommended nor what the white paper on social security will say, but surely these reports do not suggest going back to the means test or passing the buck to the provinces. Surely they confirm that we should
February 16, 1970

move forward in social security. If we are to move forward, that means an improvement in the pensions of our citizens who are on old age security. If that is the case, why wait for all these white papers and all the machinery we have to go through? Why not bring in now a proposal for an interim increase in the old age security pension? That is the second and the major part of the question I raise at this time, and I hope the parliamentary secretary is in a position to give a hopeful or favourable answer to it tonight.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, at the outset in replying to the hon. member I should like to point out that this government, and especially the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), have not remained idle in trying to help as much as possible the older citizens of our country. If we look at the estimates for the fiscal year 1970-71 we will see that expenditures under the old age security fund have jumped $143 million, reaching a total of $1.9 billion, which is the highest in our history.
This increase is explained by two main factors. On the one hand there has been the lowering of the required age; consequently, an estimated additional 50,000 people will be benefiting from the basic flat rate and the income supplement. On the other hand, while in the past old age security had no escalation, the fact is that that we now have some escalation in benefits. This escalation has permitted many of our older citizens to benefit.
Finally, I should like to point out to the hon. member that the federal government is prepared to share half the cost of further supplementing the old age security and guaranteed income supplement through the Canada Assistance Plan. At least one of the provinces has recently increased this supplement and brought the total amount of the benefits up to $150 a month. I also wish to add that there is no upper limit to the federal government's contribution through the Canada Assistance Plan; however, the initiative must come from the provinces which also determine the amount of supplement to be paid.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I emphasize that this government through its Minister of National Health and Welfare is doing all that is possible at the moment to help our old age pensioners while studying the situation and deciding upon its policy, which will be
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion made known through the white paper on social security and which will, I hope, be tabled as soon as possible. I will again bring the matter of the tabling of the Willard report to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I hope that on his return from the Indian reserves, the minister will be able to make a decision and announce it to the House.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-REQUEST BY UNION OFFICIAL FOR APOLOGY BY MINISTER

Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, on January 27, as reported at page 2861 of Hansard, I posed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with reference to written complaints from the retired coal miners pensioners union at Sydney Mines, signed by their secretary, Mr. Pius Hennessey, regarding the manner in which pre-retirement benefits were being paid by the Cape Breton Development Corporation to former coal mine employees. At that time I asked whether in view of the constant complaints that were being received the Prime Minister would cause an investigation to be carried out into all the ramifications of the subject. The Prime Minister took my question as notice.
On January 29, as reported at page 2963 of Hansard, I again brought the subject to the attention of the Prime Minister with reference to an investigation into the whole matter because of further protests from the CB of RT. The Prime Minister did not seem to be aware of the subject, and a hazy reply was received from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). As a supplementary, I pointed out that continuing telegrams of protest and other communications were being forwarded to myself and ministers concerned, and I then directed a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) asking if he would cause an investigation to be made into the whole matter.
The minister replied that he had been in touch with Devco and that no complaints had been made either to Devco or to his department. He went on to say that the union to which I referred was "in fact a small group of superannuated employees which is called a union and which has no connection with the United Mine Workers of America who have made no request in the name of those pensioners." This, of course, is a translation of the minister's words.
3664	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion I then rose on a point of order and pointed out that the information relayed by the minister was erroneous because I had in my hand a letter of protest from the president of a CB of RT and GW local which represents men who are at present working in the Devco coal mines, namely, mine examiners and shot-firers. This, I understand, is one of many communications of protest which have been forwarded. Despite the fact that in my point of order I advised that it was a local union from the CB of RT, the minister did not comment. Had he done so, sir, we should not be debating the matter tonight.
On February 11, as reported at page 3484 of Hansard, I asked the minister if he had received a communication from the general representative of the CB of RT and GW in 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. The minister replied to the effect that he had received such a letter and that its contents were based on false assumptions. The exchange in the House to which I referred took place on January 29. That is when I referred to the letter of protest from the local union of the CB of RT and GW, not January 27 as stated by the minister on February 11 as reported in Hansard.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
To clarify the situation I would like to read a copy of the letter which was forwarded to the minister, dated February 5, signed by Mr. Gilbert MacIntyre, general representative of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers. He states: Honourable Sir:
The January 29th 1970 issue of Hansard, page 2964, records your part in a debate concerning benefits paid retired coal miners by the Cape Breton Development Corporation (Devco).
In reply to a question from Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-Sydneys, you stated: "I got in touch with Devco, no complaint was made either to Devco or to my department. The Union to which the hon. member is referring is, in fact, a small group of superannuated employees, which is 'called a union' and which has no connection with the United Mine Workers of America who have made no request in the name of these pensioners." Honourable sir, it appears that you have been grossly misinformed on several counts. For your information and for the record, the following comments are "matter of fact."
(1)	The so-called "union" you refer to is local 510 (salaried shot-firers and examiners) of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers. Certified by the N.S. Labour Rela-
DEBATES	February 16, 1970
tions Board in 1962 subsequently covered by section 35 of federal Bill C-135.
(2)	Local 510 of brotherhood, as well as local 504 (clerical staff with Devco) and local 509 (technicians with Devco), as well as our C.B. District Council of CB of RT & GW and the Cape Breton Labour Council have on a number of occasions complained about the compulsory aspect of the pre-retirement plan.
(3)	CB of RT & GW, as well as other Nova Scotia labour bodies (with the noted exception of the UMW of A., district 26) have complained concerning the mandatory act of forcing men on the street at a considerable loss of income. We, to date, believe that the decision of accepting the Devco pre-retirement plan should be purely voluntary on behalf of the individual affected.
(4)	There have been numerous letters and wires concerning these protests, which should be on file.
In view of what appears to be you being misinformed on this matter, I believe it not unreasonable to expect an official apology from yourself to local 510 (salaried shot-firers and examiners) for an obvious rebuff of their proud union status.
Also it is our intention to continue to press for the elimination of the compulsory aspect of the Devco pre-retirement plan, for we find it as a "minimum benefit, providing maximum poverty."
Yours very truly,
Gilbert MacIntyre General Representative CB of RT & GW
In conclusion, I feel that in view of the circumstances the minister certainly owes this union an official apology. Here again, I appeal to the minis'er to have a complete investigation carried out in regard to the method and circumstances surrounding the payment of pre-retirement benefits, with particular reference to the use of unemployment insurance funds and the compulsory aspect of the preretirement plan. I have asked this of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour and this minister, and I feel it is the only way it can be clarified. Not only does the minister owe the CB of RT an apology, but also the retired coal miners pensioners union at Sydney Mines about whom he has spoken in a derogatory manner.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this House is the ideal place to seek clarification of problems, but stating false problems and merely seeking to spin out words or just speculating on what has been said can serve no useful purpose.
What then is the problem the honourable member raised in the House? A very simple
February 16, 1970
COMMONS DEBATES	3665
one. On January 27-not January 29-he directed the following question to the Right Honourable Prime Minister:

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 Mines regarding the manner in which benefits are being paid?

He was quite sincere when he put that question. All right. And then on the 29th, referring to the same question, he said, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister and concerns the method used by the Cape Breton Development Corporation to compensate retired coal miners. Further to the question posed to the Prime Minister on Tuesday of this week-
That would be the 27th.
-asking for an investigation into the whole matter in view of the continuing protests from the unions concerned and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister took my question as notice-
So the hon. gentleman was referring to the question he posed on the 27th concerning the retired coal miners.


Robert Muir: Read on. The next page.


Jean Marchand: I can read on if you wish.


Robert Muir: Page 2964.


Jean Marchand: It goes on:
-in view of the continuing protests from the unions concerned and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister took my question as notice, may I ask the right hon. gentleman if he is in a position to shed any further light on this subject?
Does the hon. member wish me to read on further?


Robert Muir: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the minister would look, he would find that on the next page I referred to the local union of the CB of RT, and the minister did not reply.


Jean Marchand: I did not reply. How then, could I have referred to local 510, if I did not reply? This is the whole point at
21701-22^
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion issue. I did not reply to that. I was referring to this union of retired pensioners, that is all.


Robert Muir: Continued telegrams and communications!


Jean Marchand: Now, Mr. Speaker, the other union was never referred to, that is local unit 510. It was rather the retired employees union that was mentioned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Portneuf.


Jean Marchand: You lose your time. You lose everybody's time for no purpose at all.


Robert Muir: You
are too hotheaded. Why don't you grow up?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Portneuf has the floor.


