1977-06-02

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 31, consideration of Bill C-25, to extend the present laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination and that protect the privacy of individuals, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Woolliams.
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I had about two minutes in which to start my speech the other night. Perhaps 1 could set the scene again this morning for those who might be unfamiliar with the issue raised by my friend, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). We are dealing with Bill C-25, an act to extend the present laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination and that protect the privacy of individuals. Most of us, however, call it-as indeed it calls itself in clause 1-the Canadian human rights act.
The measure before us presents a procedure for people who feel themselves aggrieved under a variety of circumstances. These are set forth in a series called "discriminatory practices" in clauses 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Then there are exceptions not considered to be discriminatory practices which follow. If one has a complaint under the human rights act, one can take it before the commission and an investigation may be launched. The official may say that the complaint will be taken up elswhere, that there is another act of parliament which offers a remedy. I presume, since we deal with dominion-provincial niceties and things like this, the commission might direct the person to take his complaint before a provincial ombudsman because that is where any remedy, if possible, lies.
There is a procedure for conciliation. The result of that conciliation may, by clause 38, be referred to the commission for its approval. All that failing, the person aggrieved can march on to the human rights tribunal. Its powers are set forth in clause 40 of the measure before us. It is possible to go to the Federal Court to make the finding of that human rights tribunal an enforcement. In effect, the Minister of Justice and the government are saying that while the human rights tribunal can adjudicate and make a decision, the power of
enforcement must be found somewhere else. They place that power in the Federal Court.
If I can complete the reference to the Federal Court as specifically set out in the measure before us, in clause 44 there are other rules set out for the court. However, the act goes no further than that and a person who is aggrieved by the finding of a human rights tribunal must ask himself where he can go from there. In the Federal Court Act is section 28 which provides the right of appeal from administrative decisions to the Federal Court in certain circumstances. It is on section 28 that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) relied when he turned down the motion we are now debating. On the other hand, the Minister of Justice has to admit, as he did the other night, that there are some sections of the Federal Court Act which give rise to difficulty, that a study is being made, and so on. So it is possible we shall be faced with an amendment some time in the future to clear up imperfections in that act.
[DOT] (mo)
I have no quarrel with that, but I must quarrel with the contention of the Minister of Justice when he says the Federal Court Act will give an aggrieved person protection. If section 28 is doubtful at all-and I gather it is-then surely somebody who has a complaint about a human rights decision should not be placed in the position of having to spend a pile of money going through all the procedures, including a hearing before the tribunal, and then having to wonder whether, going one step further, section 28 really fits the purpose. This is why I support the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North. At least the motion before us does one thing. It gives a clear right, a positive right, and no one will find himself engaged in legal foofaraw in the courts to the extent of that right.
If we can send out of parliament a procedure which people can follow, which is easy to understand, which does not get people involved in the dreadful labyrinth of argument as to what exactly the legislation means, I say by all means do so. There is a virtue in having a clear right set forth, one which can be clearly understood by people who become enmeshed in the law. But if the minister still has any doubt about section 28, let him bring in his remedy at a future time and then repeal what is proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North. To my mind, it is as simple as that. We passed a motion presented by the hon. member for Calgary North as a good solution, one which makes sense, one which can be followed. If the Minister of Justice finds that section 28 does not serve the interests of people who have been confounded by the decisions of administrative tribunals, he can come along

June 2, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
with his own remedy and what the hon. member has done on a short-term basis can be reviewed on a long-term basis.
My feeling is that we must decide in favour of something that is exact and which will work, and that we are bound to reject the thoughts of the Minister of Justice, "Section 28 may be good or it may be bad, so we shall study it and perhaps do something about it later." If that is the way we run this country, God help any members of parliament who have anything to do with sanctioning such an approach.
My final point has been expressed so eloquently by my hon. friend from Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) that I simply want to go on record as endorsing his position. If we can set up a procedure which follows a doctrine of consistency, that should be done. We have a long-established tradition in the courts of Canada whereby judges are bound by what other judges have decided. I should like to see this doctrine of consistency embedded here through the provision of the right to appeal through the Federal Court. Our judges operate from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island, and from Pelee Island to the Arctic pole. They are bound by standards of consistency. Tribunals, it seems to me, are not likely to achieve such standards within a reasonable period of time. Consistency is a virtue in the law, anyway.
The minister should accept the very practical suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North. The Minister of Justice has always struck me as being a very practical person. I do not know why he feels called upon to dig in his heels about a suggestion like this, one which has the hallmark of common sense. No one can point to any awful reason why it ought not to be accepted. It makes sense. Mr. Speaker, I have made my pitch in the best way 1 know, and 1 hope the minister will accept it.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be in parliament when the earlier part of the debate took place. I understand that the hon. member of Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) made an eloquent and impassioned plea for the amendment which is now before us. Notwithstanding this, I cannot agree to the amendment. The purpose of the amendment, apparently, is to give the right of appeal to the Federal Court from any order, decision or review of a tribunal: I think both the tribunal and the review tribunal are included. The idea is that a review by a court somehow or other improves the situation; that going to court is the right way to deal with any administrative act. I have had quite a different experience. Certainly there are some matters that ought to be reviewed by the courts, but there are others which administrative tribunals are far better suited to deal with than are the courts themselves.
[DOT] (U20)
What I am afraid of, Mr. Speaker-and this has been found to be so-is that some lawyers have been protesting over the years that the courts should have a monopoly on dealing with these matters, yet in practice it has not been found to be the best way of securing the justice which parliament is seeking to enact in this type of legislation.


