1970-06-11

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received which is as follows:
Government House, Ottawa 11 June, 1970
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. D. C. Abbott, P.C., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, June 11th, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills. I have the honour to be.
Sir,
Your obedient servant, Louis-Fremont Trudeau,
Brigadier General,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



TRIBUTE TO MEMBERS FOR CALGARY CENTRE AND OTTAWA EAST ON TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all members of the House. Politics is often described as a gamble-that is, it is not unlike playing the stock market. Some players lose their shirts in short order. Others manage to make respectably moderate gains. Still others transform their initial investment in the political process into solid and long-term returns. A gamble or not, this process is a vital and necessary element in the constitution of the democratic process in which we are all participants.

To achieve such success requires tenacity and patience; humour and understanding. Above all it requires the ability to convince a block of voters that, on balance, one understands their problems and has more to offer them than all the other fellows.
Today I am sure all hon. members would wish to join in congratulating two of our 22478-15
colleagues who have been receiving votes of confidence from their constituents since they were first elected on June 11, 1945. I refer iu the hon. member for Calgary Centre and the hon. member for Ottawa East.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)

Twenty-five years is a large and precious segment of any man's lifetime, Mr. Speaker. Our country is all the richer for having as citizens the kind of men who would offer these years to the Canadian Parliament, Without this sort of responsibility and dedication, this institution would not endure; without their good nature and geniality we would find it a less attractive place.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the question of privilege raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to join him in extending congratulations to the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) and the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness) on achieving 25 years of service to this House. I do not think that hon. members think of it in terms of service. My own observation is that most people who come to this House are very anxious to stay. In addition to these 25 years being a period of service for these hon. gentlemen, I am sure that they have been fascinating and enjoyable years which have given a great deal of pleasure to their colleagues in the House.
It is natural that I should know the hon. member for Calgary Centre a little better than the hon. member for Ottawa East, who I find to be a very friendly and gracious colleague. I have known the member for Calgary Centre for quite some time. He has had a very distinguished career. He is a very affable man, a man of very deep conviction and principle. 1 recall, when I was in another position, trying to persuade the member for Calgary Centre, who also at that time held another position, that he ought to do something he did not think he should do. I was not able to make much progress.
I extend felicitations to both of these gentlemen. I wish them many years of continued
June IX. 1970

Tribute to Long-Service Members public service and good health. I express my compliments to them on the contribution they have made to Parliament and to the lives ol those associated with them.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I wish to associate ourselves with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and extend our congratulations to the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness) and the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) on having completed a quarter of a century of service to this House and to the people of the constituencies they represent.
Politicians have three main problems: First, how to get elected to the House of Commons; second, how to stay there and, third, how to get out gracefully. When the late Senator Chubby Power was a member of this chamber he said that there are only two ways for a member to get out of this House: One is to be defeated and the other is to die, but the trouble with these alternatives is that the first is so humiliating and the second is so final. The two members we are honouring today have succeeded in avoiding both, and I hope they will not have to worry about the latter for a long time.
The members of my party wish me to say how happy our association has been with these two members over the years. We wish them well. We trust that they will continue in good health and that they will have the privilege of serving the people of their constituencies and the people of Canada for many years to come.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in extending our warmest congratulations to the members for Ottawa East and Calgary Centre (Messrs. Richard and Harkness).
Between 1945 and 1949, I got to know both very well as I was then sitting on this side of the House. If we had to part company in 1949, it was not my fault but that of the "bad" Liberals who defeated me.
In any case, the members for Ottawa East and Calgary Centre, whom I got to know between 1945 and 1949, have both rendered tremendous services to their constituents.

Personally and on behalf of my colleagues, I wish them long life and success in their undertakings. I hope they will continue to serve the Canadian people for many years to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the New Democratic Party and the leader of the Creditiste party for their kind expressions of good will toward the hon. member for Ottawa East and myself. I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and, indeed, all our colleagues in the House for the mark of esteem which they have shown by their applause.
I appreciate this very much. I must agree with the Prime Minister that 25 years is a very large slice of one's working life to spend in Parliament. At the same time, I do not know of any way in which I could have spent those 25 years in a more interesting manner than I have here in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is a privilege to have known so many hundreds of members who have sat in the House in that period, to have been able to exchange ideas with them, and to obtain from them a much broader idea of the different elements which make up this country-its problems, its diversity, and, at the same time all the unifying forces that exist within it. This is a privilege one can only enjoy by spending a long period in the House of Commons. I must say, though, that occasions of this sort demonstrate fairly dramatically the fact that all of us here are engaged in a very hazardous occupation. I do not know of any other way of life in which the survival rate after 25 years is less than 2 per cent.
I must at this point express my thanks to the voters of Calgary who have sent me here in the last nine elections, and say to all my colleagues that the only way in which to make a career out of politics is to make sine that your voters continue to support you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 11, 1970



[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr.   J.-T. Richard@Oilawa East: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved by the nice things that were said by my leader (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) and my friend, the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette). I wish to thank them all for their good wishes.
I must say that I am happy to have spent 25 years in the House; as we say "it was a home away from home". Besides the fact that some confided in me, I have been trusted and respected by my colleagues from all parties in the House. My leaders had confidence in me and I consider that I have a special status: among the four more senior members of the House, I have the privilege of having always remained a commoner. Perhaps I wanted to make sure that I would be re-elected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Richard:: However, I have always thought that there was enough to do in the interest of those who are dear to me, the ordinary people with whom I have lived from my childhood, in very simple conditions, as I continue to do still.
I am quite pleased that I was never meant to have a lot of money or to reach a high station in life, because I still feel quite close to my electors who respect me and this is what I want more than anything else.
If you allow me, I would like to point out the presence in the Speaker's gallery of my mother-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Thomas Richard: -who is accompanied by my wife and my son.

I would have so many things to say, Mr. Speaker, if we were in a committee, or if I had the privilege of speaking for 40 minutes, but I think it would be very enlightening to some hon. members to know just what Parliament has been like, during these 25 years. The reformists are not just the recent arrivals in the House; The 1945 "little Chicago boys" who used to sit over in that corner of the House were much more a group of reformists. We sat there the whole time from three to six and then from eight to eleven at night.
22478-15 j
Constitution of Canada
I must thank all of the party leaders who have been in this House since 1945. I have enjoyed the confidence not only of my leaders who were Prime Ministers-four of them- but I should also mention that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has been a very good friend of mine. On the very first day I sat in this House he came over to greet me and to speak to me.
I could ramble on but I must close. Before I do let me say this carnation I am wearing was also a symbol of the little Chicago boys in 1945. The then Prime Minister, Mr. King, was in hot water at that time for many months, and I remember in those days we played the game because he thought that we were members of the Fabian society.
From a more serious point of view, may 1 say I hope I will be able to serve the people of my riding for some time yet. I also hope I will live to see a Canada that is very closely united and whose people are bilingual. By that I mean that I hope the solution to a united Canada, which I have looked for for so many years, will be found in the fact that slowly, progressively, without force or any other means of that type but through knowledge of each other and the expression of good will, we will have a nation where the majority of the people speak not only their native language, whether that be French or English, but both languages.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Emard.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walker-ville) moved: that the second report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, presented to the House on May 20, 1970, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
June 11, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Student Summer Employment MANPOWER

[Stage Direction]
Hen. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, last week the government took action concerning the financial relationships between the federal and provincial governments in view of current economic conditions. This action will provide a new stimulus to the economy.
Today, again in view of these economic conditions, the government has taken new decisions to increase employment opportunities for students across the country this summer, either within the federal public service and through special programs.
You will recall that some time ago I stated in the House that the objective of the government of Canada was to employ 11,365 students this summer at an estimated cost of $13 million for salaries. I now wish to announce a decision of government to employ an additional 5,836 students within the government service this summer at an estimated additional cost of $5.5 million for salaries. This represents a total of 17,200 jobs for students this summer in the public service at a possible salary cost of $18.5 million.
My department will also within a fortnight open 33 additional special offices to serve students. These, as well as the 40 offices already operating, will be manned by students. In this way, we hope to provide the best possible services to the student population of Canada.
In addition, funds will be made available to permit the Department of National Defence to launch four new job-creating projects. These are: ground maintenance at bases across Canada, range clearance at Base Gagetown and Valcartier, opportunity to serve in the militia, and increased cadet training. Additionally, the Canadian Red Cross Youth has been approached to assume responsibility for leadership courses to be given to students while National Defence will provide accommodation and board to students in some of its establishments across the country. Some 10,500 should be gainfully employed through the first four projects. Some 300 students could enrol in the leadership courses. The total cost of these five projects involving the Department of National Defence is estimated at $7.9 million.
Funds for the ongoing program of student travel within Canada and abroad under the leadership of voluntary agencies and in cooperation with the Department of the Secre-
[Mr. MacGulgan.l
tary of State have been increased. It is expected that some 1,800 additional applications will be received from students. The Department of the Secretary of State will launch also a program to teach French or English to some 1,000 students during the summer months. While no salary is paid to students, the cost of the program is estimated at $600,000 to cover teachers' salaries, accommodation and board for students for a six-week period.
a (2:30 p.m.)
Finally, with the assistance of the Department of National Defence an effort will be made to establish drop-in centres in major cities to provide beds for students travelling throughout the country.
We have also approached the Canadian Red Cross Youth to allow us to participate in their educational projects by assisting them with funds to extend these projects to all provinces. These projects are designed to assist the underprivileged. Some 100 students could be employed as leaders while some 5,000 secondary school students might serve as volunteers.
In co-operation with the National Council of YMCAs it has been proposed that we assume through a grant the employment of students to act as supervisors in a number of day camps which, I believe, are important to many children in Canada.
In brief, the federal government intends to provide through its total program 36,000 openings for students this summer at an estimated cost of $27.9 million. Parliament will be asked to provide funds through supplementary estimates.
A table providing a summary of our programs is attached to this statement, and, with consent, might be included in Hansard as part of my statement.
I have outlined our new programs for student employment. We shall bend all our efforts to ensure their implementation to the fullest possible extent.
As I have said before, we appreciate the leadership given by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to its members in providing additional student openings this summer. It is my hope that these additional efforts by the federal government will encourage other employers to increase summer employment for students.
[Editor's Note: The summary of programs referred to above follows:]
June 11, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Student Summer Employment SUMMER STUDENT EMPLOYMENT 1970 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM (estimates of openings and costs)
Salaries
Number of Number of	and
Programs	students Man-months Other Costs
Student Employment in the Federal Public Service			$
(a) already approved	11,365	34,095	13,000,000(b) additional	5,836	17,508	5,500,000Department of National Defence (a) Ground Maintenance at Bases across	17,201	51,603	18,500,000Canada	4,000	8,000	2,250,000(b) Range Clearance (Base Gagetown)	1,000	2,000	775,000(c) Militia Training	5,000	8,750	4,500,000(d)	Cadet Training (e)	Leadership Training (in conjunction with Canadian Red	500	875	275,000Cross Youth)	300	225	100,000Department of the Secretary of State (a) Additions to Travel Programs	10,800	19,850	7,900,000Voluntary Agencies	1,800	900	150,000(b)	Language Training (c)	Drop-in Centres	1,000	1,500	600,000 200,000Canadian Red Cross Youth Educational	2,800	2,400	950,000Projects	5,100	15,300	325,000National Council of YMCA's Day Camps	200	500	220,00036,101	89,653	27,895,000
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister for taking into consideration even at this late date the student employment problem in Canada. I am rather proud to have the opportunity and privilege of answering the minister's statement because the young member of our party, the hon. member for Vegreville, who usually speaks on matters regarding youth, happens to be absent from the House today. I feel privileged because, like many other hon. members who attended university in the 1930's, I had to work my way through college, and thus we are aware of the difficulties in trying to obtain employment.
1 should like to say a few things regarding the merit of the program. First, any thought
given by this government to student employment is good. I hope that the assistance given will be based on need rather than special privilege or any other factor because those in need are the ones who require the jobs. When we look at the total program we see that in one way or another 36,000 students will be guaranteed employment. But I think that this fact must be seen in its proper perspective. I do not have the exact figures but I have seen references in newspapers to the fact that there are as many as 600,000 students in Canada. I believe it would be more accurate to say that there are about 450,000 students in institutions of higher learning, universities and vocational training schools. So we have to look at this program from the point of view of what it will really do.
7990	COMMONS
Student Summer Employment
The program is good as far as it goes. The only criticism I have is that it comes too late. University students have been out of college already for one month. One only has to drive down the Trans-Canada highway from Winnipeg to Banff, which I did recently, to see large numbers of students thumbing rides to go to places where they hope they can find employment, just like the average man in the 1930's rode the rods trying to find a job.
So I say that although this program will be helpful to 36,000 students, it will not help those who are still unemployed. I repeat that there are 450,000 students in Canada, many of whom are looking for work. If they do not find work this summer they will not be able to return to university in the fall. In addition, we must remember that, as has been brought out, unemployment in Canada is 6.6 per cent of the work force in this country. If we add to this figure the number of unemployed university students and other students from our high schools and colleges, there must be pretty close to 800,000 unemployed in this country, and that to me is a serious situation.


Mr. McGrath:: Close to a million.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, we will not be very far from that figure. I say with great respect that this is no time to gloat. Our greatest resource in Canada is our human resource. If we neglect our youth, we will have neglected the finest resource we have.
Only a month ago I asked the minister, when this problem first arose as university students were leaving college, whether he would present a program similar to the one he presented today but also go even farther and bonus business and industry to stimulate and motivate them to take on students so that all students, irrespective of class, would have employment and be able to return to the universities they have been attending.
Finally, we must realize that the 36,000 students are only equivalent in number to the student population of two universities in western Canada. When one considers the number of universities across this country and the number of young men now hunting desperately for employment, not only graduates and undergraduates but high school students and students in vocational training schools, I say to the minister on behalf of the ones who will obtain jobs: thank you very much but the program is too late and is too inadequate.


Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that I

DEBATES	June 11. 1970
am very happy that the minister has recognized the problem of student employment this year. I congratulate him for recognizing the need to spend additional government money on employing an extra 5,800 students in the government services this year. I am also happy that the minister has opened an extra 33 special offices to serve students seeking jobs this summer and that he is staffing the offices with students. I wish we could have done these things about a month and a half ago when they could have helped quite a few students who have been unemployed since classes stopped in the middle of April.
I do not think we should now put away our books and forget about the student summer employment problem, because it will not go away. The minister's program will be helpful but more jobs are going to be needed.
I have just completed a survey of the major universities in Canada. I have been telephoning placement officers on their campuses and have learned that they have major problems this year. I should like to take one or two minutes to point out three or four of them. First, I think the student employment problem is linked directly to the whole unemployment picture in Canada and to the economic slowdown we are now experiencing. I find that almost every major university is having more difficulty this year than they had last year in obtaining adequate employment for students this summer.
Second, I find that even though a student has a job it may not be one that pays him adequate money to enable him to return to university in the fall of 1970. Other students only have part-time jobs and cannot expect to work for any more than two or three months this summer.
The third point I want to make is that I found through my survey that particular difficulty is encountered by women students in finding adequate jobs in the cities and towns of this country.
I should like to underline two additional points. One is that there are special regional problems in student employment as there are in many other facets of Canadian life and society. I believe we will need extra help and more emergency or special programs in places such as Saskatchewan, which is suffering from an economic slowdown, and in the Mari-times and rural Quebec. I think this is very important.
I also believe that in dealing with the whole problem of student employment we should
June 11, 1970

make some basic change by trying to create jobs that are more student-oriented. I refer to work-study jobs, so that students will not be competing with the members of the regular work force. We will have to start such programs in the future. Having regard to the student employment picture, we will also have to start thinking of fundamental changes in our educational system so that every young person, regardless of his financial or economic background, will be able to attend university whether or not he finds a summer job.
I thank the minister once again for at least recognizing the problem in part. Let us make this the beginning rather than the end in trying to find jobs for students this summer and in trying to find a new solution to the whole problem of making it possible for everyone to attend a school of higher learning.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we are surely pleased to hear the minister say that the Public Service will hire this year 17,200 students instead of 10,365. Better late than never.
As the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) mentioned a moment ago, the students have been looking for jobs for more than a month and the government has finally decided to open 33 special offices for students in addition to the 40 already existing, in order to enable them to find employment. I hope that among these 33 offices at least one will be established in northwestern Quebec, an area which I represent in this House.
Mr. Speaker, the government is making a big fuss about the student situation, and rightly so. I have recently had the opportunity of visiting the four Western provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. University students have had to pay their tuition fees in wheat or rye because they could not afford paying cash. Those students in the West, I repeat, are entitled to earn an honest living in their country, and it has not been possible to allow them to do so. Actually, what are 35,000 or 40,000 jobs at a time when 400,000 to 600,000 of our students are seeking work. That is therefore not an adequate response to the present problem.
I also said in the West that, should a war break out today, the Minister of Labour and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) would not just say: We have found 33,000 jobs, but: At last we have found jobs for all our young people of 18 and over, and we are going to draft
Student Summer Employment them into the Army, feed them, house them and clothe them. Then any amount could be spent.
I think the government is taking a band-aid approach to the problem. It will not be possible, of course, to find employment for every student. Those who will not be able to earn a livelihood and those who will not earn enough to resume their classes for the fall term will engage into another path and then they will be blamed for rebelling against a society.
Mr. Speaker, instead of putting the blame on the young who sometimes revolt against society, why not blame society itself for preventing the young from integrating into it and having their say about the administration and the development of their country.



TELESAT CANADA


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41, section 2, I wish to table the first report of Telesat Canada for the year ended December 31, 1969, in accordance with section 37 of the Telesat Canada Act.



MOTIONS TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 MANPOWER LACK OF SUMMER EMPLOYMENT FOR STUDENTS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, notice was given to you in reference to this motion prior to any knowledge on my part of the statement made on motions today by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the dearth of summer employment for many thousands of young Canadians who will be unable to continue their education next fall because they cannot now work to pay their way through school and university, a problem compounded in many instances by the desperate plight of their families whose incomes have been drastically reduced through growing unemployment.

June 11, 1970
Housing
In the next ten days there will be more than 200,000 additional students from colleges and high schools also looking for summer employment. Although there are no definite figures we do know that 6.6 per cent of the Canadian labour force is unemployed and if the students that are unemployed were added to this figure it would bring unemployment in Canada up to 8 per cent. I would hope that this government has the heart to do even more than was suggested today.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether I should infer from the hon. member's statement that he is making his motion or is withdrawing it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, I am making it, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North had filed the notice required by Standing Order 26 and, of course, I have had an opportunity to give the matter some serious thought since then. Hon. members are well aware that the matter of summer employment for students has been brought to the attention of the House on a number of occasions in recent weeks. In particular, a motion similar to that now before us was proposed on May 14 by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands. The ruling of the Chair on that occasion read in part as follows:
In so far as the reference to the problem of student employment during the summer months is concerned, it is hardly necessary for me to remind hon. members that a debate on this very subject took place on Friday last, when a supply motion was presented to the House by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.
In view of the fact that there has already been a special debate in the House on this very subject, considering that it has been the subject of a number of interventions by hon. members since then, and taking into account the statement made on motions by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration which has been followed by the interesting and constructive comments of hon. members speaking on behalf of the parties in opposition, including the statement made by the hon. member for Calgary North, I would not think that I am at liberty at this time to put to the House the motion proposed by the hon. member.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for

Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the announcement by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation of a drop of 50.1 per cent in housing starts in urban centres for the first five months of this year compared with a similar period last year, thereby creating a new and alarming crisis in Canada, and making it urgent that Parliament deal immediately with the situation that has now been created before the people of Canada suffer undue hardship from the housing shortage and excessively high rents and mortgage interest rates.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Broadview has also given the Chair the notice required under the terms of Standing Order 26. Hon. members will recognize that the report on which the hon. member for Broadview has based his motion is analogous to the periodic announcements made by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and other government agencies dealing, for example, with the cost of living, with employment or unemployment with import or export statistics. There are many precedents indicating that in the circumstances it is not competent upon the Chair to accept such motions.
In the circumstances I regret very much that I have to advise the hon. member that I cannot agree the House should be adjourned for the purpose he has suggested under the terms of Standing Order 26.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister without Portfolio from Port Arthur was announcing government policy when in Halifax he recommended a forum for federal-provincial-municipal consultation on urban matters, with the municipalities having a legitimate and recognized place at the table with the provinces, with the federal government laying on that table all federal policies and actions that affect the cities for discussion and co-ordination with provincial and munici-
June 11. 1970	COMMONS
pal needs, and more in the same vein? I hope the minister was speaking for the government when he made that recommendation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for supporting the government's position on this general approach, Mr. Speaker, but I would not want to bind the government to the exact words quoted by the Leader of the Opposition. Certainly the government has always hoped it could find some way of discussing its actions in the cities with the people upon whom that action bears first and foremost. We are very glad that the position taken by the minister in Halifax has met with some degree of support from at least some municipal authorities.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the minister was announcing the position of the government and government policy when he said he would seek the views of the provinces on whether they would be agreeable to the establishment under a formal framework of an urban council where the political representatives of all three levels of government could meet and discuss urban policies regularly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The idea of an urban council was discussed by the minister with his cabinet colleagues, and this idea was approved. It is a matter for implementation and for agreement, which the minister is presently seeking.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the intention of the government to establish a department of urban affairs in order to administer the federal end of this program that the minister announced?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are not obsessed with the name of any such agency. We think that the minister is now dealing with the problem in a very adequate way. He has no department yet, but of course he has some supporting agencies such as CMHC. We will be looking in the near future to see if there is any need for further structural changes.



