1974-11-28

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects the rights and privileges of all members since it may involve seriously misleading and inaccurate information being furnished to the House by a minister.
On October 23, as shown on page 647 of Hansard, I asked a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) on the subject of the Local Initiatives Program grants, namely as to why constituencies represented by Liberals received approximately $15 million more than constituencies represented by Conservatives. Since it is pertinent to my question of privilege I will read the minister's reply:
Mr. Speaker, it was based on the worthiness of applications by the sponsors in the various areas of Canada, coupled with the degree of unemployment and the formula which I enunciated in this House on several occasions.
In a supplementary question I asked the minister whether he could assure the House that political considerations were not involved in such grants and he replied, as shown in Hansard:
Most certainly, Mr. Speaker.
The information thus given by the minister to the effect that the Local Initiatives Program is completely outside politics has consistently been the contention made by the government to hon. members of this House.
Copies of documents which I am prepared to table have come into my possession indicating that the minister and the government have seriously misled the House and that the awarding of LIP grants has not always been done on the basis outlined to the House by the minister but, instead, often on the basis of political considerations.
To clearly establish my case of privilege I refer briefly to certain of these documents as follows: One, a memorandum dated January 30, 1973 to D. C. Trehearne, at the time director of programs of LIP, from the minister's office, signed by R. J. Gairns, headed "LIP Applications-MP Priorities", and seeming to order on behalf of the minister's office that LIP applications specifically listed in the memorandum be approved in constituencies represented by 10 specifically named Liberal members of parliament and one specifically named New Democratic member of parliament.
The second document is dated January 25, 1973, headed "Confidential" and "Memorandum to the Minister", signed
by J. M. DesRoches, then deputy minister of manpower, which establishes that the country was divided into regions with certain Liberal Cabinet ministers having veto power over LIP applications in such regions as illustrated by these words on page 2 of the memorandum: "No project is approved without concurrence of the regional minister".
The third document is a letter to the minister of manpower dated November 30, 1972, signed by the then Minister of the Environment, Jack Davis, stating:
As the minister with a responsibility to review these projects for British Columbia, I ask that no project be given final approval until clearance has been obtained from this office.
The fourth document is a letter in reply to the Minister of the Environment dated December 6, 1972, signed by Robert K. Andras, and containing this significant statement in the last paragraph:
Certainly my office will make every effort to ensure you are properly consulted on LIP projects in British Columbia...
I am also prepared to table a memorandum with attachment dated December 8, 1972 signed by R.J. Gairns, head of the LIP special information group and addressed to Dan Coates, executive assistant to the minister, establishing further the existence of politics in the LIP program; and finally, a memorandum to the minister dated December 29, 1972, establishing what appears to be a connection with the LIP special information group and those who were considered to have a political interest in LIP.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe these documents clearly illustrate that the minister and the government may have seriously misinformed and misled this House, and if in your judgment I have a legitimate case of privilege I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the matter be referred forthwith to the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have grave reservations about the validity of the question of privilege, which I will develop momentarily if necessary. I do not like to receive representations on matters of this sort from only one side of the House, and if the minister wishes to make an intervention on the matter I will hear him.
The hon. member was good enough to give the Chair notice, as is required, of his intention to raise a question of privilege. In addition the hon. member gave the Chair, only recently, a copy of his notes to be used in the presentation of the question of privilege, which was of great assistance to an understanding of the detailed nature of this grievance. Again I use the word "grievance" as opposed to "question of privilege", because it is evident from the remarks of the hon. member that what he has is a dispute as to the quality of the reply of the minister in the House, and a dispute as to the accuracy of the information
1742

November 28, 1974
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
he has obtained in reply to questions asked during the question period. In addition, there perhaps is a clear difference of opinion between the hon. member and the government in respect of the matters under the administrative responsibility of the government.
The matter is made perfectly clear, if it was not otherwise understood, by citation 113 of Beauchesne's, one sentence of which reads as follows:
But a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
Accordingly, I would have to hold that, while the member may have a difference of opinion or grievance, he has several other avenues to explore in order to take that up with the minister and this does not in any way constitute a prima facie question of privilege.


Mr. Andras:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would have served the House well if he had considered many other statements I have made in this House and publicly, to wit that I give very significant credence to representations of members of parliament of all parties, from both sides of this House, in this type of decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: This type of decision about which projects will or will not be approved requires judgment in every case. Although I fully appreciate and respect the talents and integrity of the public service I have always said to my officials that the elected representatives of the people who sit in this House have knowledge and understanding of their constituencies and the conditions in those areas as represented by the fact that they were elected in the first place. I would entertain, and have entertained, from many members from all sides of the House, from all parties in the House, views with regard to which projects are or are not appropriate to be approved, while maintaining for myself, which is proper and is my job, the responsibility to make the final decisions. That is how I have exercised my responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Calgary North rising on the point of order?


Mr. Woolliams:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the point of order. It is true that ne has asked the members to help set up committees and make decisions, but he has overlooked one fact. A place like Calgary North might get $50,000 or $70,000 while the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources last time got almost a million some odd, so I think there is a little hanky-panky going on. It does show one thing-there is a little influence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In the manner in which this honourable chamber often manages to balance things out on its own it seems to me that we have had countervailing non-points of privilege and non-points of order on the same day. It might be well to get on with the business of the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on Monday I tabled some correspondence which at that time had not been translated because I had only a few hours before I received authority to table it. The whole series of letters has been tabled but now I should like the House, under Standing Order 41 (2), to permit me to table them in translated form.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), to table the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974.
I wonder, on behalf of my colleague the President of the Treasury Board, if I could ask the unanimous consent of the House that the report of the Auditor General be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts at the earliest opportunity.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there is any significance in the fact that this report seems to have a red cover?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The suggestion has been made that the House give unanimous consent that the report referred to be referred to the standing committee. Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


TABLING OF REASSESSMENT OF TIDAL POWER DEVELOPMENT IN BAY OF FUNDY BY THE TIDAL POWER REVIEW BOARD
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to lay on the table a preliminary reassessment prepared by the Tidal Review Board with regard to the feasibility of tidal power development in the Bay of Fundy.

November 28, 1974


TEXTILE AND CLOTHING BOARD
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in both official languages copies of Textile and Clothing Board reports on broad woven polyester filament fabrics, double knit and warp knit fabrics and woven fabrics of nylon or filament rayon.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Bar be):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Many citizens of Canada who are unemployment insurance claimants and who are legitimately seeking employment in compliance with unemployment insurance regulations are being denied benefits as a result of lack of flexibility and compassion in realizing particular geographical problems and a lack of employment opportunities in certain areas of Canada, and as a result are being discriminated against by district officers who, through no fault of their own, must comply with government regulations which do not take account of the facts.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the government direct that the Unemployment Insurance Commissioner be dispatched with hardship pay to proceed to those rural districts in Canada to interview the many claimants who wonder about equality of opportunity for all Canadians, and that the matter be referred to the appropriate standing committee for debate and decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have sympathy with the proposal of the hon. member in the motion which he read pertaining to an important subject matter in this session. However, the provisions of Standing Order 43, I repeat, contain the specific words that the matter must be of urgent and pressing necessity. It seems to me that the contents of the motion refer to a situation which is not new but is rather a continuing difficulty. It has no element of urgent and pressing necessity at present. Accordingly, I must rule that although it is an important subject to be brought to the attention of the House, it does not conform with the requirements of urgent and pressing necessity contained in Standing Order 43.
Indian Affairs THE SENATE


SUGGESTION GOVERNMENT MEASURES BE INTRODUCED IN HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THAT SENATE BE ABOLISHED- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity and one that is new.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the fact that new government legislation has been introduced in the Senate with respect to the alteration of penalties for the possession and trafficking of marijuana, long awaited by the Canadian public, and in view of the fact that there is now ample evidence that this legislation will be further delayed in the Senate for intensive hearings in Committee, in spite of the four years study by the LeDain Commission and the expenditure of $4 million of public money in that study, and in view of the urgency that that legislation come before the House as soon as possible, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House request that government bills generally be initiated in this House and not in the Senate, and that the House request that government legislation be proposed to abolish the Senate for presentation to this House at the first opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I may have some grave reservations about the validity of the substantive part of the motion, but there is no doubt that the preamble makes it qualify for consideration pursuant to Standing Order 43. Accordingly, I ask whether there is unanimous consent that the motion be debated.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be debated at present.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the distressing economic situation of Indian bands, the inability to secure funds in the Hobbema area for economic development and the failure of the government to provide funds rightfully belonging to these bands, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the government take immediate steps to pay to the Indian bands their money in order that they will be able to honour their economic contracts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
28543-42%

Measure for Abolition of Court Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be debated at this time.
[DOT] * *


EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS IN PUBLIC SERVICE CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: that the second report of the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service, presented to the House Tuesday, November 26, 1974, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: for leave to introduce Bill C-38, respecting the office of the Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations and respecting the Clerk of the Privy Council.


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

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice) moved: first reading of Bill S-16 (from the Senate), to revise references to the Court of Queen's Bench of the Province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact it has been reported that the justification used by the federal Treasury Board for denying grain inspectors wage increases comparable to those given to grain handlers in Vancouver is based on the premise that the inspectors, who are federal employees, do work that is unrelated to the grain handlers who are employed by private grain companies, could the minister explain how this can in any way be considered logical? The federal government, by law, forced the private companies to pay an increase of between 54 per cent and 61 per cent, but now refuses to grant its own employees an equal increase to even one-quarter of the amount that was granted previously?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the grain inspectors have chosen to strike and they are perfectly entitled to do so. The board of conciliation presented both a majority report and a minority report. The latter, written out by a union representative, accomplished far less than the act passed last fall. I fail to see therefore why the Treasury Board should offer more than was suggested by the union representative to the conciliation board.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary for the President of the Treasury Board. In all sincerity I say to him that I do not believe the government is aware of the seriousness of the present situation. In talking with grain company officials in Winnipeg this morning it became apparent that we are faced with loss of sales in the next two or three days unless something positive is done. Since the grain industry is being brought to its knees because of the strike, may I ask the minister what positive and immediate measures the government is considering in order to get grain moving again or does it intend just to sit around and wait?
Mb'. Chretien: Mr. Speaker, the Parliament of Canada gave government employees the right to strike. I feel that it behoves us to respect that right as long as the Parliament of Canada does not withdraw it. That is why we asked a mediator to intervene this morning. We trust that we can achieve a settlement through standard procedures without being forced to withdraw the right to strike granted the public service by the Canadian Parliament.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Labour is absent, may I direct my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. The President of the Treasury Board indicated that he hopes that an agreement
November 28, 1974

will soon be reached. Has he any concrete information on which to base his belief that an agreement will be reached with the grain inspectors and that they will be back at work in a short time. If not, in view of the serious consequences to the total Canadian economy, is the government prepared to bring in emergency legislation, to order these people back to work?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the strike earlier this week, we are continually in touch with the unions. This morning, Mr. Finkelman has appointed a mediator and we hope he will be able to bring the two parties to an agreement, but I cannot predict what will happen in the future.


STRIKE OF GRAIN INSPECTORS-SUGGESTED RECALL FROM MEXICO OF MINISTER OF LABOUR
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Labour. As grain movements out of Canada have been virtually halted for the second time this year owing to the current grain inspectors' strike, and because approximately one million bushels of these shipments consist of famine relief supplies which are intended for starving nations, particularly Bangladesh, will the Prime Minister acknowledge the urgency of this matter by recalling the Minister of Labour from Mexico so that immediate action may be taken to ensure that grain movements return to normal as soon as possible.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the House will want to know, I am sure, that the minister is in Mexico attending the ILO conference, which even members on the opposite side may find important to Canada. The substance of the question has already been dealt with by the President of the Treasury Board, who has responsibility for this rather than the Minister of Labour. It has been dealt with, except to this extent: the question was inaccurate in that the hon. member did not realize that an exception was made for Bangladesh, to which country supplies are being sent.


TRANSPORT
Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister explain to the House how he expects to fulfil the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne concerning the upgrading of grain movement facilities if the grain transport system is continually plagued with labour disruptions which appear to be beyond the control of the government.
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. gentleman decided not to address a serious question to me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to tell me that flis party is ready to remove the right to strike from all those who are handling grain in Canada, I shall agree with him.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
Mt. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the $350 million winter capital works program fund which was set up in 1972 is now exhausted I ask, in view of the forecast that unemployment levels will increase this winter and in the coming spring, if the minister intends to add new funds to this capital works fund.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing this program. The momentum of this program will carry it forward until May 31, 1975. We hope to supplement it by providing some stimulation to the housing market and the construction industry. We hope this will remedy the situation which the hon. member has in mind.


PROVISION OF LOW INTEREST LOANS TO MUNICIPALITIES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SERVICES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the urgent need for municipal services, particularly the need for finances for services associated with the construction of housing, will the minister consider providing emergency low interest rate loans to municipalities so that they can provide services which are necessary for the construction of an increased number of housing units during the coming winter months.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt, because provinces exercise authority over the priorities under which the money is to be spent, that the winter capital works program in some provinces was directed to the infrastructure in municipal services. The hon. member will recall, of course, that the budget provides tax relief for sewage plants and municipal transport, and this should go some way to relieving that particular problem.

November 28, 1974
1746_____________________________
Oral Questions HOUSING


INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO INCREASE SUPPLY
John Edward Broadbent: Me Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question. The minister could have said simply no in reply to my last question. May I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. As the President of the Canadian Real Estate Association forecast a 10 per cent increase in house prices next year, and given the 30 per cent decline in housing starts this year that forecast is not unrealistic, has the minister any plans in addition to those which were announced in the budget for increasing the supply of housing, as this will be of decisive importance next year.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report of the President of the Canadian Real Estate Association, and perhaps he has not read my speeches. I think he is entitled to his view, which is held by some people. Nevertheless, I hope my programs will be sufficiently successful to ensure that we will prove him wrong, just as we have proved wrong some respected economic bodies. Certainly, we are concerned about the lower rate of starts. We are not satisfied with that. I outlined a range of programs in my speech on Monday; I hope the hon. member will read it, because he will see that there is a potential there for keeping housing starts high.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
The Quebec Minister of Immigration has just made public a report that he recently made a proposition to his federal counterpart to help settle the Haitian situation in Canada and to avoid similar ones in the future. Can the Minister of Manpower and Immigration inform the House of the nature of the proposal made by Mr. Bienvenue and what he intends to do in this regard?	.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I met with Mr. Bienvenue last Friday, I believe, and discussed the whole range of immigration questions, particularly immigration in Quebec. We did, of course, talk about the Haitian problem, but no specific proposal was made at that time and, unless he has sent me a communication subsequently which I have not received since that date, I cannot enlighten the hon. member further.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Minister of Finance. As the budget proposes removing the sales tax on heavy trucks, has the minister received urgent communications from a number of associations and dealers who are finding themselves left with heavy, specialized units on which many thousands of dollars of sales tax have already been paid and on which, in some instances, they may be forced to take a loss of over $100,000.


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received representations from members on both sides of the House. We are reviewing the situation again this afternoon.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. The minister may recall that there is ample precedent in the past for returning sales tax in these circumstances.


An hon. Member:: Under a Conservative government,
too.


TIDAL POWER FROM BAY OF FUNDY-POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THERMAL AND NUCLEAR POWER UNITS
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources relates to the review of Fundy tidal power which he tabled at two o'clock. May I preface my question by thanking the minister for the cooperation he has shown throughout the review and by tabling the report.
In line with the positive action which has been taken in relation to Funday tidal power development, is it the intention of the governments involved to consider the development of tidal power in conjunction with the possible development of thermal power from the Cumberland coalfields and the development of nuclear power from the proposed nuclear power station to be built at Point Lepreau, New Brunswick?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should like to thank the hon. member for his introductory remarks. As he notes, the tidal power project as contemplated in the reassessment would involve complementary thermal stations. One of the critical questions would be how large a market might be needed for tidal power in eastern Canada to make the project feasible. With respect to the possible coal deposits in Cumberland County, the federal government is presently financing, with the provincial government, an assessment of the coal resources of Nova Scotia outside Cape Breton Island. Any addition to the power grid in the near future, the likely addition of nuclear power at Point Lepreau and
November 28, 1974

possibly at some site in Nova Scotia would, of course, build up the over-all grid and make tidal power generation possible.


TIDAL POWER FROM BAY OF FUNDY-INVESTIGATION OF OTHER TIDAL POWER PROJECTS
Robert Carman Coates: My supplementary question relates to the method which will be used by the investigators over the next two years in determining the feasibility of constructing dams to harness the Bay of Fundy tides. Will those engaged in updating the information presently in existence with regard to tidal power production involve themselves in examination of the tidal power operation at La Ranee, France, on the Severn River in Great Britain and at Kislaya Bay where a Russian development is said to be taking place?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, those engaged in carrying out the further studies which are now the subject of discussion with the provincial governments would, I believe, wish to examine the systems which are already in place; they would like to follow the hon. gentleman's example by investigating them on the scene. Indeed, it might be desirable if he and I were to investigate the two sites he mentioned in the Soviet Union and Great Britain, though preferably at another time of year.


ESTABLISHMENT OF LONG-RANGE TRANSMISSION GRID- SUGGESTED INVESTIGATION OF WORK OF QUEBEC HYDRO AND NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North in thanking the minister for making the report available. My supplementary arises from the answer given by the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago on the subject of a long-range transmission grid. Could the hon. gentleman find out what Quebec Hydro and the National Research Council have been doing in connection with long range transmission so that the information going into the Prime Minister's Office can be updated in this respect?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I read the hon. gentleman's question. The principal obstacle to a nationwide grid lies not so much in Quebec as within the Province of Ontario-the linking of northwestern Ontario with the southern part of the province. Ontario Hydro has concluded that for the time being it is not to its advantage to link up the two systems. I can say that the report tabled today does indicate the desirability and the feasibility of better interconnection between the Atlantic provinces and the Province of Quebec in particular-an eastern grid. To a degree there is already such a connection accommodating Churchill Falls power, and the report brings closer the day when there will be further development of connections between those parts of the country.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The minister has touched upon the very point I am trying to
Oral Questions
make. When he has found out what Quebec Hydro and the National Research Council have done, would he also inform the government of Ontario of the progress which has been made?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would be glad to do so. However, Ontario Hydro is a very experienced and well-advised Crown corporation and I am sure the people there are up to date on these matters. However, I will make certain they are familiar with this additional research.


CHURCHILL FALLS POWER PROJECT-PROPOSED CABLE TUNNEL BETWEEN LABRADOR AND NEWFOUNDLAND
Jack Marshall: My question is to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. As a result of his reference to the Lower Churchill and the potential development of an alternate source of energy, would the minister indicate what progress is being made with the Province of Newfoundland as a result of implementing and building up that potential with regard to the transfer of the power, the submittance of the power between Labrador and Newfoundland through a cable tunnel? And if I do not get the chance to ask a supplementary-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Marshall: -has there been any indication that there could be terms of reference indicated to enlarge on the cable tunnel to ask for a cable and transmittal tunnel for transit vehicles?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the matter of a connection between Labrador and the island was the subject of discussion with the Newfoundland ministers several weeks ago here. At the moment we are discussing the question of interconnection both in relation to Churchill Falls power and also with respect to the possible development of some sites downstream, particularly at Gull Island. The difficulty is that the construction costs of the downstream sites would be very substantial and would present a considerable financing problem both to the federal and the provincial governments. In these circumstances I think it is not likely there will be provision for pedestrian or vehicular traffic between Labrador and the island in the very near future.


FINANCE
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In the budget address, the hon. gentleman said-and I quote- that he believed the tax cuts "can help to reduce prices and costs." Does the minister have an exact projection of the extent to which prices will be reduced, and, if so, what is it?

Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: I hope the hon. gentleman will look through the background material and get a wider perspective of that speech.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Having regard to the vagueness both of that answer and of the statement in the budget address, may I ask whether the minister is aware that the pamphlet "Budget in Brief" makes the bold statement: "Tax cuts will reduce prices." If so, would he tell the House just which we are to believe-his words in this chamber, or his pamphlets?
The pamphlet also says that the reduction in the sales tax "represents an average saving of about $650 per house". Speaking in this chamber, the minister said only that it would "contribute to moderation of prices". Does the statement in the pamphlet represent the government's position, and, if so, will the hon. gentleman tell us what means he intends to use to keep that promise?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the pamphlet "Budget in Brief" and the budget address are readily reconciliable. I hope that when we get to the committee stage the hon. member will be here to put that argument again and I can attempt to reply in the detail that it deserves.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-maybe a question of privilege. I find there are misleading statements in the pamphlet "Budget in Brief". I have found two fairly serious inconsistencies. First, on page eight, the pamphlet states:
It is estimated that at current rates about $1,100 in sales tax is paid on the building materials that go into an average home. The reduction of the tax therefore represents an average saving of about $650 per house.
In his budget address, the minister simply stated:
I am confident that this measure will add stimulus to the industry and will, at the same time, contribute to a moderation of prices for housing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: On page three of the pamphlet it is stated:
Tax cuts will reduce prices and costs directly or indirectly and increase the take-home pay of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just to show the minister I have read what he has said, let me point out that in the budget address he simply stated:
I believe the tax cuts can help to reduce prices and costs directly or indirectly, and thus slow down the upward movement of inflation.
Why isn't the minister honest with the House and the Canadian people?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has raised a point of order. The fact of the matter is that detailed questions about the budget could have been asked during the budget debate. Moreover, detailed submissions about the legislation to be proposed when those measures are before the committee of the whole-there is a series of budget bills to be considered. The questions put to the minister by the hon. member are related to the subject matter of those bills, yet they might have been acceptable because, at the

same time, they were connected with the speech made in the House by the Minister of Finance. In any case, I cannot find that the hon. member has a legitimate point of order.