Mr. Woolliams:: A typical socialist statement.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If that is a typical socialist statement, then yours is a typical reactionary attitude, so we are even on that particular point.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not asking for the court; I am asking for an appeal from the tribunal.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I know you are, and I will outline what 1 think is the trouble with an appeal. First of all, it would cause expense, and this matters to some people who are being discriminated against. A person cannot go to the Federal Court without considerable expense. Second, it would cause delay. There is nothing that some employers, or others who have indulged in acts of discrimination, would rather have than be able to delay matters by lengthy proceedings. The Federal Court is already overburdened with work. Apart from the theoretical result of passing this amendment, the practical result would be to delay and to add to expense. Indeed, it would help frustrate the purposes of the act, some of which are not only that justice be done, but that it be done with expedition.
Although I was not here at the time, I understand the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has already called the attention of the House to the fact that in the Federal Court Act section 28 provides for review of cases where there has been a breach of national rights or excessive jurisdiction has been exercised. It seems to me that that is a perfectly adequate remedy, rather than setting up special individual rights of appeal.
It is because we want the legislation to be effective that we propose to vote against this amendment. We think it would frustrate and delay the healthy operation of the legislation. 1 do not think I need elaborate any further on our reasons. 1 dispute the proposition that courts are the only tribunals fit to consider matters of the kind encompassed within this bill. Practice has shown it to be the converse. The courts have their virtues, but they also have their failings, and sometimes their failings consist of lack of appreciation of the kinds of matters which are dealt with by this bill. General jurisdiction to review cases of injustice, or complete disregard for human rights, or breaches of jurisdiction, is something that should be preserved, but this particular right of appeal is unnecessary. I hope that the House will reject this amendment.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of this amendment. I think the right of appeal is imperative if we are to preserve human rights in this country. I have received a notice from a constituent of mine who works on behalf of diabetics in Canada. This is a fairly small group, though probably larger as a group than we realize, which is discriminated against more frequently than we know. It has just come to my attention that one government agency or corporation, the CNR, is in the vanguard of this kind of discrimination. I am recently in receipt of a letter from a young man, 20 years old, who has been working for the CNR for about three years. He decided to apply for a different
June 2, 1977

job within the corporation, and in the process of making application he naturally had to have a medical. The doctor in charge was a Dr. Rosetti, who made the following statement:
CNR will not hire diabetics for any position no matter how stable or unstable the person's diabetes may be.
Dr. Rosetti said he had never allowed a diabetic who had come through his office to be hired by the company. Other matters have come to my attention in connection with diabetics who have been discriminated against. I have mentioned in the House the matter of the Bank of Montreal. Soon after that incident I received a letter from another diabetic in Toronto who had on file a letter from another bank which had the same discriminatory hiring practices. We now have a government agency discriminating against diabetics.
The extent to which these companies go to discriminate against diabetics indicates the need for the kind of tribunal which the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is recommending ought to be included in the legislation. I, therefore, want to go on record as supporting this kind of amendment which would ensure protection of the rights of this minority group who are facing flagrant discrimination on the part of large corporations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.
6198

June 2, 1977
Canadian Human Rights


Stanley Ronald Basford: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when I addressed this bill on second reading debate-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hope hon. members who wish to leave will do so quickly, so the minister may begin his remards and be heard.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, when I addressed this bill on second reading debate I suggested that parliament could, and should give it careful and constructive examination and yet pass it by the end of June. That objective was agreed to by spokesmen of all parties in this House. I appreciate the support from all corners of the House and the constructive interest that has been expressed in the bill. 1 suspect it would pass third reading without debate or a statement from me or anyone else, but 1 thought it valuable that the House should pause for a brief time just before it is given third reading.
There are two principles embodied in the bill. The first, which applies to parts I, II and III of the bill, is set out in clause 2(a) which reads as follows:
-every individual should have an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for himself or herself the life that he or she is able and wishes to have, consistent with his or her duties and obligations as a member of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices, based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex or marital status, or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or by discriminatory employment practices based on physical handicap-
The grounds of discrimination prohibited under that clause constitute the most complete and comprehensive listing in any of the Canadian provinces or in the United States at the federal or state level. It is for that reason that I think the bill has received the support of all parties in this House.
One particularly important aspect of the anti-discrimination portion of the bill is the requirement that there be equal pay for work of equal value between men and women. This concept, put forward in the work of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and the principle set out in the International Labour Organization's equal pay formula, and now being enacted in this bill, is a very significant development in equal pay legislation. It has received the enthusiastic support of all the major women's organizations in this country. Hopefully, the adoption of this measure at the federal level in this country will give us the instruments to deal with the serious problem that women face of low-paying job ghettos. I want to express my appreciation for the work of those organizations in the development and passage of this bill. Those same organizations were concerned about one provision in the bill, and I would ask them to note the amendment made in committee by which the loophole they feared has been closed.
In the area of human rights, the mechanism of enforcement is as important as the declarative divisions themselves. Parts II and III of the bill provide that mechanism, setting forth, respectively, the nature of the human rights commission and the procedural system for investigation of a complaint which, if not settled at that stage, can be followed either by conciliation or referral to a tribunal. It should be noted that those two
parts of the bill also set out the research, educational and reporting functions of the commission. The second principle embodied in this bill is set out in clause 2(b), which reads as follows:
the privacy of individuals and their right of access to records containing personal information concerning them for any purpose including the purpose of ensuring accuracy and completeness should be protected to the greatest extent consistent with the public interest.
The translation of this principle into law is found in part IV. This part would provide Canadians with the right of access to personal information contained in government files, the right to request correction of that information where it is not felt to be accurate, and the right to control of that information. This represents the first time that such rights will be granted in Canada and, indeed, in a parliamentary system anywhere in the world that is similar to Canada. It is an extremely important development in the recognition and protection of individual rights. Under this system any individual will be able to consult an index covering all government records containing personal information which is used for administrative purposes. He can then apply to the government for any of the rights listed above. If his application is denied, he can refer the matter to the privacy commissioner who shall sit as a special member of the human rights commission.
Of course, the public interest and the protection of the privacy of others both demand that some exemptions to the principle be included in the bill. Obviously, for example, it would not be in the public interest to grant heroin traffickers a right of access to police investigation files. Real efforts have been taken to limit these exemptions to the greatest extent possible consistent with the public interest.
The proposition set out in clause 2(b) was amended in committee. It sets out, in connection with the protection of privacy of individuals and the right of Canadians to access of information, a set of objectives and principles for part IV. I hope, as I am sure all members of the House hope, that the administrators of this act in time to come will interpret the exemptions in light of the principles and objectives of the bill, in light of the spirit of the bill, and that, to the greatest extent possible, there will be access to information.
I would like to take a few minutes to emphasize that the rights being granted under part IV must not be confused with the concept of freedom of information. There has been confusion among some members of parliament and some members of the public, including the Canadian Bar Association, that part IV amounts to, or is intended to be, a substitute for freedom of information legislation. This is quite wrong. Whereas freedom of information deals with the access of the public to government documents in general, part IV provides a mechanism for an individual to see his own file, at the same time excluding him from seeing personal information about others which would amount to an invasion of their privacy. I agree with the statement by my predecesor that "the right to privacy and the right to know are not contradictory but complementary; they are companion rather than conflicting