STRUCTURE OF PROPOSED FORUM FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION-DROP IN HOUSING STARTS

John Gilbert: I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of housing, Mr. Speaker. In setting up this new urban council on housing, does the minister intend to set it up under a frame-22478-16
DEBATES	7993
Inquiries of the Ministry work different from that suggested by former Prime Minister Pearson, who in December, 1967, said that such a council would be merely a consultative body dealing with housing assessment and housing studies? Is it the intention to have a different framework for the purpose of initiating policies, dealing with financial problems, and so forth?
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without
Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I think the words already spoken on this subject during the question period give some indication of some of the ideas I have, but they are one man's view of the world. It would be incumbent upon us to start the consultation by consulting about that very point, that is, about the structure that would best serve the purpose that we all seem to be agreed on. In that light it would be part of my approach to the provincial minister concerned to see what their views would be.


John Gilbert: May I direct another supplementary question to the minister in charge of housing, Mr. Speaker. In view of the serious drop in housing starts in the first five months of this year, amounting to a 50.1 per cent decrease in urban centres, is it the intention of the minister to make a statement on motions setting forth the government's policy and initiatives aimed at solving the housing crisis we now face?


Mr. Andras:: Mr. Speaker, I will give consideration to a statement. I am concerned myself about the low number of starts in May. I think it would be wise if we could analyse the May figures in particular, which, among other reasons, were down as a result of some unfortunate construction strikes. One or two of the provinces, for good and legitimate reasons, have not yet been able to commit public housing fluids allocated to them. This, however, is a temporary situation and will be improved upon. This does not negate the seriousness of the low number of starts in May. I am consulting with my colleagues and if there is to be any different approach to this matter I will be glad to mention it in the House.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the government's obvious change in policy with regard to direct participation of the representatives of urban municipalities, is the wel-
7994	COMMONS DEBATES	June 11. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry come mat now outside the Privy Council Office for the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer)?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing for taking the advice of the opposition which has long been seeking the co-operation in this field of the federal, provincial and municipal governments. Now that we are moving in that direction, may I ask whether the Prime Minister would consider setting up a standing committee on urban affairs to which many representations could be directed?


Gerald William Baldwin: Come on! Answer the
question!


Mr. McCleave:: Does the Prime Minister now know what is going on?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know the Prime Minister was exceptionally busy when I asked my question. Perhaps I might ask my question again. In view of the direction that government policy has now taken, is the Prime Minister prepared to recommend the setting up of a standing committee on urban affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his representation.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the independence and initiative the Minister without Portfolio displays in urban affairs will meet with more success than the independence and initiative he displayed when he was in charge of Indian affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware of Mr. Gaglardi's new directive in British Columbia that people involved in a labour dispute can receive food vouchers but no cash welfare, and only when

they can prove there is no food in the house? If he is aware of this, did he agree to it? If not, what action does he propose to take?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of various press releases alleging that the minister made this statement, but I have not yet seen such a statement in the form of directives to welfare administrators who are responsible. If it should occur that there are such directives, that of course would be contrary to the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan and the agreements under it.


Winona Grace MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I can provide the minister with those written directives, will he take action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Finance a question in which I said:
After the adoption of the floating exchange rate for the Canadian dollar, Canadian gold mines are losing revenues and a good many marginal mines which attract American funds to Canada and which provide employment for Canadians will undoubtedly have to close down.
The Minister of Finance told me that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was meeting with gold producers to discuss this particular problem. Is the latter in a position today to tell the House whether the government will continue or will increase the subsidies paid to gold mines to keep them in operation, in order to reassure the population of northwestern Quebec?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minisler of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there is as yet no government decision on the question of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. The subsidies continue until the end of the year. I have had meetings both with community leaders from northern Ontario and northwestern Quebec and also, yesterday, with officials of the Canadian Mining Association. My own department is conducting a
June 11, 1970	COMMONS
very comprehensive survey that includes both the social and municipal implications of the removal of the subsidy. We hope that we shall have a government decision as to the future of the gold mines and the gold mining communities and the relevance of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act in a very short time.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
Hen. George Hees (Prince Edward-Kas-tings): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
An hon. Member:: He will not listen.


Mr. Hees:: I gave him notice of the question. Following the Prime Minister's suggestion yesterday that I invite the country's top labour leaders to a private meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss some of the country's more serious economic problems and possible solutions to them, and in view of the personal assurances that have been given to me during the past 24 hours by those top labour leaders that they would welcome such a meeting and that they think it could be very constructive indeed, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will now instruct his staff to work out a mutually convenient time for holding such meetings, so that they can be proceeded with as soon as possible?


An hon. Member:: How about next weekend?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there may be a little bit of misunderstanding on the question of how the hon. member's persuasive powers were to be used. When I answered his question yesterday I suggested that since in my public meetings with the labour leaders some months ago I had not been entirely successful, perhaps the hon. member could invite the labour leaders and that he could convince them. Obviously, he feels he is unable to convince them and he wants me to convince them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am, of course, prepared to do so and I thank the hon. member for his constructive proposal. But I have a high regard for the persuasive powers of the Minister of Labour, who has told me that he has been in contact with the labour leaders for 22478-161
DEBATES	7995
Inquiries of the Ministry some time now and that he will arrange for such meetings if such meetings can usefully take place.


George Harris Hees: I have conveyed to the Prime Minister, as he very well knows, the fact that during the past 24 hours very senior labour leaders of this country have indicated that a private meeting with the Prime Minister would be very conducive to improvements in the economic atmosphere in Canada. Will the Prime Minister take this matter seriously in the interest of the country? I am speaking very seriously. Will he ask these labour leaders to attend a private meeting with him, away from press, radio and television? Possibly a meeting could be held in the home of the Prime Minister to discuss these important matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has asked his question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that I do take the proposal seriously. I thank the hon. member for having given it consideration and for having discussed it with me yesterday after the question period. I can only repeat my answer of yesterday to him and indicate that steps are under way. The Minister of Labour has been having discussions with these leaders. If the minister cannot make any headway, and if the labour leaders find that their only access to me is through the hon. member, I will willingly let him set up the meeting.



INFLATION-EFFECT OF HIGHER WAGE INCREASE IN TOWBOAT INDUSTRY ON SIX PER CENT GUIDELINE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. Following the announcement made by the Minister of Labour yesterday, I ask the Prime Minister whether the government's guideline on wage and salary increases is still 6 per cent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the Leader of the Opposition will recall, the government's position as stated by the Minister of Finance is that the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission proposed that guideline to the federal government and to the provinces. We indicated our intention of accepting it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary. Will the Prime Minister or one of his ministers make a statement on motions at an early date to explain this guideline? Since the gov-
7996	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry ernment of Canada has apparently accepted it, how do they propose to persuade those concerned that the 6 per cent guideline should be followed when the Minister of Labour has been involved with negotiations at a substantially higher level?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I gladly ask the Minister of Labour to answer that question.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think he would want to mislead the House, even unintentionally. If he will read yesterday's Hansard, he will see that the settlement of the strike in the towboat industry was arrived at independently of the government and the Minister of Labour. I think the settlement is fair, in view of the fact that it represents the unanimous feelings of the conciliation board which was set up to settle the strike in the towboat industry and taking into consideration the existing salaries before the collective agreement was signed, as well as productivity and other factors. I made it very clear in my statement yesterday and I take this opportunity today to say, with a degree of satisfaction, that in the two years I have been Minister of Labour on not one occasion have I either persuaded or abnormally influenced either side to make settlements.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether we are not now entering the field of debate. I point out to hon. members that we are running short of time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter. I wish to direct one further question to the Minister of Labour. I do not think I misinterpreted what he said. I simply ask him how he expects postal and other employees to accept a guideline of 6 per cent in the circumstances announced by the minister yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I again suggest to the minister and the Leader of the Opposition that we are entering the field of debate and argument. Although I appreciate the matter is very important, I suggest we go on to another subject.



RELAXATION OF U.S. IMPORT CONTROLS ON CANADIAN OIL-RELATIONSHIP TO EXPORTS OF CANADIAN GAS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I direct my question to the Minister

DEBATES	June 11. 1970
of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister received any information from the government of the United States that the latter intends to relax controls on the import of Canadian oil into the American market? If he has any information, will he tell the House what the new quotas are likely to be and whether this relaxation is in any way related to an arrangement between the two governments regarding the export of Canadian natural gas?


John James Greene: I am not officially aware of any such relaxation, Mr. Speaker, although I have read rumours in the press that there might be a relaxation. We have not had any official notification of any relaxation.
With regard to the latter half of the hon. member's question, there is certainly no agreement that any relaxation must be contingent upon a greater quantity of Canadian gas being made available. The decision on whether there is a surplus of Canadian gas is made by the National Energy Board. The government cannot make such an agreement. I have accentuated in several speeches that the wider the oil market, the more exploration will take place and the greater the likelihood of more gas being found.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that American companies now have applications before the National Energy Board for the export of 9J trillion cubic feet of Canadian gas to the United States, and in view of the fact the final decision will come to the cabinet in the form of recommendations by the National Energy Board, I ask the minister whether he will assure the House that the government will not approve any such export until such time as the matter has been placed before Parliament?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, if I made such an undertaking I would be interfering with a statute of this House. There is a statute which set up the National Energy Board as the decision-making authority in this regard. When they sit on these hearings they do so in a judicial capacity. At no time do I interfere in their deliberations. Their recommendations will be made to and determined by cabinet in the normal course of business.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lambion-Kenl):: wish to direct a question to the Postmaster
June 11, 1970

General. Since the advent of the rotating postal strikes, has the government been delivering old age pension cheques, government annuity cheques and similar payments to areas such as Carleton Place and Smiths Falls? Can the minister say whether this personal service will be or has been extended to all areas of Canada? Also, will he inform the House whether the messengers are private bonded couriers or departmental employees?


Eric William Kierans: With respect to the particular places mentioned by the hon. member, I will have to consult with my officials. As the hon. member knows, my colleagues in the Department of National Health and Welfare took care some time ago to mail early many of their cheques. I will have to seek further information on the particular places mentioned.


Mr. McCulcheon:: A supplementary question. My question is basic and simple. Is the department sending people to places such as these to personally deliver mail?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has restated the question asked in the first instance. My understanding is that the minister will look into the matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is about Canadian citizens and nationals of other countries now being held as hostages by Palestinian insurgents in Amman, Jordan. Can the minister bring us up to date on the current situation and tell us whether it is expected that Jordan will be in a position to guarantee the safety of our fellow citizens?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: The reports I read just before coming into the House are very serious. There is great trouble in Amman, and it continues. There were reports that some Canadian citizens are being held as hostages but we have been unable to confirm this; the reports are somewhat contradictory. Our embassy in Beirut, which also looks after our interests in Jordan, is checking on these reports and I may have further information on the subject later. As to the safety of Canadians in Jordan, measures to assist them as the situation might warrant have been arranged through the United States and British embassies in particular.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: May I ask the minister whether he can tell us the approximate number of Canadians in Jordan, and whether any have so far sought asylum or refuge in either the American or the British embassies?


Mitchell William Sharp: The records we have show there are seven Canadian residents in Jordan but of course there may be some Canadian tourists there who would not necessarily be registered. The reports I have received are that Canadians are not among those who are being held hostage. I would think that any Canadians who might want to get out would act in concert with the United States and British citizens who are there, and they would be informed as to how best to look after themselves. We have no information so far that any Canadians are being held.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare about the 700-page Le Dain Commission report. Does the minister plan to make it public tomorrow and does he intend to hold a briefing session for members of the press, members of the opposition and maybe members of his own party?


John Carr Munro: It is premature to consider seriously the mechanics which might be employed to make this report public since the matter is still before the cabinet and no decision has been taken on whether or not it should be made public.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Has the minister or any member of his department discussed the possibility or the probability of this document being tabled tomorrow so that people outside the department can see this document which he seems to regard as a security document?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. As I say, no decision has been made by the cabinet on whether or not it will be tabled, and I doubt very much whether a decision will be reached by tomorrow.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I ask the
minister whether he has been able to overcome the objections of the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General to the publication of this report?
June 11. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



MANPOWER


Mr. Gilberi Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Following his statement concerning the creation of 35,000 new summers jobs for students, can the minister indicate to the House whether this new policy will be permanent or only temporary?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is a policy for this summer. I would not wish to predict what the appropriate policy might be for a future summer.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In
view of the lack of reference in the minister's statement today to the special problems affecting students in certain regions of Canada, would he instruct his department to give special attention to the needs of university students living in areas where economic disparity exists?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is in the form of a representation.



MEASURES TO DEAL WITH HIGH PRICES

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My
question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Does the hon. gentleman agree with the conclusion of the joint parliamentary committee on high drug prices that the chief cause of the difficulty is at the retail level? If so, when does he intend to use the anti-combines legislation or other measures to deal with this problem?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporaie Affairs):: I am not sure that the phrase used by the hon. member is a correct reflection of the recommendation of the Harley report which recommended that action be taken on several fronts. In line with the recommendation of the Harley committee we are, as the hon. member knows-he asked a question about this yesterday-holding meetings today with provincial officials to discuss certain aspects of the distribution of pharmaceutical products at the retail level. I am surprised that the hon. member does not

know that action under the Combines Investigation Act was taken some months ago in British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I notice that several members are rising to ask supplementaries, but again I would request the co-operation of hon. members in an effort to curtail the number of supplementary questions asked between now and the end of the question period.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A very brief supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of the minister's answer, is it fair to conclude that he is now delegating his responsibility for the control of drug prices to the provincial governments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CROWN CORPORATION TO MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTE-ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION EXPENSES

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: May I ask
the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a question which is related to one addressed to him a few moments ago? In view of the minister's justified concern about the high prices of prescription drugs, and in view of certain statements he is reported to have made, will he inform the House whether he intends proposing to the cabinet the establishment of a Crown corporation for the manufacture and distribution of prescription drugs to the end that drug prices might be reduced?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am also reported as having said that, for the moment at least, I have rejected that solution.


David Lewis: I had hoped that overnight the minister had become wiser. I regret being disappointed. I should also like to ask the minister whether he would consider discussing with the Minister of Finance the possibility of amending the Income Tax Act so as to place limits on the allowable expenses which large pharmaceutical concerns and wholesalers may put into promotion, advertising and the like?


Stanley Ronald Basford: As has been made clear, we have a five-point program to reduce the cost of drugs and we are meeting with the provinces at the present time in an effort to get some improvement made at the retail level. I believe it would be premature to adopt other measures until we have had a chance to see how effective existing measures are.
June 11, 1970



BROADCASTING


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I direct a question to the Secretary of State? Because of the rapid advance of technology in the communications field, will the minister agree to a suggestion that the Broadcasting Act be considered by the relevant committee and that the committee be empowered to recommend changes? Will he report to the House on motions at an appropriate time as to the merits, if any, of this suggestion?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's suggestion is an interesting one, especially because it is based on technological changes, but before answering I would like to consider it more closely.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
As he surely knows that in Quebec a group of separatist members of Parliament are refusing to take the oath of allegiance to the Queen and, because of this, are not authorized to sit in the National Assembly, and in view of the provisions of section 128 of the British North America Act, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether the province of Quebec could amend this section without first consulting the federal government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order! The member will certainly recognize that he wants the Prime Minister to express a legal opinion and that his question is obviously out of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary or rather an amended question. Can section 128 of the constitution be amended by the province only?


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that this second question is too similar to the first one to be in order.
Inquiries of the Ministry
[English1


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Waller C. Carter (Sf. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. May I ask the minister whether permission was sought by the United States government to store nuclear weapons at Argentina. If so, was permission given?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have had to answer questions of this kind on many occasions by saying that I can make no comment on the positioning of nuclear weapons in Canada, either to comment negatively or positively.


Walter C. Carter: A supplementary question. I appreciate the need for the minister to remain silent but perhaps he might give me some hint as to the position. If an explosion took place in the area, should the people there start praying or start running?


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for St. John's West. Would the minister give the House an undertaking to investigate the report referred to by the hon. member for St. John's West and to make a full report to the House on motions before the termination of the session, indicating the basis for the report and whether or not there is a reasoned explanation of why Canada cannot inform its 22 million people about the establishment of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the reason for not discussing these matters is fairly obvious; it is one of security.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and relates to a question I asked the Prime Minister, as reported on page 7894, of Hansard for June 9, with regard to reinstating the sugar rebate to Caribbean countries. I believe that at that time the Prime Minister thought we were

June 11, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry talking about other sweets. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs be so kind as to answer that question?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government is aware of the representations which have been made by the Caribbean governments. Indeed, I personally met with Mr. Lightbourne, Minister of Trade for Jamaica, and we are now studying ways of meeting those representations.



PUBLIC SERVICE


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Was the Secretary of State expressing government policy last night when he said, as reported in Le Droit, that there would be French-speaking units in the Public Service, as recommended by the third report of the B and B Commission, perhaps before the end of this session?
Righl Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I see the Secretary of State indicating by his facial expression that that is not quite an accurate quotation of his position.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Then, could I ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State. Was the Secretary of State correctly reported in Le Droit as saying that this question would be decided-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question cannot be asked in that way, as the hon. member knows. Perhaps he would ask the question directly.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: This is not a canard. Canards come in English, but I do not know whether they come en frangais. May I ask the Prime Minister whether this matter is under active consideration by the cabinet, and will there be a declaration of government policy before the House rises, if it does rise, on June 26?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question as put seems to be hypothetical, but I am prepared to answer it. Yes, the matter has been considered by cabinet. I cannot recollect whether a statement has been made or whether it has been decided that a statement will be made, but I will check into the matter and let the hon. member know, if he will remind me subsequently.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I bring to the attention of the hon. member that we are running short of time. Perhaps he has a short supplementary.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Did the Secretary of State say last night that he thought these units would be in the Public Service-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question as I have indicated to the hon. member that, according to the rules, cannot be asked.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that hundreds of would-be immigrants are being badly represented before the Immigration Appeal Board by people who pretend to be but are not solicitors and are not capable, will the minister, as requested by the Immigration Appeal Board, amend the regulations to stop this abuse of so many would-be newcomers to Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made by my hon. friend is under very active consideration at the moment. There are compelling arguments for and against the proposition, and until they can be fully assessed no change will be made.



EXERCISE BY APPEAL BOARD OF DISCRETION


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his capacity as the minister responsible for the Immigration Appeal Board. When checking with the Immigration Appeal Board, would the minister ensure that the board exercises fully the discretion given to it under the act by section 15(l)(b) regarding political persecution and compassionate grounds? I have in mind especially those of Greek origin who may be sent back to Greece at this particular time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as my
June 11, 1970

hon. friend knows, the board is an independent tribunal, but I am satisfied that they do consider, in the exercise of their discretion, the political position of an individual in a country for which he may be destined. On more than one occasion the board has allowed an individual to remain in Canada on the very grounds referred to by my friend in connection with Greece; the board has certainly considered that factor.