Robert Muir: Be
careful of your blood-pressure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Portneuf.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-INFLATION-ALLEVIATION OF FISCAL BURDEN

Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, February 13th I asked the following question: In view of the recent reduction in the so-called "Vietnamese" tax by the government of the United States for the purpose of assisting consumers in the present economic recession, could the Right Hon. Prime Minister tell us if he intends taking similar action?

If so, for which tax can the Canadians expect a reduction?
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said not a word. However, in the light of a statement he made on Monday the 9th of February, to launch the national conference on price stabilization, I think we might get an affirmative answer in a few minutes.
In the few moments I have left, I shall say to the Prime Minister that while he tried to hoodwink Canadians, the results have run counter to his expectations. Indeed, the people are not asleep. They are more awaken than
3666	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ever. Faced with the high cost of living, they live in anxiety and in the expectation of positive results from this administration.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
How can inflation be created without the administrators being aware of it? Of what use have been the royal commissions and task forces set up since 1960? Have not two inquiries been ordered in 1961, one on health and the other on taxation? In 1962, an inquiry was caused to be conducted on banking and finance and in 1963, another on biculturalism and bilingualism.
In 1964, the first report of the Economic Council of Canada was tabled in the House. Did it not deal with the economic outlooks for Canada for the period ending in 1970?
Since 1965, of what use have been the reports of the Tariff Board?
Since 1966, what steps have been taken following the report of the joint special committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on consumer credit?
Since 1967, what advantages have consumers derived from the establishment of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
In 1968, were not the elections to cure our economic difficulties? And you remember that economic problems were but the result of the administration of a minority government while a majority government would have been necessary to restore the balance. Where is this balance that this government was going to bring us?
What will bring us, in 1970, the Prices and Incomes Commission which was created in 1969? Will it explain why the people have to tighten their belts while the Prime Minister is increasing his allowance? In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has already covered the distance between Montreal and James Bay on foot and by canoe, will the Commission recommend to him not to use government airplanes any more?
Will the Prices and Incomes Commission reveal that it is the increase of taxes of all sorts which is mainly responsible for pushing the cost of living up? Will it tell the government that it is useless to count on the cooperation of workers from small businesses with a low income and that it cannot rely on the co-operation of labour unions to check the increase in the cost of living, since in heavy industry where there are unions the salaries they have succeeded in obtaining for the employees represent but 6 per cent of the finished product?

DEBATES	February 16, 1970
Will the Commission make the government understand that the farmers are very badly paid, whether for their dairy products or for their wheat?
Will the Commission take into account that the grocer, the wholesaler, the milkman work for fractions of a cent, and that on each $19 purchase of cigarettes the value of work and tobacco represent but $3 and $16 are for taxes?
Will the Prices and Incomes Commission make known to the population that without taxes, gas would sell at 4 cents a gallon?
Will the members of the Prices and Incomes Commission be honest enough to admit that they are dealing with imaginary bandits and that the thieves are not those they are asked to find?
Since under the present system the Canadian government gets the largest share of the profits, can we expect an income tax reduction shortly? In January, the American government reduced by 5 per cent its so-called Viet Nam tax and will reduce it by a further 5 per cent in June. Can we expect something similar from the Canadian government, since the Prime Minister stated on February 9, and I quote:
Control of inflation is a challenge for Canada as well as for our neighbours and our competitors. We cannot afford to do less than they are doing.
In order to do as well as the Americans, on what items of the fiscal revenues will the next reductions be applied? Will they be applied to estate taxes, the excise tax, the 12 per cent sales tax or the personal income tax? Will the reductions be applied to the 4 per cent personal income tax, or the 3 per cent one or on the so-called social development tax of 2 per cent, or again on the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?
Mr. Speaker, questions are asked every time new taxes are levied and all Canadians are entitled to an answer.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the government wants to help consumers and all Canadians. That is why they are engaged in a close fight in order to check inflation, which hurts everybody, especially low-income Canadians.
This afternoon, I made a statement in which I said that the government had decided to postpone until 1971 the proclamation of a new tax on air fares, which was passed by Parliament last fall.
February 16, 1970	COMMONS
But as the hon. member knows, we have in general a parliamentary system under which the government states its new proposals only in a budget speech made in the House. But as we know, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has already said he would make such a speech in the near future.
DEBATES	3667
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion It is with the co-operation of all economic areas of this country more than in any other way that we shall succeed in our fight against inflation.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, February 17, 1970