June 2, 1977

freedoms". However, it should be recognized that the two are quite different.
Although part IV deals with one only of these so-called "twin freedoms", this is not to suggest that the other one is to be neglected. I forcefully endorse the concept of freedom of information and this government is presently involved in preparing a policy paper on the issue for presentation to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Statutory Instruments which will be brought forward by my colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts). This matter can then be studied with a view to developing the best legislation possible on the methods to improve public access to government information. I expect that this paper will soon be available and 1 hope that we will see early legislation on the subject.
I wish to make two important policy suggestions. While the provisions of part IV only apply at present to departments and agencies of the federal government, on the basis that we should legislate our own instrumentalities first, it is important that a scheme for the protection of privacy and the right of individuals to correct information in data banks be extended as rapidly as possible to services and industries in the federally-regulated private sector. Soon after the privacy commissioner is appointed 1 intend to direct that he undertake a study into the possibility of such action. We are seeing more and more, in the private sector, the development of bigger and bigger data bank systems. It is important that they be subject to some form of legislation and regulation. I also hope that through the enactment of Part IV and through discussions with the provinces, the provinces will be encouraged to take action to grant individuals the right of access to personal information and the right of correction.
Having mentioned both portions of the Human Rights Act, I would like to return to the grounds of prohibition provided for in part I. In committee a number of other grounds of discrimination were discussed, such as the possibility of including language, sexual orientation, political affiliation and physical handicap in the areas of services, facilities and accommodation. Obviously, under this legislation physical handicap is included as a ground only in employment matters. The reasons for not including those grounds were discussed and fully examined in the committee. I wish to mention only two.
Parliament, through its official languages regime, is actively involved in the protection and promotion of French and English language rights in this country. To include through our Official Languages Act, through resolutions of the parliament of Canada or through other means, official language rights in a general anti-discrimination scheme would not only add considerable confusion to the situation but would run the risk of actually diluting the rights already granted for our official languages. In my opinion, any action which is necessary to promote and protect French and English language rights in Canada should be dealt with in the specific context of the official languages scheme.
While agreeing that French and English rights are appropriately dealt with under the official languages policy, some have suggested that the language rights of those Canadians who
Canadian Human Rights
speak languages other than French or English should be dealt with in Bill C-25. I agree that discrimination against persons because they are identified as speaking a particular language cannot be tolerated. However, I would like to point out that Bill C-25 does prohibit discrimination on such a basis under the ground of "national or ethnic origin".
To suggest that the multitude of languages freely spoken by many Canadians be a prohibited ground of discrimination under this act would result in services, employment and accommodation having to be made available in all of those languages. While we all agree that people should not be discriminated against because of the particular inflection of their voice, and that in a free society we should be free to speak whatever language we want, it is another matter to impose a legal obligation for the provision of services and accommodation in those other languages.
It was discussed in committee and in representations to me that the ground of physical handicap be extended to areas of services, facilities and accommodation. I am very sympathetic to the problems faced by the physically handicapped in these areas and feel that action must be taken to alleviate them. To this end, Bill C-25 provides a mechanism for doing so. Under clause 22(1 )(h) a duty is placed on the commission to encourage the development and improvement of the arrangements for physically handicapped in the areas of services, facilities and accommodation. I feel that in the long run this method of dealing with the problems of the physically handicapped, taken together with the actions of other government departments and agencies, may prove to be more effective than including physical handicap as a prohibited ground on this expanded basis.
Throughout our history many in this country in politics, in the churches, in the trade unions and in voluntary organizations have fought against discrimination and for the equality of men and women. It is a story of which they can be proud, and much has been accomplished. Much, however, remains to be done. It is the essence of a free society that people are judged according to their own value and their own work. Where discrimination exists in Canada, it must be rooted out. When human rights are not conceded, when acts of discrimination take place in this country, we in Canada must take a stand against it, all the more so today with human rights under sustained attack throughout the world. Regardless of our various beliefs, we in this country all seek, I believe, the brotherhood of man. Today, in some small way by the passage of this bill we, as members of parliament of all parties, are taking an important step toward the establishment of that brotherhood in this country.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Before my good friend, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) rises to address the House, would the minister answer a question? Does the minister interpret this measure as meaning that once it is passed into law, the reference to "the right to work" implies that when certain rules have been laid down by the union for the protection of the working man, a person should have the right
6200

June 2, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
to a job although he does not belong to a union? Would it be held that such a person was subject to discrimination?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Not entirely, in the sense of the question. The "right to work" is used, in the question, in the context of the right to work without the person concerned joining a union. That is not affected one way or the other by this legislation. What is provided for are regulations and laws related to employers and employee organizations-trade unions-to ensure that there is no discrimination in membership on the basis of any of the grounds mentioned in the legislation.


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to clarify one matter. With regard to part IV there is some concern among the research community about the possibility that the legislation would also apply to statistical data banks as well as to administrative data banks. Does the legislation differentiate between the two? Is it the intention to place additional restrictions on statistical data which might affect the ability of researchers in their work?