SALES TAX ON AUTOMOBILES-APPLICABLE TO DATE OF ORDER OR DATE OF DELIVERY
Mr. Robert McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is further to the question asked by the hon. member for Edmonton West regarding the sales tax on trucks which might be on dealers' lots at the present time. Would the hon. gentleman give the House some information on this question and can he also tell us whether or not the new tax on automobiles that he is proposing will apply to new cars which were ordered but not yet delivered or whether it will apply as from delivery dates?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as I put it to the hon. member's colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West, I will try to deal with these points in reviewing the application of the sales tax on trucks as it affects inventory. As to the application of the additional surtax on high energy consuming vehicles, I will give the hon. gentleman more detail. We can go into the question in some amplitude when we get the bill before the House.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This is a very urgent matter. Dealers are selling cars and trucks every day and they would like to know the answer within
a day or two.


John Napier Turner: I will give the hon. gentleman some details of a more precise nature, but I always hesitate to give a precise interpretation of a Ways and Means motion just off the top of my head.


ALLEGED LACK OF TESTING OF NEW PRODUCTS- SUGGESTED USE OF ALL TESTING FACILITIES
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Why does the drug directorate of the health protection branch, or any other federal health agency, not test all new drugs coming on to the market?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there is a very good reason. If the directorate itself were to test, in the sense that the hon. member must mean, every single drug that comes on to the market, we would require a lab much larger than any lab presently existing in the country. It has always been our policy to require very elaborate and thorough investigation and testing of drugs on the part of private applicants, and these tests are then checked and verified by scientists of the health protection branch before permission to market is granted. This practice in this area is followed in most other countries.
November 28, 1974


Reginald Cyril Symes: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I find the minister's excuse rather shocking, and he is playing with the public's health in this regard. Let me ask the minister this. In fact the drug directorate makes only random samplings, and in 1973, 5 per cent of the drugs tested had to be withdrawn. Would the minister explore every avenue of drug testing, including private agencies, universities and so on, so that we do not have another thalidomide or similar drug disaster in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the health protection services of this country compare favourably with the health protection services of any other country in the world. So far as the hon. member's question is concerned, we are, of course, continually reviewing our policies in this respect and any means of improving them will be examined. If the hon. member has specific suggestions I will certainly take them into account.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question to the Prime Minister. In light of the apparent failure of our agricultural officials to discuss United States beef import quotas at the Washington meeting yesterday, will the Prime Minister assure the House that this subject will receive high priority at his upcoming meeting with President Ford on December 4?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to find out first what the results of the discussions yesterday were. I think the hon. member may be misinformed in saying that there was a failure to discuss them.


AGRICULTURE
John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I will direct to the Minister of Agriculture. On November 21, I believe, the Minister of Agriculture stated that he had started to look for countries that could use beef in food aid programs, and he was also looking for other programs which would ensure that the market was stabilized. What has been the minister's response to the proposals made by the National Farmers Union, and what other programs of this sort has he under consideration at the present time to help stabilize the beef and red meat industry?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, while at the world food conference we did discuss with countries in dire need of food aid whether they could use beef, and we were told on two occasions that they could not. We have been exploring other areas to find out whether we could use beef in countries other than
Oral Questions
those two, but we have not yet had any success. Last Friday afternoon I discussed with the president of the National Farmers Union their proposals, and they are being considered at this time along with several other proposals regarding what we should do.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. An article in yesterday's Montreal Gazette quotes the Minister of Justice as saying on the subject of abortion: "I don't think we should have a situation where, parliament having passed the law, we have it in any way widely abused". Would the Minister of Justice tell me whether he feels the same way on the issue of capital punishment?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that it is the view of this government that the appropriate approach to the law is to adhere to it in every respect in regard to all matters.


Benno Friesen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I will address to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister support the Minister of Justice in his point of
view?


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to my friend the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In light of the latest report that the maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit will rise to $123 on January 1, and in light of the fact that the Minister has indicated that these payments are unproductive, would the minister advise whether the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act are now prepared and, if so, when can we expect some priority to be given to the bill?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the unemployment insurance benefits paid were unproductive. I said that in my view they should be made more productive. I would be very glad to explain that to my hon. friend in some detail on the first available occasion. As for the amendments to the act, they will be forthcoming and will be presented to the House in due course.


REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF AMOUNT OF BENEFITS PAID IN 1974
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I see the former minister of labour is very concerned at the fact that I have asked

Oral Questions
that question, but notwithstanding that can the minister advise me whether he is in possession of any information which indicates that we are now in for another record year in terms of benefits paid out? If so, what is his prognosis in this regard?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am not judging the amount of benefits paid out in terms of making or breaking records or not making or breaking records. We pay out benefits to people who are entitled to them in relation to the terms and conditions of their unemployment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I know the former minister of labour dislikes my asking these questions, and I know that the minister of manpower is presently trying to evade my question, but I would ask him to answer it. Has the minister any idea what the benefit pay out will be in 1974? That is all I am asking and I know he has the answer.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is, not deliberately but inadvertently, misleading the House if he thinks that I have the answer to that right now off the top >f my head.


FINANCE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance regarding the extra tax on certain vehicles at a time when the manufacturing, wholesale and retail sectors of the marine industry are suffering from a severe recession. Would the minister explain to the House why he intends to impose such a discriminatory tax as the 10 per cent surcharge, which could bring the extra tax on an outboard motor boat which sold at $6,000 up to $600, whereas a high energy car which can sell for $10,000 to $12,000 would only be taxed on an extra 200 or 300 pounds, which means an extra tax of probably no more than $100?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the quarterly quota on hog exports to the United States will be filled by the end of this week, will the Minister of Agriculture inform the House what tentative plans he has made that will deal with this very serious situation?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we do not foresee any great difficulty in respect

of pork products. Arrangements and plans in respect of what we are going to do regarding pork products have not been finalized at the present time, but we are working on
them.


FINANCE
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, last night in the House the Prime Minister said, and I quote:
We have taken the steps we felt necessary to achieve our objective, consistent with maintaining a healthy industry.
The Prime Minister was referring to oil. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he had the new National Energy Board study on oil supplies before presenting the budget, and whether the studies used by his department in preparing the budget indicated that the exploration level for oil and gas as a result of the budget would increase, stay the same or decrease? I should also like to ask the minister if he will table these studies?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that question in some detail in reply to questions put to me yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps the hon. member would refer to those answers, and, if they do not satisfy him, he might put the question to me again tomorrow.


LEVEL OF ROYALTIES AT WHICH GOVERNMENT MIGHT CONSIDER DEDUCTIBILITY
Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of his reference twice yesterday in the House to a very high level of royalties eroding the federal tax base, and the statement by the Minister of Finance that the provinces have gone too far, implying that some lower level of provincial royalties might have been acceptable, would the government consider permitting the deductibility of royalties up to some level considered to be reasonable so that Canadians will not be faced with the possibility of freezing in the dark?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an interesting question, and if it had been asked by the premier of one of the provinces some months ago we might have come in with a different budget, although I do not know. Obviously, they did not want to act in that direction.


KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER OF REPORT OF ECONOMIC COUNCIL WHEN PREPARING BUDGET PROPOSALS DEALING WITH ROYALTIES
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question supplementary to that of the hon. member for Calgary South and along the lines of a question I asked yesterday. I should point out to the

Minister of Finance that in one chapter of this report it is stated:
The analysis in this chapter suggests that energy strategy should give great weight to the need to encourage exploration for oil and gas ...
I should like to ask whether the minister knew of the intention and recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada when he prepared his budget which included a tax on royalties as dealt with by the Prime Minister during his hour and a half speech yesterday?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that in specific terms in reply to the hon. gentleman yesterday. I can say to him that I had no advance consultation with the Economic Council of Canada in respect of the report. I might add that the Economic Council, by reason of its terms of reference in the statute setting it up, deals with medium and long-term economic prospects for Canada. Of course, members of the House and myself deal in the short-term as it affects these prospects.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, might I ask one further supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. mejnber, I think we have now gone beyond even representations on the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary South. In this instance not only is the same question being asked, but the hon. member is asking the same question he asked yesterday, and I think we ought to move on.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: 
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that meat inspectors and other officers who deal with primary commodities are not on strike. For the time being, only grain inspectors are. Yesterday, some officers left work, but I am advised that they are back on the job today. Anyway, non-designated employees among the 2,300 primary commodities inspectors have the right to strike, since it is a right which was given to them under a parliamentary legislation.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the graders were out on strike yesterday and the inspectors are working to rule, which jeopardizes production in the
Oral Questions
red meat industry, will the President of the Treasury Board agree that if Mr. Finkelman does not resolve this problem within a few days he will appoint a new mediator?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I was aware that the hon. member was going to ask this question, and a mediator was appointed this morning.


STRIKE OF GRAIN INSPECTORS-PROSPECTS FOR SETTLEMENT IN VIEW OF SIZE OF SETTLEMENT FOR GRAIN HANDLERS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we now have a double standard in labour negotiations that has been perpetuated by this government, does the President of the Treasury Board not feel that until a satisfactory explanation is made in respect of the two offers, and I refer to the grain handlers, or until that discrepancy is resolved, the prospects of reaching a resolution to this strike will be severely inhibited?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there are well known procedures to solve labour conflicts in Canada. As regards those inspectors, as I have said earlier, a conciliation board has presented a report. The majority report has not been accepted by the workers, but I must say that the minority report, as proposed by the union representative, did not even claim as much as the grain handlers have received.


REQUEST FOR CANCELLATION OF SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO ARGENTINE-SUGGESTION NO FURTHER SALES BE MADE IN VIEW OF LACK OF SAFEGUARDS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has indicated that the government of Canada is seeking safeguards from the government of Argentina prior to the disbursement of the Cabinet-approved ECD loan of more than $129 million for the construction of a Candu reactor in Argentia. In light of the highly volatile political situation in that country and the very obvious instability of the present Argentine government, will the Prime Minister inform the House whether he is going to cancel the sale of the Candu to Argentina?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the House that this matter is under consideration at the present time, and I will take the question of the hon. member by way of representation.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister is doing that would he also consider that, in view of the fact there can be no safeguards when providing other countries with this nuclear potential, this kind of sale

November 28, 1974
Oral Questions
should not be entered into even though it might provide a number of jobs for Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the premise of the question which is, if I understood it well, that there are no safeguards that can be provided. That is not the government's view. In the past we have applied safeguards, and the government is presently increasing the strength of those safeguards. To take the attitude of the hon. member would mean that Canada would sit on this very advanced technology and not be willing to share even its benefits with some of the countries of the world that do not have our advantages.



FINANCE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the Minister of Finance will say categorically that on March 27 of this year he was considering changes to the Income Tax Act which would disallow the deductibility of provincial royalties?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister said in his speech yesterday, we made it clear to the provinces in advance of the conference that we were disturbed about unilateral action in the way of royalties and other techniques on the part of the provinces which would erode the federal tax base. At that time we were exploring a number of avenues, but we had not arrived at a decision as to the best method to follow.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, had the minister made known to the Prime Minister that he was contemplating income tax amendments of that nature so that the Prime Minister would have known of that on March 27?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said quite categorically we were exploring a number of avenues in order to preserve the federal base, but I had made no final decision at that time. I advised the Prime Minister, and he communicated to the provinces, that we should put them on guard against unilateral use of the royalty technique to erode the federal base. That was communicated, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, both in writing and verbally to the two premiers concerned.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.

On November 18, I asked him what he would do to assist the textile industry. Since the situation is still very critical owing to massive imports and numerous layoffs, I would like to know, following the presentation made this afternoon of the Textile and Clothing Board's report, what immediate action he intends to take to deal with that urgent situation?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I tabled the three reports to which the hon. member referred today. The government is accepting the recommendations of those reports. These provide for restraint measures in respect of those products covered by those reports except for nylon fabrics. In respect of nylon fabrics we have already, two days ago, entered into negotiations with the Republic of Korea aimed at reaching a restraint agreement. We have under international rules an expectation that we should be able to get it within 60 days.
If, however, during that 60-day period it appears that we are not making progress then we can under international rules obtain an emergency provision which would give us a restraint agreement in seven days. The other point I should like to make is that since those reports were written and submitted by the Textile and Clothing Board there has been a deterioration in the textile industry in Canada occasioned by international competitive practices, and in view of that I instructed the Textile Board to make a review of the situation and report to me at an early date.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It is understood that the minister submitted his alternative courses of action for his department to cabinet on November 21. Can he inform the House when he expects a decision from that august body. I do not want the answer to a day but within a week or so.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the financing of the defence program has been under consideration by cabinet for several weeks and at a number of meetings. The estimates will be required to be known within the next two weeks.
*  *



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. John Reynolds (Bumaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General regarding a statement made by Mr. Mullins of the Justice Department last Friday in Vancouver. Mr. Mullins was quoted as saying that the RCMP lost 20 pounds of heroin while under their surveillance. I wonder if the Solicitor
November 28, 1974

General can advise the House whether it is the policy of the RCMP to buy heroin to use in their own trading or whether the heroin used in this case was heroin which was taken out of the drug lock-up in the city of Vancouver?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement referred to by the hon. member. I would have to check that out and reply to him later.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister decided when he will return the proportion of the export tax to the Indian bands which produce that oil and whether the government will pay interest because of the lateness of the return?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter under discussion with the province of Alberta.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rocky Mountain.
 * *



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
EMPLOYMENT OF REN£ MANTHA BY FIRM UNDER CIDA- REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me. On October 24, again on October 28 and on November 5, I asked the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs for a full report as to the relations between the Government of Canada and Mr. Rene Mantha, mentioned in the inquiry before the Cliche Commission, with particular reference to any application by Mr. Mantha for a full pardon or for subsequent employment by a company under contract to CIDA and to indicate the specific nature of any intervention on behalf of Mr. Mantha by Paul Desrochers or any official of the Quebec Federation of Labour or by any present or former member of the office staff of the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can tell us why that report has not been made and when it will be made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear every bit of the question because it had not been addressed to me at the outset, but if it deals with the matter I heard at the end, it is a question of which I took notice on behalf of the minister and I think the member might well be advised to ask the minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: 
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my answer was that I did not know and that I would take notice of the question on behalf of the minister. The minister was out of the country on government business. He is out of the House on government business and the member might obtain permission to ask him when he comes back.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At this stage of the proceedings yesterday when we were dealing with House business for ensuing days and weeks I asked the President of the Privy Council if he could indicate when two bills would be presented, first a bill by the Minister of Transport having to do with requiring the railways to disclose their freight cost structures and second a bill by the Minister of Veterans Affairs having to do with Hong Kong Veterans. Yesterday the minister said he would get the answer as quickly as possible. I wonder whether he can give that information today.


Mr. Sharp:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the Minister of Transport is in the throes of drafting the particular bill and it will be presented soon. The bad news is that my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs is studying the proposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What do we do to get the Minister of Veterans Affairs "into the throes"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain on a point of order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago the Prime Minister suggested that I might ask permission to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he returned to the House from government business. My question to the Prime Minister and twice before to the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Whether it be suggested by the Prime Minister or not, the fact of the matter is that the question period has come to an end. I do not know whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs might have some pertinent information he might add, but if so he might want to do that. Otherwise we will go on with orders of the day.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, sometime ago the hon. member asked about Mr. Mantha. The fact is that for some days or some period after the information had been available the hon. member was not in the House.

Federal Business Development Bank Act
I do not complain about that. As I recollect, his question was: what status did Mr. Mantha have with respect to a CIDA project. He is not directly employed by CIDA. He is employed by a contractor in a CIDA project. As I understand it, prior to his going to Zaire the clearance had been given to him as a qualified person. But since he has returned, he is not on the project.


Charles Joseph Clark: That was half an answer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-14, to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) has on the order paper an amendment at this stage of the bill pertaining to the definition clause. I am sure the hon. member is aware of the fact that the Chair has some very grave reservations about the procedural regularity of the amendment. However, in view of the fact that the amendment would appear to add a totally new clause to the definition section, which in turn would add a totally new principle or concept to the application of the bill as a whole and therefore would offend one or two basic rules pertinent to amendments at this stage, I would not want to make a final ruling without giving the hon. member an opportunity to defend his amendment from a procedural point of view.
It seems to me that an amendment which adds to the definition clause of a bill a definition which was not contemplated in the original drafting of the bill, thereby seeking not simply to clarify the definition section but to limit the application of the bill to the kind of activity that is defined by the proposed amendment, would go not only beyond the scope of the clause under consideration but would probably be outside the principle and scope of the bill itself. Under those circumstances, I have grave reservations about the amendment, but I will be pleased to hear from any hon. member who wishes to contribute to the procedural point before we continue.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have not prepared myself to speak to the amendment which I tabled some three weeks ago before the bill went to committee, and it had been tabled for over two weeks in the House. The first suggestion that there is a procedural problem with respect to it was made thirty seconds ago by Your Honour. I had no notification from the Clerk. This
leaves me in the difficult position of trying to bring forward precedents in defending the amendment.
However, I respectfully submit that a bill which defines a business enterprise and provides that money will be lent to business enterprises in Canada restricts, to a certain degree, what a business enterprise is. Therefore, the amendment is in no way outside the scope and intent of the bill. This is a very wide bill which sets up a new bank. Surely, in setting up a new bank we may in some way try to influence the direction the bank will take. The evidence in the committee was that 1 per cent or 2 per cent of the bank's funds might be affected by this amendment, so it can hardly be suggested that this amendment goes too far in restricting the bill or its scope.
This amendment would not affect taxes or government expenditures. It is merely deals with the definition of a business enterprise to which the bank may lend funds. Surely members of the House of Commons have the obligation and the right to express their views on a matter of this nature. I would point out that I find myself in a difficult position in having to defend the amendment after it has been in circulation both in the committee and the House for five weeks, everybody having accepted it and debated it as well as voting on it in the committee. Only a few minutes ago I learned, for the first time, that the amendment was challenged and now I have to be an instant expert on the matter. I regret that I cannot be an instant expert, and I hope we will be allowed to debate the substance of the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It may be suggested that we reserve consideration of this amendment and proceed to the consideration of two others that will be put before us, if the hon. member wants time to prepare himself to defend the procedural aspects of his proposed amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in case I am not in the chamber at the time of the debate on this amendment, may I point out to the Chair that if Your Honour examines the recommendation-which of course is not binding by itself-it is written in very wide and vague terms and I suggest there is nothing in the recommendation which would inhibit the hon. member in bringing forward his amendment. I have not had time to review the bill, but I studied it when it was before the House for second reading. I would call the attention of the Chair to clause 4 of the bill which deals with the objects of the corporation. It reads:
The objects of the corporation are to promote and assist in the establishment and development of business enterprises in Canada-
Under the interpretation section of any statute the words "business enterprises in Canada" would receive the widest possible latitude and interpretation. The hon. member has sought, by his amendment, to give some meaning to that term. It lies within the competence of the government to interpret the term "business enterprises in Canada". Perhaps the government, for reasons best known to itself, said: We will not interpret "business enterprises in Canada"; we will leave that interpretation to the minister, to the courts, or to some vague, indefinite group of people.
However, when you have a statute which presumably is of a remedial nature-we must assume that every statute

November 28, 1974

tends to remedy some defect or to provide some cure for a problem which has existed-a statute which, in the terms of this enactment, would incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank, and certain definitions are given but there is complete silence as to the intent of the government with regard to business enterprises in Canada, then we must admit that the legislation is wide open. Surely it is possible, under these conditions, for any hon. member to give a more precise interpretation to the term used in the bill.
I would agree 100 per cent with Your Honour if the bill had gone on to say that "business enterprises in Canada" means certain specific types of business enterprises and the recommendation of His Excellency contained such limited description. In that case, the hon. member would find great difficulty in convincing me and convincing the Chair that the amendment should provide the benefits under this legislation, that is, the expenditure of money, to organizations outside those limited by the definition clause of the bill. There being no such definition in the bill, we are left with the words "business enterprises in Canada", and I would assume it is competent for any member of this House to try to place a definition upon that phrase.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his contribution. I propose to hear other hon. members in order to resolve my difficulty. I wonder if hon. members, in contributing to this point, would direct themselves not only to the question, as they have, of whether the proposed amendment is contrary to the basic principle of the bill- in other words, establishing that the application of the bill would be restricted to strictly Canadian corporations, as opposed to having wide application in its original intent- but also to the basic problem of whether, even accepting that the amendment is permissible-and I have some doubt there-it is proper to endeavour to do what is sought by changing the definition clause.
What is happening here, it seems to me, is that by changing the definition clause an attempt is being made to make a very important, substantive change to the basic principle of the legislation. Surely that is not the basic nature of the definition clause. Such a change, if it is to be made by way of an amendment, ought to be put forward, it seems to me, in the form of a substantive amendment to the basic principle of the bill and a series of consequent amendments to all the applications of the bill. So my problem is not simply that the amendment seems to be contrary to the principle of the bill but, rather, that it also goes far beyond the scope of the clause in question, being a simple definition clause as opposed to a substantive clause.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, your suggestion that perhaps we should stand this item and go on to the next three amendments is acceptable. It takes me a little by surprise that there should be any question of the admissibility of this amendment. I would point out, however, that not only is the question of business enterprises referred to in the clause discussed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), but it also occurs in clause 20(1)(a). Listed among the powers of this corporation is
Federal Business Development Bank Act
the power, in effect, to lend money to a person who is engaged or about to be engaged in a business enterprise in Canada.
This question was discussed in committee and there seemed to be considerable doubt about what was meant by the term "business enterprises in Canada". There was the suggestion that it should be defined so as to make it clear that it was a small business enterprise. We hesitated to suggest that type of amendment because in today's inflationary world one might say a $200,000 company is a small business. However, there was no suggestion in committee that to define a small business enterprise as having to be Canadian, in the sense that it did not have foreign-ownership content, would be out of order.
I would point out that in the Industrial Development Bank Act, which is chapter 1(9) of the Statutes of Canada, the term used which is comparable to the one we are considering is "industrial enterprise in Canada". In that act "industrial enterprise" is defined. Frankly, I think the draftsman of the bill before us simply overlooked or omitted giving a definition. I think it would be much better draftmanship to define exactly what is meant by "business enterprises in Canada" in this bill, in the same way as the act defines "industrial enterprise in Canada".