ESTABLISHMENT OF APPEAL BOARD PANEL IN TORONTO

John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the tremendous backlog of applications for landed immigrant status in Toronto, and again the tremendous backlog of cases before the Immigration Appeal Board in Ottawa, would the minister seriously consider setting up another Immigration Appeal Board in Toronto?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is proposed in the fall to establish a panel to hear cases in Toronto, as is now the case in Montreal. This will certainly provide a more convenient service for the large number of interested persons appearing before the board, though it will not in itself fully remove the backlog or even partially remove the backlog of work facing the board.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-4, to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before we proceed with the motions listed for consideration at the report stage of Bill C-4, may I be allowed to suggest to hon. members that there might be procedural difficulties with respect to a few of the motions which appear on the notice paper. I have in mind particularly motions 2, 3 and 5. Any decision with respect
Canada Corporations Act to motion 2, would, of course, affect motion 1, which I understand is consequential. It seems to me that motion 2 is in the nature of a substantive proposal, and perhaps hon. members who have been able to understand the amendment proposed by the hon. member might like to guide the Chair in this respect. I am not making a ruling now but I would appreciate being enlightened by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) who has proposed this motion that has caused considerable difficulty to the Chair and to the Chair's advisers.
In regard to motions 3 and 5, the difficulty, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) will recognize, is procedural and stems from the fact that it might well be considered that there is therein provision for a possible charge against the Crown. The hon. member must have given this matter serious thought, and probably also has some advice for the Chair.
I have been studying the other amendments closely, and to the Chair all appear to be procedurally in order, though it may well be that some members of the House may have objections to other motions to which I have not alluded. For the moment, the Chair might hear from the hon. member for Waterloo.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment we are seeking in respect of clause 38A deals with ownership. We are seeking to change the nature of the clause to make it more encompassing so that it will deal with the matter of foreign or non-resident ownership. The effect of this amendment would be to put into this section a clause which exists in the Bank Act, and in some other financial legislation, which would restrict foreign ownership in Canadian corporations generally to 25 per cent, unless any corporation is excluded by the minister. One of the clauses in the amendment would give the minister discretion to exclude any company from the provisions of the act if there should be a good and compelling reason for so doing. We think it is important that such a provision be included in the bill because, if it is not, the bill itself does not go very far and does not do too much in respect of dealing with the question of ownership. I think this is a fundamental point. The House has put this provision in other legislation in the past. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will accept the reason as offered and accept the amendment.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
8002	COMMONS DEBATES	June 11. 1970
Canada Corporations Act order in respect of amendment No. 2, may I say that I think from the words of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) two things probably are apparent. The first is that he is not satisfied with the original scope of the bill and, second, in putting this motion he is attempting to expand the original scope of the bill by what he has referred to as a fundamental change. It would seem to me, having made those two admissions, that he has acknowledged that the amendment as proposed in Motion No. 2 does go beyond the scope of the bill and therefore is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I must tell the hon. member for Waterloo that I feel very unhappy about having to reach the conclusion that the amendment should not be put. I suspect it is the result of considerable work. It would appear to be a drafting masterpiece. In fact, after studying the hon. member's amendment, the impression I have is that it is in essence a legislative proposal which stands on its own two feet and might very well be the subject of a private bill sponsored by the hon. member. To my way of thinking, this amendment goes considerably beyond the purpose and purport of the bill before us. As the President of the Privy Council has indicated, the hon. member for Waterloo himself has indicated that he is trying to introduce a new aspect or a new proposal which, in effect, would change the basis of the bill itself. My impression is that in a way the hon. member has sought to amend more than the bill which is before us. He has sought to go behind this bill to amend the Corporations Act. In other words, he has sought to make a change which would not only affect the bill before us but also the act which the bill seeks to amend. In this respect, the amendment should not be accepted.
Again I say to the hon. member that it is with considerable hesitation that I reach this decision because I think it is very unfortunate that an amendment which is so well prepared and drafted should not have an opportunity to be debated. Perhaps the hon. member will give some thought to the possibility of introducing this proposed amendment by way of a private bill, at which time a debate could be' held in the House. I apologize to the hon. member and say to him very sincerely that it is with regret I must rule that the amendment should not be put.
I shall now move on to Motion No. 3 and Motion No. 5 in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) about which I have expressed some reservations. I have

indicated to the hon. member that I have some misgivings about these two amendments which otherwise appear to be in order. They have financial implications which would make them out of order. Perhaps the hon. member might like to indicate his views in this respect.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: I shall do so most willingly, Mr. Speaker, because it seems to me these same points were raised before the committee. Unfortunately for me, the government has introduced another bill, C-216 to which I draw Your Honour's attention, in which precisely what I am seeking to do is being done, and in similar terms. I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to the original form of Bill C-4 and the recommendation contained therein. Perhaps I might read the whole recommendation:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House the present measure to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject-matter of certain of those amendments, in connection with the administration of the Canada Corporations Act, more particularly in regard to provide for the payment of expenses to be incurred with respect to the investigation of the affairs of companies and to authorize the increase in the membership of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission from three to four members to take account of the added duties arising from the investigation measures introduced by the amendments to the Canada Corporations Act, and to provide for other consequential and related amendments.
The minister has admitted that he also was breaking new ground not in any way referred to in the recommendation. As appears from page 52 of the bill, the judge, on the conviction of an individual, may in the same proceedings order the individual to pay to the Receiver General such expenses as may be specified in the order. We now have the Crown seeking to recover its expenses from an individual, which is a provision that has not existed before. So, the purport of my Motion No. 3 is merely an attempt to go down the other side of the street and say that on acquittal the judge, in the same type of proceeding, may make a recommendation. I do not say that he should order. I use the word "recommend" on the advice of the officers of the minister's department. The effect of the amendment is that the judge may recommend to Her Majesty in the right of Canada that such a person be paid costs as specified in the order. In other words, there is a discretionary power given to a judge or magistrate to recommend that Her Majesty pay certain costs in view of the fact that authorization is
June 11, 1970

provided for the payment of expenses to be incurred in respect of an investigation of the affairs of companies.
I would therefore say there is sufficient authority to give a judge the discretion to recommend that Her Majesty pay the cost of the expenses of an individual who has been acquitted. After all, the Crown asks for the right of reimbursement of its expenses from a person convicted. All I am trying to do is see that justice walks down both sides of the street rather than only the one side.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I would put it to Your Honour that, on the basis of what I said with regard to the recommendation and my amendment, there is sufficient authority for the motion. But if proof of that be needed, let us go to Bill C-216 where, in the second paragraph of the recommendation, it is said:
To provide also that the salaries, travelling allowances and annuities payable to members, former members and widows of former members shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and that all other expenditures shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose;
The first paragraph has only to do with salaries, annuities, and things of that nature. Let us consider Bill C-216, by which the Crown seeks to amend the act. The amendment is to section 101 of the Income Tax Act, which reads as follows:
101 (1) The court may, in delivering judgment disposing of an appeal, order payment or repayment of tax, interest, penalties or, subject to subsection (2), costs by the taxpayer or the minister.
It is left to the discretion of the court to order the minister, in the case of certain tax appeals, to pay the costs. But then let us look at subsection (2), which is an amendment, which reads:
(2) Where, on an appeal by the minister, other than by way of cross-appeal, from a decision of the Tax Review Board, the amount of tax that is in controversy does not exceed $1,000, the court, in delivering judgment disposing of the appeal, shall order the minister to pay all reasonable and proper costs of the taxpayer in connection therewith.
Bearing in mind the recommendation that I read to Your Honour that all other expenditures shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose, there is a provision whereby the judge in the Exchequer Court shall order the minister to pay. This is not a discretionary provision. It is absolutely clear that he will have to pay the costs of the taxpayer in connection with any claim that amounts to less than $1,000.
Canada Corporations Act
Let us take the parallel situation where the recommendation of Bill C-4, refers to authorizing a provision for the payment of expenses. These two are in the same category. It is the expenses of the Crown that we are asking be paid, and the expenses of the Crown shall include, in appropriate cases, the costs that may be awarded against it by a judge in dealing with a matter. This is my case. We cannot distinguish between the two types of recommendation. They are recommendations for the payment of expenses, and if the costs that may be recommended to Her Majesty to be paid to a taxpayer are not the expenses of an investigation, that is straining the credulity of members of the House and also is an abuse of the English language.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) would like to participate in this debate also. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised a nice point with respect to the two recommendations. I suggest that the recommendations are different in that the time honoured use of the phrase with regard to Bill C-216 "and that all other expenditures shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose" indicates that the numerous occasions which occur in other bills where the Crown may be exposed to financial expenditures are covered by those words. Of course, such funds will have to be appropriated from time to time in appropriation acts.
What the hon. member is seeking to do with regard to the recommendation in Bill C-4 is to expand the meaning of the word "expenses" so that it would refer not only to expenses which the Crown may incur on its behalf in connection with the type of investigation referred to but also to provide for punitive costs that may be awarded against the Crown from time to time in the case of a certain proceeding. I suggest that the principle should apply here that if a further obligation is imposed on the Crown it should be stated with greater precision. With respect to Bill C-216 the precision will be provided from time to time by the appropriations acts. With regard to Bill C-4, however, there has been no inclusion of penal costs against the Crown in the definition of expenses in the original bill. I suggest, therefore, that it would expand the word beyond its normal meaning to suggest that costs awarded against the Crown could be regarded as expenses for the purpose of the financial recommendation.
8004	COMMONS
Canada Corporations Act
As I said, perhaps my colleague who, I must admit, is much more familiar with the entire procedure, could, I hope, enlighten the Chair better than I can.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is seldom that I argue points of order in the House, but I would like to contribute briefly because the same point Your Honour has raised was raised in the committee when various amendments were moved. I concur with my colleague, the House leader, that what the hon. member for Edmonton West is endeavouring to do is to expand and extend the use of the phrase "payment of expenses" in the recommendation far beyond whatever proper interpretation could be given it. The recommendation from the Governor General preceding the introduction of Bill C-4 contains words which allow the Crown the payment of expenses to be incurred with respect to the investigation of the affairs of companies. I submit that that wording in the recommendation has to be interpreted by reference to the provisions of Bill C-4 as they stood before the Governor General when the recommendation was made.
There is nothing in the original version of Bill C-4 that would allow the conclusion that the Governor General ever intended to recommend that the Crown should accept responsibility for paying the expenses and costs incurred by the person who is the object of an investigation pursuant to these provisions. This is what the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West is endeavouring to do. The original version of Bill C-4 provided by way of expenses solely for the appointment of an additional member of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, and the conduct by the Crown of certain investigative work. Surely, the only interpretation that can be put on those words is that those are expenses that were intended to be included within the recommendation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a further point, Mr. Speaker, in brief answer to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: There will have to be unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Edmonton West to make his additional point. Of course, the hon. member may rise on a point of order.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister has indicated that I have rather expanded the nature of the phrase "payment of

DEBATES	June 11. 1970
expenses", but it will be noted on examination of the bill that the right of recovery is limited to the case of a convicted individual and to no other case, whereas the payment of expenses is the responsibility of the Crown all the way up to, but falling short of, conviction. Therefore that category of expenses all the way through must be authorized and recommended by the bill. It is not limited only to matters of appointment of a commissioner. All I say is that these expenses are part of the investigation.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Edmonton West and the minister for taking part in this procedural debate. The advantage of the notice which the Chair receives by the appearance in our notice paper of the motion is that the Chair can appear to be very wise.
After lengthy discussion and consultation of precedents I have, of course, in this instance again given the matter very serious thought. I have listened to the very interesting and forceful argument put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West, and he has shaken me to some extent in my original conviction that this amendment is a charge on the Crown.
The hon. member well knows how difficult it is to get away from the long established limitation which prohibits members from proposing for acceptance by the House charges which are not covered by the royal recommendation. It is perhaps the most difficult procedural obstacle to be surmounted. I have some doubts that the hon. member has been successful in this respect, although he has submitted very serious objections and potent arguments.
My understanding of Motion No. 3 is that it proposes in certain circumstances, when persons have been acquitted of charges, when certain prosecutions have been dismissed, abandoned or withdrawn, that such persons may be reimbursed by the Crown for their expenses. It seems to me, if the proposal were accepted and became operative, that it would create a financial charge. I find it difficult to escape this conclusion.
I should perhaps refer hon. members to May's seventeenth edition, page 551 which states as follows:
Amendments or new clauses creating public charges cannot be proposed, if no money resolution or ways and means resolution has been passed, or if the amendment or clause is not covered by the terms of the resolution. This rule, which is of fundamental importance, is fully explained in Chapter XXV and on page 803.
June 11, 1970

This is a general statement of course and refers more to the resolution than the royal recommendation but it is the rule which applies to royal recommendations even when a bill is not preceded by a resolution. I have looked at the words in the royal recommendation and having studied it, my humble interpretation of it was that it should be deemed to include the costs incurred by individuals, which the hon. member's amendment would want to be paid.
Of course I have some difficulty in connection with the other argument put forth by the hon. member for Edmonton West when he suggests that his proposal is on all fours with the clause contained in Bill C-216 on the Order Paper, which is an act to establish the tax review board and particularly clause 22 subsection (3) wherein section 101 of the Income Tax Act is amended by making costs payable by the Crown where the amount of taxes in controversy does not exceed $1,000. The hon. member suggests that this has the same effect as his proposal to amend Bill C-4. I should like to suggest to the hon. member that there is a substantial difference in that the amendment to section 101 contained in clause 22 of Bill C-216 in reality recommends a reduction in the charge on the Crown because section 101 at present enables the court to order payment of costs by the Crown in all cases, that is, wherein the amount of taxes on controversy exceeds $1,000.
That is my interpretation. The hon. member does not appear to agree with this, but I have given the matter serious thought and study and it is my impression that this is the way the bill ought to be interpreted.
Through his amendment, the hon. member suggests that he would rectify what he considers an inequality or injustice by putting the individual taxpayer on the same basis as the Crown. This is a most laudable purpose but I would not think it is sufficient to overcome the procedural difficulty to which I have alluded. I would have to rule that Motion No. 3 standing in the hon. member's name cannot be put for the reasons I have stated.
I feel we would have the same difficulty in relation to Motion No. 5 but perhaps the hon. member feels there is a difference which is not apparent to me. Unless he felt there was a difference in Motion No. 5 and would like to argue some difference between the two, I suggest that the ruling I have just made on Motion No. 3 should apply to Motion No. 5.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to raise a point of
Canada Corporations Act order because I would hesitate to have the Chair misdirect itself on an interpretation of law. Your Honour indicated the amendment to section 101 of the Income Tax Act was a reduction of the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order. The hon. member is debating a ruling of the Chair and he knows very well that cannot be done. Perhaps he would like to advance an argument in connection with Motion No. 5.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With in
regard to Motion No. 5, I hope Your Honour will look at section 101 again because what I did was to follow the principle as enunciated in the bill whereby the Crown can recover its expenses by saying, at the termination of the investigation or at any stage, that the commission which is in charge of the proceedings may in its discretion direct the payment of the expenses of the Crown. In other words, I am suggesting that the Crown should have the right to recover some money. In the previous section the Crown has narrowly limited itself to the case of an eventual conviction. I agree that they should, in this instance, recover their expenses and I think it is an acceptable principle. But I go further and say why should the Crown not have the right to recover part way down the road? If the person involved says "that is fine I agree. I will not raise any further defence and I will restore the money" or whatever it is, then the Crown should have the right to recover. But under these cases, unless there is security for costs, which was an amendment the Minister and I worked out together, there is no means whereby the Crown can recover any of its expenses. That is the purport of my amendment.
True enough, I must travel down both sides of the street and if at any time in these proceedings the Crown should desist-this often happens because the individual before the commission may have given a satisfactory explanation and the Crown could be satisfied that it should not proceed any further-then I say the commission, in its discretion, should make an award of the expenses of the individual or the company concerned and that these be paid by the Crown. Let us have justice on both sides of the street, and this is what I have said.
I have indicated clearly that this shall be for the payment of the expenses of an investigation of the affairs of a company. There is no suggestion, I would submit, of any ques-
June 11, 1970

Canada Corporations Act tion of costs-if anybody wanted to split hairs and distinguish between expenses and costs. These are expenses of an investigation of a company and I suggest to Your Honour that this is amply covered in the recommendation of the resolution. There is no expansion.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I wiH go back to my second argument because I suggest to Your Honour that it is apposite. In the terminology of the recommendation of Bill C-216 there is not a reduction in expenditures at the discretion of the court, but an expansion, because the amendment in the case of Bill C-216 makes the award of costs against the Crown mandatory in all cases. The original act only stated that the court "could do so" in all cases. In those cases involving $1,000 or less, it must award costs against the Crown. Therefore, with all due respect, that is an expansion of the liability of the Crown. Clearly, if there is an expansion of the liability of the Crown under Bill C-216, and if it is deemed that there is an expansion of potential liability of the Crown under Bill C-4, the wording in C-4 is wide enough and the amendment ought to be accepted.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I might add that I think Your Honour's ruling on Motion No. 3 applies to the motion we are now considering. In view of the lastest remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West I simply add that the wording of the two recommendations, one relating to Bill C-4 and the other relating to the amendments to the Income Tax Act that the hon. member mentioned, is different. Different words are used.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But they mean the same thing.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The wording in the recommendation relating to Bill C-4 refers to the payment of expenses to be incurred with respect to an investigation. The wording in the recommendation that the hon. member for Edmonton West referred to lists a number of expenditures and then goes on to say, "all other expenditures." I think, since the recommendations accompanying these two bills are different, the words in the recommendation accompanying Bill C-4, speaking of the payment of expenses and those in the recommendation accompanying Bill C-216, speaking of "all other expenditures", that these matters ought to be subject to different interpretations.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West restated as forcibly the second time as he stated the first time his arguments in support of the procedural admissibility of Motion No. 5 in his name. I do not see how I can reverse my decision, reached after having given every possible consideration to the hon. member's views, to his past experience in the House, which I respect, to his training in the Chair and to his legal background. I have taken all these matters into consideration. I would say, rightly or wrongly, that this is the conclusion I have reached. I hope that the hon. member will not be unduly aggrieved and that no miscarriage of justice will result from this interpretation of the hon. member's motion. But I feel, generally speaking, that the opinion I have expressed in relation to Motion No. 5 should apply to Motion No. 3. I again regret very much that I cannot accept the hon. member's arguments and that I cannot put to the House Motion No. 5.
I shall now put the question on Motion No. 4, which stands in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). He moves:
That Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments, be amended by striking out in clause 12 the words "any shareholder" in line 6 on page 53 and substituting the words "any or all shareholders".
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Cenire) Mr. Speaker, I rise on a minor point of order. I wonder, have we disposed of Motion No. 1? I realize that it is consequential on Motion No. 2. Since Motion No. 2 has been ruled out of order, perhaps Your Honour might make a ruling on Motion No. 1.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for raising this point. I thought it had been made clear that Motion No. 1 was a consequential motion and could not be put if Motion No. 2 were not accepted. That is why it has not been called. It is deemed to have been ruled out of order because it is consequential upon Motion No. 2.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my amendment is actually to bring a little more precision to this point. This amendment was worked out with the minister and relates to the obtaining of security for costs. I felt that merely using the words "any shareholder" in line 6 on page 53 was perhaps limiting the matter too much, because the bill says that an application for an investigation by the minister shall be
June 11. 1970	COMMONS
made by five shareholders or more. I should like to be satisfied with the interpretation to be put on this part. I want combinations. It may be that the minister would find that one or more of the complaining shareholders is a citizen of substance residing in Canada, and from him no security for costs would be required. However, others might be residents of foreign countries or in other provinces and they may not be citizens of substance, so in their case there may be a necessity for obtaining security for costs. The purpose of this amendment is to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's". That is about all there is to it, because we want to make absolutely clear that the choice of the minister would be exercised and that there would not be a case of "any and/or shareholders". The amendment seeks to clear this matter up.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, while I am not entirely sure the amendment is needed, because I think the wording of Bill C-4 probably covers the situation the hon. member refers to, I may say that if there is any doubt I will be quite happy to accept the amendment. That of course, is characteristic of this government. When we receive good ideas from across the floor we are happy to accept them in the spirit of co-operation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Lambert) agreed to.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of privilege that has nothing to do with the minister. It relates to the holding of the debate on the report stage of this bill this afternoon. As the minister knows, there were 19 sittings in committee with regard to this bill. We heard witnesses from 17 organizations as well as individuals, plus the minister, the deputy minister, his assistant, the deputy minister for corporate affairs and the director of corporations. They appeared before the committee on numerous occasions. What I wish to say to Your Honour now will not entail any kind of disparagement of hon. members in the House at the present time. This is a highly technical bill. The House is being asked in some instances to express itself on certain amendments. As debate continues, it will have to express itself on other amendments that are more contentious than the ones which have been put forward up to now. Why has this debate been scheduled for today when there is full knowledge that the finance committee in another place will hold
DEBATES	8007
Canada Corporations Act three sittings today. That is a very grave matter. The members who were present at the committee hearings have studied this matter in great detail. I suggest that very few members of this House have read the proceedings of the committee. They are very extensive.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
My point of privilege is that the scheduling of this debate is a discourtesy to this House and also to the witnesses who are appearing before the finance committee. The representatives of national organizations, major corporations, etc., in many cases have to travel a very long distance in order to appear before the committee. The committee today has to limit itself to less than a corporal's guard to receive and question these witnesses. This points out a very serious problem. Your Honour alluded to it yesterday.
There are nine committees holding 19 sittings today. On Tuesday last, ten committees held 25 sittings. One committee had three sittings on that day, yet the legislation called for discussion in this House was legislation dealt with by that committee. I am referring to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On that day someone counted 26 members in this chamber. I say that is a discourtesy to this House.
I did not see any government members in attendance today at that committee at any time as committee members, although periodically one member present did come in to ask questions. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) and the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) attended that committee. There is not one member on the government side who was present at those committee discussions. That is an odd situation. It seems to be an ill-disguised attempt to get legislation through by default or by steamroller because members are required to be present in two places at the same time.
I am not complaining to the minister because he has no control over this. I am not complaining to the Chair. I wish to point out the difficulty that has arisen which is one that is sundering the efficacy of the committee system in studying legislation.