Stanley Ronald Basford: That question is dealt with in the definitions section on page 28. The definitions in question are those of "administrative purposes" and "federal information banks". The right to privacy and the right to make corrections relate to federal information banks where information is in the hands of the government and is being used in relation to an individual for an administrative purpose. I would not categorize those banks as statistical banks of the kind about which the hon. member is asking. The definition of "information banks" is somewhat wider, though, and there is provision in the act that the designated minister shall have the duty of co-ordinating the operations of government information banks in an endeavour to limit, to the extent possible, consistent with good information, the information-gathering activities of government.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister paused for a minute or two in his speech to reflect about those who through the years have been the pioneers of this legislation. I think the House would not mind being reminded that one of those pioneers was Mrs. Florence Bird-Anne Francis, to those who listened to her on the radio in other days-and the government of the late Lester B. Pearson who appointed Florence Bird and the commission out of which this legislation arose. I have been thinking lately about the propensity of hon. members to be somewhat verbal about their policy declarations. This may be fine, except it often means that others in legislative history are overlooked. We politicians are very much "instant" people, and I want to pause for a moment to pay tribute to Florence Bird and others in our history who have espoused the cause of human rights and, in particular, the rights of women in society.
It was pointed out in earlier stages of this debate that the provinces have in place human rights commissions. Part of the dilemma which arises in this field originates, from the fact that jurisdiction is shared by provincial and federal governments. This means we should be forewarned that just because the

apparatus is in place does not mean there will be an end of discrimination. I know the minister does not expect this, and very few of us do as we debate the issue in parliament today, but I make a plea to those who will be responsible for the working of this legislation to co-operate very closely with the human rights commissions in the various provinces. I hope that at an early stage they will seek an opportunity to gather experience of the day by day operations of these commissions as they work to end discrimination in our country.
As those who sat on the committee know, I was anxious that the matter of sexual orientation be faced squarely by the committee. I said in committee that it was a pity it was not faced. The minister has given an explanation. He is part of a majority government and, of course, he has an obligation to put forward those measures which he believes not only the government can sustain but that parliament will approve. Nevertheless, I think that if one believes, as the minister believes, that this parliament will be addressing itself very soon to discrimination which is inherent in sexual orientation, he is very optimistic indeed. That is why many of us, but not enough, were anxious to have the government face this issue when the bill was before committee.
I believe very sincerely that it is by being open about orientation that the activities of blackmailers and others who prey upon the propensities of people in society are brought to an end. The longer people have to keep their sexual propensities hidden, the more they are preyed upon by blackmailers. 1 believe this very much, and I had hoped that a bill having to do with human rights would have faced this issue squarely in the latter half of the seventies. But it is not to be. We made an effort in committee to bring this about, but we were unsuccessful.
If I may turn to the question of equal pay for work of equal value, many of us heard the cries of alarm, when the bill was in committee, regarding how difficult it would be to implement this concept. I have always wondered why people seem to think that Canada cannot pioneer jurisprudence. The concept of equal pay for work of equal value is a difficult one. It has been raised at ILO conventions, but there has not been very much experience of the concept. Would it not be rather refreshing if for once Canada pioneered this concept? I am sure we are able to develop a sensitive jurisprudence and formula of implementation of this concept.
I should like to speak for a moment about one other aspect of the act to which I think it is a pity the government did not address itself and which I had hoped the minister might mention during his speech. I refer to the fact that clause 63(2) continues the present discrimination against Indian women. The minister was very forthcoming in committee about this, and he did receive some publicity. When ministers are forthcoming there should certainly be publicity, since it is so rare.


Mr. Leggatt:: That is new in itself.
June 2, 1977


Mr. Fairweather:: Yes, that in itself is news. In any event, when we tested the comittee's will, the minister said that an amendment to abolish the section of the Indian Act which continues to discriminate against the Indian people would be considered. If I interpret the minister's remarks correctly, in his answer to the Indian people he gave them a signal to get on with the matter of making suggestions to parliament for an Indian Act which would not continue what is one of the outrages of modern society, namely, the blatant, legislated discrimination against women who are Indian.
I hope that this warning is noted by those in charge of framing a new Indian Act and those in the Indian community. As my hon. friend from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) has pointed out, even the name "Indian Brotherhood" is in itself somewhat discriminatory, or is evidence of discrimination. I hope that the very eloquent cries of witnesses such as Mary Two Axe Early and others who came to the committee to tell of the injustices suffered by Indian women will be addressed very soon by this parliament.
A colleague of ours, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin)-he will not like what I am going to say because he is innately a modest man-was honoured the other day by Canadians of Japanese ancestry for the contribution he has made to human rights throughout his entire career.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I could not imagine a better opportunity for me to have parliament recognize his contribution than during third reading of a bill having to do with human rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The hon. member can, of course, speak for himself when I am through, if he likes. Isn't that generous of me? He recognizes the innate paradox-we should keep this in mind with all legislation having to do with rights-that when the events for which he has been honoured occurred during World War II, namely, what Canada did to Canadian citizens of Japanese ancestry, we did not have a Bill of Rights. Our neighbours have an entrenched bill of rights in every sense of that word, but despite that they dealt just as shabbily with Americans of Japanese ancestry as did we Canadians.
I think we should regard this occurrence as a lesson that in times of stress governments can find excuses for overstepping the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. This is why, although the members of my party welcome this legislation, we realize that you cannot legislate humankind to be just one with the other. I sincerely believe that a Bill of Rights and that human rights commissions are a signpost of civility placed in the statute books by those who hope to promote civility along with human rights. I recall, and I think it is well that the House recalls, that just because a bill is in place and has all the apparatus of royal assent does not necessarily mean that humankind is going, ipso facto, to treat others with civility. Nevertheless, it is an important signpost. I just want to repeat that I have been pleased to participate in this legislation.
Canadian Human Rights