Alastair William Gillespie: I have just a couple of points, Mr. Speaker. I should like, first, to deal with clause 4 which the Conservative House leader referred to in building a case to the effect that this amendment should be admitted. He referred to the words "and assist in the establishment and development of business enterprises in Canada" and spoke about the corporate objectives of the Federal Business Development Bank. Clause 4(1) reads:
-of business enterprises in Canada by providing, in the manner and to the extent authorized by this act, financial assistance, management counselling-
The key phrase is "business enterprises in Canada". I would argue that indeed the amendment is restrictive because it clearly would change the importance attached to that phrase and substitute something quite different, that is, an enterprise controlled in a shareholder sense by Canadians. It would restrict from the operation of the Federal Business Development Bank business enterprises which are operating in Canada, which are employing Canadians, which are managed by Canadians, which are paying Canadian taxes and which are using Canadian materials. I would argue that the change proposed by the hon. member is a substantive one, and for that reason I support the submission that the amendment is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There have been suggestions that we should defer consideration of this amendment. The Chair would be prepared to accede to that suggestion or, alternatively, to deal with the matter at once. Is it possible that the House might be agreeable to proceeding to consideration of motions Nos. 2 and 3, allowing this matter to stand for a few minutes for further consideration. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Federal Business Development Bank Act


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I make a suggestion? We do not need to take up the time of the House unnecessarily. If the first part of our argument has any appeal at all to the Chair, so that there may be a possibility that for the reasons advanced some means could be found of making an amendment of this kind, but that procedural-ly-and I can see the Chair's point there-it is quite impossible to place this amendment within the four corners of the definition clause, we could give some thought to an alternative form of amendment which might place the proposal of my hon. friend somewhere else in the bill and consequential amendments could be made.
In those circumstances, if the Chair is convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that any attempt by a private member to give some meaning to the words "business enterprises in Canada" is objectionable ab initio; that is it. On the other hand, however, if that is a surmountable objection I think the Chair might have a problem. If it is mainly a matter of taking this amendment, placing it elsewhere in the bill and adding a clause when the consequential amendment is made, then we can be devoting our ingenuity and time to doing that.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his latter contribution particularly. Frankly, the aspect of this matter that disturbs me is that the hon. member was caught by surprise in respect of the procedural acceptability of his amendment. That leaves the House in the position that not only the hon. member who proposed the amendment, but many other hon. members who looked at the amendment and thought it would perhaps give them the opportunity to express themselves on this very important point, might now be deprived of that opportunity, and because of the notice requirement would be deprived for all time from making this kind of amendment in that procedural form.
To a certain extent, rather than making bad law by accepting the amendment in a form in which it ought not to be accepted, I would rather go back to the last point of view expressed and, if possible, permit another amendment, a proper amendment, to be put. This would have to be done with the consent of the House, however, because the notice provisions would have to be abridged. I wonder if the House is now in a position to give its consent to waiving the notice provisions in respect of the introduction of this amendment in another form at, perhaps, eight o'clock this evening. Would that be agreeable?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, before we consider that point may I draw to your attention that this particular amendment is not new to the members of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. The hon. member advanced this amendment and the committee considered it and rejected it. There has been an opportunity already for members of the committee to argue the point. It was fully argued and, of course, is covered in the proceedings of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: That is exactly the point: I am anxious that members of this House have an opportunity to do what was done in the committee, if at all possible. Quite frankly, I am reluctant to do it by accepting an amendment to a definition clause when I feel very strongly that it ought not to be in there but should be somewhere else. If

the hon. member could indicate that he would be prepared to have his amendment ready for eight o'clock, and if the House would give its consent to retabling it, I think that might take us out of a rather awkward procedural position. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: We could proceed to the consideration of motions numbered 2 and 3. It seems to me that motions Nos. 2 and 3 are similar in purport and priority might be given to motion No. 2, standing in the name of the minister, as it was received first by the table. It might be open to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) to propose part or all of his motion as an amendment to motion No. 2. On the other hand, motions 2 and 3 might be discussed together but a favourable vote on motion No. 2 must, of necessity, dispose of motion No. 3. It is suggested that motion No. 4 be considered on its own and in the usual way.


Alastair William Gillespie: That Bill C-14, an act to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank, be amended by striking out lines 28 to 42, inclusive, on page 15 and substituting the following:
"36.(1) In this section,
"applicant" means a person who applies to the corporation for assistance in the form of a loan, guarantee, underwriting agreement, purchase or lease;
"interested person" means
(a)	a director of the corporation or a member of a council
(b)	the spouse or a child, brother, sister or parent of a director or a member of a council, or
(c)	the spouse of a child, brother, sister or parent of a director or a member of a council;
"member of a council" means a member of a council appointed under subsection 16(1).
(2)	Every applicant shall disclose in writing to the corporation in an application for assistance whether that applicant is an interested person, or where the applicant is a firm or corporation, whether a partner of that firm or a director or officer of that corporation, as the case may be, is an interested person.
(3)	Where an applicant discloses in an application for assistance that the applicant is an interested person or, where the applicant is a firm or corporation, that a partner of that firm or a director or officer of that corporation, as the case may be, is an interested person, the application shall be submitted to the board for approval before an agreement to provide such assistance is entered into by the corporation.
(4)	A director shall not vote on a resolution relating to, or be present at a meeting of the board during the time at the meeting when the board is considering, an application submitted to it under subsection (3) if the application is from
(a)	that director,
(b)	a person related to that director in a degree of relationship described in paragraph (b) or (c) of the definition "interested person" in subsection (1),
(c)	a firm or corporation of which that director is a partner, shareholder, director or officer, as the case may be; or
(d)	a firm or corporation of which a person referred to
November 28, 1974

in paragraph (b) is a partner, director or officer, as the case may be.
(5)	The amount of each agreement approved by the board under subsection (3) and the name of the person, firm or corporation with whom the agreement is entered into shall be included in the annual report that the corporation is required to submit under subsection 75(3) of the Financial Administration Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in committee there was considerable discussion about provisions dealing with potential conflict of interest situations. I undertook in the committee to bring before the House new language which would meet some legitimate concerns. The amendment before the House may be further improved. I believe the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) also wishes to present other amendments to the House.
The main purpose of this amendment is to incorporate in Bill C-14 the proposal made in committee on November 12, namely, that it shall be made a requirement of the act that every application for financial assistance that involves a director or a member of a regional advisory council of the corporation, or a person related to that director or member, be submitted to the board for approval and that information regarding the total amount of assistance given by the corporation under such circumstances be reported in the corporation's annual report. The amendment, I believe, also accomplishes the following: it corrects a weakness in the present wording of clause 36. As clause 36 now reads, a director is prohibited from voting on a resolution relation to a transaction with the bank that involves either that director or a firm or corporation of which that director, or one of the relatives referred to in paragraph (b) or (c) of clause 36, is a partner or shareholder. But that director is not prohibited from voting on a resolution relating to a transaction with the bank that involves any of those relatives acting in a personal capacity. This omission is remedied by the inclusion of subclause (4)(b) of the proposed amendment.
Second, it reinforces the requirement that a director must not vote on a resolution relating to a transaction involving a corporation of which that director is a shareholder, by adding the further requirement that he cannot vote if he is a director or officer of that corporation. The added words "director or officer" will be found in subclause (4)(c). Third, it adds a reference to assistance in the form of a lease, which did not appear in clause 36. This will be found in the definition of "applicant" in subclause (1) of the amendment.
It should be noted that in subclause (2) of the amendment, a corporation that applies to the bank for financial assistance is required to disclose whether a director or officer of that corporation is an interested person, but the corporation is not required to disclose whether a shareholder of the corporation is an interested person. I think further improvements can be made in this area, as previously indicated. Similarly, in subclause (4) (d) of the amendment the word "shareholder" has been omitted, since a director of the bank cannot be expected to know the names of all the companies in which any one of the persons related to him has shares. That was our original view but on second thought we saw that it was not a strong argument. For that reason the hon. member for Gatineau will be proposing an amendment.
Federal Business Development Bank Act
I understood Your Honour to say that we should speak to both motion No. 2 and motion No. 3. If that is correct, may I make a general statement on motion No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). In my view, the motion which has been proposed by the government, as well as the amendment to be offered by the hon. member for Gatineau, cover the problem areas which we dealt with in committee. For that reason I believe motion No. 3 to be redundant: I believe we have fully covered the concern expressed by its mover. Motion No. 2 fully deals with the situation of a director having an interest in a loan being required to disclose that interest.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if I may deal with motions Nos. 2 and 3 together, in accordance with Your Honour's direction, let me say I was surprised to hear the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) suggest that motion No. 2, the government's proposal encompasses motion No. 3. Actually, both motions are different in purport. Motion No. 2, as I understand it, provides that a director of the Federal Business Development Bank may borrow from the bank provided the loan is cleared at the board level and, second, the loan must be disclosed to those involved. On the other hand, motion No. 3 states categorically that the following shall not be granted a loan:
(a)	(i) a director or a member of a regional advisory council
(ii)	the spouse or a child, brother, sister or parent of a director or a member of a regional advisory council or
(iii)	the spouse of a child, brother, sister or parent of a director or member of a regional advisory council, or
(b)	a firm or corporation in which the beneficial interest of any
person or persons described in paragraph (a) exceeds 50 per cent
individually or collectively ...
The fundamental question is, should the bank, which is really a newly constituted Industrial Development Bank, be allowed in any circumstances to lend moneys to a director? A serious question of principle is involved. Chapter 1-9 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, under which the Industrial Development Bank is incorporated, provides for the board of directors of the bank to include the board of directors of the Bank of Canada and the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I mention that because the Industrial Development Bank is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank of Canada and because the directors of the Bank of Canada, in turn, sit on the board of the Industrial Development Bank, as well as the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
The new bank which is to be established by Bill C-14 is to be differently constituted. First, the new bank will come under the aegis of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce; second, the Bank of Canada will no longer be directly connected with the new bank. Further, ten persons from outside the public service of Canada will be selected to sit as directors of the new bank. In addition, the president and four other persons from the public service of Canada will be included on the board. As well, regional councillors from various regions of Canada are to be appointed as the governor in council shall decide. These could be five to ten in number, depending upon the number of regions designated.

Federal Business Development Bank Act
The bill provides that not more than 12 members can sit on this regional advisory council, so it might easily be that 50 or 60 members could be involved in a possible conflict of interest since they would be entitled to borrow from the new bank. I might mention that under the Bank of Canada Act it is specifically laid down that the directors must divest themselves of all interests which appear to be in conflict with their role as directors of that bank. For example, they are required to divest themselves of any connection they may have with an investment dealer who in turn deals with the Bank of Canada; they are expected to relinquish any interest they might have in a brokerage firm or any other bank.
I mention this because I believe it illustrates the manner in which earlier parliaments, in their wisdom, chose to make the board of the Bank of Canada a very isolated board to ensure against the possibility of any conflict of interest arising. I would point out, too, that the Industrial Development Bank is wholly owned by the Bank of Canada and that the directors of the IDB at the present time are also directors of the Bank of Canada. In any case, the existing legislation was framed to ensure that there would be no conflict of interest and, indeed, there has been no conflict of interest under the existing law with respect to the Industrial Development Bank and the Bank of Canada.
However, under the bill before us today, not only may we surmise that there is a possibility that loans may be made to directors but, as set out in clause 36, we find there is specific provision for such an eventuality. The clause provides:
A director shall not vote on a resolution relating to, or be present at a meeting of the board during the time at the meeting when the board is considering, a loan to, a guarantee to, a guarantee of a loan to, an underwriting agreement with, or a purchase from, that director or a firm or corporation of which
(a)	that director
(b)	the spouse or child, brother, sister or parent of that director, or
(c)	the spouse of a child, brother, sister or parent of that director, is a partner, or shareholder, as the case may be.
The point I am making is that the bill before us is very different from the Industrial Development Bank Act presently on the statute books. There is no suggestion there that a director should have the right to borrow from that bank. In fact, the reverse is the case. In the bill before us, on the other hand, we even find a formula set out as to the manner in which a director should handle the question of conflict of interest if he wishes to borrow from the bank.
This is why we challenged the whole concept in committee. I would remind hon. members that we are dealing with a bank which is, after all, a subsidized bank owned by the people of Canada, a bank which is supposed to be devoted to helping small business in this country. There ought not to be the slightest suggestion that those who are honoured by appointments to the board of that bank, or who act as members of a regional council, should feel they are able to borrow from the bank. Surely this is a very strange and dangerous example to be setting for Crown corporations in this country.

Replying to our arguments in the committee, the minister suggested he would attempt to rectify the situation, not by prohibiting loans to directors or councillors but by seeing it was done in such a way that people would know what was happening. I agree that if he is to allow these loans to be made, it would be preferable not to proceed in a secretive way. But why should this practice be permitted at all? We, as members of parliament, are being asked to endorse the creation of a new bank, supposedly to help small business. Its assets will amount to $2.2 billion. At the same time, we are being asked to agree that those who sit on the board should have the privilege of borrowing any amount of funds from the bank. In preparing the bill which is now before us, the minister apparently felt that any suggestion of conflict of interest should be avoided with respect to the president of the bank. In clause 13 we read:
Where a person who is appointed as president has
(a)	a direct or indirect ownership of any shares in a lending institution or in a company authorized to provide management counselling,
or
(b)	a pecuniary or proprietary interest in a business firm that
provides management counselling,
He shall divest himself of that ownership or interest within three months-
And so on. Why should it be fitting to cover that type of conflict of interest while setting up, in another clause, a framework, an apparatus which may be used by another 50 people to borrow from the very bank we are entrusting them to run? I think it is shameful that the government should be suggesting such a thing. I urge hon. members to break party ranks and show that they will not tolerate any further suggestion of conflict of interest at such a level.
Surely the least we can do when incorporating a bank such as this, a state intrusion into the private banking sector, is to ask that the directors who accept the honour of being directors of the bank shall accept, also, the fact that they may not wheel and deal with the Federal Business Development Bank, as it will be known, while at the same time acting as directors. Surely this is not an unreasonable request, and I am startled that the minister and, presumably, the government should persist in trying to force this type of legislation through the House.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy the minister has at last seen fit to come forward with motion No. 2 after what happened in committee. This is certainly a stricter provision than the one to which objection was taken. I wish to associate myself with the observations of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) with regard to motion No. 3. I do not know why we should leave open the possibility of conflict of interest. The motion gives us a definition of "interested person" and goes on to say that an interested person may apply for a loan, or for financing, but that if he is a director or a member of the council he shall not participate in a vote or be present at a meeting which might result in a loan or financial assistance being given to himself or his spouse or certain other persons related to him.
I think the time has come in this country, especially in view of what has happened in the past few weeks in

regard to a number of instances involving clear conflict of interest, when we as parliamentarians should say very clearly and succinctly that certain people shall not participate in the benefits of a federal program if they themselves are determining who should get the benefits of the program. In this case, the directors of the Federal Business Development Bank, the people sitting on the council, and their spouses, in my opinion should not be able to get the benefits of the legislation that is before us.
I strongly urge members of the House to look very closely at motion No. 3, which sets out explicitly those people who will not participate in receiving benefits from the legislation. The motion names the people concerned- for example, a director of the council, the spouse or child, brother, sister, or parent of a director, and so on. I think we should not hesitate to take this step. I hope that when the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) moves his motion, he will bring us closer together than motion No. 2, presently suggests. In closing, may I say I am glad the legislation is before the House. I am happy to see the federal government, through an agency like a Crown corporation, competing in the banking field with private banks. This is long past due and we should expand this concept rather than be cautious about it.


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I join the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) in commending the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) on his motion No. 3 which is clearly a step in the right direction. Because of the concern many Canadians have expressed over the last while-a concern many members of the House have expressed-about the question of conflict of interest, this House has the responsibility of ensuring that everything possible is done to prevent conflict of interest on the part of members of parliament or public servants.
I have been dismayed over the past few days, in the discussions we have had with respect to conflict of interest, to discover that the government's attitude is that any substantive action taken by the House to try to restrict or reduce conflict of interest is against the wishes of the government, whether this action be by legislation relating to members of parliament, regulations relating to civil servants or to people in Crown corporations such as the one under discussion.
The minister's proposal in motion No. 2 would simply institutionalize conflict of interest as opposed to forbidding it. I do not think it is too much to ask of people who have the honour to serve an agency such as this that they be as clean as possible-as clean as a hound's tooth. It is not good enough to suggest that, when these people are involved in questions of conflict of interest, the facts should be pointed out publicly; it is important that the conflict be prevented entirely.
As I say, it is an honour to be associated with such an agency so I do not think it is asking too much of people who would be so honoured to maintain minimal standards of behaviour with respect to conflict of interest. I point out to the minister that there are 22 million people in this country, so he should not have great difficulty in finding persons willing to serve who have not had any dealings with the bank. I think it is a rather shocking situation if the minister is suggesting that it is very difficult to get
Federal Business Development Bank Act
people free of possible conflict of interest to serve on the board and the only people who would want to serve would have a conflict of interest.
As I say, I do not think the hon. member for York-Simcoe is in any vyay asking too much. As he pointed out, some $2.2 billion worth of assets of the bank will be controlled and I think the public is justifiably concerned about how this will be done. The hon. member was also quite correct in pointing out that there is a double standard that the minister would institutionalize, that of requiring the president of the bank to divest himself of any holdings of the bank or business that might involve conflict of interest, but not requiring this of other people who serve with him. That is an anomaly I cannot understand.
The confidence of the public and the integrity of people who serve in public institutions are very frail and fragile tissues which are easily torn apart. My regret is that the government, in its actions both with respect to the legislation now before us and other proposals dealing with conflict of interest, has taken action that can only exacerbate the problem we have, that can only serve to destroy people's confidence in our public institutions and bring into question the integrity of people who serve either in the public service or in our parliament. I strongly urge the members of this House to support motion No. 3 moved by the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I support motion No. 3 wholeheartedly, and in doing so I should like to say a few words. First of all, I am rather shocked-


Mr. Deputy  Speedier@: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member would allow me at this time-this should have been done earlier-to read motion No. 3 into the record. We are moving from one motion to another and only motion No. 2 has been put on the record. People reading Hansard will then be able to refer to motion No. 3 more directly. So, with the consent of the House, I will put motion No. 3.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) moves:
That Bill C-14, an act to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank, be amended by deleting lines 28 to 42 at page 15, being clause 36, and substituting the following:
"36. (1) The corporation shall not make a loan to, a guarantee to, a guarantee of a loan to, an underwriting agreement with, or a purchase from
(a)	(i) a director or a member of a regional advisory council
(ii)	the spouse or a child, brother, sister or parent of a director or a member of a regional advisory council, or
(iii)	the spouse of a child, brother sister or parent of a director or member of a regional advisory council, or
(b)	a firm or corporation in which the beneficial interest of any person or persons described in paragraph (a) exceeds 50 per cent individually or collectively.
(2)	A director shall not vote on a resolution relating to, or be present at a meeting of the board during the time at the meeting when the board is considering, a loan to, a guarantee to, a guarantee of a loan to, an underwriting agreement with, or a purchase from a firm or corporation in which the beneficial interest of that director or any person described in subparagraph 36(l)(a)(ii) or (iii), as the case may be, does not exceed 50 per cent individually or collectively.

November 28, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank Act
(3)	Any loan, guarantee, underwriting agreement or purchase under subsection (2) may only be made by the corporation if authorized and approved by the board.
(4)	The corporation shall list in a schedule to its annual report made under the Financial Administration Act every loan to, guarantee to, guarantee of a loan to, underwriting agreement with, or purchase from a person, firm or corporation described in this section with the particulars in each such case."


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed a portion of the mover's speech, but I should like to say a few words about the bill. First of all, in dealing with the question of conflict of interest I have always been rather shocked that one cannot get full disclosure as to the amount of money, by way of salary, earned by people in high positions whether they be presidents or directors. It is particularly shocking in the case of Crown corporations. Setting up a bank of this nature involves the use of public funds. To start with, it is financed with public funds, and the profits arising from the operations of the bank may be reinvested to expand the business of the bank. Surely salaries of the directors, and so on, should be bared and made public.