Stanley Ronald Basford: There are several things that surprise me, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that the business of the House is arranged through consultation with the government house leader and house leaders of other parties. It
June 11. 1970

Canada Corporations Act was announced some time ago that Bill C-4 was to be the business of the House for today. I assume this was known by the house leaders and the hon. member. The fact that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs was to meet today was known some days ago. We have been debating Bill C-4 for over an hour. I am curious as to why the point of privilege has just been raised.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much if we should pursue the matter. Generally speaking, I agree with the point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West. As the hon. member mentioned, the Chair alluded to this situation yesterday in a statement made prior to routine proceedings. However, this is not a question on which the Chair can make a ruling. My only suggestion is that even in the face of a difficult situation we should attempt to pursue our discussion of the matter. The next motion, No. 6, stands in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo.


Max Saltsman: That Bill C-4, to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments, be amended in clause 14 by adding to section 118a the following subsection:
"(c) funds derived from the non-resident aspect of each item in subsection (a)
(d) funds applied to the non-resident aspect of each item in subsection (b) and,
(i)	payments to non-residents for advertising licences
(ii)	payment to charitable, cultural, and political causes."
He said: Mr. Speaker, clause 14, subsection 118a is a provision dealing with the application of funds. It deals with a number of important items, such as from where the funds are derived and where they are applied. It is our feeling that it is most important that stockholders and the public know about the use of corporation funds for political purposes.
One of the chief purposes of the motion before the House is that, if accepted, companies will have to reveal the contributions they make to political, charitable and cultural causes. Another important reason for moving this motion is that in the absence of any differentiation between American and Canadian corporations in this act, it is important to know to what extent there are transfer payments between the corporations in Canada and the parents in other countries regarding advertising, licences and other matters of that kind. The motion is commended

to the members of this House as a way of providing additional information to stockholders and companies on how corporations are conducting their affairs.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I wish to oppose this amendment, Mr. Speaker. It is not appropriate to include it in Bill C-4 at this time. As the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) has pointed out, the amendment requires the disclosure of payments by non-residents for advertising and licences. The hon. member says that this would be useful information. However, I am not sure why he has selected this particular kind of payment.
The Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, the other disclosure statute in the law of Canada, applies to all companies, whether or not they are incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act. The amendment requires the disclosure of payments by resident corporations to non-residents. The requirement for the disclosure of payments of that kind includes more than 15 different items, such as royalties, rent on real property, payments for or in respect of scientific research and several others. It is doubtful, in my view, that the information the amendment would require would in this context be very useful. If it were to be deemed useful information, I submit that the appropriate place to obtain it would be through amendments to the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. The disclosure of these kinds of payments from resident to non-resident companies would then be required from all companies in Canada, rather than just federal companies.
With regard to the second point of disclosure that is required, I wish to point out two things. I am not sure that the lumping together of all payments to charitable, cultural and political causes would provide meaningful information. I suspect that is a technical error in the amendment. I suspect that the hon. member for Waterloo would like them all shown separately. The wording is such that they could be all lumped together. This would not be very useful information.
Also, the matter of election expenses is before a committee of this House at the present time. If we are to have different laws pertaining to corporate donations to political parties, this should be dealt with in the legislation with respect to election expenses. It should be dealt with in matters pertaining to federal elections and federal political parties.
June 11, 1970	COMMONS
It would require information from all companies in Canada, not just the federally incorporated companies. In any event, if there are votes on these amendments I would request that they be deferred so that they can all be taken together.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It must be remembered that this is an amendment to an amendment to the Act. In actual fact, it covers part of the disclosure provisions in the amendment put forward by the minister. It would add to the number of public companies on the register of the Crown, as well as to those private companies referred to in the second amendment, bringing them within the group of companies which must make certain disclosures.
The information which is sought here in the amendment before us would really be meaningless. As far as the private companies are concerned, their number is 375, and the total number of private companies operating under federal jurisdiction is, I believe, less than 9 per cent of the total in the country. All the companies operating under Ontario Charters-and I suggest they amount to nearly 50 per cent-and all those operating under the charters of the common-law provinces in the west, operate under the same kind of company law. So, what we would be doing is this: we would be picking out a very narrow sector of Canadian companies and asking them to make available certain information. But for what useful purpose? I can see none except, maybe, to satisfy the curiosity of a few Paul Prys, certain individuals who would have to pay a fee to look into company files.
What is the purpose? The rule should apply to all, and unless it does there is no useful purpose served by an amendment of this type. I cannot see my way clear to supporting it at all; I did not support the initial amendment, in the first place.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: I believe the mover of this amendment is under the misapprehension that the more information which is given, the better. In some way this amendment is supposed to indicate to a corporation where to invest its money, how it is to expend its advertising funds and so on.
I should like to bring the section to the hon. member's attention. The act stipulates that certain matters should be disclosed to the shareholders; for example, the extent of funds derived from current operations, through the sale of non-current assets, iden-
DEBATES	8009
Canada Corporations Act tifiable assets and issues of securities. This is all intended to give the shareholder some knowledge in the event that there are inside trading arrangements of which he might not be aware. Later on, there is a reference to funds applied to the purchase of material assets. This is in case one of the directors, on the inside, might have been able to pawn-off on the company certain assets detrimental to the position of the shareholders. There is a further reference to disclosure of information with regard to purchases of redeemable stock. It might be that a company had issued redeemable stock which had fallen into ill-repute. Then, when the company was about to make it 100 per cent good, one of the "inside" directors might have acquired it so as to make a profit for himself.
If the hon. member would study this section, he would see that the purpose is to require disclosure of information to share-ders which it is necessary for them to know before deciding whether or not to support the board of directors or the management of the company. It is not a section designed to make possible the provision of all kinds of information or one by means of which a government, whether federal or provincial, may dictate to a corporation the way in which it should run its business. It is intended merely to protect shareholders against eventualities which might prejudice them as shareholders.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I wish to say a few words in support of the amendment put forward by my hon. friend from Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman). Information as to both the source and the application of corporation funds is a most important aspect of the financial statement made by a corporation. This is of particular significance in view of the concern felt in Canada at the present time with respect to foreign ownership, a concern reflected in the fact that a study is presently under way in government circles to help determine future policy with respect to foreign ownership and development in Canada.
The principle that adequate information should be provided by corporations has already been acknowledged. Among the information which should be required from all these corporations is disclosure of figures relating both to the source and the application of their funds, and especially to the non-resident aspect of such funds. My hon. friend from Waterloo has dealt adequately with specific features such as advertising, and in the
June 11. 1970

Canada Corporations Act circumstances I shall content myself with expressing the hope that there will be support in the House for this amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Saltsman) negatived.


John Stratford Burton: That Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments, be amended by striking out in clause 20 paragraph (b) of subsection (3) on pages 62-63 and substituting the following:
"(b) A private company except as provided in paragraph (c) and (d);
(c)	section (b) does not apply to a private company that is a personal corporation within the meaning of section 68 of the Income Tax Act in the whole of the year in respect of which a financial statement is required by this Act;
(d)	the Minister having regard to the public interest may grant an exemption to a private company if revenue does not exceed ten million dollars in any period ending in or after the year in which this section comes into force, in respect of which a financial statement is required by this Act to be prepared, or whose total assets on the last day of any such period do not exceed five million dollars."
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the present time we are giving consideration to the review and overhaul of the Canada Corporations Act, an important statute. I feel we are bound to give close and serious attention to the various aspects of this legislation before it is given final passage. It must be recognized that within a modern Canadian economic complex the corporations are a principal instrument for economic activity. Through federal legislation and other legislation enacted by the provinces, the corporations are established as legal entities and thus given special powers and privileges within our society. Thus we, as legislators in this House, have the duty and obligation to ensure that there is an adequate control over the operations of the corporation in view of the rights and privileges granted to it.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In my view, the operations of corporations are no longer simply a matter of considering the interests of shareholders, the interests of debt holders, business transactions, transfers

of shares and proxies, and investigations into problems that develop within corporations. I quite acknowledge that these matters are important and deserve adequate consideration; but I think it is not enough to restrict our consideration solely to these matters.
Corporations today exert a very profound influence upon the economy. We no longer live in a society where the actions of individuals or corporations do not influence the economy. We no longer live in that sort of laissez-faire world. The corporation today can have a particular influence on the economy. It can influence the course of affairs of a nation and it affects the public good and public interest. Thus, we have to exert extreme care in determining the powers and rights of these corporations and to ensure that adequate obligations are placed upon them. I think this is, in fact, now recognized since at the present time there are many people in society, including governments, who are working on the development of policies to reconcile corporate activity and power with the public good and public interest. A prerequisite to carrying on such studies and examination of the activities of corporations is adequate information and knowledge.
One of the first to point up this particular matter and to indicate that a very real problem exists in this regard was Professor Melville Watkins, who was commissioned by the federal Liberal government to make a study. His report was entitled "Foreign Ownership and the Structure of Canadian Industry". When Professor Watkins presented his report to the government he stated as follows:
It is a prerequisite to public discussion of government policy and the formulation and implementation of actual policy that more information be available on the activities of corporations, particularly large corporations, both Canadian-owned and foreign-owned. Information presently available is generally deficient, and in some respects grossly so, for meeting the three distinct purposes for which information is needed: public disclosure, economic analysis, and governmental surveillance of firms.
He goes on to make this recommendation in his report:
It is recommended that the following specific steps be taken with respect to company law, bankruptcy law, securities legislation, the Corporations and Labour Union Returns Act, and the guiding principles of "good corporate behaviour" to the larger foreign-owned subsidiaries:
(a) Amend the Canada Corporations Act so that federally-incorporated private companies (as well as federally-incorporated public companies), without respect to the nationality of ownership, must file returns with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and make returns for all com-
June 11. 1970	COMMONS
panies available to the general public; seek provincial co-operation to make this an effective means of obtaining public disclosure.
He then suggested other alternative steps that might be taken. It seems to me that in his study Professor Watkins took a major step forward in highlighting this particular problem and indicating the need for more adequate legislation. There have been many other instances and examples quoted both before this monumental report and since that time. I have had considerable personal experience in searching the records of companies in the province of Saskatchewan, as well as federally incorporated companies, in connection with which there has been a great deal of difficulty in obtaining adequate information. I would find that with a public company there was no problem at all about securing adequate information with respect to its shareholders, the directors of the company and the financial statement of the company. But such was not the case with companies carrying on similar operations which were incorporated as private companies. In those cases this information was not available to me.
I can assure the House that in searching these records I was not doing so in any individual capacity on behalf of any private or personal interest; rather it was in terms of looking at them in order to determine whether certain steps taken and activities carried on by those companies were in fact in the public interest. I quite realize that a certain judgment follows from that in regard to the use of the information that is obtained, and in regard to making judgments based on the information obtained. But certainly it was quite clear to me from my own personal experience that information was being denied the public, information the public had the right to have in terms of dealing adequately with modern economic and social problems.
Thus, it seems to me that the principle of the right to know is one of the features that should be incorporated in the Canada Corporations Act vis-a-vis the provision of financial information. I think a balance is required in terms of the structure of the law. On the one hand, corporations are given powers, rights and privileges; on the other hand, certain controls and requirements are placed upon them. The requirement should also be placed upon all large corporations that are established within the framework of this statute to provide adequate information with respect to their financial operations.
Bill C-4, which was introduced in the House of Commons last fall, provided with
DEBATES	8011
Canada Corporations Act respect to this particular matter that any company which had gross revenues of over $3 million in any one year or which, on the other hand, had more than $3 million in assets would be required to submit the same financial information as was required of public companies incorporated under this act. Various representations were made when the bill went before the committee, for the most part by a variety of companies, though chiefly large companies that objected to being required to make this information public. As a result of consideration in the committee, an amended version of this clause was reported back to the House of Commons and is now before us. This amended version states that any private company which has more than $5 million in assets or more than $10 million in gross revenues should be required to submit financial information comparable to that required of a public company.
It seems to me that in setting that arbitrary figure-and I have to consider this an arbitrary figure-there are a number of problems created. First of all, who knows what the right figure is? What figure should be used, whether $3 million, $5 million, or $10 million, in terms of dealing with the economic significance of any given company?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In the second place, I think it is quite probable that a figure of economic significance will differ between various regions and companies. I do not believe one would find the figures for one company would be applicable to another company in assessing the economic significance and importance of a corporation. Third, I would point out that big oaks from little acorns grow and very often very small concerns are the start of large corporations, sometimes by design and sometimes simply because that is the way the corporate events take place. I have personal experience in trying to obtain information on small companies which had been established and for which no information was available. I knew very well that these small companies would be economically significant corporations in which questions of public interest would be involved, either now or in the very near future. Thus, I believe it should be suggested that provision of information concerning the financial operations of corporations should be applicable to all corporations under the Canada Corporations Act.
This, in fact, is the intent of my amendment. It does provide for an exemption and exception in respect of personal corporations.

June 11. 1970
Canada Corporations Act There is also provision within my amendment for special cases where corporations may apply to the minister for an exemption from the provision. This gives the minister a discretionary authority. I think it should be noted that corporation laws provide for two basic types of companies, public companies and private companies. Under the terms of the bill as now reported back to us we have sort of a hybrid known as "constrained share companies". We do have these two types of companies, public and private, and I would point out, if it is important to obtain information concerning the financial operations of public companies, that only some 2350 companies will be involved according to recent information. On the other hand, there is a much larger number of companies incorporated as private companies on the basis of the information available to me. If it is important that we obtain this information from public companies, I believe it is also important that we obtain this information from private companies.
Two factors involved in differentiating between public and private companies very often concern the control of the ownership of shares within the company, the provision of financial information and information in respect of the shareholders. We are not concerned just with the control of ownership. A private company would still have the right to say who may own shares and to whom shares may be transferred. We are proposing a change which would place both public and private companies on the same footing with regard to the provision of financial information. I believe this is necessary within the framework of a modern, integrated and complex economy because we no longer live in a world of isolation. It would seem to me that the public interest should be paramount in any consideration of this legislation. As was pointed out by Professor Melville Watkins, the information is needed for determination of policy and analysis of events and developments within the economy.
It would seem to me that the right to know is a very important principle. This principle now applies to many aspects of government operations. Certainly, the right to know is applied on a much broader scale than is proposed in respect of the operations of corporations. I suggest that this principle of the right to know must apply to the private sector as well. Thus, I would hope the House would give serious consideration to the amendment proposed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, briefly may I say that I thoroughly disagree with the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton). I also disagree with the minister in respect of his proposal concerning disclosure -disclosure for whom, for what purpose? At the time of the examination by the committee, the minister indicated that he did not know for what purpose the disclosure is to be made. There was also no precision in the comments of the hon. member for Regina East. He did not indicate for what purpose. When the comparison is made with public companies, may I say that little or no information can be drawn from the material filed by public companies. There is no common form used in respect of the filing of balance sheets. There is no common form in respect of profit and loss statements, with the exception of whatever conformity there may be as a result of the statements having been prepared by chartered accountants and the fact that they have some uniformity. Apart from that, however, there is absolutely nothing that says that balance sheets shall be on the same basis or that profit and loss statements shall be on the same basis or that the source of revenue and application of fund statements shall be on a uniform basis.
So, there is absolutely no simple reason for the collating of the information. These returns will now be placed on a company file forever to gather dust unless someone wishes to equip himself for the payment of a dollar per file to go through the files and collate information which is not uniform. Information which is not uniform is useless unless someone wishes to go to an individual company to do something privately for a chosen purpose. There are other ways in which to do this. There are a number of public companies registered in Ottawa. All one need do is buy one share in order to have the right of access to the statement, thus gaining rights with other shareholders. I am surprised the hon. member for Regina East mentioned that when he was concerned about private companies he could obtain no information whatever. Of course he can obtain up to date information from the corporations branch in respect of the shareholders, the directors and the quantum of their individual holdings. This is a requirement of Saskatchewan law as much as it is a requirement of Alberta law.
One cannot obtain any balance sheets of private companies at any level at the present time, but why would one want such balance sheets? The original and fundamental reason
June 11, 1970	COMMONS
for the provision of balance sheets and profit and loss statements is for the information and protection of persons who are interested in investing in public companies. This is the purpose. But there is no reason for this in respect of private companies because they are prohibited from seeking to distribute shares to the public. It is forbidden for a private company to do that. So, it is not seeking shareholders and will not adversely affect anybody else. If a person wishes to make an investment in a private company, he must make application and before his application can be considered all other shareholders have the right to buy those shares in whatever proportion they may desire. This is the purpose of a private company.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
A private company is an expanded partnership with limited liability. Do we want disclosure, and for what meaningful purpose? Not one iota of meaningful purpose has been disclosed by the minister, either in the House on second reading or in committee, whereby he could point out that disclosure of the information would be of benefit to a class of companies. Is it on the basis of the balance sheet or of the source and application fund statement that it will be determined a company has been efficient behind a certain tariff wall, as someone suggested, or because it receives grants? What about looking at a company like Eaton's, which is a private company with many interests and many operations? Which of them are efficient and which are inefficient? Which ones benefit from this particular economic policy and which ones do not, as disclosed by the balance sheet, the source and application fund, or the profit and loss statements required to be filed by law?
What hon. members would like to do really is to go into the books and play God in the operations of the business. I will ask the minister and anyone supporting this type of amendment just who they would like to carry out the appropriate analyses on the basis of this information that is submitted in disparate form. It is not uniform. There is no power to go back to the company to ask them to elaborate on their statements, none whatsoever. So the minister is going to gather a basket of fruit of all kinds and someone will say "my, what a fine looking bunch of grapes or what a fine bunch of bananas or what a fine bunch of rotting fruit". What is the purpose of it?
We know that the proportion of companies that will be affected in Canada is minute, and when one company comes and says that they
DEBATES	8013
Canada Corporations Act want to draw some economic conclusions and therefore want to make some surveys about the operations of private and public companies,
I ask: what about all the private companies in the province of Ontario? Over 50 per cent of the companies of the country are under Ontario charter, but not one of them will be touched by these amendments. There is no indication whatsoever that the Ontario law will be changed. There is no indication that the law in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Manitoba-which is pretty well uniform with that of Ontario except that the Manitoba law has a little more flexibility in it in certain areas-will be changed. I find it incredible for anyone to advance serious arguments in favour of disclosure.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: "Why not" is not an argument. It is like saying "because". Originally, the disclosure was for the protection of shareholders and potential shareholders, but as far as that goes the securities commissions exact a lot more and better information of the type which I suggested should be required but is not asked for here. The minister is trying, in a half-hearted and ham-handed way, to do some work that he cannot do because he cannot set up a national securities commission. That is the reason. What we should have established is a national securities commission in co-operation with the provinces. Co-operation from the provinces would be forthcoming, but for the insistence that the national securities commission should be headquartered at Ottawa, away from the stock exchange, and that it would be under federal aegis. This is a cooperative effort.
I have had a number of sources of information with regard to the "non-negotiations" that have been going on between the federal government and the provinces with regard to the establishment of a national securities commission. This is a sort of picayune effort to try to obtain what a meaningful securities commission, having the right to ask for statistics from public companies on a uniform basis, could obtain. That is what is needed for the protection of shareholders. With regard to disclosure for the purposes of carrying out an economic study of one sort or another, that is all very well if the government is able to separate the operations of a company on the basis of the information that is required, even the operations of a public company as it exists today. There is no possible way of