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) for referring to my colleague from Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) regarding the great contribution he has made toward achieving human rights for all Canadians.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am not ready for the Senate yet.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Indeed, no. On the subject of human rights, "exemplary" is the right word to describe the contribution made by people like Andrew Brewin to protect unpopular groups. Human rights legislation is not worth much if all we are going to do is protect people who happen to be very popular in a country at any particular time. I think it is to the great credit of the hon. member for Greenwood and others in the House that during the emergency of the Second World War, when clearly Japanese Canadians were one of the more unpopular groups in this country, they withstood as a matter of principle the unpopular decision they made to defend groups which were unpopular.
In the same vein, I want to give credit to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal for what he did to defend unpopular groups in Canada such as Japanese Canadians. The logic of what he said applies, as well, to legislation which does not include provisions having to do with sexual orientation. This group of people is also unpopular and it is not a popular move to bring forward legislation to protect that group. Nevertheless, sometimes there is a difference between what is right and what is popular. I would like to give credit to the hon. member who preceded me, because he has fought those kinds of battles in the past. He deserves credit for the work he has done in this field.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Human rights legislation at the federal level is long overdue. Our party will support this legislation. There are a couple of questions which I do not think the minister has answered properly. One of them was referred to by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. What kind of human rights legislation is it in Canada when the rights of native women are not included? They are exempted from this legislation, as the minister knows full well. Under clause 63(2) a specific exemption is made for the sole purpose of continuing to discriminate against native women in Canada. That is a shame; it is wrong.
Human rights legislation has to protect everybody and must not provide exemptions here and there. I know the minister's answer is that it is premature and we are going to work this thing out. It is difficult enough to pass legislation in this House. When these amendments come forward they will be harder to pass then than they are now. Human rights legislation, to be worth its salt, must include groups which are clearly discriminated against. The minister has missed several groups.
We have mentioned the question of sexual orientation. We have mentioned the question of native women. The minister has missed the broad group of people who because of their

June 2, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
political affiliations or their political beliefs are discriminated against in their employment. 1 will not go into examples, but legions of people cannot get employment because of views they may have held. This infamous black list which has been dealt with in this House from time to time is an excellent example of people who, because of political views not necessarily held at this time but at one time, find themselves discriminated against in Canadian society.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: They were never changed.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: They were never charged, never accused nor convicted. It is the government which stands convicted in terms of that type of conduct. I thought this bill would have gone in some direction to solving that problem. The problem with the legislation is that the minister has not been forthcoming enough. He has not taken on the unpopular causes which are necessary for a valid piece of human rights legislation.
There were some changes in the bill at committee stage. I think they were positive changes. That is the reason there were not many amendments at report stage. The minister and the committee went along with increasing the penalty which I proposed at committee stage. I am referring to a very important section of the bill which would have hived off the whole question of employment discrimination to the Department of Labour and gutted the capacity of the new human rights commission to develop any jurisprudence around its operations. Our party was successful in having an amendment to that section passed at committee stage. It is to the committee's credit that they took a fairly objective look at the details of the bill.
The minister should look at an amendment which was not successful. 1 refer to clause 14, which deals in the negative. It reads:
It is not discriminatory practice if (a) any refusal, exclusion, expulsion, suspension, limitation, specification or preference in relation to any employment is established by an employer to be based on a bona fide occupational requirement-
In committee we attempted to have the onus as to what is bona fide placed upon the employer, since it is the employer who has to make that kind of decision. It is the employer, for example, who has been paying reduced rates to women over the years in order to maximize his operation, his profit, and hurt a very large section of the Canadian community.
The minister has been unwilling to change that fundamental question of dealing with the onus and dealing with whose responsibility it is to get from under that kind of exemption. The exemption should never have dealt with it in a negative way. It should have been the other around. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) pointed out, this is a handle to give the employer a chance to discriminate. All he has to do, basically is say that there is a bona fide occupational requirement that a lumber worker, for example, has to be male. Thus, he beats the meaning of the human rights legislation. The onus should be clearly, forcefully, and fully placed upon the employer to prove that it is bona fide in a court of law or the human rights commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to get involved in a dispute in any way, but in fairness the hon. member should point out that we did make an amendment to that section in committee, which provides that those exclusions have to be established by the employer to be bona fide. It is the government's view that that places the onus on the employer. That is a matter of dispute between the hon. member and myself, but there is no doubt as to the intention and the belief of the government.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It would have been easier to understand the minister's position on this clause if he had accepted clear words which would have placed the onus on the employer, instead of weaselling around with the clause and continuing to engage in what is a legal dispute between the two of us. The clause we proposed was perfectly clear; the onus was set and the employer had a legal responsibility to satisfy that onus. We can get into the legal question of whether the word "establishes" in fact means "onus". The minister could have been forthcoming on this clause making it very clear that employers were not going to be able to weasel around clause 14 and hide behind the question of bona fide, in the practice of employment.
The bill goes some distance in providing protection to some groups. I wish we could say "all groups" and I wish we could say that the minister had the courage to protect the unpopular under this legislation. I must say that neither he nor his government has had that courage. There are times in this House when playing politics with a bill as important as this one is wrong. Our party will support it because it does go some distance in protecting people who are discriminated against as a result of their employment. But we should have seen a little more forthrightness by the minister in the bill.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I really did not intend to speak on this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry that I allowed the hon. member to take the floor, but I have to call it one o'clock at this time. I will now leave the chair until two o'clock. The hon. member may continue his remarks after routine proceedings this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
June 2, 1977