Mr. Clermont:: I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is dealing with motion No. 4 when he talks about directors' salaries.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I know what the hon. member's point is and I will deal with it later. Hon. friend's opposite are laughing, but since these directors can borrow money from the bank it is important that we know their salaries. After all, the first thing you are asked when you go to any bank for a loan is what your assets are and what your salary is. My good friend rose on a point of order, but with his business experience and knowledge he must know that the first thing a bank asks is what your assets are, what your income is at the time, and what you expect to make in the future. So I do not think I am out of order when I say that those salaries should be known and laid on the table so the public will know what they are. There is nothing out of order, as far as I am concerned. With regard to the directors, let us look at clause 36, which provides:
A director shall not vote on a resolution relating to, or be present at a meeting of the board during the time at the meeting when the board is considering, a loan to, a guarantee to, a guarantee of a loan to, an underwriting agreement with, or a purchase from, that director or a firm or corporation of which
(a)	that director,
(b)	the spouse or a child, brother, sister or parent of that director, or
(c)	the spouse of a child, brother, sister or parent of that director, is a partner or shareholder, as the case may be.
Motion No. 2 refers to this clause and reads:
That Bill C-14, an act to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank, be amended by striking out lines 28 to 42, inclusive, on page 15 and substituting the following:
"36.(1) In this section,
'applicant' means a person who applies to the Corporation for assistance in the form of a loan, guarantee, underwriting agreement, purchase or lease;

'interested person' means
(a)	a director of the corporation or a member of a council" ...
Surely, when we are dealing with conflict of interest, the directors of this bank should not be able to obtain loans. As far as I am able to ascertain, there is no ceiling on the amount, so these people could make loans of a million dollars to themselves. We have experienced this kind of scandal before. There was a scandal in respect of the Alberta Housing Corporation, not under the present government, but the facts are coming to light showing the corruption that took place. I do not believe anybody in the public service of Canada, a member of parliament or a member of the Senate should have the right to borrow money from this bank. There is bound to be a conflict of interest. These people are empowered, as directors, to administer these funds for the public. The money comes from the taxpayers. Surely there should be a rule or a formula which prevents the directors borrowing money from the bank set up to serve the public. Even the managers of chartered banks cannot borrow from their own branches unless they go through channels at the top.


Alastair William Gillespie: There is exactly the same provision here; they must go to the top men.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us see who will be on the board.


Alastair William Gillespie: Have you read the proposed act?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, and I will read it for your benefit. I have been asked a question, Mr. Speaker, so let us see what clause 5 provides. It reads:
The board of directors shall consist of
(a)	the president;
(b)	four persons selected from the public service of Canada and appointed from time to time by the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister; and
(c)	ten persons selected from outside the public service of Canada and appointed in the manner provided in subsection 6(1).
Who approves a loan when the applicant is a director or the president? I am prepared to sit down if the minister is willing to answer.


Alastair William Gillespie: If the hon. member will look at motion No. 2 he will find there the answer to his question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us see what clause 35 says. It reads, further:
The board may make bylaws
(a)	respecting the calling of meetings of the board and of the executive committee, the quorum for such meetings and the conduct of business thereat;
(b)	fixing the fees to be paid to directors and council members for attendance at meetings, as authorized by subsection 19(1);
(c)	for the administration and management of the business of the corporation; and
(d)	for the conduct in all other particulars of the affairs of the corporation.
In these days, when we are concerned about conflict of interest, I do not think these persons should be able to obtain loans. I therefore support the amendment of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).
November 28, 1974


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: 
Charles Joseph Clark: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is difficult at the best of times to understand the minister. However, I think I understood him to say that the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) has some amendments, I presume to motion No. 2 in the minister's name. I presume that the amendments of the hon. member for Gatineau were worked out in collaboration with the minister. I do not think it makes much sense

November 28, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank Act
to debate a motion in the minister's name which, to the minister's knowledge, will subsequently be amended. I do not like him playing this kind of a game. I think that if the hon. member for Gatineau, on the instructions or otherwise of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has amendments to the clause now under consideration, he should bring them forward.
{Translation]


Gaston Clermont: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not rising on a point of order. I rose a couple of times to put forward some amendments. But before I do so, I would like to make a few comments.
The remarks of the opposition members apparently place on the same level the responsibilities of the president and of his directors. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) told the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs that those directors would be handsomely and generously paid. Directors, Mr. Speaker, are not full time civil servants. The board of directors, which, I believe, as in all other companies, will assume the bulk of responsibilities, consists of the president, two directors from the public service and two other directors selected out of the ten directors, and I think the amendment of the hon. member for York-Simcoe has a much broader scope than the Minister's amendment and my own one. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) mentioned that, considering my business background, when one applies for a loan in a chartered bank ... Talking about chartered banks, Mr. Speaker, no provision in the Bank Act prevents a bank director from getting a loan on behalf of a company which he manages. I know the hon. member for York-Simcoe said there was a difference between chartered banks and the bank we are now dealing with. He said that the bank under consideration deals with public funds. In my opinion, deposits made by the public in a chartered bank belong to the public, but there is a request that directors as well as members of the board of directors be denied the right to obtain loans. The amendment of the hon. member for York-Simcoe digs even further. No loan, gurantee, underwriting agreement or purchase could be made. I also believe the minister accepted the suggestion of a certain member of the finance committee when we consider subclause 5 of motion No. 2 which says and I quote:
(5)	The amount of each agreement approved by the Board under subsection (3) and the name of the person, firm or corporation with whom the agreement is entered into shall be included in the annual report that the Corporation is required to submit under subsection 75(3) of the Financial Administration Act.
Under the bill as it now stands, there is no such obligation for directors of the Bank to include those loans in the annual report.
Before presenting my amendments, I should like to give some explanations on the amendments I would like to move to those proposed by the minister in motion No. 2. [English]
Mr. Speaker, when the text of the proposed amendment to section 36 as set out in the order paper was prepared, the word "shareholder" was not included in the second last line of subclause 36(2), nor in the fifth line of subclause 36(3), since it was considered that it would be virtually impossible for a corporation with a large number of shareholders to know whether or not any one of its

shareholders happened to be related to a director of the bank or to one of the members of a regional advisory council in any one of the degrees of relationship described in the definition of "interested person". However, it would appear that most of the corporations which would be seeking assistance from the bank would be private corporations with a limited number of shareholders, so that in actual practice it would not be too difficult for such a corporation to ascertain, through consultation with its shareholders, whether such a relationship exists.
Similarly, with respect to subclause (4) of the proposed amendment as set out in the order paper, it was considered at the time the amendment was drafted that a director of the bank could not be expected to know the names of all the companies in which any of his relatives as described in subclause (1) have shares. However, under subclause (1) of the proposed amendment the onus is on the applicant to disclose in the application whether or not the applicant is related to a director. The application is then submitted to the board and the director is prohibited from voting on any resolution relating to that application. In the context of this specific procedure, the director, having been identified in the application, is in a much different position than he would have been under clause 36 of Bill C-14 as that clause now reads.
Subclause (4) of the amendment as it is now set out in the order paper prohibits a director from voting on a resolution relating to a loan to a corporation of which that director is a shareholder, but not a corporation of which that director's spouse or any other relative is a shareholder. Instead, the prohibition applies only where the director's spouse or other relative is a director or officer of the applicant corporation. The purpose of the proposed motion to amend the text as set out in the order paper is to extend the prohibition to apply to every loan to a corporation of which the director, his spouse or any other relative is a shareholder, director or officer.

Moved by Mr. Clermont:
That the amendment to Bill C-14 as set out in Motion No. 2 be amended
(a)	by striking out the second last line of subclause 36(2) and substituting the following:
"or a shareholder, director or officer of that corporation, as"
(b)	by striking out the fifth line ot subciause 36(3) and substituting the following:
"of that firm or a director, shareholder or officer of that"
(c)	by striking out the last line of subparagraph 36(4) (b) and substituting the following:
"person" in subsection (1), or"
(d)	by striking out subparagraphs 36(4)(c) and (d) and substituting the following:
"(c) a firm or corporation of which that director, or a person referred to in paragraph (b), is a partner, shareholder, director or officer, as the case may be."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the hon. member is proposing a rather technical amendment, I wonder if he would be willing, as I see he is, to pass around copies of his amendment so we can follow it as he is explaining it to us.


Gaston Clermont: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.
November 28, 1974


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are very kind.


Gaston Clermont: (d)	for subclauses 36(4)(c) and (d), the following:
"(c) a firm or corporation of which that director or a person referred to in paragraph (b) is a partner, shareholder, director or officer."
Mr. Speaker, in the matter of-

There is a well' established principle in other acts that financial institutions can make loans to directors of their corporations.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we received the amendments introduced by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont), because I think they rebut completely any suggestion which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) made in his opening remarks that the amendments introduced by the hon. member for Gatineau address themselves to the very serious problem raised by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and others on this side who have spoken in the debate. Clearly, the amendments introduced by the hon. member for Gatineau are simply technical amendments. They make no change at all in the substance of the amendment introduced by the minister, the purpose of which is simply to put up a smoke-screen so it would appear that the House was dealing with a problem with which, clearly, the government is not prepared to deal.
The minister, in his earlier remarks, suggested that there was no difference in purpose between his amendment and amendment No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe. Clearly, there is a difference. The hon. member for York-Simcoe introduces in his amendment an absolute prohibition of conflict of interest and the minister, in a move that has not at all been changed by the amendment of the hon. member for Gatineau, is simply creating a very large loophole through which conflicts of interest are not only likely to occur but, indeed, are encouraged to occur.
The amendment introduced by the minister does not contain a prohibition of any kind. All he asks is that when there is an evident conflict of interest, the director concerned must simply absent himself from the voting. What the minister is establishing here is a game of musical chairs; he is legalizing musical chairs and, in effect, giving the authority of the House of Commons to the possibility of an evident and rampant conflict of interest. What is obvious to anyone in the House is that if a director absents himself when there is a potential conflict of interest, theoretically, under the amendment proposed by the minister, he can rely upon his friends to approve the loan in which he is interested, in repayment for which favour he could subsequently support the application of the parties involved. This would involve the conflict of interest of another director. It is a cosy kind of arrangement, but no matter how you cut it, it is a very clear instance of the possibility of conflict of interest arising. That is not something which we are prepared to accept on this side of the House.
Federal Business Development Bank Act
1 want to emphasize what has been said already today, Mr. Speaker. This government has been altogether too careless about the question of conflict of interest. I say "careless", and one of my colleagues says "at least careless". At least it can be said that they have been very careless about the possibility of ministers of the Crown taking advantage, through a series of guidelines, which are as much a smoke-screen as the amendment introduced by the minister, and vague regulations, of various means of transportation when making so-called official visits, and so on. I think this is the first occasion since the controversy arose in this House about conflict of interest that the Parliament of Canada has had a clear opportunity to say whether it approves or disapproves of creating a law to control conflict of interest.
While I think the amendment introduced by the minister is a smoke-screen and is virtually useless because the directors can get around it, I am pleased that in this particular at least the government is prepared to recognize that a conflict might attach not simply to the individual concerned, but also to his spouse or other relatives. I think that principle, which the minister has recognized in this particular smoke-screen, will be recognized in other actions that the government is prepared to take on the question of conflict of interest, as it obviously has not been prepared to act on the question of guidelines covering the behaviour of ministers of the Crown.
It would be of interest to members of the House to know why the minister insists on a provision which clearly allows for conflict of interest. Why does he want the capacity for a conflict of interest to arise? Does he fear that if we adopt the very sensible and progressive amendment proposed by the hon. member for York-Simcoe he will not be able to find people willing to be directors? That is nonsense. But what does he fear? Why does he want to bring in a piece of legislation, through the amendment which he proposes, that would have the effect of establishing in law, giving legal form and effect and the sanction of this parliament, to a capacity for conflict of interest?
As has been indicated by members on this side of the House, the offices in question involve positions of trust. They involve the vesting of trust by the government and, by extension, by this parliament in individuals who serve as directors. That kind of trust relationship requires certain sacrifices in the public interest. Surely, the least of those sacrifices should be that directors are, in fact and in appearance, clear of any suspicion of abusing their position for profit, gain or personal purposes. I repeat that point, Mr. Speaker: the amendment we have before us in the name of the minister does not accomplish that; it allows a large loophole, deliberately created by the minister, for the continuation of conflict of interest.
What kind of reflection does the amendment drafted by the minister cast upon people? What does it tell us about the kind of people he is seeking as directors of this bank? Surely, if we want the bank to be run effectively we want people who have standing enough that in the normal course of events they are not likely to avail themselves of the lending services of the bank. Surely, that has to be the logic, if there is any at all, of the minister's argument. If he is saying anything at all, he is saying he must have this

Federal Business Development Bank Act provision for conflict of interest in order to get people to serve as directors. That is simply not believable to members on this side of the House.
One of my colleagues mentioned earlier that what is at issue in this question of principle is not simply the constitution of a particular board of directors of a Crown agency; not simply a question of conflict of interest that arises rarely, but a very important principle that involves public trust and the outlining of the responsibilities of those who assume public office, whether elected or appointed as would be the case of directors of the Federal Business Development Bank. It is not an incidental matter. This amendment offers every member of the House of Commons the clear opportunity to express a view on the question of conflict of interest. Unfortunately, on the evidence of his amendment the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, on behalf of the government, has indicated that he wants to deal with the question of conflict of interest with a phony gesture, one which will not meet the problem but will only seem to if one is half blind and well into senility.
There is no way that amendment No. 2 can accomplish the important purpose put forward by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. In amendment No. 3 the hon. member for York-Simcoe proposes to write into the legislation an absolute prohibition of conflict of interest. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce simply proposes to write in a detour by which one could achieve a conflict of interest. That kind of skirting around is not acceptable to members on this side. The carelessness about conflict of interest is evident in the amendment put forward by the minister.
We are not just passing a law here today; we are setting standards which we expect to work, for the country to follow and, to some degree, to be bound by. If we establish the standard that it is all right to allow a conflict of interest as long as you put some phony smoke-screen around it, we are suggesting to everyone in the country who holds a position of trust that it is all right for them to abuse the trust placed in them. That is the questioi. of principle involved in this important amendment put forward by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. For the minister to suggest that his amendment, which simply provides a detour on the way to conflict of interest, in any way achieves the same purpose is simply not correct.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon, member's remarks. After we scrape away the intemperate language, perhaps we can look at what he actually said. He was speaking in favour of amendment No. 3, and if he looks at it he will see that there is no absolute prohibition in the situation where an interested person has less than a 50 per cent beneficial interest. That comes through quite clearly. He seems to be saying that the principle of absolute prohibition is important and that its absence is a phony, smoke-screen, a dodge or a detour.
The hon. member will have to face his own logic and admit that the provisions in amendment No. 3 which relate to less than 50 per cent beneficial interest are phony, smoke-screens, dodges or detours. I am sure the hon. member is intelligent enough that upon reflection he will realize that is not what he was arguing. I think he is intelligent enough to look at amendment No. 2 which I

proposed and which was amended by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont), and to realize that very substantial protections are built in with respect to conflict of interest.
There are three kinds of disclosure and protection anticipated in motion No. 3 which the hon. member supports. Our amendment insists that all applicants shall declare whether they are interested persons. An interested person is defined clearly in the amendment I proposed. In the language of the amendment-
"interested person" means
(a)	a director of the corporation or a member of a council
(b)	the spouse or a child, brother, sister or parent of a director or a member of a council, or
(c)	the spouse of a child, brother, sister or parent of a director or a member of a council-
This provision must be considered in conjunction with paragraph (3) of the amendment which says that where an applicant is an interested person, the decision with respect to his particular application must be made at the board level itself, not at the regional level. This point is important. The IDB, which is the predecessor corporation, made about 97 per cent of all loans at the regional level rather than at the board level.
The amendment of the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) provides that where an applicant discloses in an application for assistance that he is an interested person, or where the applicant is a firm of corporation, a partner of a firm or a director, or a shareholder or officer of the corporation, as the case may be, he is an interested person and the application shall be submitted to the board for approval before an agreement to provide such assistance is entered into by the corporation. If an applicant is an interested person, the board of directors shall review his case. Further protection is provided in paragraph (4) of the amendment, as amended, which reads:
A director shall not vote on a resolution relating to, or be present at a meeting of the board during the time at the meeting when the board is considering an application submitted to it under subsection (3) if the application is from
(a)	that director,
(b)	a person related to that director in a degree of relationship described in paragraph (b) or (c) of the definition "interested person" in subsection (1),
(c)	a firm or corporation of which that director, or a person referred to in paragraph (b), is a partner, shareholder, director or officer, as the case may be.
Clearly, a director shall not vote on any transaction in which he an interest, nor shall he be present when it is
discussed.


An hon. Member:: Don't be so naive.


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), in motion No. 3, has advanced exactly the same principle that is advanced in motion No. 2. I think he copied part of motion No. 2.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Alastair William Gillespie: I think the hon. member supports what is in paragraph (5) of motion No. 2, which reads:
November 28, 1974

The amount of each agreement approved by the board under subsection (3) and the name of the person, firm or corporation with whom the agreement is entered into shall be included in the annual report that the corporation is required to submit under subsection 75(3) of the Financial Administration Act.
I submit that paragraph (4) of motion No. 3 seeks to do what paragraph (5) of motion No. 2, which I have just read, seeks to do. This is a good provision, as it ensures that agreements envisaged in the amendment will be made public. In the last analysis, publicity is the public's best protection in matters of conflict of interest.
The hon. member also deals with the situation in which the beneficial interest of those concerned exceeds 50 per cent. He recognizes that total prohibition is not acceptable and tries to provide a cut-off line, a 50 per cent beneficial interest. If a person has a greater than 50 per cent beneficial interest in a firm or corporation on whose behalf an application is made, that person shall not be eligible for a loan. Clearly, as precedent shows, loans may be granted to such interested persons, in certain circumstances, so long as disclosure is made. The amendment provides for this protection in order to avoid conflict of interest. I think the hon. member for Gatineau made this point clear.
My last point concerns the president. He, as chief executive officer of the corporation, is in a position different from that of regional advisers or councillors or directors. It is not anticipated that the ten directors who will come from the private sector will be full-time employees, nor is it envisaged that the number of regional advisers or councillors who have been referred to will be full-time members of the advisory council. On the contrary, it is expected that they will be part-time members and their responsibilities with respect to the advisory council will be added to their other responsibilities. That being so, we require conflict of interest provisions which will take cognizance of the fact that they are serving part time on the council and have other interests. Clause 13(1) provides:
Where a person who is appointed as president has (a) a direct or indirect ownership of any shares in a lending institution or in a company authorized to provide management counselling, or (b) a pecuniary or proprietary interest in a business or firm that provides management counselling, he shall divest himself of that ownership or interest within three months after the date of his appointment and shall not during his term of office acquire any such ownership or interest.
Clearly, the president's position is a special one and the bill deals with his position in a special way.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question? Will he say what, in motion No. 2 as amended by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont), will prevent a director from having fellow directors look after his interests or the interests of anyone associated with him, in his absence, on the understanding that there is to be reciprocal treatment in cases where he remains on the board and one of the other directors is absent?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not a legal authority and I do not think one has to be to realize that such practice would be illegal and very likely criminal. That kind of collusion would constitute a criminal offence.


An hon. Member:: An exceedingly hard thing to prove.
B.C. Telephone


Alastair William Gillespie: Second, proposed section 36(5) requires disclosure in cases where interested persons enter into transactions. The subclause provides:
. . the name of the person, firm or corporation with whom the agreement is entered into shall be included in the annual report...


Charles Joseph Clark: But the bill will not prevent what I suggest may happen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As it is five o'clock, we must proceed to private members' business unless members decide not to see the clock.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Social security-Government intention with regard to economic position of those over sixty-five; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) Housing-Request for funds for low rental housing; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-Immigration-Possible increase in number of Chilean refugees admitted-Government position.
Order. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills! There being no item under the heading notices of motions (papers), the House will now proceed to private bills.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-ll, respecting British Columbia Telephone Company, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Reid:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw Your Honour's attention to the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, printed in Votes and Proceedings of November 21, 1974. In this report the committee recommended that the charges of $200,400 paid by the B.C. Telephone Company in accordance with Standing Order 91(4) be held in abeyance until the House had disposed .of Bill C-29.
1766

November 28, 1974
B.C. Telephone
My point of order is that it is beyond the capability of a standing committee to make a report of this nature to the House of Commons since its order of reference was only to consider Bill S-ll. It has always been my understanding that an order of reference to a committee was complete in itself, and that when dealing with a bill a committee had the option of reporting the bill with amendment or without amendment; it did not have the authority to make gratuitous comments on the bill or on any of its aspects. I should like to quote from Standing Order 65(8) which states:
Standing Committees shall be similarly empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House and to report from time to time and, except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records ...
I would also cite Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, citation 304(1), where it is stated:
(1)	A committee can only consider those matters which have been committed to it by the House.
(2)	A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the order of reference.
There are a number of other authorities which could be quoted, but I believe my point is clear. The second report, though it has not been moved at this point, is completely out of order and I think some decision should be made by the Chair upon the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), I wonder whether he did not put himself out of court in his last sentence. As he said, the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications is not before us. All that is before us now is the report stage of Bill S-ll which was reported back to the House as the third report. If anyone were to try to move concurrence in the second report, I could understand the point of order being raised, but since the issue is not before us I do not see why Your Honour should be asked to rule on a hypothetical situation.