June 11. 1970
Canada Corporations Act determining whether or not this type of operation is successful. Did the company benefit from certain economic activity? Only wild guesses could be made on the basis of a great deal of misinformation.
I am amazed at some of the academic economists who should be so naive as to think that through this sort of operation they will be able to get some meaningful information. This is not so. Comparisons have been made with the United States, but in the United States information is obtained from the SEC, not from the companies' annual returns. The directors of companies are not even authorized to go through the files to collate information. So who is going to make the study, the minister? He has to pay $1 for every entry into the files. Under the Companies Act the minister is not exempt from paying the fee, neither is any member or any professor wanting to make a study. May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I apologize to the House because there have been no previous consultations, but I wonder if the House would be agreeable, in view of the fact that we are trying to adjourn by June 26 and this bill has to reach the Senate if it is to be dealt with at all, to waiving the private members' hour, during which we are to deal with a notice of motion for the production of papers, and continuing debate on this bill for the next hour?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I do not
disagree with the minister's request, but I should like to say that I hope the minister will be able to say that one day all those members who have given up private members hour will receive a day from the minister or from the government. Private members have their rights and, in order to assist the government, they have given up private members' hour. I should like it clearly understood that in due course we will get a day which will be devoted to private members on an allocated basis so that we can deal with some of our business.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I make a suggestion, Mr. Speaker? It is true that when we give up an hour on a Thursday or Friday, we lose it. Today happens to be a day for the debate of notices of motions for the production of papers, and one of my colleagues was planning to present one of his motions today. I have just consulted with him and my colleagues who are here. We offer a compromise of half an hour. In

other words, let us stay on this bill until 5.30 and at 5.30 we could go to notices of motions for papers.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I was reaching the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I think I have made my point. I do not think the amendment adds anything to the terms of disclosure as requested by the minister in his bill. I thoroughly disagree with the requirements, and I have said so many times in committee and out of committee. I have a further amendment which would eliminate disclosure for private companies and that is why I have said as much as I have on this occasion, so that when we deal with my amendment I will not be repetitious.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Prior to recognizing the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan), I might advise the House of the subjects to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Canada Assistance Plan-Refusal of benefits to members of B.C. building trade unions; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)- Broadcasting Policy-Suggested reference of act to committee in light of technological developments; the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell)-Immigration-representation of applicants before appeal board by unqualified persons.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the consideration of Bill C-4, to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and motion No. 7 (Mr. Burton).
June 11. 1970
Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by attempting to respond to some of the questions asked by the previous speaker. He tossed into the air the consideration of what useful purpose would be served by disclosure, what meaningful purpose would there be. He argued that the minister had not offered one single, substantial reason why it would be in the interests of Canada to have this kind of disclosure.
I disagree with him. I think this disclosure would be extremely desirable and useful. I will agree with him to the extent that it is not obvious that this disclosure would be useful. It takes some thought to appreciate why it would. In the first place, we have the consideration of privacy. This is important and I think in other areas this government has indicated its respect for privacy in what it proposes to do with respect to computer technology and bugging devices. These considerations indicate that privacy is a value which this government respects. One might ask, why should privacy not apply to business. I think it should and I think there is a value in privacy there.
The hon. member mentioned that we ought not to pander to mere nosiness to accommodate people's interest. Even if someone would like to know how much profit is made by the T. Eaton Company, the A & P, Texaco or General Motors, this is nobody's business. The hon. member points out that these are private companies and they should be allowed to carry on privately, that no public interest would be served by knowing their profits and that we ought not to accommodate mere nosiness. He also pointed out that some businessmen can achieve a certain benefit in secrecy. That is undeniably true, because in many cases there are competitive advantages in keeping information to themselves. I have to agree that this is a point deserving of strong consideration and appreciation.
But even considering those factors, Mr. Speaker, I have come to the conclusion that public disclosure is a good practice within a certain limit. It is not just a case of shareholders having information; I agree entirely with the hon. member that the interests of shareholders are already accommodated by existing laws. The interest that has to be accommodated by increased disclosure is the public interest.
We sit in this House day after day, Mr. Speaker, and many of us concern ourselves with economic questions. It is remarkable
Canada Corporations Act that, although we propose public policy, although we make far-reaching decisions which must be considered fundamental to our free enterprise system and the preservation of our market economy, although we do the best we can, we make these decisions largely on the basis of guesswork. We do not know as much about our economy as other countries knows about theirs, and we do not know as much as we should in order to do a good job.
I was astonished to hear the hon. member refer to economic studies with a measure of contempt. I have a great deal of respect for that kind of research and I think we need more of it in Canada if we are to have an effective economic policy. Let me give some examples of questions where increased disclosure would help us. Every day we answer questions on our policies without the benefit of any good, hard knowledge about the underlying facts. We have decisions to make about the appropriate interest rate from time to time. We have to decide upon appropriate monetary policies. We have to decide how much liquidity there should be in our economy at any time. We have to look at competition and try to decide whether our system is functioning properly as a free enterprise system we have to analyse combines policy. We have to know something about our foreign exchange balances. We have the whole area of labour about which we are badly informed because we do not know how our economy is functioning. We have to make fundamental decisions about the allocation of resources in our society and we are not in as good a position to do that as we would be if we knew more about the operation of companies in Canada. We need more information in order to establish a good tariff policy.
One of the answers that might be tendered to this list of questions, Mr. Speaker, is that we have all this information but we have it in statistical form. We would have to agree that although we could have better statistics we do have very good ones. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, we need to know more about the operations of certain companies in Canada. I do not agree with the position stated by the New Democratic Party. We do not have to invade privacy to the extent of knowing everything about every company in Canada. But companies reach a certain size where the economic decisions which they make are important and where a knowledge of their internal affairs would clearly assist us in establishing better public policies. Disclosure is the way to achieve this.

June 11, 1970
Canada Corporations Act
I am satisfied with the standard proposed by the government, Mr. Speaker. Originally they were suggesting a test of $3 million of assets or $3 million of gross sales or revenue a year. That has been moved upwards to $5 million of assets or $10 million gross revenue or sales. I have no complaint about that test. One of the things that convinces me it is the appropriate level is that we have been informed in our committee that 2,500 Canadian companies are of that size; that is, companies operating in Canada. In the formation of public policy it would be useful to know the details of how the 2,500 largest companies in Canada operate. It is a bit arbitrary, I agree. One could raise it by a few thousand or a few million dollars or lower it by the same amount, but the principle would not be affected. One has to have an arbitrary line in that kind of decision.
But there is another form of arbitrariness in the legislation which 1 find it difficult to accept, and which I would urge the government to reconsider. I refer to the decision to make the disclosure provisions applicable only to federal companies. I mentioned that there are only 2,500 companies in Canada that meet the test of size and I was referring to all companies that carry on business in Canada, wherever incorporated. Of those 2,500 companies, less than 20 per cent who do not now make disclosure would be affected by this provision. If we want to learn something about the way big business operates in this economy, why approach it with a proposal that will only reach 20 per cent of the companies not now making disclosure? This is a kind of tokenism, it seems to me, and it is a tokenism that is unsatisfactory. I agree that there ought to be a test, but why should that not apply to 100 per cent of incorporations in Canada instead of just 20 per cent?
Some of the consequences of limiting the test to federally incorporated companies will be very serious. I urge the minister to consider some of the consequences of the measure he is proposing. For one thing, the companies that now will be required to make disclosure claim that they will be put at a disadvantage vis-a-vis their provincial counterparts who are not required to make disclosure. I am not sure they are right, but they think they are right. They think that provincial companies of the same size ought also to be covered, and how can we argue with that? It strikes me as extremely discriminatory to impose regulations on companies that are incorporated under federal jurisdiction while permitting

other large companies in Canada to continue carrying on in secrecy. Here we have a kind of tokenism that I find it difficult to accept.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It follows from what I have just observed that if these companies feel themselves put to a disadvantage, federal incorporation will become less popular. As a federal legislator who in these matters necessarily has a federal bias, I think we ought to encourage our citizens to make the greatest possible use of federal incorporation. We ought to introduce legislation that accommodates the interest of the business community; our legislation ought to protect shareholders. In these respects, our legislation is moving ahead. Most of the government proposals are excellent and we are about to introduce the most progressive corporation law in Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It has one
or two flaws.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The question is, how interested will some of these companies be in federal incorporation when, by bringing themselves under the authority of another jurisdiction, they can avoid having to make the kind of disclosures which they find so distasteful. If statistics were to be offered, I would have to agree that there may be the same number of federal incorporations in the future as there have been in the past. There are substantial advantages in obtaining a federal charter. The national names of companies so incorporated are protected, and such firms have the right to carry on business in every province. But I suggest that such federally incorporated companies may well become shells held as subsidiaries probably by an Ontario company or, to an increasing extent, by a Prince Edward Island company. That is the kind of thing that people who like the idea of federal incorporation will be driven to by what is basically a discriminatory proposal. Such companies, I suggest, will make use of federal incorporation-


Mr. Fairwealher:: It will be known as the flag of convenience.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Exactly. Federal incorporation will be known as the flag of convenience. There are many advantages to federal incorporation and, as I say, the number of federal incorporations probably will not decrease. I am greatly afraid, however, that proper use will not be made again of federally incorporated companies, and that Canadians who
June 11. 1970

wish to incorporate will not make use of federal charters as they ought to be encouraged to do in the conduct of their business.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the motion of the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton), may I say that the important aspect of his motion relates to the principle of disclosure. His motion recognizes that there may be companies of such a small size as not to represent any significant economic interest. The minister has the discretion to exclude such companies. Nevertheless, the hon. member's motion suggests that disclosure ought to be accepted as a matter of principle. In our society, people increasingly wish to know what is happening. They want to make their decisions and cannot do so unless they have adequate information at their disposal.
The hon. member who spoke on behalf of the Conservative party had developed great zeal in supporting the Auditor General. That member attacked the government for allegedly trying to silence the Auditor General. He said that we must have disclosure of all government operations to make sure that absolutely nothing the government does is withheld from the public. And that is so. Why should only the government be scrutinized? Why should the private sector be free to do exactly as it pleases? After all, most economic activity in our society still rests with the private sector and not with the government. I suggest that it is incumbent on my hon. friends to show the same zeal for the disclosure of information relating to the private sector as they showed with regard to information relating to the public sector.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr, Saltsman:: After all, many people in our society are subject to scrutiny. For instance, we know how much teachers are paid, how much civil servants are paid and how much M.P.'s are paid. The salary of Members of Parliament can be a matter of public debate, as it ought to be.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is because they are paid by the public.


Max Saltsman: Indeed, why should others be excluded from scrutiny if Members of Parliament are not excluded? It seems that there is a double standard in these matters which is a carry-over from the view that business is entitled to a special niche. It is entitled to secrecy. There was a time when politicians
Canada Corporations Act were entitled to secrecy also; yet politicians make no claim to that secrecy now. They do not say their activities should not be scrutinized. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the private sector also should not be entitled to claim secrecy in this respect. At the moment, a great deal of mystery surrounds the operations of business. I am quite sure that most business operations are quite straightforward and most businesses can probably defend their activities. Yet, so long as the mystery exists, the suspicion will also exist that business is trying to hide something and that there is some benefit to be gained from maintaining the mystery. If there is to be rapport between our business community, our society, and those services that operate outside the business community, I think it is important for us to know how business carries on its affairs.
Not long ago there was a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to look into the question of prices. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford) served as the distinguished co-chairman of the committee. One of the committee's first decisions was whether there was to be public disclosure of information brought before it. A number of initial witnesses who appeared before it said, "Yes, we will tell you all sorts of things, but you must sit in camera". The committee decided that there would be no secrecy and that the information it requested would be made public. As a result of this decision something strange happened. Some businesses suffered, and they deserved to suffer because of their practices. But quite a number of businesses gained immeasurably, because the public became aware that they were acting in the public's interest as well as their own. Those firms found that disclosure brought enormous advantages.
It seems to me that those businesses that are worried about disclosure have a reason for being worried, whereas those that are conducting their business in a way that serves the public's interest as well as their own have nothing to fear and a great deal to gain for accepting the general principle of disclosure.


An hon. Member:: What does Marcel say now?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Max Saltsman: The question of privacy is often raised. We have to be very careful in dealing with this question. We in this party have taken a very strong stand on personal privacy. We cannot go too far to protect the

June 11, 1970
Canada Corporations Act right of the individual to live his own life, without public scrutiny, providing it affects no one else. It is his own business. Even the matter of abortion, which is raised so often by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), deals with the question of privacy. We insist this must be a personal decision.
We must distinguish very carefully between privacy that affects only the individual and the privacy of corporations which affects all of us. The public has a right to know everything about those matters that affect us, whether they be related to governments or corporations. It is not idle curiosity to worry about our future. We want information as to how our future is going to be affected by decisions of public and private corporations. We have to be very clear in our distinction between the bedrooms of the nation and the boardrooms of the nation. There should be no secrecy attached to the operations in the boardrooms.
We in this society justifiably examine tax measures. No subject is so close to the hearts of people as the taxation policies of their legislators. Yet we forget that the private corporations, by their pricing and investment policies, in effect have taxation powers. The difference is simple. There is representation at the public level. It is possible to make some kind of a stand as to how one feels with regard to tax measures through his representative. What kind of representation do we have on the boards deciding the taxing and pricing policies of private and public corporations?
It may be argued that the marketplace disciplines them. If we were living in the 1700's or 1800's, I might agree that there is a tendency for the marketplace to discipline corporations with regard to pricing and other practices. The invisible hand may have been in evidence at that time. That is not so today. Today, through either monetary or patent rights, the corporations have the power to determine their own policies. If there is competition, it is a different kind than the traditional concept. Since business has what we in our party call the power to tax, the representatives of the people, and the people themselves, should have the power to investigate that power and the extent of that taxation.
The question has been raised by some hon. members as to what we want to know. They ask what we are trying to find out by this

terribly vague resolution. The point was made that there is not even a standard for reporting this information. If there is going to be public disclosure, there must also be a standard for reporting those disclosures.
What do we want to know, Mr. Speaker? We want to know what the investments policies of these companies are going to be. We need to know whether their investment policies are good and whether they will create the greatest wealth and social benefit for our society. In a world of scarce resources, it is important that we know how efficient these companies are. From the viewpoint of public policy, it is important that we know whether there should be a tariff on a product and what sort of taxes should be placed on these companies. How valid are the arguments that are made against some of the approaches of government to these industries? It is very important that we know their pricing policies and practices. We already have some precedents for interfering, regardless of the size of the company, through the Combines Investigation Act.
It is of particular importance that we have this information because of the wide foreign ownership. What is the exact relationship between subsidiaries in Canada and the parent? We need more than the vague knowledge we now have on that point. It is important that we know when takeovers occur so that we do not need to call out the fire brigade, as was done recently with regard to the uranium industry. The waste in government is obvious. Any waste in government is exposed. We have a very diligent committee of this House and an Auditor General who is doing a good job. However, waste in the private sector is completely covered. There is a great deal of waste and it is important that it be uncovered. The public would be shocked to learn that the $15 million spent on refitting the Bonaventure is only small potatoes compared to the wasteful expenditures in the private sector.
In accordance with the agreement reached earlier, may I call it five o'clock and continue later?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Pursuant to order made earlier in this sitting, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, namely Notices of Motions (Papers).
June 11, 1970



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


John Stratford Burton: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence for the period January 1, 1968 to September 30, 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States regarding the sale of potash to the United States.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on December 3, 1969 I moved this motion which was placed on the Order Paper early in the session. At that time the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Forest) replied:
Mr. Speaker, the only correspondence that the government of Canada has had with the United States government refers to the procedures followed by the United States authorities in their antidumping investigation of Canadian potash exports. This exchange is continuing and in these circumstances the production of papers for the period in question would not be in the public interest.
He then asked if I would agree to withdraw this motion which, of course, I did not do. The first point I want to make is that if, in fact, the point of the government is solely that the termination date of my motion, September 30, 1969, produced a problem, I would be quite willing to entertain an amendment which would extend the date to a suitable date that might be suggested by the government. In this way, all of the correspondence involved, which would give the complete picture, could be made available to the public.
I wish to give my reasons for requesting this information. The first reason is that last fall the Premier of Saskatchewan undertook discussions with potash companies, and more particularly with the Governor of the State of New Mexico in the United States.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
During the course of this discussion it was decided to establish quotas on potash production in Saskatchewan. As you know, sir, all the potash production in Canada at the present time is in Saskatchewan. Prices related to the quotas were established. In other words, a quota would be established for a company only if it honoured the price commitment which was made, namely, $18.75 per ton. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and any other federal agencies
Potash Sale to United States which might have been involved appeared to have come into the picture only at a late stage.
The minister confirmed that there had been discussions between Washington and the Canadian government and between the Canadian government and the Saskatchewan government, but he appeared to wish to keep silent about the nature of those discussions. I believe it is important to know what the Canadian government said in the United States about this matter and what exchanges took place. I appreciate that consent has to be obtained from the United States government before its correspondence can be tabled.
Saskatchewan says that it obtained a good deal-based, apparently, on a production level of between 50 per cent and 55 per cent of total capacity. The question is: Was this deal in the interests of the United States potash companies who have holdings both in Saskatchewan and in New Mexico? Were these United States potash companies the real gainers in this arrangement?
We are all, no doubt, familiar with the development of the potash industry in Saskatchewan. Two mines were started before 1962 and each encountered considerable technical difficulty because of water problems. Once this difficulty had been overcome, construction on three more mines began in 1963 and early 1964. But when the new Premier came to power he wanted to push industrial development in line with his election platform, with the result that over development occurred. New production capacity was developed before obtaining the necessary markets; in other words, the supply of potash was far ahead of the demand. This is an example of poor planning in an important new industry. When the Premier of Saskatchewan found he was in a box, he embarked upon the discussions to which I have referred and approved the deal involving quota and price.
When the potash companies appeared before the Finance Committee recently in connection with the white paper on taxation hearings they stated that $18.75, the price presently paid, was marginal in terms of present production levels based on the quotas established. They also stated that if the mines were in full production, unit costs would be much lower. I have heard it suggested that unit production costs might be as low as $11 or $12 a ton at full production level. It is plain that Saskatchewan could out-produce the United States in the production of potash and that we have a competitive advantage. It
June 11, 1970

Potash Sale to United States appears that many of the companies concerned have mines in Saskatchewan and in the United States. There is one German company in Saskatchewan and two Canadian companies; all the rest are United States companies. I believe all but one of those companies also have interests in New Mexico. These companies wish to protect their interests in the New Mexico mines.
Thus, there are a number of questions which need to be answered, and the information sought in this motion would be most helpful in this regard. First, was this a good deal for Saskatchewan? Second, did it protect New Mexico potash rather than Saskatchewan potash? Third, did the Premier of Saskatchewan overstep provincial jurisdiction in engaging in international negotiations on trade matters? Fourth, what representations did Canada make on this question? Fifth, what role did the United States corporations with interests in both Saskatchewan and New Mexico play in these arrangements? It seems to me there is a clear conflict here between the interest of these corporations and the interests of Canada, and in these circumstances I hope the government will see fit to accept the motion I moved on December 3.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak briefly on this motion in support of my hon. friend, believing it is important we should persuade the government to produce the papers and correspondence connected with this issue. A number of telling arguments in favour of doing so have been put forward by my hon. friend from Regina East (Mr. Burton), and I agree with them.
The biggest potash mine in Saskatchewan is located in my constituency near the town of Esterhazy. When a large-scale lay-off took place there last January or February, many people were wondering why potash production was slowing down. Many believed the decision to curtail activity was taken in the interest of the United States companies who wished a quota placed on Saskatchewan potash production because they had mines in New Mexico as well. Since so many people are affected in Saskatchewan, particularly in towns such as Esterhazy, I submit it is essential that the government disclose the correspondence involved. It would give those concerned an opportunity to find out the facts upon which decisions have been based and they would be in a better position to assess the future of the potash industry.