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by the collapse of the Kitimat pipeline project and the consequent plans to ship very nearly all of the Alaskan crude to the Cherry Point, Washington refinery through the strait of Juan de Fuca and the Georgia straits. In view of the grim threat of an ecological catastrophe which the shipment of perhaps ultimately one million barrels of oil a day presents to the British Columbia coastine and fishing grounds, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis):
That the House views the threat posed to the British Columbia environment by the massive transshipment of oil with concern and calls upon the government to enter into immediate negotiations with the United States to divert oil tanker routes away from the west coast of Vancouver Island and Queen Charlotte Islands and terminate at Port Angeles, Washington.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. In view of this government's failure to act upon the request of the Canadian broiler producers to create a national broiler marketing board, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle):
That the Minister of Agriculture explain to this House and to the Canadian broiler producers why this Liberal government has failed to set up a national broiler marketing board.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
The Canadian Economy AIR TRANSPORT


SUGGESTED SUBSIDIES ON GOODS SHIPPED TO ARCTIC COMMUNITIES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, arising out of reports that the cost of freight to remote northern communities in the eastern Arctic has recently risen by 50 per cent on the only air carrier for several of the towns in the Baffin region.
Given that air freight provides the only means of providing fresh produce and other essentials to these areas that are already paying over 60 per cent more for most consumer goods than in southern Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the government to provide freight subsidies on essential goods that would bring the cost of essential goods to the same price range as in southern Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
In view of the generally unstable economic situation throughout the country, and the fact that it is the direct result of the inflation which has been plaguing us for a number of years; in view of the resulting unemployment and the attitude within government circles to the effect that all the disastrous consequences of our economic situation are to be blamed on the constitutional uncertainty created since November 15, which view discredits the cause of the emancipation and fulfilment of Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the government order an inquiry into the specific causes of higher unemployment with a view to finding the ways and means of remedying it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 2, 1977
External Affairs AGRICULTURE


PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL BROILER MARKETING BOARD-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion.
Considering the unfair competition against Canadian broiler producers these last three years through low price imports which increased by 671 per cent from 1974 to 1976, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That the House unanimously give the government leave to establish immediately a national broiler marketing board to ensure Canadian consumers the presence of this food in large quantities and at a stable and reasonable price, instead of having to trust uncertain imports without any guarantee of stability, which will inevitably happen if Canadian broiler producers are on the verge of bankruptcy.


Some hon. Members:: This matter is settled.


Roch La Salle: If it is settled, I am pleased about it, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, such motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the reunification of a Canadian family. In light of the federal government's lack of action in reuniting Mr. and Mrs. Geczi with three children who are now being retained against their will by Hungarian authorities behind the iron curtain, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That this House urges the federal government and the Department of External Affairs to express to the Hungarian government the fact that it has no right to decertify Canadian citizens or to violate the Helsinki accords and to demand the immediate reunification of the Geczi family.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and it concerns the news that with the collapse of the Kitimat pipeline application we can expect nearly all of the oil to pass by the Queen Charlottes and through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Georgia Strait, a massive environmental threat, in return for no additions to our energy supplies. In view of the fact that the Cherry Point refinery in Washington already has one oil spill to its credit, and for the benefit of the city of White Rock, will the minister tell the House whether he intends to open discussions with the United States with a view to reducing environmental risks by bringing in oil to Port Angeles, a far safer alternative to Cherry Point?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the announcement yesterday, there has not been an application filed. Therefore, other than the declared intentions of the operators we do not know precisely what kind of proposal is going to be put forward. However, presumably the hon. member's conclusion is correct in the sense that it would probably add to the amount of traffic, but I do not know with certainty. I believe the hon. member referred to opening discussions with the United States. We have had ongoing discussions with the United States on the whole question of anti-pollution measures and control measures on the west coast. We have also talked about alternative locations and this will obviously make it all the more important that we keep those talks going and elevate them to emphasize what is clearly in the view of the hon. member and myself an increasingly important subject, given yesterday's developments.


Benno Friesen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister knows, those who were proposing the Kitimat route now support the Trans-Mountain route and therefore considerable weight is added to that application. In view of the fact that no mutual compensation agreement over the question of oil pollution has yet been concluded, even though those negotiations have been going on for sometime, will the minister tell the House whether he has taken up the point referred to by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West about a month ago? Is the minister now in a position to announce shortly, interim agreements for compensation measures to protect the livelihood and property of those threatened by the vastly increased possibility of oil pollution? I believe the question was originally addressed to the Prime Minister but I am sure the minister has been apprised of it.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of it but because the issue is so important I would prefer not to rely upon my memory to give the hon. member a specific answer today. If he
June 2, 1977

would do me the kindness of waiting, I will look into it and give him a more considered answer tomorrow.
While 1 am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I believe 1 said at the beginning that the application had not been received; I should have said it had not been heard. I understand the application in relation to Kitimat has been filed.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in the absence of the Minister of the Environment. Since I believe the nearest equipment for combating oil spills is in Vancouver, will the minister give us the assurance and will he urge the Minister of the Environment to see to it that there will be standby equipment in place in White Rock to serve the south coast areas in emergencies because that would be the first beach to be hit in the event of an oil spill?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to pass on those representations to my colleagues.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that no Canadian institution has legal jurisdiction to deal with the threat to the Canadian environment arising from increased marine traffic to the superport at Cherry Point because the National Energy Board can only deal with a pipeline over Canadian soil and the proponents need not file under the Canadian interdepartmental committee known as TERMPOL with regard to marine environmental risks, and in view of the fact that several weeks ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs responded positively to suggestions in this House that he enter into discussions with the United States government with a view to formulating a bilateral agreement-they may be the same discussions the minister referred to in his reply to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-can the minister confirm that the discussions he referred to a moment ago have been entered into with a view to getting a bilateral agreement that will deal with such things-not just compensation but also the risk factor involved in terms of increased marine traffic and the superport at Cherry Point?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I repeat my answer. The hon.
Oral Questions
member is quite right; it was the same matter that I answered a moment ago. Those discussions are going on both bilaterally and as they relate exclusively to the tanker route. I might also point out that the whole question of pollution control and responsibility is also an element in the negotiations between Canada and the United States over border questions or boundary questions, for example, and also in the multilateral context in the law of the sea conference so that there are a number of fora in which this matter is now being discussed.