Mr. Campbell (LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is entirely correct. I think the motion will be moved on Monday next. In my view, it would be better if a decision were to be deferred until then, rather than to attempt to make a decision on the point of order at this time.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) wants to prevent study of the bill at the report stage. I did not quite understand his point. I do believe the Committee on Transport and Communications could be authorized to study the matter with the unanimous consent of the House. If there is unanimous consent, the Chair could authorize a change that is not contrary to the rules of this House.
|Mr. Reid.]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The procedural point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is certainly a valid one. We are not now discussing the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. However, it was the intention of the Chair to clarify the situation; to indicate to hon. members the position taken by the Chair as to the handling of the sum of money mentioned in the second report of the committee. The parliamentary secretary was recognized on a point of order on this subject, but it may be the Chair should itself have undertaken to raise the matter, after which hon. members could have made their observations, if any. In any case, I would at this point ask for the co-operation of hon. members and seek their consent to suspend the report stage of Bill S-ll, as it were, so as to allow the Chair to make a few comments concerning the second report of the standing committee. Is this agreed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will agree, but I do so under protest. This matter is not before us. If Your Honour wishes to make a ruling, we shall not stop you, but I think this is an irregular procedure. I myself have some questions I should like to raise. I wonder if I could drag them in at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is aware that Bill S-ll has been reported to the House without amendment. The report of the committee was preceded by another report, the second report, which put some kind of restriction-


An hon. Member:: Not on the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Not on the bill, maybe, but with regard to the handling of money. The Chair feels that before considering the report stage of the bill an opportunity should be taken to clarify the matter. As I say, the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a valid one.
The Chair is presiding over the proceedings of the House of Commons daily, and when the Chair feels that some procedures, decisions of committees or actions of hon. members, do not correspond to the basic rules, it must stand up and express opinions that should be on the record, thus preventing hon. members from believing that the decisions or actions of other members have not been acted upon. That is the main reason I wanted to enter these remarks in the record at this time concerning the second report of the committee and before the House proceeds to consideration of the report stage of Bill S-ll.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would probably agree with the ruling that I suspect Your Honour is anxious to make. In fact, I have seen other reports come in which to me were questionable. But the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications has not been moved and is not before the House. Your Honour agrees that the report stage and third reading of Bill S-ll is what is before the House. We are in private members' hour and that has been called. The report which referred back Bill S-ll is the
November 28, 1974

third report, and there is nothing in the third report which says that it is conditional upon what is in the second report.
I do not want to go on for a long time in an attempt to prevent the Chair from doing something it wants to do, but somehow we are getting into an order that is not before us, and that is irregular. No member of the House at this moment is trying to do anything that is out of order, but if a member were to try to move concurrence in the second report, then I certainly think that the Chair would have to rule on that.


John Campbell: On
the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I ask Your Honour to reserve judgment. We will have some material showing that it is not a precedent in requesting that the $200,000 payment be left in abeyance. We will have some material prepared for Monday, and if you will allow us to present it [DOT]before you make a final judgment on the motion, we would appreciate it.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say how much I agree with what my colleague to my left has said. I do not understand why the chairman of the committee is talking about the $200,000, which has nothing to do with what is before the House today. We have before us a private member's bill set down at report stage and for third reading, and the House agreed to get the bill through. There is a real need for passage of this legislation in my province so that this company can obtain further capital.
As I say, I cannot understand why this topic is now raised; it deals with a report from the committee that is not before the House, a totally separate matter. Certainly the bill is not contingent upon the $200,000 fee that we have been talking about. I hope the Chair will allow the House to continue with the report stage and third reading of the bill so that we can pass it today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am advised that before we can even dispose of Bill S-ll, the fees have to be paid. We have a report of a committee, giving direction that a certain sum of money be held in abeyance. This is why the Chair feels this would be the time to make a decision as to the acceptability or legality of this report of the committee, and that is what I was about to do.
If the hon. member insists that I do not do this, then I am ready to proceed with consideration of the report stage of Bill S-ll. Of course, the hon. member will argue with me that the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, not being before the House at this time, cannot be recognized as a decision of the House as such and that it does not prevent these fees being paid. If that is the interpretation, then I am ready to look into the matter and perhaps bring it back tomorrow before orders of the day. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Now that I have decided to hold this whole matter in abeyance and perhaps bring it back tomorrow after examining it more deeply, I think the House should proceed immediately with consideration of the report stage of Bill S-ll.
B.C. Telephone

Order. Before proceeding with the study of the motion of amendment moved by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) and even agreeing to broaching it, I feel I should draw the attention of hon. members precisely to that amendment which, according to the Chair, falls completely outside the scope of the bill before the House. The motion of the hon. member is, to my mind, out of order, first of all because it adds a new clause to Bill S-ll. In fact, through his amendment to Bill S-ll, the hon. member is attempting to reach the main act governing the company which has already been incorporated, and his amendment is contrary to Standing Order 105 in that it seeks to alter Bill S-ll which itself seeks to amend the act. I doubt very much that such an amendment is in order. I should like to invite hon. members to comment on this point.

In my opinion, by this amendment the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) is trying to reach the main act of this corporation by changing the name of the corporation, a matter not contained in the bill at this time. However, I am ready to invite comments from the hon. member before making a decision.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, you pointed out an irregularity in my amendment by saying that the first introductory lines, instead of reading as follows:
That Bill S-ll, Ah Act respecting British Columbia Telephone Company, be amended by adding immediately after line 9 at page 8, the following new Clause:
You are quite right to remind me that instead of section 25 of chapter 66, I should have written; "to add a clause to Bill S-ll".

The way I am presenting my motion is this. I am amending the law of 1916 by adding a clause to Bill S-ll, so the preliminary notes have, of course, to be changed. With regard to the history of the amendment I am presenting, I made a suggestion at the committee hearings to the company, namely, that in the French version of the act- [Translation]
-the French version uses the name "La Compagnie de Telephone de la Colombie-Britannique".

Members of all parties who were there were sympathetic to the idea, the representative of the company was sympathetic to the idea, and earlier this week I received a letter from the company in which it says:
.1 am enclosing clause for proposal as an amendment... which you have kindly stated that you would be prepared to introduce at the report stage in the House of Commons.
This was done with the mutual consent of every member of the committee. At that time we said we would consult as to how this should be done, and the company got in touch with the clerk of the committee and indicated it would be prepared to propose another clause which would be to the effect that the company may use, as the French form of its name, in the transaction of business and its
28543-43%

November 28, 1974
B.C. Telephone
affairs generally "La Compagnie de Telephone de la Colombie-Britannique".

I see that the hon. member for Saint-Boniface (Mr. Guay) is interested in this matter. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this idea was submitted and approved by all the members of the committee.

The company is very agreeable to the idea, and I hope the Chair will allow me to propose the amendment, as at the committee stage, if there is unanimous agreement. The company itself suggested the amendment which I present on its behalf. If we do not proceed in this way, the company will have to present another bill later to accomplish the same purpose.
I understand the spirit of the rule of procedure is such that in order to do something of this nature I require the unanimous consent of hon. members. I hope that my colleagues, in the spirit that existed in the committee when everybody agreed to the idea presented by the company, will allow me to propose this amendment which would allow the company to use that French form of its name. If everyone is agreeable, I hope a procedural argument will not prevent this bill from being accepted. Otherwise there will have to be another bill, with the whole burden that implies.
This whole matter is important, although not in itself, to what we are trying to do. As the member for Matane, I represent 20 or 30 English-speaking families and I insist that all federal buildings have bilingual signs. I do this as a matter of fairness. I have explained why this company's name must be bilingual.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must nevertheless interrupt the hon. member, for we are now discussing the point of procedure in question and not necessarily his amendment. If he continues he will have completed his intervention before the Chair even decides whether to accept the amendment.
I must say to the hon. member that all the points he made are more debatable than procedural matters. I am convinced no other hon. member will disagree with all the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) said but he must nevertheless understand that the Chair is bound by the rules, and the Constitution of Canada or the rules of this House cannot be changed through the Chair. I think it is important that I draw the attention of hon. members to very specific rules, the most difficult of which might be rule No. 105-and by ricochet it applies both to the hon. member and the report of the committee of the House- which states, and I quote:
105. It is the duty of the committee to which any private bill may be referred by the House, to call the attention of the House specially to any provisions inserted in such bill that does not appear to have been contemplated in the notice or petition for the same, as reported upon by the Examiner of Petitions ...
The hon. member said to the House he has in his hand a letter from the company stating that it would be happy to have its name made bilingual. Of course, the normal channel to have that change made would be for the company to have a new private bill introduced to amend its name.

Having said that, although hon. members do not doubt the word of their colleague, neither the Chair nor any member of this House have a copy of that letter, and the rules of this House do not provide for the tabling of such documents. I think everyone will agree to take the word of the hon. member. I must also refer him to different citations from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms respecting amendments, particularly citation 202 on page 169 and citation 203 on page 171 which state explicitly, and I quote:
203. (1) It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
The hon. member knows that the bill before us is a bill on the financing of the company, which has never been presented to the House to amend the name of the company or some other aspects of its administration.
If the hon. member keeps on reading citation 203, he will come to paragraph (3), and I quote:
(3)	An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
This being said, and considering that hon. members seem to be in a good mood and considering also the limited effect of the amendment the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) is proposing at the report stage, which nonetheless raises an important point as the hon. member said, the Chair would be willing to consider the motion and let the House decide. But that could be done only by unanimous consent.

I do not know whether all members followed my remarks, but the Chair feels that this kind of amendment should not be accepted in our general procedure. Noting that the intent of the bill is not to amend in any way the name of the company, or anything other than the financial structure, and noting the co-operation that seems to exist following the remarks of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), if there is unanimous consent the Chair would be ready to accept the amendment for debate. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre De Bané: I have one note of particular interest.


Pierre De Bané: That Bill S-ll, An Act respecting British Columbia Telephone Company, be amended by adding immediately after line 9 at page 8, the following
clause:
"6. The following is added as section 25 of chapter 66 of the Statute of 1916, as amended, namely:
*25. The Company may use as the French form of its name, in the
transaction of business and its affairs generally, *La Compagnie de
Telephone de la Colombie-Britannique".'


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
November 28, 1974
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might make his comments later.


John Mercer Reid: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave now.


John Mercer Reid: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Matane could make his remarks right now.


Pierre De Bané: I simply wanted to say to the hon. member for Peace River that the British Columbia Telephone Company-
British Columbia Telephone Company is owned by the same people who own the telephone company of Gaspe. I understand that the president of Quebec Telephone, which is the company in our region, has just been appointed president of British Columbia Telephone Company, thus representing two different parts of the country. I am very bappy about this. I should like to place on the record my compliments to British Columbia Telephone Company for having accepted, without any hesitation, the French name. I think that more and more we should ask private business to do what the federal government is doing.
In my opinion it is quite unreasonable that only the federal government takes on the burden of projecting bilingualism. I think the provincial departments of education and private business should support this as well, because otherwise it does not make any sense. Perhaps on another occasion the Chair might permit me to expand on that subject. However, I commend the British Columbia Telephone Company. I think it has taken an enlightened position in respect of the Canadian fabric.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say how much I appreciate what the hon. member has said. I am glad to see the zeal with which hon. members on the other side take into account the constitution and the rights of people in this country under the constitution. I hope the way in which members on this side have co-operated with the hon. member in getting this through will persuade him, and some of his colleagues, in turn to take exception to what the government is doing in respect of oil resources, by stealing from the provinces resources which belong to them. I hope the people in Gaspe, in an appreciation of the rights of people in other provinces, will take strong exception to the deceitful actions of the federal government in taking from the provinces things which belong to the provinces.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I entered the chamber a little late so I must apologize for having missed part of the debate. I might say that I do not rise to delay the passage of this bill. I appreciate the objective of allowing this private
B.C. Telephone
monopoly to expand and continue to serve the people of British Columbia over the next ten years, which I see is the objective of the bill. However, I think there are a few things which should be placed on the record in respect of that particular oligopoly. My colleague from Burnaby-Richmond-Delta suggests that we are making it a little richer for the people of British Columbia to take over. I think the people of British Columbia are probably concerned to see telephone service expand even in this innovative and expensive way.
I believe the people of British Columbia would prefer to see a public corporation, and I hope in the future it will become a public corporation, as is the case in respect of most other telephone companies. The people are very satisfied with the kind of service they receive from these other corporate telephone services, but the people of British Columbia are not very satisfied with the kind of service they receive from the British Columbia Telephone Company.
I am concerned about this oligopoly being allowed to expand, to go into the market and obtain sufficient funds especially when there is a source of funds which I submit this company has failed to tap. I refer to the funds available to this company from the subsidiary companies of the British Columbia Telephone Company, companies such as Lenkurt Electrical and Western Electric which supply services to British Columbia Telephone Company. My colleague from Burnaby-Richmond-Delta says they are good, free enterprise companies.
There is nothing further from free enterprise in this case in respect of the relations Western Electric or Lenkurt Electric have with the parent company for the services they provide and the material they supply to the parent company. If British Columbia Telephone Company would look at the profits of its subsidiaries and plow back some of those profits into the parent company then this company could get along with less money than it needs to go to the market for now.
In British Columbia the structure of a company is determined by the type of service it renders and not by the magnificent performance of its subsidiaries which are not regulated by government agencies. I want to place on the record the fact that the time will come when the people of British Columbia will not stand for this kind of rip-off. Madam Speaker, I have said enough. I do not wish to say any more. Thank you.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: I do not want to prolong this discussion any further but I would simply like to congratulate all hon. members. While listening to those who spoke before me I was thinking that from 5 to 6 o'clock would be the proper time to present all the bills which must be passed quickly. I think it is the best hour to work in this House to put an end to our differences and to stop getting into empty discussions.
The member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) managed to get across his message on Alberta oil. I call him the "oiler" from Alberta, but he acted well in calling it to our attention and it is also his right to praise his province. As always, the member from the NDP would like to see everything nationalized. We respect his ideas but I must

B.C. Telephone
admit we prefer private companies. Of course, it is initiative, private initiative, Madam Speaker, which gave birth to our country while state institutions have always tended to weaken the country instead of strengthening it.
I would particularly like to congratulate the member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) for his masterly stroke in having managed to have his amendment to Bill S-ll passed even though there was nothing in the order paper on this. I guess this is due to the good will of this House and the cooperation of all members. I congratulate him and I wish, as he himself mentioned it, that all Canadian companies, whatever province they may be in, follow the leadership of those who are bilingual today. I hope that will be proof enough that all our Crown corporations as well as private companies also want to adopt bilingual names so that we can identify them. When we hear of these companies we simply say: there is a Canadian company. I therefore congratulate all hon. members and I would like to say once again that I wish that more bills could come before the House during the private members' hour so that they may be passed more quickly.


John Douglas Reynolds: Madam Speaker, I will not speak for more than a couple of minutes. I wanted to make some comments on the words spoken by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) who went to great lengths to thank the B.C. Telephone Company for being so co-operative in letting its name be put forward in the French version, in an amendment which is only proper and right. However, in all fairness he should have mentioned that British Columbia members from my party, who were in full attendance at that committee, certainly had no objection to that change.
Quite often when we are outside the House we become political and it is easy for someone to make a speech about the Conservatives not supporting bilingualism. So, Madam Speaker, I wanted to make sure that my comments with regard to our party were on the record because members from my province have a good record in this respect. In my province by comparison we spend more per capita on bilingualism, and I wanted to make sure that that was on the record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Douglas Reynolds: I also wanted to make sure that I said something about big bad capitalist B.C. Telephone Company, since my good friend in the riding next to me had something to say about people not standing for this rip-off much longer. I suggest that he speak to our premier. That might be the big issue in the next election. He will see how popular that issue is in my province.
People in my province are tired of seeing take-overs; they like to see free enterprise operate, and they like to see the type of bill that is now before us being passed in the House. I received a few letters saying that it was a good idea. I would love to see us fight the next provincial election on take-overs in my province. I do not think people in my province want take-overs. I myself have been one of the great complainers in this respect because I cannot get enough telephone lines in my riding. The only

problem is that we are the fastest growing province in the country and we have a hard time getting material, supplies, and so on when they are required.


An hon. Member:: Who is your company competing with?


John Douglas Reynolds: I would be happy to compare them with any of the publicly owned telephone companies in Canada, but they do not have to compete with anybody. Telephone companies in every province do not have to compete, but they have to buy materials from other sources. They are short of supplies such as plastic and rubber wiring, and there is a shortage of telephones. So that is not B.C. Telephone's fault but the fault of world wide shortages. They are doing a good job with what they have, and in passing the bill today we will make sure that they receive more capital which will benefit the people of British Columbia.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions through the usual channels and I think there is willingness on the part of the House to deal with the report stage of Bill C-214. This bill was only reported yesterday and has not yet been on the record for the full length of time required, but if there is unanimous consent we would like to proceed with it and perhaps to complete the report stage and third reading today.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Robert Elgin McKinley: that Bill C-214, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, as reported (with amendment) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Elgin McKinley: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure, on behalf of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), to move third reading of this bill. It contains a sensible suggestion, namely that electoral boundaries commissions set up in provinces give reasons for their decisions regarding the boundaries of ridings and in what way they reached them. I am sure that, from time to time during redistribution, members as well as many constituents, candidates and county and township councils wonder how the commissioners come to the decisions they do. This bill simply states that the commissions which set up these
November 28, 1974

boundaries and constituencies would be required to provide reasons as to why the boundaries are outlined in the way they are.
It should be noted that if reasons are given regarding how the boundaries of constituencies are established, there would be less controversy and objections to those boundaries.
I am pleased to note also that an amendment was passed in committee requiring that the report of a commission be published under subsection 17(3) in the Canada Gazette and the recommendation therein set forth.
I would like to express my appreciation to all members of the House for the negotiations we had with the official representatives of the different parties in the House, for waiving the necessary notice required to bring this bill forward today so that it can receive third reading and be passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for-


An hon. Member:: Coast Chilcotin.


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is west of the Rockies. I have found the same doubts as to who I am in the riding when men who have walked a very long distance, and look at me and ask, "Where have I seen you before"?
I should like to say that I endorse the comments made by my colleagues across the floor. We on this side of the House heartily endorse the amendment to this bill. In committee I stated that, as a former returning officer, I should like to recommend that all members pay attention to the bill and remember the text of it. If everyone knows what is in the bill there will be no room for mistakes in the next election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise to extend my congratulations to a dozen or more new members whom I see in the House this afternoon and to remark that some of us had to wait years to see any private members' public bills get through. They are seeing such a bill get through today, and they have not yet sat here for two months.


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, I should like to indicate to hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that as a result of a cabinet decision taken about three years ago there was a change in government policy with respect to private members' public bills. The record shows that since that cabinet decision was taken more private members' public bills and private members' motions have been passed than were passed in the previous ten years in this House. What we are trying to do now, Madam Speaker, is to examine each private members' public bill from the viewpoint of each department and try to give the benefit of doubt to members. We are trying to avoid bills being talked out as far as possible. The same applies to motions.
The draftsmanship of the private members' public bills presents a problem, however. In committee we are finding
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act that if a bill comes back and is passed into law the draftsmanship might prevent it from being good law. We may have to work out a different system so that more time is made available, for discussion with the members. Hopefully the bills would be drafted more carefully, but perhaps many of the ideas that now show up in the form of a bill could be better discussed in the House of Commons in the form of a motion which would allow greater latitude. We may have to shift priorities.
As we start to look at these bills from the point of view of law, we find that they do not achieve their purpose, and are defective in other respects as well. There are dilemmas, and we may ask hon. members not to proceed with them as bills but, instead, send their subject matters to committees for discussion. As hon. members know, the power of committees to change bills is extremely limited by the material they are originally given, so we will have to overcome this by sending the subject material to committees for discussion.
I want to indicate to hon. members that we have changed the policy. We are trying to work out some agreements and trying to cope with the problem under existing Standing Orders. We hope a greater number of bills and motions will go to committee. There are attendant responsibilities upon members to canvass the ideas they are expounding in bills and motions. This could make our job and that of the committees much easier.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Speaker, I agree with the parliamentary secretary. After 107 years it is time that more private members' ideas were debated and brought to a decision. The parliamentary secretary suggested one way that this could be done.
As a lawyer who has ascended to the respectability of being a member of the House of Commons and left the low degree of practice at the bar, I sometimes think it would be better if more bills were drafted by laymen. They might be more intelligible than those drafted now by members of the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed to call it
six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business having expired, 1 do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At 5.57 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
November 28, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank Act


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-14, to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and motion No. 2 (Mr. Gillespie).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. When the House rose at five o'clock it had been considering Bill C-14 at the report stage, motion No. 2 and the amendment thereto proposed by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont).