The situation in Saskatchewan has produced a minor crisis, the effect of which has been to slow down the economy in towns such as Esterhazy. A large portion of the work force of the province is already unemployed-according to the April figures about 8.8 per cent of the non-agricultural work force is in this position-and one element of this total is, of course, the potash workers, many of whom had been employed until this year. Of course, as all members know, when there is a slowdown in any industry, the whole of the community is affected. This applies to other towns in Saskatchewan such as Largenburg and Churchbridge, to mention only two, where today one can see empty houses and apartments, and where small businesses are experiencing declining sales. This situation is due in part to decreased employment in the potash mines.
According to a statement by Premier Thatcher, the potash mines will be operating next year at a capacity of 42 per cent. The reference is to the next potash year which is from July 1, 1970, to June 30, 1971. This leads me to think that the operation is not as efficient as it could be. Of course, the arrangement means that many people who were working in the mines will no longer be doing so. In a situation like this it is important that we should find out from the government the reasons which led these concerns to make a deal such as this.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Some of the planning which has gone on between the governments concerned had been very poor indeed. I recall that in the fall of 1968 the IMC plant at Esterhazy decided it would truck potash to the United States border instead of shipping it by rail as they had been doing. The reason for this was that Canadian National Railways would not agree with the company to ship potash by express, as the company wanted. They found it more economical to truck potash to the U.S. border and then load it on to U.S. trains for transportation to the market. As a result we have found that the railway workers in the area are afraid of losing their jobs because of the slowdown in rail transportation. At the present time the provincial government is planning to spend $6 million on maintaining the highway over which trucks carrying potash travel every day. And all this because the potash company could not reach agreement with CNR.
June 11. 1970

There are many other matters I could mention, but in view of the hour and because other members want to participate in the debate I will try and sum up my point very quickly. As I said, during the next year the mines will be operating at only 42 per cent capacity. This is a good indication that something is wrong and that the people of Saskatchewan need to hear about certain facts immediately. People living in these communities should be given as much information as possible about the future of potash mining in Saskatchewan, since many of them are buying homes, sending their children to school and planning to establish roots in the area.
If the government would let us have the correspondence for which we are asking, perhaps it would clarify the situation. Many people seem to think there is a conflict between the mining companies and the people of Saskatchewan. As my colleague for Regina East (Mr. Burton) mentioned, several of the mining companies operating in Saskatchewan also operate mines in New Mexico. It has been pointed out many times that the New Mexico mines are not as efficient as those in Saskatchewan and the supply of potash in New Mexico will probably be exhausted in a few years. Because of this the companies seem to have decided to mine potash in New Mexico rather than in Saskatchewan. If this is the case, I and the people of Saskatchewan want to know. Those who are directly affected want to be able to plan their future like Canadians in other parts of this country.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion moved by my colleague from Regina East (Mr. Burton) requesting the production of the exchanges, if any, between Canada and the United States concerning potash. I suspect there is very little, if anything, for the government to produce. It was the government of Saskatchewan that did the negotiating. The Premier of that province, acting like an Arab sheik in an oil kingdom, dealt with the governor of one of the states of the U.S.A. and these two gentlemen carried on what was, I submit, the business of the government of Canada and the government of the United States.
We want to know what representations the federal government made to the United States or what discussions were held in regard to the proposed threat to impose tariffs on Canadian exports of potash. I strongly suspect that if this tariff threat was made by the
Potash Sale to United States governor of New Mexico and was put before the United States trade commission, it was more bluff than a threat. If the Premier of Saskatchewan had chosen to make a common cause with the governors, senators and congressmen of 10 to 15 farming states on holding down the price of fertilizer, I submit there would be no likelihood of any attempt being made to impose tariffs on Canadian potash. In fact, I submit any such attempt would have failed.
What happened was the Premier of Saskatchewan and the governor of New Mexico chose to work out a deal between themselves. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) had egg on his face. He knew he was being imposed upon by the Premier of Saskatchewan. The Premier of Saskatchewan and the governor of New Mexico decided to come to a cosy arrangement between themselves, the benefits of which went to a few corporations that owned potash mines in both New Mexico and Saskatchewan. I should like to know what happened to the study made by the justice department as to the legality of this affair, a matter that is obviously within the jurisdiction of the government of Canada. In this regard I should like to read a short excerpt from the Ottawa Citizen of November 22 last, which carried a report on the study made by the justice department and about which we have heard no more. The article reads, in part:
The regulations, which follow negotiations between Premier Ross Thatcher and the New Mexico governor., .would limit production from Saskatchewan potash mines and... exercise some control over exports-
According to the article, it would also control the price of the exported commodity. The Premier of Saskatchewan pointed out that this sort of thing had been done by the government of Alberta in regard to oil. But this was strictly for the purpose of conservation; nobody could suggest for one moment that this was the purpose of the production controls in Saskatchewan.
The article continues:
-the agreement between the New Mexico and Saskatchewan that led to the Saskatchewan regulations was the answer to a prayer for New Mexico's Carlsbad-based potash industries-
These were worn out, in course of being phased out and in no way could compete with Saskatchewan production as to price or as to quality. This was a neat arrangement to bail out corporations which had mines in both places, at the expense of Saskatchewan pro-
June XI, 1970

Potash Sale to United States duction and Saskatchewan employment. Prorationing of production in Saskatchewan is nothing more nor less than export control. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce refused to exercise its jurisdiction and allowed the Premier of a province to assert that responsibility which the federal government chose not to accept. Setting a minimum price of $18.75 a ton, which it is now suggested should be raised to $22.75 a ton, was again controlling the price of an export commodity. The people of Canada, and particularly the people of Saskatchewan, want to know what the federal government did on their behalf in a matter that was absolutely and completely within its jurisdiction.
I submit that if the government fails to produce these papers and to give us this information, it is in fact admitting either that it did nothing in the matter or it agreed to something that was not in the interest of Canadians, particularly in Saskatchewan, but was in the interest of the corporations which owned the potash mines. Therefore, I submit the government was party to this cosy little deal between the Premier of Saskatchewan Mid the governor of New Mexico. Even though the federal government faded to prevent the government of Saskatchewan from acting in a matter not within its jurisdiction, I hope the government will indicate that it did make some representations on behalf of Canada.


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat, I should have thought he was speaking about the Premier of Newfoundland. I have not heard the Premier of Saskatchewan condemned in such a blatant way for a long time-in fact, ever.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do it every day.


Steven Otto: The issue here does not relate to industry in Saskatchewan, be it the mining industry, the forest industry, the potash industry, or whatever it may be. The issue is whether the government should make public correspondence, research or studies passing between the United States government and the government of Canada. I realize we have participatory democracy, but there is a limit even to participatory democracy. If this motion were carried and production of these papers ordered, it would mean that hon. gentlemen opposite would have the right to decide whether the government acted or did not act in a certain set of circumstances. If the House were doing this on every issue and in respect of every bit of correspondence-


[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They have already done it.


Mr.   Olio@: As the hon. gentleman said, they have already done it. The opportunity exists. The estimates are before the House and the committees and at any time hon. gentlemen opposite are welcome to point out to a minister that he has not exercised his proper, judicial function or that he has not made the correct decision. I have done this myself on many occasions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order that we may not become involved in difficulties later, I wonder whether it might be understood that if my hon. friend from York East (Mr. Otto) is interrupted by a certain knock on the door, this motion could retain its position on the list of motions for papers.


Mr. Forest:: That is the agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
so agreed?


Steven Otto: It is so agreed. I believe the knock has already come. This is the shortest speech I have ever made.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that His Excellency the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting Brunner Corporation (Canada) Limited
An act to amend the Criminal Code An act respecting the expropriation of land An act to incorporate National Farmers Union An act to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act
An act to provide for the relief of persons who have been convicted of offences and have subsequently rehabilitated themselves An act to amend the Supreme Court Act An act to amend the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act
June 11, 1970


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have your indulgence to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling a document under Standing Order 41 (2).


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I should like to table at this time copies in English and in French of a letter from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to the chairman of the House of Commons Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, which was sent to him today.
At 6.07 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-4, to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and Motion No. 7 (Mr. Burton).
Max Saltsman: In my earlier remarks, Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out that a great deal of waste occurs in the private sector and passes unnoticed because we assume that the private sector has the right to keep its business to itself. We fail to take into consideration the fact that waste, whether it occurs in the public or the private sector, affects every citizen of the country because it ultimately reduces his standard of living and has the same effect as the imposition of an additional tax.
Canada Corporations Act
The business organizations that appeared before the committee took the position that disclosure was a very bad thing, that it was sheer idle curiosity on the part of those who wished fuller disclosure. Businessmen should realize that disclosure may not be a bad thing and that in many cases it may be of considerable benefit to them. We have to assume that most businessmen do not like waste any more than do parliamentarians, and that they would like to avoid many of the difficulties which result from business operating blindly.
I say this without tongue in cheek because I have seen many businesses suffer because they did not have prior knowledge of their competitor's activities. If they had had prior knowledge of their competitors' intentions everybody, including the public, would have been better off. I have seen shopping centres being opened when negotiations were going on for another shipping centre in the same area, with the result that nobody could recover their capital investment and eventually they all had to raise prices to try and recover overheads and capital investment. There is no profit for anybody in this situation and the government does not receive the taxes it would like to have. The public does not get the benefit of lower prices, either.
Perhaps the most glaring example of mismanagement, lack of investigation and lack of prior knowledge of business transactions is the potash industry of western Canada. In that case everybody rushed in to develop. They overdeveloped, with government incentives, until it reached the point where nobody could recover their investment. The government is suffering as a result. They have had to prorate production and reallocate the industry because of its failure to regulate itself. The market is not very effective, particularly when business has to plan and make commitments over a long period of time.
The recess gave me an opportunity to obtain a newspaper clipping which I think illustrates that lack of knowledge contributes to business inefficiency and business losses. This article is from the Globe and Mail of October 25, 1967, and reads in part as follows:
He quoted the example of a company that built a $5 million chemical plant in Montreal. The day they got it in operation a competitor announced a new process for making the same chemical at double the productivity and half the cost.
Disclosure will not solve that problem. Having more frankness and a greater awareness of what people in society are doing should benefit everyone. Like MPs, business-

June 11, 1970
Canada Corporations Act men will find that disclosure does not hurt very much once one gets used to the idea. When businessmen talk about keeping things close to their vest, one would think there were great secrets in business. There is no secrecy in business, in my experience. Very often competitors know almost exactly what their opposite numbers are doing in certain fields, except in the area mentioned earlier where they really manage to keep it a secret.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Industrial spies garner secrets. Travelling salesmen go around and manage to catch a few words here and there. Employees have a way of telling secrets. In addition, there are official agencies which exist simply to supply information to other people. The group that knows the least is not the businessman's competitor but the public. It is the public we are concerned about in this debate; it is the public that ought to know about these activities.
The other day an interesting little blue book was sent to our offices from the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. It is entitled, "Business Forms". It tells an interesting story about those who manufacture business forms in Canada. These people have no secrets from one another. They have formed a little club and have appointed an executive secretary. They even tell each other what they sell, how much they sell it for, and to whom. But the public does not know about this. The minister may say, "That is exactly why we have a Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. It must find out these things".
Instead of playing cops and robbers in order to find out what is going on, would it not be better if we asked these people to lay everything on the line? They may have good reason for carrying on as they do. I do not want to pass judgment on them at the moment; that is not my job. Unless there are good reasons for not doing so, the kind of activity that has been carried on in secrecy should be exposed. Is it not far better for companies to expose their operations than run the great risk of arousing suspicion in the public mind and be chased all the time by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission which wishes to find out how honest their operations are, to what extent they are competing and whether, so to speak, they are holding hands?
Another question that has been raised is this: What is the point of asking for disclosure at the federal level when so few compa-

nies in Canada come under federal jurisdiction, and when there is no agreement with the provinces under whose jurisdiction such companies are incorporated? If we examine our laws I think we will find that almost every worth-while piece of legislation has been introduced at the federal level. If there is public acceptance of the legislation, as I think there will be of this legislation relating to full disclosure, it is not long before the provinces pass similar laws. On other occasions provinces have introduced good legislation and the federal government has followed suit. I believe this is good legislation. I think the minister himself believes that disclosure is good. After all, he fought very hard for the minor changes which appear in this bill. We are asking the minister to recognize the importance of the principle and to go all the way.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this debate may I say that I find the bill complex and somewhat difficult to understand. I have serious doubt whether it will do what it is intended to do. I would feel much happier about this portion of the bill we are discussing if I could be sure that the position the government has taken with regard to disclosure will bring about the desired effect.
Bill C-198 of the previous session died on the Order Paper and was replaced by the bill we are discussing. I should like to refer to a press release which is mentioned in a brief which the Parkin Company presented to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. It speaks of a press release concerning Bill C-198, issued by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford) on May 22, 1969. The press release states in part:
The disclosure amendments also constitute the government's first legislative action in an area commented upon by the Watkins Committee on Foreign Ownership and the Structure of Canadian Industry. 'This will meet the concern about how hard it is to get information about important private companies, particularly those which are wholly owned by foreign companies,' Mr. Basford said. 'There is no question of discrimination against foreign-owned companies, however, since we have decided it is in the public interest to have public disclosure by all federally-incorporated companies which are significant to the economy.'
Another memorandum released by the Department of Corporate and Consumer Affairs on May 22, 1969, said the following about section 121e of Bill C-198 of the previous session:
This section makes the financial statements of companies to which paragraphs (a) and (b) of
June 11. 1970

subsection 121e(3) apply (public companies and companies having gross revenues or assets in excess of $3 million) accessible to the public. It is enacted in recognition of the fact that the existing definition of public company ... is totally unrealistic in Canada today. This is so because many of the most important companies in Canada are 'private1 subsidiaries of foreign companies. New section 121 sets out a better test for distinguishing between those companies which are 'economically significant' (and whose financial affairs are therefore a matter of legitimate public interest) and those companies which are truly 'private'. This reflects, at the federal level, the public disclosure recommendations of the Watkins Committee on the Structure of Canadian Industry and the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Consumer Credit and Prices.
It is not clear from this memorandum whether the government is looking into the question of foreign ownership in Canada or into private companies which practice nondisclosure. If it is thought desirable to control or classify the problem of foreign ownership in Canadian companies, it might be better to approach this matter in a different way. For instance, any company which is foreign-owned above a specified degree could be required to make public disclosure. We already do this in commerce, communications, broadcasting and finance. This is a requirement under the investment companies act.
Companies operating in the fields I have mentioned must limit their degree of foreign ownership. On the other hand, if it is desired to bring about wider disclosure by private companies which are subsidiaries of large public companies, it may be better to pass legislation specifying such disclosure. To some extent the problem could be solved this way. In addition to mentioning the problem of foreign ownership, the Watkins task force said in its report:
It Is a prerequisite to public discussion of government policy and the formulation and implementation of actual policy that more information be available on the activities of corporations, particularly large corporations, both Canadian owned and foreign owned.
The Watkins task force defined the three distinct purposes for which corporate information is needed. They are, public disclosure, economic analysis and government surveillance. The Watkins task force, at page 185 of its report, said that corporate information for the purpose of economic analysis was "generally very good." On the other hand, it concluded that information for the purpose of surveillance was "inadequate" and information for the purpose of public disclosure was "grossly inadequate". What does this mean? If the amount of corporate information is good 22478-18
Canada Corporations Act enough for purposes of economic analysis, what more could be required? It is in this area that the bill leaves something to be desired.
The thread running through the testimony of witnesses appearing before the Finance Committee was that public disclosure by small companies would be damaging competitively. Large companies found, on the whole, no real difficulty and felt there would be no competitive disadvantage as a result of public disclosure. On the other hand, some companies at the lower level of the economic scale felt that they would be at a serious disadvantage if there were public disclosure. For this reason the minister has broadened the criteria for public disclosure. I agree with this. Canada has many small corporations, as is disclosed by the white paper. Public disclosure may work great hardship in this area. Mr. Watkins observed this deficiency. Page 357 of the Watkins Committee report reads in part:
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
For the purposes of economic analysis, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics must collect and analyse data made available by corporations on a confidential basis and published in aggregative form which does not permit identification of individual companies. For purposes of surveillance, relevant government departments and agencies must collect and use data on individual companies on a confidential basis.
If it is decided that it is necessary for the government to survey businesses and companies, then it is logical to use the approach that data can be collected on a confidential basis at a much lower level than is contemplated in this bill. If it is necessary for the government to survey and chart its financial course, it would be much more complete. Much of our business is already at a level below that set in the legislation.
In industry comprised of many small companies the total information is as complete as if the field were held by one large corporation. The provinces do not have this legislation, so there is little point at this time in the federal government's requiring federally-incorporated companies to make public disclosure. Witness after witness who appeared before the committee indicated that in the future, because of the present legislation, companies will elect to be incorporated as provincial entities. On that basis, this portion of the legislation will be an empty shell. It will not be effective and it will not be acceptable to the business community.