TRANSPORT
William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Since December 1976 a publication has been available entitled "An Environmental Risk Index for the Siting of Deepwater Oil Ports" which only pertains to oil ports on the east coast. May I ask if a similar study is being conducted or has been conducted that will indicate, if it is tabled in the House, the risk of siting deepwater ports on the west coast? This is particularly important now in view of the announcement last night about the abandonment of the Kitimat proposal and the prospect that Cherry Point would become a very vulnerable area?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, that type of study has not been completed in connection with the west coast. That was one of the reasons for engaging the services of the Thompson Commission, in order to look at the specific question which would have come before us in connection with the Kitimat application.


SUGGESTION THOMPSON COMMISSION INQUIRE INTO CHERRY POINT PROPOSAL
William Herbert Jarvis: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's reference to the Thompson inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act, and having regard to the limitations that we now experience vis-avis Cherry Point being an existing port on United States soil, will the Minister of Transport consider amending the reference to Professor Thompson, having regard to these limits and his structure already being in place, so that he might pursue, in so far as he is able, a study into the marine aspects and environmental risks as far as Cherry Point is concerned, at least in the Canadian context? In other words, Dr. Thompson has a structure in place ready to go. It would be abandoned because of the abandonment of the Kitimat proposal. Can we make use of his good services as far as the Cherry Point proposal is concerned?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference were broader than just Kitimat in that they refer to the movement of oil by tankers through Canadian

June 2, 1977
Oral Questions
waters. They would have some reference therefore to the project even as they stand. I will be looking with my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, at the question as to whether some broader terms of reference are required under the circumstances.


MANPOWER
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the minister of misery, formally known as the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will he confirm that his department has forecast a monthly increase of 200,000 in the average number of UIC beneficiaries in the next two years directly related to the department's forecasts of higher unemployment in Canada over the same period? Whill he also confirm that more than 2.6 million individuals will draw benefits annually over the same period of time, according to a forecast done by his department? Will he now agree, as I asked last week, that these forecasts on the employment situation should be tabled and made available to all members of this House and the public?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, off the top of my head I would not want to confirm or otherwise the figures the hon. member has indicated. Perhaps if a question were placed on the order paper we could deal with it in more detail and with more accuracy.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister related questions last week to which he gave the same kind of phony answer. Two days later he indicated that the figures were accurate. I suggest he knows he has these figures. Instead of waiting for a question on the order paper, he should pay a courtesy to the members of this House and produce the figures. While checking into that, will the minister also confirm that during the same fiscal years his department has estimated there will be an increase in the cost of UIC programs to a level of about $4 billion in total expenditures for running the UIC program. Will he confirm that is the case? Also, will he explain to the House why his department would rather spend money on UIC payouts instead of creating the jobs Canadians want?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows we want to make positive use of the UIC fund. The bill presently before the committee makes proposals to do precisely that. In so far as

the other figures are concerned, I am not prepared to guess at the accuracy or otherwise of what the hon. member is quoting.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my final supplementary to the Prime Minister. Given the alarming forecast in the cost increases of unemployment insurance payouts which the Manpower Department has done and the related forecast showing an alarming increase in the number of recipients, does the Prime Minister have an answer to the question I asked last week. It was related to Premier Schreyer's request for a first minister's meeting to be held sometime in June to prepare plans jointly between the provinces and the federal government in order to come up with some major job creation programs?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I did give some consideration to this request by Premier Schrey-er. Unless such a conference were preceded by a meeting either by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Manpower or officials of those particular departments, it would be premature. The question is viewed urgently by all members of government. Cooperation is important and is forthcoming. However, I have not gathered from Premier Schreyer or anyone else that they have any major new initiatives to propose.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
According to the CBC 10:30 newsbroadcast last night, the hon. member for Verdun has had serious parking problems on the Hill which explains why he was late coming into the House of Commons. As chief of the Liberal party, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has taken the necessary steps to ensure that his supporter will have the same benefit the others have for parking in a suitable space thus enabling him to be on time for the sittings of the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this is a serious question or not, but it certainly is within the duties of the Speaker of the House rather than mine if it has to do with parking on Parliament Hill.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
June 2, 1977

Yesterday in the Elouse of Commons, the Social Credit Party of Canada had, according to our rules, the opportunity to put a motion on its allotted day for the consideration of the business of supply, a motion which I moved myself, which was debated by more than three members of the Social Credit Party of Canada, and which had been preceded by two oral questions and a motion moved under Standing Order 43. Yet, completely overlooking those debates in the House of Commons, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation saw fit to report on the parking problem of the hon. member for Verdun. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that he himself will settle the parking problem of the hon. member for Verdun so that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation can report to the Canadian people on what is going on in the House?


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM REQUEST FOR NAMES OF ECONOMIC DECISION-MAKERS NEEDED TO AGREE TO RESTRAINT PRIOR TO ENDING CONTROLS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman has stated it would be folly to remove controls except and until there is "agreement among the main economic decision-makers" on the whole question of voluntary restraint. Would the Prime Minister tell us who he considers to be suitable economic decision-makers in Canada to reach such an agreement? Who will speak for business, for example, or for the farmers or for the consumers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a difficult and complex question and it is one to which we address ourselves in a green paper tabled last week by the Minister of Finance. I hope the hon. member will peruse the chapter relating to that point.