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the amendment to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont), and on what the minister said just before private members' hour. I was struck by how the minister distinguished between the directors of the bank and the president of the bank. The minister said that the president must divest himself of any holdings which might conflict with his function as president because he, the president, is to be a full-time president, whereas the directors of the bank, who will be part-time directors, will not be required to divest themselves of holdings which might involve them in conflict of interest. That, I think, was the purport of his suggestion.
Clearly, according to what the minister said, the president need not divest himself of all holdings, but only of those which may involve him in a conflict of interest. Therefore the distinction between the president and the directors of the bank is this: the president is to serve full time and the directors part time. Obviously, the president will not be at his job 24 hours a day, and for that reason he is to be allowed to keep some holding on the side, so long as they do not conflict with his activities as president.
The minister should examine the double standard contained in the bill as it seems to me that, under certain conditions, the president could be involved in a conflict of interest just as easily as any director of the bank. Obviously, the only real difference between the president and a director lies in the amount of time which each will spend serving the bank. Therefore the public interest is not served if we allow even the possibility of the directors being involved in the conflict of interest. I suggest, therefore, that the motion of the minister, as amended by that of the hon. member for Gatineau, is not nearly as satisfactory as the motion No. 3 on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).
My next point concerns another failure in the motion before the House, as amended. The minister said that if the interests of a director or of his family are being discussed, that director must not participate in the deliberations of the board. The minister thinks that the public interest will be served if the director merely leaves the room and does not participate in the discussions. Surely he is not so naive as to think that because a director is not present, he will not influence the deliberations of his
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner).]
colleagues? It is quite possible for one who is not present to influence discussions and, in that way, to participate in them indirectly. That is something which cannot be monitored and may lead to a possible conflict of interest.
Second, one must bear in mind the psychology of groups. Groups, be they boards of directors of otherwise, function on the basis of co-operation and friendship. So, even if a director is absent and does not lobby directly for his interests, it is quite probable that directors remaining and taking part in the discussion may consider the interests of the absent director, may consider what may best serve his interests and what may aggrandize his wealth. I find it hard to believe that the remaining directors will be oblivious to these considerations, even though their ultimate decision may not favour the absent director.
Anyone who ignores these possibilities is ignorant of the way groups work. Clearly, the remaining colleagues of the absent director will be aware that his interests are at stake and these, unquestionably, will be considered, even though the result may not favour him. Unquestionably these factors will affect the deliberations of the board. For that reason I suggest that the amendment to the motion moved by the hon. member for Gatineau is inadequate, and motion No. 3, in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe, ought to be considered favourably.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, our experience in dealing with the subject of conflict of interest in the House in the last two weeks in relation to other matters makes it clear there is a lack of appreciation by the government of what is really involved. In the particular case we are considering, that of a director of the bank or of a regional councillor, I do not think the minister's proposal comes close to meeting the situation.
It seems to me the thinking of the government is out of line with the thinking of the average Canadian on this subject. A great many people are already disturbed lest politicians and highly placed civil servants are taking advantage of the positions they hold. In these circumstances we ought to bend over backward to make sure that provisions against conflict of interest are sufficiently stringent. The proposal in motion No. 2 can only be described as milquetoast compared with the strong position taken in motion No. 3. The proposal put forward by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) is so weak that I do not believe it would encourage the ordinary person in Canadian society to believe that situations in which conflict of interest could occur are being minimized.
In proposing motion No. 2 the government shows that it is not in touch with the times-that it is really trying to perpetuate the existence of a state of affairs which is unacceptable to the Canadian people. The need is for stringent legislation on this subject, and motion No. 2 simply does not meet it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In dealing with the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) I would say, first of all, it is purely a drafting amendment and that no change in principle is contemplated. What I find most disturbing is the extremely confused interpretation the minister has placed on the
November 28, 1974

differences between Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 3. For the minister to suggest that Motion No. 3 is not so far removed in its effect from Motion No. 2 is misleading.
Motion No. 3 makes it clear that the corporation shall not make loans etc. to directors or to members of the regional advisory councils. It is a direct prohibition. On the other hand the minister, presumably ever anxious to cater to the directors he intends to appoint, says in his motion that loans can be made to directors but they have to be made at board level, and that particulars of the loans are to be recorded in the annual report. We say that if such loans are to be made then the particulars should certainly be recorded and made known. But our position is this: why should the funds of the bank be used to support the business activities of directors or of those associated with directors?
If the House accepts the proposal put forward by the minister it means that any one of the directors, any one of the regional councillors, could borrow a million dollars from the bank at any rate agreed upon, and the only penalty would be that their names would be recorded in the annual report after the event.
I suggest that the minister attempted to confuse the issue. He pointed out that we do allow for a firm or corporation in which the beneficial interest of any person or persons, that is, a director or a member of a regional advisory council, is less than 50 per cent, to borrow in certain circumstances. We incorporated that provision deliberately because we did not wish to be unreasonable, and in an attempt to get government support for the motion. If the minister feels the 50 per cent figure is too high, let him say so. Nothing turns on it. If he thinks it should be 10 per cent, we would agree.
We are saying that only in certain cases would the type of approach favoured by the minister be permitted, that is, a loan to a corporation in which only 50 per cent or less is involved. Such a firm may wish to deal with the Industrial Development Bank, and in so doing we are stating it will have to declare its interest, refrain from voting at the board level, record the fact that a loan has been made, and that only in that situation should any loan be permitted.
The Industrial Development Bank has loaned out $247 million so far this year. It has almost $1 billion worth of loans on its books. If we pass this legislation the bank anticipates that it is going to increase this amount to a total of $2.2 billion. For the first time this corporation will be run by a board of directors, the majority of whom come
from the private sector. Surely it would be the height of irresponsibility for this House to pass a bill which not only does not prohibit those directors from borrowing from this bank, but which sets up a framework within which, by going through the prescribed system, they can literally borrow from the bank to no limit, and in this way divert funds to their own personal benefit and away from the benefit of small business in this country.
Again I point out there is no definition given of "small business". We know that a certain portion of the loans granted by the Industrial Development Bank are over the $200,000 level. It could well be that the Industry, Trade and Commerce influence in running the new Federal Busi-
Federal Business Development Bank Act
ness Development Bank will ensure that loans made in future are much bigger and will total well over the $250 million mark already set by the Industrial Development Bank this year.
This is why I believe it is wrong for the minister to try to gloss over the distinction. The distinction between motion No. 3 and motion No. 2 is very simple. If hon. members vote for motion No. 3 they are voting for a prohibition against the directors of this new bank being authorized, and indeed entitled, to borrow from the bank of which they have the honour to be directors. If hon. members vote for government motion No. 2, what they are saying, in effect, is: "Go ahead, boys; if you are lucky enough to get a Liberal appointment to this board, then you can line up to get your loan. Naturally you will disclose your interest, and we would not like you to vote at board meetings, but in any event you will sure get your loan and, of course, you will have to show it in the annual report afterwards".
Surely it was not the intention, when the Industrial Development Bank concept was originally conceived, that directors would use it perhaps as their own private source of funding. I think it is time parliament showed the government that it in no way intends to accept such a misuse of public funds.
I hope that others will join in this debate, not only at this stage but at third reading, because I believe there is an important question of principle here. We must start drawing the line between conflicts of interest that can be tolerated and the point where parliament says it is not going to tolerate any further conflict of interest of the kind this government is indulging in. It is high time we showed the people of Canada that we believe we are acting responsibly, that we are not going to set up a bank with ten directors and perhaps 50 regional councillors who will have direct access to public funds in the bank for their personal benefit.
I repeat, the simple issue is this: if hon. members vote for motion No. 3 they are saying, "In no way will we tolerate this type of misuse of public funds". If they vote for the government motion No. 2 they are saying, "Go to it, boys; let us have more conflicts of interest. All you have to do is make sure you do it in the right way".


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment only briefly on this bill. Having listened to the comments of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), one begins to think that he is suffering from a Watergate mentality.
Yes, these men are respected in the community. They are gentlemen and ladies who will be picked to serve on the board of directors. One would think they could hardly wait to get their hands on all this money.
When this particular provision came before the committee, many of us on this side were apprehensive and thought there should be a tightening up. The minister was good enough to listen to the representations that were made and he gave us an undertaking that he would bring forth an amendment, which we should look at and see whether it met the kind of requirement that we had in mind, so there might be some form of restriction or control
28543 - 44

November 28, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank Act over loans which quite justifiably might be made to members of the board of directors or to regional councillors.
The rules in motion No. 2 are not easy to overcome, and I think the necessary protection will be provided in this bill. Unhappily, the hon. member for York-Simcoe has brought in an amendment which, so far as the bill is concerned, would put the members of the board of directors and of the regional councils into a kind of economic straitjacket.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Nonsense.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The same is the case with firms of which they are shareholders. This is precisely what would happen. It would put that kind of restriction on people who served on the board of directors or on a regional council. The impact that this would have on their particular business enterprise is just absurd to consider. So I think my words are correctly chosen: these people would be put in an economic straitjacket by the kind of wording suggested in motion No. 3.
I have not heard much in the way of substance in the hon. member's argument. We hear the raised voice, the suggestion that there is a condoning here of a conflict of interest. We see an illustration of phony anger across the floor, but a failure to recognize how difficult it would be to get a loan under motion No. 2 in some kind of underhand way, a loan to which they were not entitled. I think the amendment put forth by the minister, as he undertook to the committee to do, adequately protects the taxpaying public.


Charles Joseph Clark: It doesn't do a thing.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member shouts from his seat that it does not do a thing. That is the kind of intervention we might expect. Obviously he does not even want to read the clause. The hon. member for York-Simcoe says that all one has to do is to get on the board of directors, and the gates are open and you can take out any kind of loan. With respect, that is Watergate thinking, and the businessmen of Canada do not operate in that way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the first member to make reference to Watergate is the hon. member who has just taken his seat. He suggests that the members on this side have Watergate on their minds. It is obvious that Watergate is on his mind.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen) also said that these people are gentlemen, and that therefore we do not need-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: And ladies too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did the hon. member say that?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes, I did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So he said "gentlemen and ladies." Despite the newfangled approach, I would still prefer to say ladies and gentlemen. Therefore, said he, it is better to trust them than to make these ironclad arrangements.
I am going to refer to a conversation that took place between a minister and myself some time ago. It really does not matter when, because it is the kind of conversation that has taken place a good many times since I have been here. On this particular day there was a certain government document that some of us felt it was proper for at least one member of each opposition party to have in advance. For a while we were refused, with the statement that, "It is not that we don't trust you; you are gentlemen. We are doing this for your own protection". I think that is a good argument. I would say that in this matter my friends to the right, and they will probably be surprised to hear me support them for a change-


Robert Elgin McKinley: Not at all; you are learning every day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think my friends to the right have made a good case for the proposition that the provisions regarding conflict of interest should be precise and definite. I also feel that my friends to the right have been quite justified today in seeing in this, not just the issue as it pertains to this legislation, but the issue as it pertains to the question of conflict of interest as a whole.
I do not think one needs to go over this argument in great detail. The difference between Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 3 is quite clear. In Motion No. 3 there is an absolute prohibition against certain interested parties, or against certain people with whom there is a conflict of interest, getting loans from this bank. In Motion No. 2 this is simply made difficult. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, may say it is very difficult but, no matter how difficult it is, it is still possible. That is the simple difference between the two approaches, and I think the House should have the chance to decide between those two.
This leads me to express a concern about the announcement from the Chair earlier today as to how we would deal with Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 3. Maybe I am late in raising it, and perhaps I should have raised the point when His Honour made the announcement. As I recall what happened, he said there would be a vote on No. 2 and, if it was an affirmative vote, that would take care of the matter and there would then be no need to vote on No. 3.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is calling for a vote on No. 3 rather than on No. 2.
If there is a vote on No. 2 and No. 2 carries, there will be no vote on No. 3. It seems to me this matter might be reconsidered by the Chair in that No. 3 goes further than No. 2. Surely the logical thing is to decide first if the position in No. 3 is what we want, then if the vote is yes that settles it. If the vote is no, it is then in order to retreat, as it were, to the position in No. 2. It seems to me that would be a much fairer way than that proposed earlier by the Chair, because if we vote on No. 2 and it is carried we get no chance in respect of the proposition in No. 3. I would hope, therefore, that that aspect of the matter might be reconsidered.


William James Kempling: During the dinner hour I examined the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont), and I
(Mr. Cullen.]
November 28, 1974

cannot see that it is much more than cosmetic changes to Motion No. 2 put forward by the minister. The proposed changes do not really mean that much more, and like those who have spoken before me I want to repeat that there is a considerable difference between Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 3. I find it rather hard to swallow the line of reasoning put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen), that the directors and the regional advisory council members would be put in an economic straitjacket as far as Motion No. 3 is concerned.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, in so far as this bill is concerned.


William James Kempling: I think that is really stretching the point when you consider that the chartered banks in Canada have something like $60 billion available to them. Do you mean to tell me that some 50 people could not go to one of the chartered banks-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know my hon. friend is not deliberately misinterpreting, but I think he may have missed my words. I intended to say that they would be put into an economic straitjacket in so far as borrowing under this bill is concerned.


William James Kempling: And why should they not be?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am just making my point. My point was not that they would not be allowed to deal with other banks and financial institutions, but I said they would be in an economic straitjacket as far as this bill was concerned. They would not be able to make a loan or borrow money from this bank.


William James Kempling: The parliamentary secretary's point is somewhat clarified, but they do not have to take the jobs if they do not want to, Mr. Speaker. The choice is theirs. We are not creating a special situation just for the directors and the advisory council members. I still say that the chartered banks in this country have $60 billion to lend out, and they are quite free to go and apply for a loan from those banks if they desire. I just do not follow that line of reasoning at all.
I think the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) when he drafted Motion No. 3 was pretty straightforward and had his eyes wide open. He suggested, and I think we all generally agree, that if the minister would accept Motion No. 3, but felt that the 50 per cent as stated was too high, then it would be quite in order to reduce that. We had to strike a figure somewhere, and 50 per cent seemed like a reasonable round figure. I think we would be quite prepared to entertain the suggestion that we should reduce that to a lesser percentage.
The parliamentary secretary talked about a Watergate mentality. That is the furthest thing from our minds. We are talking about the integrity of this institution and the legislation we are passing. We had a considerable amount of difficulty, as the minister and the hon. member will appreciate, getting the proper information before the committee in order to make a thorough examination of the legislation.
I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he said these are really two separate issues. I certainly hope the Speaker
Federal Business Development Bank Act will take notice of this and reconsider the matter in order that we might consider Motions Nos. 2 and 3 separately. When the Chair suggested that both motions should be considered at the same time I wonder if Mr. Speaker really understood the intent of Motion No. 3, because although they cover the same general area they are quite different in their approach.
I have not heard the minister, or any of the members on the other side explain why they think a director or a regional advisory councillor should be allowed to get a loan from this bank. As I understand the situation now, directors are not allowed to borrow from their banks.
The hon. member for Gatineau made some reference to the fact that directors of private banks or chartered banks could make loans from those banks but, as he well knows, this is covered by the bylaws of the banks. Just as with any corporation, they have bylaws that restrict the boards of directors.
I have not heard any argument or rhetoric from the other side which convinces me that the director or the regional advisory councillors should be allowed to borrow from this bank. What the bill and the minister's amendment say is that we are making loans available to them, and we have not heard why that should be so.
Surely to goodness we can find 200 people across this country who could be directors and regional advisory council members who do not require assistance from a Federal Business Development Bank. If they or any members of their families happen to be shareholders in a corporation we are not preventing them from borrowing from a bank, and I have not heard anyone on that side explain why these people should be allowed to borrow from this bank.
When I first read the bill this matter jumped right out at me. This hit me as something that should not be allowed. After all, the confidence and the integrity of the Federal Business Development Bank is most important, so far as I am concerned, and any suggestion that would erode its integrity, by insinuation that someone has an inside tract that someone else does not have, I think would be very detrimental. I should like to hear one of the hon. members opposite explain why he thinks a director or regional advisory council member should have the right to borrow from a bank.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The question is on the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Gatineau. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate it if the point raised originally by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), could be dealt with. I take it from your present proposal in voting on motion No. 2-
1776

November 28, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are only voting on the amendment so far.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: All right, it is the amendment. I should like a ruling, if I may, as to whether once we pass the amendment to motion No. 2 we could proceed with motion No. 3 first, because I think the point is well taken that motion No. 3 is much broader and our inclination would be to support it for the reasons given. If that were defeated, we would then support motion No. 2 because it at least is better than the present provision in the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: What the House is considering now is an amendment to Motion No. 2. The Chair has noted the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), and all hon. members will be aware that the vote on motion No. 2 is deferred.
It will give the Chair an opportunity to consider the arguments made. Therefore it is not necessary, in order to make a decision on this point, to have a ruling at this time because of the deferral.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those in favour of the said amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Amendment (Mr. Clermont) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion as amended?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thought you just said this matter would be deferred. Did you mean that you would defer calling the vote or simply defer the recorded vote until a decision is made as to what is to happen in respect of motion No. 3?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The vote itself will be deferred under Standing Order 75(11), and before that vote is taken a decision will be rendered by the Chair.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those in favour of the said motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: In my opinion the
yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of confusion which could be cleared up if somehow we can be assured that there will be a chance to vote on motion No. 3. Somebody says that motion No. 2 has been carried. That is the whole point. We have been arguing that if motion No. 2 carried that would take care of motion No. 3, and that would be wrong. Your Honour said that question would be considered in the meantime. We cannot now have it said that motion No. 2 has been carried, for that would be the end of the story.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I thank the hon. member. It was the understanding of the Chair that there would be a deferred vote on this. Obviously that was not the decision of the House this evening, and the Chair must abide by that. However, the view expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will of course be considered. In the meantime we have motion No. 4 and motion No. 1, which the House may now consider. I would seek the advice of the House as to which of these motions hon. Members wish to pursue now. Motion No. 1 is in the name of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), and motion No. 4 is in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).


Charles Joseph Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could we request that there now be a vote on motion No. 3?


An hon. Member:: No. It is carried.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the impression held by members in various parties on this side of the House was that the vote that was to be taken would not be a vote which would remove forever the possibility of voting on motion No. 3 as it appears on the order paper. We had the understanding from the Chair that the decision would be deferred as to the order in which we would deal with motions Nos. 2 and 3.


Henry Perrin Beatty: On this point of order, Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that it was quite clear to me, from what Your Honour said, that it was your intention to defer the vote on motion No. 2. It was our understanding we would have the opportunity then to have a vote on motion No. 3. Once having said you were deferring the vote on motion No. 2 you proceeded to call it, which came as a great surprise to us. I suggest it would be quite improper not to give the House an opportunity consciously to make a decision as to whether or not Motion No. 2 or motion No. 3 should be passed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am sorry for the confusion on this point. I am particularly sorry our House leader is not here. We discussed this, and the consensus certainly at that time was that we would recommend that we proceed with the debate, and that hopefully we would proceed to all stages of the debate, but that if there were any votes they should
November 28, 1974

be deferred to a later date. The initial suggestion was that they be deferred until Tuesday, but Tuesday being an opposition day we thought possibly it would have to be Wednesday. Unfortunately our House leader is not here, but I would recommend that you at least consider this suggestion.


An hon. Member:: You have already voted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I think that the House finds itself in this difficulty because the opportunity to defer the vote, which was the understanding mentioned by the hon. member for York-Simcoe, was missed because the required number of members did not rise in their places, which would have allowed the Chair to postpone the vote according to Standing Order 75(11).
One way in which we can resolve the difficulty is, by unanimous consent, calling the question again on motion No. 2 and have members rise, and then we can defer the vote until the required time. If that were agreed then there still would be an opportunity for the Chair to take into consideration the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is confusion and, with respect, I think it is in your mind as well, between taking a vote and having a recorded vote. If you put the question and call for the yeas and nays-


An hon. Member:: He did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, when Your Honour puts the question and calls for the yeas and nays and you declare the motion carried, that is the vote. To say that it is being put off until Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday is merely deferring the formality of the recorded division. My complaint is that the taking of the vote on motion No. 2, by virtue of the announcement made earlier today from the Chair by His Honour, Mr. Speaker, wipes out any possibility of voting on motion No. 3. In my view what should have been deferred was the taking of the vote the way we took it. When you say that the recorded division is being put off, that does not put off the vote. The vote has already been taken on motion No. 2 and has been carried, and when you couple that with Mr. Speaker's announcement, the vote on motion No. 2 takes care of No. 3, and No. 3 has had it.
I think the whole procedure should be reviewed by Your Honour at your next morning prayer meeting to see if you cannot sort it out again.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have some indication from the acting house leader as to whether it is the intention to defer whatever the vote is until Wednesday, on the understanding that the debate will be completed as quickly as possible either tonight or tomorrow.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get some clarification with regard to the proposal respecting a deferred vote. It is not clear to me how that deferred vote would be taken. What is the proposal of the opposition, or of the Chair, in regard to the order in which the votes
Federal Business Development Bank Act would be taken and, if so, when, and what does the phrase "deferred vote" mean? I would appreciate, as I am sure other members of the House would, a clarification of some of these terms.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, pardon me for getting up so often, but what I asked for when I raised the point some time ago was not the mere deferment of the mechanics of a recorded vote until some other day but that the vote on motion No. 3 be called before the vote on No. 2. I gave my reasons, and the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) repeated them. Motion No. 3 is broader, and it seems to me that we should decide whether we go that far first. If, instead, we decide on the narrower proposition in motion No. 2, that ends the story. It seems to me that what is called for is a review of Mr. Speaker's announcement this afternoon that the vote would come first on motion No. 2 and an affirmative vote on it would settle motion No. 3. I think that the order should be reversed, that the vote on motion No. 3 should be taken first.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because I believe in doing things logically. An affirmative vote on motion No. 3 would adopt the wider proposition. If it were defeated, it would be still open to us to slip back to motion No. 2. But if motion No. 2 is carried, there is no opportunity to go on to motion No. 3. I suggest that the House agree to let the whole matter stand until Mr. Speaker, and the rest of those in the chair and at the table, can review the matter at one of their morning sessions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I thank hon. members for their contribution to the present dilemna in which we find ourselves. The Chair will make a suggestion to the House in order that we may proceed with the business before us this evening, and that is that, by unanimous consent, the vote on motion No. 2 be deemed not to have been put, and that we proceed with the debate immediately on motion No. 3. If the House would agree to that, then we would be able to proceed with our business this evening in a straightforward way.