June 11, 1970
Canada Corporations Act


Winona Grace MacInnis: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the other members of our group who are very much in favour of these disclosure provisions. I know that for a long time the minister has been in favour of such provisions. There was a good deal of discussion this afternoon regarding the type of disclosure required. I wish to make one further suggestion. As far as the public are concerned, there are certain types of disclosure which go beyond what is being proposed. This is good.
This afternoon I received several letters from my constituency. They are a form type of letter. A certain firm is being transferred to the United States. The people who are losing their jobs are very concerned about this. The public, particularly those who are employed or are likely to be employed in industries, have a right to know on what basis these companies are being moved and whether there is a need for the move. They should be informed of the plans of this industry. I wish to read one letter. Copies were sent to me by several employees, including a die-maker and a welder. The letter reads:
Power Machinery, engaged in the manufacture of chain saws for 25 years, was purchased by the Chicago-based Skil corporation in July, 1968.
Skil corporation plans to move the operation to Chicago: one hundred and twenty-five employees will be out of work and business will be lost for local suppliers. Another secondary industry, so sorely needed in the area, will be gone.
A local consortium, who felt that movement of the plant was not in the best interest of the company or B.C., was put together by management personnel of Power Machinery after officials of the parent company, Skil, announced plans to shut down the operation and shift production machinery to Chicago. Financial backing for the consortium was available.
Negotiations have broken off and Skil corporation has restated that the operation will be phased out in three to six months.
I ask, in the interest of retaining secondary industry and employment in Canada, that you raise this matter in the House of Commons. I
I raise the matter now. The minister appreciates the situation in British Columbia in general, and in Vancouver in particular. If this company is transferred, 125 employees will be unemployed. Their families will be without income. The various suppliers will be depressed as a result of the industry being moved. I know the minister feels this will be a danger spot if it happens in Vancouver.
We in British Columbia are most anxious to build secondary industries. Without any warning or public disclosure, this firm has

suddenly announced that it is transferring to Chicago. The employees will be out of work. There will be all the attendant evils for their families and the suppliers of this firm. A local consortium was prepared to invest the money necessary to keep this firm in Vancouver. Those negotiations have now broken off. The company has stated that the operation will be phased out in three to six months. This action should not be permitted without some type of disclosure as to why it is necessary to deprive these 125 people of Vancouver and their families of this form of employment, particularly at this time when there is such a high level of unemployment in that city.
When the minister is replying, I ask him to take a few minutes to state whether he knows anything about this situation, and to tell us what can be done. These people are appealing to the government, the minister and their elected representative to see if anything can be done about the situation. I know that the proposed disclosure provisions will not solve this sort of problem, but it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that such firms are not moved away without explanation in view of the loss of employment and wages which is entailed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, a number of members have used the occasion of this debate on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) to discuss the general principle of public disclosure by private and public companies of economic significance. I do not want to discuss that part of the question at any great length. The principles of greater corporate disclosure were decided when this House gave second reading to Bill C-4 which is now before the House. This subject was dealt with exhaustively in 19 committee meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
I want to deal with the amendment and some of its specific recommendations which I oppose. I say to the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) that I appreciate his position and am sympathetic to it. However, we have been talking in this country for many years about the need for greater disclosure by corporations and about the need to provide that companies of economic significance should make certain information available. Here at least the government is making a beginning, and I hope the bill will be passed
June 11, 1970

as quickly as possible in order that we can open the door to a greater degree of corporate disclosure.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I would remind the House that this bill was first introduced in May of 1969. It was reintroduced in October, 1969. We are now in the month of June, 1970, and it is still not the law of the land and it still has to be approved by the members of the other place. I would say to the hon. member for Don Valley that here we are at least adopting the principle that private companies of economic significance should disclose as public companies do.
I am hopeful that provincial governments will follow the lead which the federal government has set. The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) touched upon this aspect of the matter and I agree with his remarks in that respect. Of course, if what I have suggested does not happen we shall have to consider other measures to ensure that the principle of corporate disclosure becomes applicable in the years ahead not only to federal companies but to all companies incorporated under provincial acts.
I listened to the two hon. members who spoke for the official opposition, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie). I became somewhat confused when I listened to the spokesmen for the Conservative Party on this issue. I do not want to re-debate the whole principle of corporate disclosure, but I was confused when I listened to them because they opposed it on second reading, they opposed it in committee and they are opposing it tonight. I only wish that the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Dauphin would consult with their leader, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) who said as recently as last April:
There is also the problem of getting adequate disclosure of information. At the moment, Canadian disclosure requirements are among the lowest in the world.
Here we are trying to improve disclosure laws in Canada, as I take it the Leader of the Opposition was advocating in April, while his minions from Edmonton West and Dauphin are opposing what he is trying to do.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: 1 am no
minion.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have great difficulty figuring out just where the Conservative party stands 2247*-18J
Canada Corporations Act on this issue. To deal with the substance of Motion No. 7 moved by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton), it is an amendment which in no circumstances can the government accept. Bill C-4 provides that private companies with assets of $5 million or sales exceeding $1 million shall file annual returns with the companies branch of my department, and that those returns shall be open to the public and treated in the same way as annual returns from public companies. The amendment before us would provide that all private companies, no matter of what size, would have to follow the same procedure and be regarded as public companies. All their returns would be made public.
There are two objections to this proposal. First, it would mean that all sorts of very small and insignificant companies would be obliged to go to the expense and trouble of making an annual return-and for no conceivable purpose. I fail to see any merit or wisdom whatever in requiring small private companies to do this. If we believe, as I do, that private companies of economic significance should disclose in the same way as public companies, there is surely not much point in saying that small private companies having capital of $50,000 or $100,000 should go through all the operations required of a public company. That suggestion makes no sense whatsoever.
The amendment provides that the minister may exempt a company from this requirement on an individual basis, upon application. But this would involve the minister, who at this particular time is myself, dealing with some 15,000 applications a year from private companies with assets of less than $5 million. All of them would, I am sure, apply to me for an exemption. This, in itself, would amount to a very large administrative task and one which would produce absolutely no benefit, though it might well cost the taxpayers a great deal.
Then again, the trend for some years has surely been away from the granting of ministerial power of discretion. I have listened many times to members of the opposition advocate that the power of ministerial discretion should be curtailed. Yet here we find the New Democratic Party seeking to give me discretion to decide whether or not some 15,000 companies should publicly disclose particulars of their operations. This is not the kind of discretion I want, and it is certainly not the kind of discretion a minister should have.

June 11, 1970
Canada Corporations Act
Surely, as in this case, we should write good laws which are progressive and modern. Equally, the corporate community, the legal profession and the accountancy profession are entitled to know with some certainty what the law is. If the amendment were adopted, no one would know whether a company would have to disclose or not. One year the minister might permit an exemption, the next year he might not. Ought we not try, as the government has sought to do in Bill C-4, to write some rules which are fairly certain and easy of interpretation, so that companies would know whether they have to disclose or not? The amendment before us destroys that certainty and makes it impossible for companies to know where they stand. For these reasons I must oppose it.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree that ministerial discretion could be exercised by dealing with some of the cases to which he referred by way of general rules which would apply unless there was a specific case where a different situation prevailed? Second, cannot a distinction be drawn between ministerial discretion which is exercised with public knowledge and the exercise of discretion which cannot become public knowledge, when the public does not know that discretion is being exercised?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I suppose it would be possible for the minister to pronounce some rules by which he would be guided, but whether he did so or not these rules would be made purely at his own discretion and this is what we are trying to avoid. If the hon. member feels that rules should be pronounced, does he not think they should be provided for in the legislation so that people would have the benefit of knowing what the law says? I do not think the suggestion contained in the hon. member's question is really very practical.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made a great point about ministerial discretion, but surely this is within the capacity of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He often makes decisions on specific questions which are referred to him. For example, just recently he made a decision in regard to drugs. I do not think this power is specifically spelled out in any legislation, but it does seem to me that virtually everything the minister has done in this connection in recent times has been through the exercise of discretion.

Would the minister not agree that we also gave this ministerial discretion to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) in order to free him from the rigidity of rules that had not worked and with regard to which people had fallen between stools? The minister would have to answer to Parliament for the exercise of his discretion, and this would be very desirable because we could then scrutinize his activities and he would have to be responsible for his acts.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I think that the rules applicable to whether or not a company should disclose, and what kind of annual statements and returns it should prepare, should be spelled out in the legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my view the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, a recorded division on the motion No. 7 stands deferred.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments, be amended by deleting in clause 20
(a)	line 16, page 62, the words "every company'' and substituting therefor "every public company"
(b)	subparagraphs (3)	(4)	(5) of section 121e,
being lines 32 to 44 inclusive, page 62, lines 1 to 43 inclusive, page 63, and lines 1 to 18 inclusive, page 64.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in moving this
amendment, I do not intend to repeat the remarks I made when discussing the motion moved by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton). However, I am following up the remarks I made on that occasion with the proposal that the disclosure called for in this bill shall be limited to what it is in the present law; in other words, it will be applicable to public companies.
I have given a number of reasons for contending that disclosure of the information requested in the government's amendment is
June 11, 1970

not worth a fig. I was absolutely astounded at the remarks of the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), who felt that by reason of such disclosure at this time the situation of the people on whose behalf she was making representations would be affected. I contend their situation would not be affected one iota. It would not affect the filing of an annual balance sheet, a profit and loss statement, a source and application of funds statement and a few other pieces of information. That is not disclosure.
I have no qualms at all when the minister tries to nit-pick some remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on the subject of disclosure. I agree that many matters in the bill relating to disclosure are important, though this is not disclosure of the kind of thing we are talking about now. The Leader of the Opposition was talking about meaningful disclosure in respect to such matters as takeover bids. Let us talk about insider trading, but not of the kind that is meant here. True enough, lip service is paid to the principle of greater disclosure in regard to insider trading, but frankly this is a dead letter from the word go.
Again, this is an attempt at substitution for what would be a meaningful national securities commission act. It is a stock exchange operation. It is like reporting cases of insider trading to the Ontario Securities Commission on a regular basis, such instances being published in the financial papers so everyone is aware of them. Here it will be filed in company files. A news reporter will have to call on the directors of corporations and comb through the company files to see whether there has been any declaration of insider trading, and he will pay $1 for each search. Is that meaningful disclosure? There is no power under the act to authorize the director of a corporation to maintain a running record of insider trading. Not only that, he is not empowered to do it nor is he authorized to disclose it. The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) feels there is a great deal of merit in this sort of disclosure, but I say that if its purpose is meaningful disclosure, I think frankly it is a sham.
The minister has stated that he has maintained a meaningful dialogue with the provinces. In 18 months he has not talked to the provinces about a national securities commission. He has not done so because of some stupid and wrong-headed ideas-I do not know whose they are-as to who will control a national securities commission and where it
Canada Corporations Act will be located. The minister has made much of this bill. It was first introduced in 1968, I think in May, in the other place. We are now in June, 1970, and the bill still is not law. And I should hope not, Mr. Speaker; the Senate kicked the stuffing out of the original bill because it was such a bad bill.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The bill started here, not in the Senate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The bill was brought in last October, but it remained on the Order Paper and was not called by the government. Ultimately it was referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, which organized public hearings. As I have indicated, some 17 organizations and individuals appeared before the committee to comment upon it. Let me tell the House just how good a bill it was. As a result of these comments, 39 printed pages of amendments were introduced by the government during the committee hearings, completely altering some of the features of the bill. Even the five-ten formula was changed as a result of the representations made before the committee. Some sections of the bill are unrecognizable when compared with the original sections.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the original bill had 106 printed pages. The amendments totalled 39 printed pages. Therefore, over one-third of the bill went into the wastebasket. On that basis, I do not believe it is a good bill. Tonight we will be asked to vote on three small, inconsequential amendments which were the result of poor drafting by the government. I maintain that we are talking about disclosure for a mere 375 companies. That is the number of companies that will be caught by the government's amendment-375 companies out of a total of 1,500 private companies under federal registration.
We will be asking these companies to file a balance-sheet not of a uniform nature. We will be asking them to file a profit and loss statement not of a uniform nature, a performance fund statement not of a uniform nature, as well as some additional information depending on how the information is filed. We are not introducing disclosure to protect the public, because the public will not be offered the shares of these companies; the public cannot invest in them.

June 11. 1970
Canada Corporations Act
We are to examine these companies, and there is no way to collect the information except by a one-by-one file search of apples, oranges, grapes and bananas. Yet it is suggested that we will obtain meaningful information and meaningful conclusions. Let us not make a joke of this matter. The hon. member for Don Valley indicated that there is not a solicitor worth his salt who would advise a company or an individual wanting to incorporate as a private company to come under federal jurisdiction. It would be much easier to go to Toronto or British Columbia. If one wishes to operate in one of the other provinces, one registers under the general provisions of the Companies Act of the province. This completely defeats the purpose of the disclosure set out in this bill: it can be ignored. All this measure will do is drive more and more companies away from registering under the federal act. The arguments of the hon. member for Don Valley are unanswerable in so far as the future effect is concerned in respect of registration of those companies under the minister's control. In other words, the minister will have disclosure on a diminishing basis.
There is no guarantee that the provinces will follow the federal lead. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is a safe bet that the province of Ontario will not follow because this is a half-hearted-it is not even halfhearted but, rather, one-tenth hearted

attempt to have a substitute for a national securities commission. If the minister really wants to do something, let him get down to meaningful discussion with the provinces to establish on a co-operative basis a national securities commission. Then he will obtain all the disclosure he wants from the public companies. If he wants information of a certain kind from private companies which conduct business in excess of $250,000 in a year, let him come in with amendments to COLURA. If he wants statistical information, that is how to obtain it, because it is filed on a statistical basis and can be collected and collated by somebody who understands something about statistics. In that way meaningful conclusions can be reached.
Mr. Speaker, it is a joke to think that someone could go through the files of the directors of corporations, look at the various balance-sheets and profit and loss statements of 375 private companies and come up with meaningful conclusions. It is for this reason I have moved the amendment. To me this practice would be discriminatory of private com-

panies operating under federal charter. I should like the minister to restore this measure to what it was. If the minister wishes to do something meaningful in respect of disclosure, I suggest that he proceed on a positive basis along the lines I have indicated with regard to either a national securities commission or amendments to COLURA.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, the whole question of greater public disclosure by private companies was dealt with exhaustively by this House at the second reading stage and during the 19 meetings of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, where the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised all the points he raised tonight, all of which were answered in the committee to the satisfaction of the committee.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Ho, ho!


Stanley Ronald Basford: During the committee proceedings the hon. member was unable to persuade either myself or many of the members of the committee concerning the merits of his case. We can state our case only so many times. Quite obviously the hon. member for Edmonton West, in spite of what his leader said, will not be persuaded that this is a good development. Quite obviously, also, the hon. member for Edmonton West was unable to convince members of the committee and will be unable to convince members of the House of the merits of his case.
The matter has been dealt with exhaustively and thoroughly on many occasions. I am sure that whatever I might say tonight would not persuade the hon. member for Edmonton West. All I can say is that many authoritative studies in Canada have shown the need to have companies of economic significance in this country disclose their affairs as provided for in Bill C-4. I believe the case in this regard was made out in the House this afternoon by members who have spoken. I also believe the case has been made out by the Porter Commission, by the joint committee of the House and Senate, by the task force on the structure of Canadian industry, by commentators and some financial analysts. So I believe the case is there. Obviously, we will not persuade the hon. member for Edmonton West that the case has been made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
June 11. 1970


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the amendment please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my view the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.
Motion No. 8 (Mr. Lambert, Edmonton West) negatived.


Stanley Ronald Basford: That Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter oi certain of those amendments, be amended by striking out line 1 on page 79 thereof and by substituting therefore the following:
"(c) sections 18 to 21, subsection (2) and paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section 22, sections 24 to"
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment to the text of section 147 of the Canada Corporations Act which in error was dropped out of the text of the new section as printed in Bill C-4. The purpose of this amendment has been explained to the hon. member for Edmonton West. We are agreed on this matter. The reinsertion of the reference to section 22 of the act in section 147 will allow corporations incorporated under part II of the Canada Corporations Act to use as their legal designation either the English or the French form of their corporate name. This has been the law and, as I said, it was left out by inadvertence and error in reprinting. Allowing companies to do this is a matter of convenient practice and there is no reason to put an end to it, as the error would have us do. Therefore, we are reinserting the reference to section 22 so that companies may use their name in either French or English.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Basford) agreed to.


Stanley Ronald Basford: That Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments, be amended by striking out lines 19 and 20 on page 96 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"(ii) letters patent issued under section 5a or 5d of the Canada Corporations".
Canada Corporations Act
He said: I have also explained this amendment to hon. members and I think there is agreement to it. However, I would like to explain the amendment, for the record. The amendment is to correct an oversight. This matter was left out of the bill when it was before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I would like to explain briefly why we are proposing this amendment to clause 30 of the bill, which provides for a consequential amendment to the National Energy Board Act in its definition of "special act".
Section 25 (1) of the National Energy Board Act provides that "no person other than a company shall construct or operate a pipeline". Section 2C of the act in its present form defines a company as a person having authority under a special act to construct or operate pipelines. Clause 30 of Bill C-4 which is now before the House extends the definition of "special act" to include letters patent issued under section 5A of the Canada Corporations Act.
There is a possibility that the National Energy Board Act provisions as amended by Bill C-4 would be interpreted in such a way that a company now incorporated by special act of Parliament which chooses to take advantage of the new section 5D, and is continued under the Canada Corporations Act, might not qualify under section 25 (1) of the National Energy Board Act as a company authorized to construct or operate a pipeline. This, of course, is not at all what the legislation intends and in order to remove the possibility of misinterpretation I propose an amendment whereby the words "or 5D" be inserted in the definition of "special act" in clause 30 of Bill C-4. A company continued by letters patent under section 5D would then clearly be, by definition, a company within the meaning of the National Energy Board Act and there would be no question of its power to construct or operate a pipeline. This is a somewhat technical amendment which I am sure will have the concurrence of all members of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 10 (Mr. Basford) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: This concludes the consideration of all motions at the report stage except deferred Motion No. 7.

June 11. 1970
Division
The question is now on Motion No. 7, moved by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton), as follows:
That Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments, be amended by striking out in clause 20, paragraph (b) of subsection (3) on pages 62-63 and substituting the following:
"(b) A private company except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d);
(c)	section (b) does not apply to a private company that is a personal corporation within the meaning of section 68 of the Income Tax Act in the whole of the year in respect of which a financial statement is required by this Act;
(d)	the minister having regard to the public interest may grant an exemption to a private company if revenue does not exceed ten million dollars in any period ending in or after the year in which this section comes into force, in respect of which a financial statement is required by this act to be prepared, or whose total assets on the last day of any such period do not exceed five million dollars".
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. When shall the bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, should we not deal with the report stage first?


Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill C-4, to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Stanley Ronald Basford: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I intend to say only a few words about those features of the bill of which we approve. There are a number of them. As I have al-
June 11, 1970

ready indicated, a great number of changes were made in this bill at the committee stage. These changes greatly improve the bill. In many sections the bill is barely recognizable. I am sure all members appreciate the greater flexibility in incorporating federal companies and the alternative method of amending companies which have a federal charter from this House. I think that is a big improvement.
With regard to disclosure, there is certainly a vast improvement on takeover bids. Those persons or organizations taking over a federal company now have to pay the same price to all shareholders of the company, not just the majority of shareholders, leaving the small shareholders high and dry with 10 per cent or 15 per cent and at the mercy of the takeover principle. I am having a tough time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Can we have quiet in the chamber.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There are also improved conditions with regard to the solicitation of proxies. The changes in the act are more in keeping with the representations of the witnesses who appeared before the committee. The act is improved to that extent. My complaints about what the minister calls disclosure by private companies certainly were not argued during the 19 committee meetings. The minister was not there. Outside of two or three minor witnesses, everyone was against the features that the minister indicated. Quite frankly, some of them will be in a difficult position. They would get out of their federal registration if it were not for the difficulties with regard to taxation; there is no doubt about that. I say to the minister and to those members who are solicitors that clients will not be advised to incorporate private companies under federal charter.
There are many improvements in this bill. It was good that the bill was before the committee. We spent many long sessions on it. I think the committee members should express their appreciation to those members of the public, associations and companies who made many constructive suggestions which were accepted by the minister. This is an important bill and I am glad it received the treatment it did. But the minister retreated on one point. Frankly, we think he spoiled a good deal of the bill by the limits he imposed on disclosures of private companies. This bill is not so good because of that action.
Canada Corporations Act


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, we find it very difficult to understand, with the takeover of Canada by international corporations, why a Corporations Act should be introduced that does not take this serious problem into consideration. We find this bill most unsatisfactory. The fact that it cleans up a few minor matters relating to takeover and proxy voting does not commend it, in light of the problems facing this country. We hoped the minister would do the same with the Corporations Act as was done with the Bank Act, namely, limit foreign ownership to 25 per cent and include a clause that would provide some exceptions.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
We should change the assumption which has been made so far about foreign ownership and which has led us into our present situation, namely, that all foreign investment, no matter how it behaves, is good. That assumption should no longer be made. There may be cases where foreign investment would be valuable to Canada, and opportunities should be available for a case to be made; but from now on the assumption should be that there has been too much foreign investment and a halt must be called. If we do not do that, the question of disclosure by corporations, proxy voting, and so on, will become the least of our considerations. This is our objection to the bill as it stands.
There is another objection related to the disclosure provisions but, as I say, our principal objection is that the bill fails to deal with the serious problem of foreign ownership. One of the less desirable features of foreign ownership is that decisions are not made in this country; that laws made in other countries intrude into Canadian affairs, making it difficult to take certain actions. Then again, we do not know to what extent research is being carried out abroad at the expense of research which would otherwise be carried out here.
If the present situation continues to develop, this country will be deprived of the ingredients necessary to our continuance as a nation. We have recognized already the serious danger which exists in connection with specific fields such as banking and financial institutions generally, newspapers and television. It is important, while we are debating the Corporations Act, to point out the need for enacting similar provisions with regard to all corporations in Canada. Nobody wants to be faced every month or so with the need to