Alastair William Gillespie: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to clarify this matter of the debate on motion No. 3, because it was my impression that the House has been debating both motions Nos. 2 and 3 since we met this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the order of voting that is at stake.


Alastair William Gillespie: We have come now to the point where we are ready to proceed to other motions, and of course I would seek your guidance as to whether it would be motion No. 1 or No. 4. But so far as the debate is concerned, I understand that we have completed the debate on both earlier motions. The confusion, as I understand it, revolves around whether or not there was to be a deferred vote, or whether in fact a vote has occurred which has been an affirmative vote in favour of motion No. 2. I am anxious to co-operate with the House and to proceed with this bill as, I am sure, are members of the House. I hope it

November 28, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank Act
might be possible to reach agreement to conclude the debate on both motion No. 1 and motion No. 4 this evening, and then have a deferred vote at whatever time Your Honour feels is appropriate. I think that the House leaders and yourself have agreed.
The point I want to make is that this is an important bill. The whole question of extending loans to small businesses in Canada has been seriously slowed down awaiting the provisions in the bill, and I hope that all members in the House can join in agreeing this evening to an expeditious completion of the bill on the report stage. On that basis I would be prepared to go ahead.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, further to the same point of order that the acting House leader has brought up. I would ask whether the acting House leader would agree that we not proceed with third reading until the deferred vote that he has mentioned can be held on the report stage. If we could have that assurance, I think we could proceed with that kind of arrangement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, surely the answer to that point is obvious. We cannot proceed to third reading until the report stage is over.


Robert Elgin McKinley: But I am not sure the minister knows it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on something the minister said a moment ago. In my view he was right, up to the point where he said that the debate on motions Nos. 2 and 3 is now concluded. But then he got off base a bit when he said that the confusion is about the deferred vote but on which motion to vote on first. I thought that Your Honour had that straightened out a moment ago when you suggested we vote first on motion No. 3. If it carries, then that is the last vote, but if it is defeated, then you can put motion No. 2. I think Your Honour was right a few moments ago.


Robert Elgin McKinley: That does not answer my question.


Alastair William Gillespie: In answer to the acting House leader's question to me, Mr. Speaker, I would agree that the vote on the motion take place, of course, at the report stage before we move on to third reading. I would suggest that the timing of the deferred vote be a matter of discussion between House leaders, but that the deferred vote should take place on each of those motions at the same time. I am not expressing any opinion as to which should come first. That opinion has been asked of the Chair, and it is something on which all members of the House would look to the Chair for guidance.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the acting government House leader has said, we were wondering whether it would be possible to have these deferred votes next Tuesday, immediately following orders of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is an opposition day.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, for our side I say yes.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, now that there is some agreement as to how to proceed, perhaps it might be made an order of the House so that on Tuesday the vote could be taken automatically on all four motions. This might save some trouble.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute, Mr. Speaker. My friends of the Social Credit Party are justifiably muttering that they do not want time taken out of their opposition day for three or four recorded votes.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, in a spirit of co-operation may I suggest that perhaps we could do it Wednesday after orders of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Mercer Reid: Could we have a House order, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The House has heard the suggestion. By unanimous consent the vote on motion No. 2 is deemed not to have been taken. Motion No, 2 stands. The question would be put on motion No. 3 and deferred. Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Mercer Reid: Could I make that clear, Mr. Speaker, that the votes on all four motions will be taken on Wednesday after orders of the day. Is that the understanding?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is that agreed?


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, we would agree provided we stay on this item until report stage is concluded.


Alastair William Gillespie: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I thought we had reached agreement on the basis that we would complete debate on the motions this evening and had agreed to the deferred vote. We have already finished the debate on motions Nos. 2 and 3, and the suggestion I made was that we conclude debate on the remaining motions this evening and have a deferred vote at a later date.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there was no agreement that two motions would be dealt with in the next 55 minutes. It may take an hour of tomorrow's time, or two hours, or an hour and a half. But it would be done before Wednesday. There is no doubt about that. However, we did not say we were going to be limited to 55 minutes. We have taken up 30 minutes discussing this procedural problem tonight. I do not think there was any agreement of the House that we would limit ourselves to 55 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it agreed that the House now proceed to consideration of motion No. 4?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thought you were going to put the vote on motion No. 3 so that we could defer it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.

November 28, 1974


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those in favour of the said motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, in the discussions that have taken place as to the disposition of the report stage it was my understanding that the votes on all the motions would be taken Wednesday after orders of the day.


Some hon. Members:: That is right.


John Mercer Reid: I wonder if it might be possible to consider two alternatives to the question of that timing, first, that we might sit for an extra hour this evening if there was agreement to conclude the motion. That would provide two hours for discussion of the motions. Alternatively, perhaps we could agree to provide another hour or two hours out of tomorrow's time and conclude them that way.


An hon. Member:: Right after question period.


John Mercer Reid: It really does not matter to us when it is. There is a program that is expected to be completed tomorrow, and whether we take the time tomorrow or tonight does not seem to matter.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. parliamentary secretary's concern but we do not believe it will be necessary to sit extra hours tonight to conclude discussion on this item. If we do not finish tonight perhaps an hour or so tomorrow would be sufficient, unless other parties disagree with that. I cannot speak for other parties.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That Bill C-14, An act to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank, be amended by numbering clause 48 as sub-clause 48(1) and by adding next following line 26 on page 20, the following:
"(2) The statement of accounts that the Corporation is required to include in its annual report under the Financial Administration Act shall disclose the five highest salary or remuneration ranges in the pay and classification structure of the Corporation and the name and official job description of each officer or employee within each such range, other than a person selected from the public service of Canada under paragraph 5(b), during the year to which the statement relates."
He said: Mr. Speaker, we propose this amendment as a result of the rather surprising fact that, in committee, we were denied the right to learn the salaries of the five senior officers of the Industrial Development Bank. Granted we know that the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who is also president of the Industrial Development Bank, earns $75,000 a year. That is public knowledge. When we asked about the salaries of the other senior
Federal Business Development Bank Act
officials of the Industrial Development Bank we were denied that information.
During questioning in committee the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) asked us to show a precedent where senior officers of a Crown corporation were required to disclose their salaries. Such precedent was not produced at that meeting. At a subsequent meeting dealing with the Export Development Corporation, however, it was pointed out that in the corporation's annual report for 1973 in Note 9 to the financial statement, the aggregate of salaries of the officers of the Export Development Corporation was revealed.
Consequently we are in the position that the minister denied the right of the committee to know the salary levels of senior executives of the bank, on grounds that there is no precedent for such information to be divulged, without realizing that a Crown corporation which answers to him is quite prepared to reveal the aggregate of executive salaries. Surely when we are dealing with taxpayers' money, the taxpayers should be entitled to full disclosure of such relevant information. The minister is not justified in refusing to provide this information.
The government, along with provincial governments, has insisted on private corporations making this type of knowledge available to shareholders. Surely, as all the people of Canada are shareholders of our Crown corporations, it is not unreasonable to ask those Crown corporations to make that knowledge available to their shareholders, the people of Canada.
What does the law say about private corporations? Part I of the Canada Corporations Act requires the following information to be made available:
. .. the aggregate remuneration paid by the company during its last financial year, if completed at least three months prior to the offer...
That refers to an offer of takeover:
. .. and estimated to be paid or payable during the current financial year ... to directors and (separately stated) to officers who individually have received or may be entitled to receive remuneration in excess of ten thousand dollars per annum;
Our law says that private Canadian corporations must make such information available.
Ontario Securities Act regulations say that remuneration of directors and senior officers shall be furnished, if possible in tabular form. That information is to include:
The amount of the aggregate direct remuneration paid or payable by the issuer . ..
That language refers to the company issuing the
security:
.. . and its subsidiaries, whose financial statements are consolidated with those of the issuer, to the directors and senior officers of the issuer, and as a separate amount the aggregate direct remuneration paid or payable to such directors and senior officers by the subsidiaries of the issuer whose financial statements are not consolidated with those of the issuer, such aggregate amounts to be furnished for the last completed financial year of the issuer and as separate amounts for the period from the last completed financial year to a date within 30 days of the date of the preliminary prospectus or the date of the prospectus filed under section 64, as the case may be.
I could cite other examples to establish the principle that a company must reveal the salary levels of its senior

November 28, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank Act
personnel. Yet, strangely, with respect to a company which is answerable to the public, namely, a Crown corporation, there is no such provision.
If there had been frank disclosure in committee, motion No. 4 would not have been necessary. As it is, we see no alternative but to propose motion No. 4, to ensure that the salary ranges of top officials working for the Federal Business Development Bank will be made public knowledge.
It was suggested in committee that motion No. 4 is not necessary, and that what we seek can be accomplished by an amendment to the Financial Administration Act. Mr. Speaker, it is not within the power of the opposition to amend the Financial Administration Act; therefore we have no alternative but to propose motion No. 4.
Let me add something else. Any member of this House may phone Washington and ask what is the salary of the senior officers of any state-owned corporation in the United States. That information will be given to you over the telephone. Such information is regarded as public knowledge. I have done this myself. I telephoned and asked what is the salary of the chairman of the Export Import Bank, and the public relations person I was speaking to said that it is $40,000. I then asked for the breakdown of the salaries of the next four senior officers of the Export Import Bank, a state corporation comparable to a Crown corporation in Canada, and was told that they each earn $38,000, and that there is no expense allowance. Mr. Kissinger's salary was given to me. You can ask for the salary of any government official in the United States. I was told such information is available as a matter of right to anyone who wants it. Yet, in Canada a secretive, arrogant, ruthless government denies such knowledge to members of the opposition and to the people of Canada. So we are forced to draw this matter to the attention of the public.
I ask all hon. members to support motion No. 4, so that we may be certain that this type of knowledge will not be kept secret in future. Why should it be secret? Public service salaries are public knowledge. We are not asking what the actual salaries of the officers of the bank are to be; we are asking, on behalf of the Canadian people, what is to be the salary range of the five senior executives of the proposed bank. Why should there not be this type of open disclosure? I will be dismayed if the government does not support this amendment.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I must endorse as strongly as I can what the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has just said. We wasted three one-and-a-half-hour sittings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in trying to obtain the sort of information which must be divulged by private companies under the Canada Corporation Act. Our requests were refused, even though such information must be provided by the private sector. Yet here we are dealing with a Crown corporation and I, and other members of that committee, cannot understand why this information was refused.
We merely asked for the salary ranges of the five most senior officers. That information could have been provided; the exact dollars and cents figures may not have

been necessary. I say that the government's refusal in this area, its attempt to keep certain information secret, indicates that it is out of touch with what the public of Canada expects.
Something happened in the committee which has not been made generally known. After we finished dealing with Bill C-14, we considered Bill C-9, the Export Development Act. An official of the Crown corporation concerned volunteered to make the sort of disclosure for which we are asking at present. When asked why, he said, "It is just good accounting practice; private corporations must do it, and I believe we should be required to do it as well."
That was an honest statement made by the President of the Export Development Bank, and he showed the direction in which we should go. I think it was a good statement and I can only hope the minister will support the amendment, or make some arrangement for disclosure each year in the annual report. This is the direction in which society should be going, and the bill before us should at least reflect what is being done by the Export Development Bank.


Henry Perrin Beatty: If the minister would like to make a comment I would be delighted to let him speak first.


Alastair William Gillespie: I should like to clarify a number of points. First, the amendment does recognize the relevance and jurisdiction of the Financial Administration Act. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) made that clear. He said that the statement the corporation was required to include in its annual report under the Financial Administration Act should disclose the higher salaries of remuneration ranges, and so on. Clearly he drew attention to the relevance and jurisidiction of the Financial Administration Act in connection with this measure.
The second point I wish to make is that the Financial Administration Act does not require disclosure. If parliament wishes to amend the Financial Administration Act with respect to questions of disclosure, that is a separate matter and one which should be dealt with on its own merits, particularly since I think all members would be concerned that disclosure provisions should apply uniformly. That is beyond our scope at the present time in dealing with this bill.
The suggestion is made from time to time that information as to salary ranges should be furnished under the Financial Administration Act with respect to the operations of the Industrial Development Bank or the FBDB in much the same way as information regarding ranges of salaries in the public service is available. But as was pointed out in evidence by the general manager before the committee, the administration of that Crown corporation is not arranged in the same way as it is in the public service, so it is not possible to classify income by salary ranges.
The last speaker was dealing with the practice of the Export Development Corporation in providing information about the aggregate salaries paid to its officers. This information is appended in a note to the financial state-
November 28, 1974

merit. I find this is a useful practice. I do not quarrel with the hon. member's suggestion in any way. I will simply say that I, for one, as the minister through whom the new bank would report to parliament, would hope and expect that the new board of directors would adopt the practice which the Export Development Corporation has adopted with regard to the disclosure of aggregate salaries. I do not think I would be satisfied with the top five; it might make a lot more sense and be a lot more helpful if it were to include the top ten salaries. I hope this expression of opinion might meet the point raised by hon. members opposite, and if this were considered a reasonable way of dealing with the question we might move on to the next item.


Henry Perrin Beatty: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I personally am not satisfied to accept a simple assurance from the minister that he intends to encourage the new corporation to act in this way. Ministers come and go, but the principle here is one which I feel should extend beyond the term of office of a particular minister. If the minister were willing to give an assurance to the House that the government would make appropriate amendments to the Financial Administration Act, I would be inclined not to support the motion. I am disposed to accept the minister's contention that if the principle involved here is to be asserted, this should be done on a global scale. However, in the absence of an undertaking to enforce this principle generally in law I believe a precedent should be set here. The House is entitled to know what use is to be made of public funds.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has suggested this is yet another example of the government setting a double standard in its procedures-one for private corporations and another for public corporations. As a citizen and as a taxpayer I am less concerned about the behaviour of private corporations than I am about the behaviour of public corporations.
If an example of behaviour is to be set, the standard governing the public sector should be the higher one-we should make sure that those in the public sector go the second half mile. There is no secrecy about this information in the United States. Citizens of that country are allowed access to this kind of information if they are interested in it.
I have no compelling passion to learn the salaries of the top five officials in the Business Development Bank. What is of greater interest to me is the principle of openness, the right of the people to know how their money is being spent. The onus is upon the government, upon those who would argue that the policy of openness should not be followed, to defend its actions. I urge hon. members to support the motion proposed by my hon. friend from York-Simcoe.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on motion No. 4. I must say I found it rather difficult to follow the minister's comments on this amendment. I do not know whether he had prepared anything or whether he made up his speech on the spur of the moment but, as I say, I found him difficult to follow. As I understood him he was saying that
Federal Business Development Bank Act
he would like to see this sort of disclosure even by the top ten officials of the Federal Business Development Bank.
I find some sympathy for the position that the exact amount should be disclosed, since there is no such thing as a range of salaries. I think a good argument can be made for saying that this disclosure might be prejudicial when you are endeavouring to secure top level officials with entrepreneurial experience for this bank, but on balance I think the aggregate of the salaries paid would suffice.
After all, Mr. Speaker, if a firm tries to secure a loan from the Industrial Development Bank, one of the requirements of the IDB is that the aggregate salaries of the top officials must be disclosed by the auditor in the financial statement of the company. Many times they restrict the top limit to a certain figure, and the auditor is required to set it out in the statement.
With regard to the minister's remarks about the Financial Administration Act, if the minister gave us a commitment that he would recommend to his colleagues-he is the only one who can do this, we cannot-that the act be amended to provide for this kind of disclosure, then it would find a good deal of sympathy and support among the members on this side of the House.
We are not in any way trying to make things difficult for this new venture. Obviously we want to see it get the best calibre of person available in the country today. But by the same token we think the minister has a particular responsibility for seeing to it that the operations of the bank are open and above reproach.
In view of other remarks made today about disclosure and conflict of interest, which I will not repeat, I think it is incumbent upon the minister to see that the relevant information is made available in the annual report of the new bank. I do not think it is enough for him to say that he would hope that the directors, in their wisdom, would include this sort of information in the annual report; there must be some section of a statute requiring that this must be done, so that as ministers and directors change, and as government goes on, this reporting process is not lost.
I hope that the minister will respond to these remarks and will clarify what he said earlier, because he did leave a little confusion in my mind, and I think in the minds of many other members of the House as well.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the remarks of the minister because I was hoping he would indicate to the House some reasons, based either on principle or on practicality, in his experience as the responsible minister for this bank, why we should not adopt the motion proposed by my colleague from York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). It is an amendment that is founded upon the principle of doing public business and spending public money in a way that the public can see; it is founded on the principle of openness.
I was a little surprised by the minister's suggestion that he would prefer disclosure of the salaries of the ten top officials, and as a result of preferring this disclosure by the ten top officials, he would be prepared to vote against disclosure by the top five. That seems to me to involve some rather roundabout logic.

November 28, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank Act
I must also say in passing.that if the minister expects members, particularly those of us on this side of the House who are worried about the principle of openness, to accept his word that he personally would encourage his officials to be open in this regard, I think he will have to explain to the House why that instruction was not given during the long sessions of the standing committee, where for roughly three meetings this information was sought but refused Against that background I do not think the minister can expect us simply to accept his undertaking that he will encourage disclosure voluntarily, while at the same time he proposes to vote against the requirement by law of this kind of disclosure.
The minister made reference to the Financial Administration Act, and indicated that he would like to delay the kind of change that is being proposed by the hon. member for York-Simcoe until there has been a general change in the over-all provisions of the Financial Administration Act.
I think all of us tonight are aware of the backlog of legislation that there always is in this House, and surely no realist would assume that anything like short order amendments to the Financial Administration Act would be brought before the House. If the minister is asking us to wait until that act is brought to this House in amended form before making this necessary democratic change, then in effect he is asking us to wait forever, and those of us on this side of the House are not prepared to do this.
Dealing still with the Financial Administration Act, I think it is quite clear that, whatever that act provides, it is no obstacle to our acting here tonight on the amendment to this bill requiring the kind of disclosure proposed in respect of the five senior officials of this particular agency. At the moment there is no such prohibition at all.
The alternative of waiting until there is a general amendment to that act will not achieve the goal set forth in the hon. member's amendment. Either we do it now and guarantee public access to public information about public officials spending public money, or we will not do it at all. It is simply no answer to say that there is some other way, either by making a subsequent amendment or by fulfilling the hope of the minister of doing what the amendment proposes to do. It appears from the silence of the minister that there is no reason in principle why the amendment should not be accepted and the salaries of these particular five officials disclosed. As I say, we cannot wait for amendments to another act to bring this about.
I took a note of what the minister said, and I think he said that he personally believed it would be useful to follow this practice. I come back to the fact that it has not been followed, even under questioning, when it was the expressed wish of the elected members of the House of Commons serving in the recent committee to have this practice followed.
More particularly, I would question the minister on his logic. If he believes that it would be a useful practice to follow, then why does he decline to so enact? Why does he decline to make it a requirement? What is the reason for his refusal to give legal effect to what he says he personally believes would be a good thing to do? What is going on? Why is he not prepared to support this very sensible amendment, which is founded on the principle of public

access to public information, and openness on the part of the government?
I have to express a certain skepticism, that I think is common on this side of the House, about the amount of openness we can expect from the government as long as that is simply a matter of government will, and as long as it is something the government can voluntarily do rather than being required to do.
All of us have frequently had occasion to seek information, the provision of which would not violate the security of the country, and would not be telling any basic or damning secret, but would simply provide the public of Canada with information that we have a right to but have been denied.
My colleague points out that this has happened most recently in respect of guidelines concerning ministers and conflict of interest, but it goes back to the LIP program, which is a matter of daily question in this House, to the Opportunities for Youth Program, and back into virtually any field you might wish to raise.
I see the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) perk his head up at the mention of the Opportunities for Youth Program, which was shifted out of his jurisdiction a year ago. I think the government knows that this is the case, and on its past record members have no reason at all to expect that from a simple expression of hope things will be made public. We know very well that the only way public information becomes public is when the law requires it to become public. That is what we are trying to do. That is what the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is trying to do by this eminently sensible and highly progressive amendment.
As one of my colleagues has indicated, this is an amendment very much more in tune with current public demand for openness than is the action of the government which, for some reason or other the minister will not explain, is insisting on secrecy regarding the payment of public funds to officials of this agency.
I think I have made the case I wanted to make, but I would ask the minister or any of his assistants or supporters to tell us if there are reasons that we should not adopt this amendment. If there are reasons, tell us what they are. Until someone speaks up and tells us what these reasons are we, and the people of Canada, must naturally assume that the government's only reason is that it wants to keep this matter secret, and that is not an adequate reason to those of us on this side of the House.


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


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to make it abundantly clear that it is the principle in this amendment that we are seeking to establish. If the minister feels that an amendment is necessary in respect of the salaries only for the top five, that is acceptable. If he wishes to have specific salaries set out as opposed to a range of salaries, that too is acceptable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think I should point out to the hon. member that he is more or less
November 28, 1974

repeating part of the speech he has already made. I think we have now come to the point, the minister having already spoken, where the House has to make a decision, unless other hon. members wish to speak. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour 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 opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This vote stands deferred until Wednesday next after the orders of the day are called, and it will follow the votes on Motions Nos. 1, 3, and 2, also to be taken at that time.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been some consultations, and perhaps Your Honour might wish to have an order of the House, by consent, that the votes will take place on these motions on Wednesday next after orders of the day are called, it being understood that we will take tomorrow to complete the consideration of the remaining amendments at the report stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we have agreed to that already, or I thought we had agreed to it, but I am happy to agree to it again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair was aware of an order that has been agreed upon. Unless I did not catch the point raised by the hon. parliamentary secretary, it is my understanding that an order was already made that all these deferred votes will be called after calling of orders of the day next Wednesday, in the following order: Motion No. 1, followed by Motion No. 3, Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 4. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think at this time, before the House continues its consideration of the report stage of Bill C-14, I might put some comments on the record.
Hon. members are aware of the position taken this afternoon by Mr. Speaker in considering a previous motion that appeared on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). That amendment was to the definition clause, and the Speaker's reservations were mainly on two grounds.
I make this point now in order to clarify that in accepting the present amendment proposed by the hon. member I do not in any way intend to go contrary to the previous position taken by Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker said he had
Federal Business Development Bank Act some reservations about the amendment on two grounds. He suggested first that it was contrary to the basic principle of the bill, and that the interpretation clause should not be used to enlarge on the scope of the bill in the way attempted by this amendment. He added that this was not the basic nature of a definition section, and that this would go far beyond the scope of an interpretation clause, usually being a simple definition clause as opposed to a substantive clause.
On the other hand, having listened to the remarks and the points made by hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), Mr. Speaker indicated his desire to take into account those representations, and indicated that he did not want to deprive any member of the opportunity of discussing the important point in this proposed amendment, which was defective mainly because it was attached to the interpretation clause.
I feel it would be very difficult for me to question the amendment put before the House at this time by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton with the knowledge that Mr. Speaker, in his conclusion, said that if the House would give consent to the tabling of an amendment at eight o'clock he felt that might take the House out of the then rather awkward procedural position. Although I do not wish really to invite a debate on the procedural acceptability of the amendment, some hon. members might wish to suggest there is a substantive factor in it. However, on account of everything that was said by Mr. Speaker, I feel I should give consent to the hon. member to present his motion. Therefore I would be willing at this time to put the amendment unless there are strong objections. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That Bill C-14, an Act to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank, be amended in sub-clause 4(1) by deleting line 42 on page 2, and substituting the following: "going, provided however that such assistance as authorized shall only be given in the case of a business enterprise which is carried on in Canada by
(a)	a person who is
(i)	a Canadian citizen,
(ii)	a landed immigrant within the meaning of the Immigration Act ordinarily resident in Canada other than a landed immigrant who has been eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship for more than one year, or
(iii)	a British subject who has not ceased to be ordinarily resident in Canada since the twenty-fifth day of June, 1967, or
(b)	a corporation incorporated in Canada with or without share capital, a co-operative or partnership, that is not less than fifty-one per cent beneficially owned, directly or indirectly, by a person or persons described in paragraph (a):"


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, are copies of this new motion available?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Yes. This afternoon, as it had been suggested by Mr. Speaker that I remove the amendment from the interpretation clause and perhaps find another place in

November 28, 1974
Adjournment Debate
the bill in which it could be inserted I consulted a number of experienced and expert officers and members of parliament. We found that it could be placed in subclause 4. As a result of that there has been a change of wording at the end of subclause 4, and the wording is then included completely as it is recorded here in the notice of motion pursuant to Standing Order 75(5).
The printing office has been good enough to run off 100 or so copies which I have available for distribution to members. I appreciate their co-operation and unanimous consent. I apologize that I have copies only in English, but if members would like to read the French version in the order paper they will find it is substantially the same other than a few words. I presume it will appear in the translated form tomorrow, so that members will be able to read it in both official languages.
I would be prepared to begin my remarks at this time, Mr. Speaker, but I note it is two minutes before ten o'clock. I would probably require 20 minutes or so for my comments. I wonder if I might call it ten o'clock now and begin my comments tomorrow, if this is the wish of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to call it ten o'clock and allow the hon. member to make his presentation tomorrow when we return to this order of business?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-pardonnez-moi, Madame le president. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, November 19, the day after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) presented his budget, I put a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), which is recorded at page 1442 of Hansard. My question was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Now that the Minister of Finance has taken steps to improve the position of the 40 per cent of Canadians 65 years of age and over who have other income, what steps does the government propose to take to provide a meaningful improvement in the economic position of the 50 to 60 per cent of Canadians over 65 who rely exclusively on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement and who already pay no income tax?
The initial reply of the Prime Minister was to remind me that the reason the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) was not present that day was because he was at a meeting with provincial welfare ministers discussing the whole problem of a policy paper on social security published a year and a half ago.

At that point I put to the Prime Minister this supplementary question:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that on more than one occasion the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said that from time to time there have to be adjustments in the basic rate of old age security, may I ask whether consideration is being given to increasing that basic rate during this session?
Then the entry in Hansard reads as follows:


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.
It is that "No" which prompted me to file this question for an adjournment debate.
I appreciate the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is here tonight to give me his answer, which I hope will be better than the one I received from the Prime Minister. I hope I can say that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I have a good deal of respect for each other, and each of us appreciates the concern of the other about the position of senior citizens. We agree on a good many things, but there is one point on which we have differed.
I am an unrepentant advocate of universal old age pensions. I believe that there should be a substantial basic rate paid to everyone, and I would like to see us get back to there being no means test on any portion of the old age pension. I think it is fair to say that the Minister of National Health and Welfare accepts the proposition of a basic old age pension on a universal plan up to a certain point, but he says there is a point at which the government has to be selective. By that he means there comes a point when any additional moneys that are available have to be used to increase the pensions of those who have less than others may have.
What annoys me about the position taken by the Minister of Finance in his budget is that this government is practising the principle of selectivity in reverse. What the government has done has been to provide an improvement in the economic position of Canadians, 65 years of age and over, who are already at the top. It has given something to those who already have something more, and nothing to those who have only the old age security and guaranteed income supplement on which to rely.
The percentages that were in my question are based on the fact that about 55 per cent to 60 per cent of Canadians 65 years of age and over receive not only old age security but some or all of the guaranteed income supplement. This means that their income levels are such that they are paying no income tax now. The improvements that the Minister of Finance has made, welcome as they are, apply therefore only to the 40 per cent-not a round figure but it is pretty close-of Canadians 65 years of age and over who have income other than old age security and any portion of the guaranteed income supplement. They will receive benefits from the budget, some this year, more next year if they live through 1975. There are the provisions for the first $1,000 private pension money to be exempt from income tax and for a $1,000 of interest income to be exempt from tax.
There is also the provision whereby, in the case of a married couple if only one is the taxpayer, that one can claim the age exemptions of both, and, as the Minister of
November 28, 1974

Finance pointed out, there are certain cases where the total exemption could be $8,000. That is fine for couples 65 years of age and over who have $8,000 or more, but no one knows better than the minister that the number of senior citizens who have $8,000 or more income a year is not more than 40 per cent; indeed it is quite a bit below 40 per cent of Canadians 65 and over.
So I put it to my good friend, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and my fellow worker in the field of trying to do something for senior citizens: is he not ashamed of the fact that his government is practising selectivity in reverse? Does he not think that it is now time to do something for the 55 per cent to 60 per cent of Canadians who get no benefit from the budget? Is it not time to extend still further the principle of universality and provide now not just for the quarterly cost of living escalation of pensions but for a substantial increase in the basic amount of the old age security pension?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, first of all I wish to thank the hon. member for his kind words. I will not elaborate further on my own respect for his views and his abilities because of my fear that after ten o'clock this House might turn into a mutual admiration society.
He has mentioned areas of disagreement in terms of policies in this field, particularly on the question of universality versus selectivity. It is indeed my considered view that while we should retain the element of universality in old age pensions with basic old age pensions, we also must have a supplement which will help those people who really need to be helped. I am supported in this respect by all provincial governments in the practice they have followed, including governments belonging to the party of my hon. friend. Not one single NDP government at the provincial level has increased the basic old age pension, while some of them have not hesitated to increase the supplement. I can understand that rationale very well.
The hon. member also talks about means tests. I wish I could convince him that what we are talking about here is an income test. I think he has been used to the criteria in the previous legislation, but we have moved to an income test and there is a significant difference between them. I suspect we will have an opportunity to discuss that later.
It is true that the last budget helped senior citizens, particularly those over the guaranteed income supplement rate. 1 must stress, however, that senior citizens with marginal incomes apart from what they could get if they are on a partial guaranteed income supplement, will also benefit from the provisions contained in the budget. This should not be ignored particularly in relation to the $1,000 exemption for senior citizens on private pension plans.
The hon. member argues that we should now add to the basic and guaranteed income supplement. I can only tell him that we have made a lot of progress in the last three years. I have no time tonight to go over that, but I will indicate that we will again have escalation on January 1 which will bring the OAS/GIS benefits to over $200 a month.
After Christmas I hope to introduce a bill that will provide income tested benefits to spouses between ages 60 and 65. So we are making progress, though maybe not as
Adjournment Debate
fast as the hon. member would wish. I understand his eagerness; he has been an eager beaver, if I may say so, in this area for many, many years and has been prodding successive governments in this field. I respect his views but I am telling him we are making progress.


HOUSING-REQUEST FOR FUNDS FOR LOW RENTAL HOUSING
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my appearance on the late show debate comes as a result of my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) on October 22 regarding limited dividend housing, which is a program extremely vital to my district.
Further to the fact that I have been able to get some answers from the minister and his officials at the supplementary estimates meeting, which I have just left tonight,
I want to try and make an impression on the parliamentary secretary as to the vital necessity of considering the part of Canada which I represent in my endeavours to bring to his attention and the attention of the House the potential development of western Newfoundland which with providing infrastructural support would make it a contributing factor towards Canada's benefit rather than to continually have to make requests for financial support towards that part of the Atlantic region.
Having regard for limited dividend housing, the main city in my district, the city of Cornerbrook, with the complete support of funding from the province is providing a regional college to look after some 500 students who will come from all parts of the west coast, and require low cost housing, but also will require accommodation for some 50 to 100 professors and their families. This, naturally, will require housing development, along with many other public services for additional citizens and children.
It is obvious then that the federal government must treat as a priority the need to provide this housing, in co-operation with the provincial government and private entrepreneurs.
This focuses attention on the flexibility of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to rise to the task, along with the government of Canada, to provide the funds and to induce contractors to enter this field and fill the need in Newfoundland and the Atlantic region generally. I point out the need to support progress, even though existing limited dividend housing in areas which already exist leave much to be desired. In referring to low cost rental housing it is obvious that the greatest need in Canada is in the field of low rental public housing for those on fixed incomes and for those having to resort to welfare.
Unfortunately, public housing has gone beyond the comprehension of the ability of provincial governments to cope with the cost. May I again use my own province as an example. Under the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation public housing is gone beyond their financial capability to cope when recent tenders have indicated that the lowest tenders offered were in the area of $45,000 per row house unit. This puts a complete block into the capability of the province and it emphasizes the need for alternative sources of housing.

November 28, 1974
Adjournment Debate
It has become recognized, Mr. Speaker, if I may deal with this area of concern, that the most economical type of home which can be provided is the mobile type of home, or the prefabricated home and it is my opinion that this is the area that should be explored to try to answer the short term problem of housing.
Newfoundland has not taken advantage of co-operative housing to the extent that would help to alleviate the housing crisis, and this emphasizes the lack of communication to citizens of our country. This holds true of many parts of our country. This also emphasizes the capability of local CMHC offices to be able to serve the public who look for assistance.
Once again may I point out to the parliamentary secretary, who is to answer for the minister, as I have pointed out to officials of the department, that I commend the work done by the CMHC staff in the office in my district; but let me point out that there is an overburden of applications with which they are faced. I ask the minister to consider increasing the staff in order that more Canadians can be served in a humane and considerate manner.
I can tell him that if all agencies of government were as co-operative as the staff of the CMHC office in Corner Brook, which serves an area far beyond the call of duty, I would not be bothering the minister as much as I have done. I can only request that he make use of the advice of members opposite who have no axe to grind and who only want to serve their constituents to the best of their ability. If we all do our duty then we, as a parliament, will be performing our duty in serving the needs of our population.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is as concerned as the hon. member about increasing the supply of rental housing for low income people. I would like to take this opportunity to remind hon. members that in the past six years a larger number of units were produced than in the previous 22 years.
There has been a decline in rental starts in general and I should perhaps explain that this is attributable to a number of factors, with inflation playing the largest part, because higher interest rates, wage rates, construction costs and rent controls in some provinces have made developers wary of starting new projects. Furthermore, an increasing number of owners have been converting rental accommodation to condominiums.

In order to encourage the construction of new housing for average-income families, the minister announced that $50 million would be made available to builders in 10 cities across Canada for the construction of modest housing on which loans would bear interest as low as 8 per cent, provided rents are kept at levels specifically and previously agreed upon.

In other words, there is $50 million exactly for what, the hon. member is asking.

Applications for some 2,200 housing units are now being processed, under this program, with the view to approving
|Mr. Marshall.]
roughly $50 million's worth of projects distributed here and there across the country, from Victoria to St. John's, Newfoundland. The province of Ontario is in the process of supporting this initiative completely.
Other programs are available for the construction of low-income housing, and the CMHC continues to lend its full support and encourage the provinces through loans and financial assistance to public housing. It also encourages non-profitable groups who supply rental accommodation, as well as non-profitable co-operatives by enabling them to have access to starting out funds, to loans for the full extent of the value of the loans, as well as to financial assistance representing 10 per cent of the value of the housing units.

I wish to assure the hon. member that the bulk of the CMHC programs concentrate on improving the position of people in receipt of low or fixed incomes. As to non-profit groups, not only do we subsidize their rental projects to the extent of 100 per cent but we also make grants available for the formation of such groups.


IMMIGRATION-POSSIBLE INCREASE IN NUMBER OF CHILEAN REFUGEES ADMITTED-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, as I rise to plead for more Canadian compassion for the many political victims and prisoners in Chile, I wish to put my remarks in the larger context of the violation of human rights sweeping the world.
Only today Amnesty International, a world-wide organization of individuals working to end political terrorism and torture, met with members of Parliament from all parties. We learned of their efforts to end torture-inflicted by governments-in the more than 30 countries where Amnesty International has affirmed the use of torture as a political instrument.
There is a new characteristic in this torture. It is used not only to obtain information but to control dissident elements in dictatorial and repressive regimes.
The World Conference of Religion for Peace, which convened recently in Belgium, has provided the same information as Amnesty International. There have been massacres and tortures in Northern Ireland, the Philippines, the Middle East and Cyprus, as well as Viet Nam and Cambodia. The escalation of violence and the continuing violation of human rights in the world led the World Conference of Religion for Peace to urge governments to construct policies "that will hold inviolate the spirit of man, and guarantee his physical and cultural wellbeing." For peace is incompatible with the violation of basic human rights.
This brings us to Chile, a country with a long democratic tradition suppressed by a four-man military junta whose continued authority lies in force. Chileans by the thousands have tried to escape from their country since the coup in September, 1973 which was followed by waves of persecution-not because they are criminals but because they oppose the draconian authoritarianism of the junta. The repression, imprisonments and tortures have become so bad that the United Nations has passed a
November 28, 1974

special resolution calling on Chile to respect fundamental freedom.
On October 9, 1974, a group of 24 distinguished Canadians, representing a cross-section of leadership in the churches, labour and education, came to Parliament Hill and presented a brief to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras). This brief claimed that Canadian policy toward Chile has been inadequate to the human emergency, and that Canadian concern for the ideals of the United Nations and for social justice has not been borne out by Canadian government actions.
Specifically, the brief said that Canada had been virtually silent regarding the extinction of democratic institutions in Chile, the systematic reign of terror, the mockery of justice and brutality which has characterized the rule of the junta.
With regard to economic relations the brief charged that Canada had collaborated with multilateral organizations dominated by the United States to extend economic assistance to the junta. Canadian government institutions and Canadian business have co-operated to promote Canadian investment in Chile.
With regard to immigration, the brief charged that Canada has acted reluctantly and slowly in the refugee situation created by the coup. Only 955 Chileans were admitted to Canada in the first six months of 1974, fewer people than were admitted from Ecuador. The 955 compares with 184 for the first six months of 1973, but barely scratches the surface of this new problem. Expressed humanitarian concern by the Canadian government has been contradicted by lengthy processes and excessive security interrogations, the brief claims.
The lengthy brief and 14 recommendations, chief of which was that the government broaden its Chilean refugee program to allow 10,000 persons to enter Canada under the immigration refugee category. This special category would include people in prisons and concentration camps, those who are harassed by authorities, and those who have reached temporary shelter in third countries such as Panama, Peru and Argentina.
On October 22 I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration what response he would make to these recommendations. To this date there has been no response. But the Canadian Council of Churches, as one of the participants in the brief, has received a response from the office of the external affairs minister. It is this response that concerns me greatly and is the reason I have taken the floor tonight. For the external affairs department says the situation in Chile is normalizing and, moreover, that our support of the UN resolution demonstrates our concern for human rights in Chile.
But the situation in Chile is not normalizing, Mr. Speaker; it is getting worse. Secret trials in the Chilean navy are taking place, with the death penalty being sought. The Italian and Columbian embassies are being besieged with new refugees. Mexico has just broken relations with Chile. Not content with the 2,500 Chileans who have died violent deaths since the coup, the junta is tightening its grip. The World Council of Churches has just cabled its Canadian
Adjournment Debate
office to step up its support of interchurch work in Chile and Argentina, now coping with waves of arrests of ordinary workers and farmers. The World Council now estimates that there are 100,000 Chilean refugees in Argentina, 15,000 of whom are registered, which is a 50 per cent increase in the past few months.
All of this should be of great concern to the Canadian government which could provide more help than just support of a UN resolution. If we are not going to reappraise our economic relations with Chile so that we get out of the invidious position of supporting repression, could we not at least open our doors a bit wider? The Chilean government has offered to release political prisoners who have a country to go to. Surely our response can be a bit better than the assurance of the immigration minister that Canada's special immigration office in Santiago will remain open. The brief presented to the government goes much deeper into the problem and requires a better response than the minister's bland assurance that applications from refugees will be processed.
I have met some of the Chileans who have fled to Canada. They are professional, and middle class and labour people whose only crime was that they wanted to be free. Certainly, strict security measures must be enforced-and they are. In one group of 12,165 Chilean applicants, only 45 were rejected for security reasons, but very few of the others were admitted to Canada.
We should rid our minds of the idea that the Chilean refugees are communists or Marxists. Just because the slain Salvadore Allende headed a Marxist regime, it does not make all Chileans ideological communists. As the Rev. John Zimmerman, executive secretary of the Lutheran Council of Canada, noted when he came to Parliament Hill with the delegation, these people would, if they lived in Canada, be ordinary members of labour groups. They are certainly no more dangerous to Canadian life than the Hungarians, Czechs and Ugandans that Canada took in during their time of ordeal.
Canada has a well-deserved reputation for compassion. We have an economically and socially strong society to back up that reputation. Today another group of oppressed people, the Chileans, look to us for help.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the hon. member on behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), who could not be here tonight. First of all may I say that Canada's effort was among the most active of any of the countries which established processing facilities in Chile to admit refugees for permanent resettlement, as is evidenced by the large number of persons authorized to come to Canada. Our effort in this case has been based on humanitarian considerations.
With particular reference to the brief referred to by the hon. member, presented a short while ago by the Canadian Council of Churches and other organizations to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, their recommendations are being reviewed and a reply will be sent to them shortly.
However, I should like to put on the record the fact that, following the coup in Chile last September, the Department of Manpower and Immigration immediately estab-

November 28, 1974
Adjournment Debate
lished a full processing capacity in Santiago. Because of this special effort it was possible to process applications in an expeditious manner and to meet deadlines as they arose. Although normal immigration, medical and background checks are, of course, continued even in movements of this kind, the norms of assessment were relaxed as they have been in other such similar situations. In addition, special concessions were made by allowing some people to come forward before their examinations were completed rather than risk the possible consequences of further delay.
Departmental officers worked in close co-operation with representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as other interested groups in making known the Canadian government's willingness to accept refugees, and our officials visited persons in camps in various countries to conduct interviews. During January, 1974, an armed forced aircraft on a training flight was diverted to Santiago when commercial services proved inadequate to move people quickly enough to safety, and 170 persons arrived on the flight.
To date, Mr. Speaker, applications have been received from about 4,000 Chileans who come within the United Nations definition of "refugee". Of these, more than 1,500
have been authorized to enter Canada, and more than 850 have already arrived as immigrants. About 750 have withdrawn their applications, and slightly more than 550 have been refused because of adverse background or character reports, or because they could not meet even the relaxed selection criteria used to assess the likelihood that they could successfully settle in Canada-for example, total illiteracy. About 1,150 are still in process.
The full range of services normally extended to refugees, such as transportation assistance, language training, employment counselling and placement, and, in emergency situations, financial aid, is available to these people.
One question that has been asked from time to time is that, if over 2,700 persons from Chile have been authorized to enter Canada since September, 1973, why have only 1,250 done so? There is of course more than one answer to this question, but such things as acceptance by another preferred country or a change of heart would probably account for most of these cases.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
eleven o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Friday, November 29, 1974