June 11, 1970
Canada Corporations Act take emergency, fire brigade action, action of the kind which faced us when we had to step in to prevent control of the uranium industry passing out of Canadian hands. People are now talking about the development of a computer industry in Canada and there is a danger that this industry, too, may slip away from Canadian control, meaning that an essential ingredient of our future development may be lost. It seems to us it would be better to pass legislation which would inform foreign investors of the position this country takes with regard to certain industries and give the minister authority to prevent takeovers by foreign corporations.
There are some who talk about foreign ownership in Canada as a form of twentieth century imperialism, and the term is really not too far out. Foreign corporations are making familiar arguments about their civilizing influence, the role they play in increasing wealth and improving technology; they are carrying the modern-day white man's burden even when the people resent the kind of intrusion into their affairs which takes place when a foreign corporation moves in. The central issue for most societies, not only for Canadian society, is the extent to which they will be able to exercise control over their own future, the extent to which they will be able to make their own decisions.
Having said this about ownership, I should make it clear that a simple change of ownership would not in itself solve the problems facing Canada. Domestic ownership can be just as unthinking and unfeeling about the future of the country as foreign ownership. But at some stage, as a necessary first step we shall have to call a halt to this taking over of the country, if only to enable us to determine our own future. For these reasons we find this legislation to be inadequate. The meagre changes which have been introduced are not satisfactory, and the government has lost a great opportunity to take a stand for Canadian nationalism.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to cover the ground that has been covered so adequately, by my hon. friend from Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), but I wish to make a few comments as we approach the end of a lengthy debate on the overhaul of an important statute on the law books of Canada, the Canada Corporations Act. This measure took a long time to prepare. It involved the setting up of a task force which reported to the minister, a draft bill last session, reintroduction of the bill this

session, lengthy committee hearings and, now, further debate at the report stage and third reading.
This entire process could be summed up in one phrase-the mountain laboured mightily and brought forth a mouse. There have been some minor, tinkering changes which in themselves are useful, but in terms of dealing with the fundamental problems involving corporate activity and the relationship of corporate bodies to the total economy and Canadian society as a whole, the bill is totally inadequate and I fail to see how I can support it on third reading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the indication from hon. members opposite that we may get third reading this evening. Like them, I shall be brief. I wish to comment on the number of people who appeared before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and, like the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) I appreciate very much the effort which many trade associations, professional groups and individuals made in preparing briefs and giving us the benefit of their particular knowledge.
As a result of the work of the committee a great many improvements have been made in this bill. It was a better bill when it came out of the committee than when it left the House after second reading. The members of the committee are to be commended. Company law is a dull and tedious subject and I appreciate very much the way in which the members of the committee stuck with the bill, dealt with the hearings, improved the measure and sent it back in a better form. The amendments which were made and accepted by me did, in my opinion, clarify many of the provisions and constituted a great improvement in the bill. I refer in particular to the provisions relating to proxies and proxy solicitations which had the effect of making the bill more uniform with company law in the various provinces. I believe this will be of great convenience to the business community.
The provisions of the original bill relating to notices of meetings and entitlement to vote at meetings have been redesigned to take into account the views expressed by the business community in the course of the hearings. A provision has been added which would allow the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to impose, upon the recommendation of the min-
June 11, 1970

ister, security tor the costs of an investigation in the case of a shareholder who applies for an investigation in circumstances where suspicion exists that the application might be frivolous or malicious. This was an amendment in which I believe the hon. member for Edmonton West concurred. I know it did not go as far as he would have wished, but I believe he will regard it as an improvement and as an additional safeguard in investigation and inspection procedures.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
We have had in this House, in the committee and again today many debates on the question of corporate disclosure and whether or not private companies should disclose. My reading of what was said in the committee by members of the committee leads me to believe that there was a consensus reached by the committee that financial disclosure by companies of a certain size was important in our economic system, even in the case of privately incorporated companies.
I think it was agreed there was also a consensus that the law should provide for such disclosure, and this bill does that. As I have said before, there is a great amount of arbitrariness in any criterion or figure under which private companies should disclose, and amendments were made in the committee raising the threshold over which they have to disclose. As the hon. member for Edmonton West indicated, while he does not agree with the whole concept of disclosure, this at least was an improvement. I think those amendments accomplish our original purpose of having companies of economic significance make disclosure and at the same time they avoid some of the difficulties that the figures used in the bill when first introduced might have created.
I think this is significant, Mr. Speaker, after so many years in Canada during which the only disclosure required was that of public companies. While the members of the New Democratic Party are not satisfied with what the bill does, I think it is an important step forward. The bill opens the door to having corporate laws in Canada that would require public disclosure by private companies. As I indicated earlier today, this is something that many groups in the Canadian community have been advocating for many years. This important and significant development in Canadian corporate law, when it becomes effective will provide us as Canadians with a little better idea of what is going on in our
Business of the House
economy, what important sectors of the economy are doing and how they are performing.
In conclusion, the amendments made by the committee, in my view, and I think in the view of many members, have considerably improved the bill originally presented to the House. I repeat my thanks to the committee for the job it has done, and also to the many members of the business community and legal fraternity who took the time, trouble and energy to appear before the committee to make their views known to us. Both I and my officials found those views extremely helpful.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, what I wish to say at the third reading stage of this bill can be said in one or two sentences. I think it should not go unnoted that in the remarks of the minister he expressed no concern whatever about the increasing degree of foreign ownership in this country. I can only take it from the absence of any reference to this question that he is expressing the complete lack of interest of the government to which he belongs in this very important matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you might call it ten o'clock, but before you do I wonder whether the acting House leader could tell us the business for Tuesday and Wednesday of next week? That implies that we know what it is for tomorrow and Monday.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I should like to read into the record a statement of House business on behalf of my colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). The business for the week commencing June 15 will be as follows: First of all, as the House knows, this coming Friday and the following Monday will be allotted days. The business
June 11, 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion for Tuesday will be as follows: first, the Canada Labour (Standards) bill, Government Order No. 97; second, the Excise Tax Act, Government Order No. 94; third, the Canada Elections Act, Government Order No. 98. For Wednesday, if we make sufficient progress on the items I have read out we will proceed with the Canada Elections Act, Government Order No. 98. On Thursday we will have the final allotted day in this period.
Finally, I would call the attention of the House to a notice which will appear in the name of the House leader proposing an extension in the hours of sitting in the next two weeks, in the hope of completing the agenda of business by June 26.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it is now nearly two months since I first drew to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) that welfare minister Gaglardi of British Columbia was refusing welfare payments to workers involved in labour disputes. On that occasion the minister replied that such action was contrary to the Canada Assistance Plan, and that if specific instances of refusal were found he would have "no choice but to take appropriate action in terms of reducing the moneys payable to that province under the Canada Assistance Plan".
A number of specific instances were found. I provided several to the minister myself and also copies of a directive sent out by welfare workers on provincial government stationery, stating that welfare payments would be refused to persons involved in a labour dispute. Since then the federal minister has travelled to British Columbia and has met with his counterpart, Mr. Gaglardi. The Vancouver Sun of June 8 headlined the result in bold type, "Munro, Gaglardi reach agreement" and in less bold explanation added, "But on what, not specific". The story related that the federal minister had explained that the Canada Assistance Plan provides that welfare should be issued solely on the basis of need. But Mr. [Mr. Gray.l
Gaglardi said he was going to keep on doing exactly what he had been doing before the discussion with the federal minister. As one newsman put it, "The farther Mr. Gaglardi got from Mr. Munro's suite-and the closer he got to reporters-the more he reverted to his previous position".
I am now reliably informed that a directive has gone out from Mr. Gaglardi's office to all welfare officers in British Columbia that persons who can show they are completely destitute as a result of current labour disputes are entitled to food vouchers; that is provided there is no food in the house. The directive makes clear that under no circumstances are persons in this category to receive cash welfare payments. If this is so-and I am confident that I can secure copies of the directive within a few days-it means two things; first, the provincial minister of welfare is continuing to break the federal-provincial agreement; second, he is compounding the offence by creating second-class welfare recipients- those involved in a labour dispute.
As an example of what this means, a family of three on social assistance in British Columbia is ordinarily entitled to $165 and is allowed to have the same amount in the bank. Under Gaglardi's new regime, this family must show that it has no money and no food. They can then get $70 in food vouchers. They do not get the balance of the $165; that is, they do not get the $95 allowed for items other than food-rent, light, clothing and the rest. I think this is a shocking betrayal on the part of a welfare minister. I cannot believe that the federal minister agreed to this further flouting of the Canada Assistance Act. I hope he will not wait for me to collect the evidence of this latest piece of high-handed injustice on the part of a provincial minister. I hope he will demand immediate compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the act.
9 (10:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, seven weeks have gone by in which families in British Columbia have been denied their rights under the law. During these weeks these families were without light or heat until the family allowance cheque arrived to relieve the worst of their miseries. I think it is time the Minister of National Health and Welfare called his counterpart's bluff and set a deadline by which, unless he lives up to the terms of the law, the provincial minister will find the federal funds cut off. I believe if steps were taken to get the facts to the people of British Columbia, the
June 11. 1970

federal minister would receive their full support and the deadline would be met. Highwaymen cannot be allowed to continue their careers indefinitely without danger not only to public well-being but to the respect in which governments are held in this country.
I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare will stop the game of cat-and-mouse which Mr. Gaglardi is inviting him to play in this regard, and will take steps to call the bluff of one of the most bluffing provincial ministers of welfare we have ever had in the province of British Columbia.


Mr.   Rosa@: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) the minister indicated that if specific instances could be identified whereby recipients are denied benefits contrary to the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan, he would have no choice but to take appropriate action to ensure that the terms of the agreement are being honoured. I can only report on the minister's behalf that a number of specific examples have been received by the department. These have been referred to the officials of the British Columbia department of rehabilitation and social improvement with the request that the circumstances be investigated to determine whether the person is in fact in need of and eligible for assistance as provided in the province's agreement under the Canada Assistance Plan.
I can also report that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and Mr. Gaglardi, Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement for British Columbia, have discussed the welfare status of employees locked out in a labour dispute in relation to Canada Assistance Plan benefits, in order to resolve this matter. The minister will soon make a statement in the House on the results of his discussions.



BROADCASTING POLICY-SUGGESTED REFERENCE OF ACT TO COMMITTEE IN LIGHT OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, before another long, hot summer approaches, when hopefully we will be involved in another session, something new will be in the living room of every Canadian home. I refer to a video recording apparatus which can tape from one's TV set programs from that set. If one wishes to watch one program and see what is on another channel,
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion one will be able to do that, so complex and interesting is this apparatus. This information was given to us in the broadcasting committee and it prompted me to ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) whether, in light of this and other developments, he would consider examining the Broadcasting Act at the earliest possible opportunity to take into account all the technological changes in the communications industry.
The minister was good enough to say that because there were technological changes involved, he would examine the question and, I think, examine it seriously. So perhaps I am here under false pretences tonight, because I really do not quarrel with the answer he gave. I thought that if we discussed this matter we might have some fun on the "late show." Imagine the great benefit of having delayed video recordings so that one could play back the final game of the Stanley Cup series, for example, in the summer when one needs something to make one a little cooler. If you cannot love Lucy in the morning, you might be prepared to do so in the afternoon, or possibly in the evening. When I say "you" I am speaking in a very abstract sense, Mr. Speaker. If Soames Forsyte cannot win back the fair Irenee in the spring, could she fall for him in the summer?
We have all heard the story about the crazy Canadian who lost a bet on the tune that the winning goal would be scored in the hockey game, and then lost twice that amount of money on the instant replay. Just think of the fabulous opportunity it would give that gentleman to lose even more money on delayed video recordings. As I say, the possibilities are rather awesome, and all of this will be before us before we reach another June 11. That prompted my question. I think it is one of the latest developments that affects broadcasting. Let me reminisce for a moment. We know that the Broadcasting Act which we now live under, or perhaps as some broadcasters would say, suffer under, was stimulated by the thrust of cable television. We have great technological changes coming about, not only the ones I have mentioned but those in the trade known as EVR and through Telsat, if the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kier-ans) is ever able to get it off the ground-and knowing what he does with our mail one is entitled to have some doubt about that.
Be that as it may, those two changes alone and other things that the communications industry has cooked up for us will provide a very exciting, immediate future for Canadi-
June 11, 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ans in illustrating the change which technology will bring about in the important field of communications. That was the purpose of my suggestion that it was time for the Secretary of State, his officials and the government to give serious consideration to studying the Broadcasting Act which we now have, in view of the things that will be here within a year, or three years, to see whether it belongs to the age of the dinosaur-even though it was only passed two years ago-or whether it can stand up to what we face in the very near future. In that friendly spirit, hopeful of consideration of my request by the Secretary of State, I appear on the "late show" tonight.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member started with rather light remarks may I point out that they were not in the spirit of the act or of the regulations, because the programs he mentioned would not constitute 60 per cent Canadian content. I congratulate the hon. member for his concern for technological development. I agree that we should all follow these developments very closely. But I should also say that if the hon. member reread the Broadcasting Act and refreshed his memory on certain of its provisions, he would see that it is a very farsighted piece of legislation which encompasses not only the developments that had taken place at the time the act was adopted, but even some future developments-which might be called progress or which some people might call possibilities for further nuisance and noise pollution. The act envisages many developments that are not with us yet but that were known to be on the cards at that time. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member has not convinced me that we have to be very worried. I certainly do not think that we have to insist on revising the Broadcasting Act before June 26. Next fall, after having had in his livingroom for two months, this marvelous gadget that he heard of in the Standing Committee, he might come back even more convinced that we must change the act. Then we will all listen to him very intently. Until that happens, however, I think we can survive with the Broadcasting Act as it is.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



IMMIGRATION-REPRESENTATION OF APPLICANTS BEFORE APPEAL BOARD BY UNQUALIFIED PERSONS

Hyliard G. Chappell: Mr. Speaker, during question period I asked the Minis-
[Mr. McCleave.l
ter of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) the following question:
In view of the fact that hundreds of would-be immigrants are being badly represented before the Immigration Appeal Board, by people who pretend to be but are not solicitors and are not capable, will the minister, as requested by the Immigration Appeal Board, amend the regulations to the act, to stop this abuse of so many would-be new citizens?
If an applicant for admission to Canada is refused by the departmental immigration officers, or if anyone else is ordered deported by these officers, he may have a hearing before an inquiry officer pursuant to the provisions of the Immigration Act. If he is still unsuccessful, he has the right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board pursuant to the Immigration Appeal Board Act. I shall read the relevant sections of the act, Mr. Speaker. Section 27(2) of the Immigration Act provides:
the person concerned If he so desires and at his own expense shall have the right to obtain and to be represented by counsel at his hearing.
This is, of course, a hearing by a special inquiry officer as provided for by section 2 (b) of the regulations to the act. Departmental form 689 which is headed, "Notice concerning the rights to be represented by counsel at an immigration inquiry," contains the following paragraph:
If you so desire and at your own expense, you have the right to retain, instruct and be represented by counsel. Counsel need not necessarily be a lawyer, but may be a friend, priest or minister of your church, or a representative of the Salvation Army-
The Immigration Appeal Board rules, section 11 (2), provides that:
An appellant or respondent whether or not he appears in person before the board, has the right to be represented by counsel, at his own expense.
Section 2 (b) of the rules states:
Counsel means any person authorized by the appellant or respondent to represent him before the board, and is not restricted to barristers, solicitors or advocates, and in the case of an appellant or respondent who by reason of age or physical or mental condition is unable to act or proceed on his own behalf or to authorize counsel to act for him, includes any person interested in his welfare.
So by departmental form in respect of a hearing before a special inquiry officer and by a rule-not parliamentary legislation-in respect of a hearing before the Immigration Appeal Board, the newcomer or deportee who wishes to stay in Canada, perhaps more than anything else in the world, can be represented by absolutely anyone. The ability, training,
June 11, 1970

integrity or character of this "anyone" does not in any way impair his capacity to solicit clients from and prey upon these newcomers who are not familiar with our languages or their rights in Canada.
In all other courts of record, that is to say, the county and district courts and the supreme courts of the provinces, the Supreme Court of Canada and all other federal courts of record, a party may appear for himself, but otherwise he must have legal counsel. Not even a law student is allowed to appear on his behalf. In England they are even stricter. The laywer must be a barrister. In Canada, although not compulsory, it is customary for barristers rather than solicitors to appear in court. The reason for this is that the matters under review are important. In a criminal matter, liberty or life is at stake. In a civil matter one's financial affairs, and thus one's fortune, are at stake. To protect their interests, the parties require a lawyer and the court usually requires the lawyer's assistance. Provincial laws made it an offence for anyone who is not a lawyer to practice law.
Obviously, provincial legislators feel it would be dangerous and wrong to allow those who are not qualified to act as a lawyer, just as it would be wrong to allow those who are not qualifed as doctors to carry out surgery. This feeling is so widely accepted that eight out of ten provinces have passed or are about to pass legal aid schemes so that everyone, regardless of his financial means, may have the lawyer of his choice. The exceptions are Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. This is paid for by the people and, in Ontario, at least, is accepted by 100 per cent of the people.
Why is it different when it is an appeal before the Immigration Appeal Board? I expect someone thought that they were doing the subject of inquiry or detainee or deportee, as he may be called, a kindness in allowing him to bring a friend, priest or minister who would assist him without charge. These people do not act as counsel. They know better. They advise him to get a lawyer and they come along as a witness and friend.
Who is representing all these people at these special inquiries and before the Immigration Appeal Board? In hundreds of cases they are represented by people who pretend to be lawyers or "consultants" in immigration matters but are without any legal knowledge, training or ethics. They set themselves up as notary publics or travel agents and thus snare these new immigrants. They are usually

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion assisted in getting this business by the fact that they can speak that person's language. They are not doing it as a friend, but for money-all they can get-often on a contingency basis and for more money than a lawyer would charge. No matter how bad may be their advice, their character or their behaviour before the board, there is no authority to discipline them. Unless the Law Society of the province in question takes on the job of policing these inquiries and charging these people for acting as lawyers, they continue with a free hand.
May I cite some examples. A travel agent has appeared on hundreds of appeals before the board. This gentleman pretends to be a lawyer and even takes written legal retainers and, of course, charges for these services. In another case a former employee of the department, now a travel agent, in an appearance before the board on behalf of someone ordered deported, argued that although he had refused him admission when he was an assessor in the department, he had changed his mind and would now give him something like another 14 points so he could be admitted. Obviously, when he was being paid to do so he reversed his view. This behaviour certainly would not impress the board or assist the cause of the appellant. In another case a former interpreter with the department set up in business as an immigration consultant and now appears before the appeal board, although earlier involved in a criminal charge in connection with applications for landing in Canada.
These are important matters. People can be refused admission although their families are here, or deported up to five years after acquiring landed status and in some cases after even a longer period, although their families would remain here in Canada. If anyone can appear as a lawyer for these people, why not let anyone appear as a lawyer in all courts? Why bother with the expense of training lawyers, when travel agents and notaries public can appear in an appeal court of record?
These people are methodically preying upon new arrivals in Canada who, because of their inability to speak English and lack of knowledge of our country, are easy victims. The public has provided funds so that they may be assured of a lawyer, and those who get the proper advice do have a lawyer. These people being allowed to appear before the Immigration Appeal Board make a mockery of this. Legal aid is even available for those who appear before the Immigration
June 11, 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Appeal Board from those two provinces that do not have legal aid schemes. Surely the minister should amend the departmental form and the rules, as requested by the Immigration Appeal Board, to provide that only legal counsel may appear. If he is not agreeable to going this far in respect of inquiries before the special inquiry officers, the minister should provide that there be an appearance only by legal counsel or a representative from the church or social agency.


Mr. Gendron:: Mr. Speaker, the minister has informed the hon. member, by an exchange of correspondence, that no decision has as yet been taken on a recommendation made by the Chairman of the Immigration Appeal Board that henceforth only legal counsel be allowed to appear on behalf of appellants before the Board.
There are very compelling arguments both for and against such a move. The hon. member will note that the present government policy is based upon the recommendation of the white paper issued by the Joint Parliamentary Committee that studied this problem very carefully over a prolonged period of time and recommended that the government should not be a party to any system which forces a person to retain legal counsel, possibly at considerable expense.
Furthermore, there is ample indication that many appellants very definitely prefer to be represented before the Board by relatives, friends, clergymen, members of the ethnic community or indeed Members of Parliament because the nature of their appeal to the
Board is not based on legal grounds but rather on compassionate or humanitarian considerations in which area the Board does have authority to exercise discretion in its decisions. Many of these non-legal persons undertake such representation without a fee and at their own expense.
On the other side of the issue, there are good arguments that if only legal counsel were allowed to appear before the Board, a greater measure of control cound be exercised through the responsible professional associations in the matter of fees charged and the conduct of counsel from a standpoint of both ability and ethnics.
The minister agrees that some measure of control is necessary, since he has been made aware of some questionable practices on the part of certain non-legal representatives. However, the incidence of this seems to be so slight in relation to total numbers appearing before the Board that a measure depriving people of the possibility of being represented by whomever they choose might seem oversevere. He feels that a sufficient measure of control might be achieved by other regulatory measures which would at the same time not prevent an applicant from choosing his own representative.
The minister hopes that after consultation with the parties involved an equitable and practical solution for all concerned might be found shortly. He appreciates the hon. member's arguments and suggestions, which will certainly prove helpful in finding a better solution to the problem.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Friday, June 12, 1970