TYPE OF AGREEMENT SOUGHT PRIOR TO ENDING CONTROLS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, that question was put to the Minister of Finance in the light of the green paper and the Minister of Finance also told us it was a complicated question and one to which he could not give a ready answer. Would the Prime Minister indicate what kind of agreement he is seeking? Is it a written agreement? These aspects are certainly not dealt with in the green paper.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The most binding type of agreement would be the one I would prefer.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the Prime Minister tell us what, in his mind, would constitute a binding agreement affecting business, labour and the consumer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is no doubt aware of the hypothesis contained in his question.
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It relates to an urgent and pressing matter, involving, as it does, the very credibility of the office the right hon. gentleman now holds. It concerns the confirmation yesterday by one, Pierre Cappiello, of allegations made in this House last Friday respecting a registered letter sent to the then solicitor general in relation to the break-in and burglary of L'Agence de Presse Libre in Quebec some three days after the actual break-in on, I believe, October 10. Outside the House last Thursday afternoon, the Prime Minister made two points at a press conference. First, he said that as soon as any minister was informed the investigation which eventually resulted in these charges immediately took place, and, second, if my rough French translation is correct, he made the point that it was several years after the break-in before any minister knew of the illegality.
[DOT] (M30)
My question to the Prime Minister is this. I have great respect for the office which he holds, and I think that this attacks the credibility of his office. With whom did he check in relation to those rather blanket denials of any knowledge; and specifically did the Prime Minister check before he made those statements with the then solicitor general, the present Minister of Supply and Services?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is assuming or insinuating that my replies were incorrect. I still hold them to be correct. I am talking of illegality in so far as it concerns the RCMP. Any break-in is illegal. Unless I am mistaken, the hon. member is implying that I was referring to any illegality. I am referring to any illegality in which the federal government directly or indirectly would be involved, and my statement still stands.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Prime Minister is misinterpreting my words but 1 am sure it is my fault. I am talking about knowledge, ministerial knowledge, of an illegality, of a break-in, of the involvement of a federal police force, among others. I think this was the matter the Prime Minister referred to in the press conference. It is completely different from sentencing. It is completely different from the actual break-in. I am referring to ministerial knowledge of events and the circumstances relating thereto, and I think this was a very direct, blanket denial of any ministerial knowledge at that time. This is what I am directing my question to and it is what I would appreciate the Prime Minister referring to. Did he specifically check with the Solicitor General's two predecessors in respect of their knowledge of this matter at that time, or even now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the hon. member did not get my previous answer. I am telling him that the answers I gave at the press conference and in the House

June 2, 1977
Oral Questions
still stand. No minister knew until several years after that the RCMP had been involved in a break-in. That is what the hon. member wanted to know.
As for how I came by this knowledge, Mr. Speaker, I came by it by memorandum. 1 did not talk to the ministers specifically within the last couple of weeks; 1 came to it by way of a memorandum which refreshed my knowledge of incidents which had been discussed in my office with the commissioner of the RCMP about a year ago.


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-KNOWLEDGE OF DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS OF BREAK-IN
Allan Frederick Lawrence: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We live in an era when there is supposed to be ministerial responsibility for acts of department officials as well. If the Prime Minister is denying, as I assume he now is, that any minister of his government knew a few days after the event of any allegation made in respect to that event and the involvement of a federal police force, would the Prime Minister now inform me that no minister had any responsibility for officials under him who also knew of the events or allegations made in respect to that illegality immediately after the event as well? In other words, did the then solicitor general's departmental officials have any allegations before them at that time of any involvement of the federal police force in respect to this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course 1 am not denying ministerial responsibility in this or in any other matter, Mr. Speaker. I am saying what the facts are in answers to questions which are put to me, and I am repeating what the present Solicitor General has made quite clear, that these facts will be restated and put in a complete context, as open as we can possibly make it, as soon as the sentencing of those who pleaded guilty takes place, which I am informed will be in less than a week or two. I do not feel I can add anything to what I have said, Mr. Speaker, but I am confirming that what I said corresponds to the knowledge given to me and of which I have taken cognizance and which, so far as I am able to decipher, absolves any minister from any lack of responsibility in the matter since he was not made aware of the break-in by the RCMP.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In view of the many stabs in the back the federal government receives from the Quebec government, the city of Ottawa and other partial and politically-oriented groups in the National Capital Region to slow down or prevent the achievement of the objective it set in 1969, namely to restore a normal balance

between the Ontario and Quebec parts of this region, due also to the humiliations, frustrations, trucklings and penalties which its residents must endure every day, does the Prime Minister intend to consider amending the BNA Act section 16 to make the National Capital Region the capital of Canada, or does he intend to make it the subject of a national referendum so that the citizens of this region may be relieved once and for all of all that stress?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty to reassure the hon. member who is certainly doing his duty in speaking on behalf of the people of his region, by telling him that the government's intentions have not changed since 1968 or 1969, when we discussed the matter at a federal-provincial conference. By means of an amendment to the Constitution, we did propose at that time to consider the National Capital Region as the capital of Canada. As long as the perspective is agreeable to the people of this region, it is one of our projects. I am glad to reassure the hon. member by asking him to refer to the federal proposals of many years ago and by telling him that they have not changed.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham and I direct it to the Solicitor General. My question arises out of reports that the solicitor general of Quebec, Marc-Andre Bedard, is planning to make further inquiries into L'Agence de Presse Libre affair-inquiries which may lead to a full public inquiry by a body such as the Quebec Police Commission. Will the Solicitor General tell the House if he has been asked by his counterpart in Quebec for information, and will he also assure the House that he, and his predecessors, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and also the Minister of Supply and Services, are willing to testify about ministerial involvement in the break-in before any such inquiry?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive any inquiry from Mr. Bedard. The file clearly establishes that, following the allegations which were made, the then solicitor general who I think was at the same time attorney general of Quebec, had ordered a judicial investigation on the circumstances surrounding the APLQ affair. This investigation is about to come to its conclusion; therefore I think it would be premature to make any other comment on this matter at this time.
June 2, 1977


KNOWLEDGE OF PLANNING AND ANALYSIS GROUP OF BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question concerns the police intelligence planning and analysis group among whose functions it is apparently to ensure that the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General are kept aware of what is happening in the security services. Will the minister tell the House whether that organization informed him or his predecessor of L'Agence de Presse Libre break-in, and in the event that they did not, whether he considers them negligent for not doing so?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the agency the hon. member refers to appeared not such a long time ago before a parliamentary committee; on that occasion, the hon. member for Yukon asked a number of questions about its role. I shall have to check the exact dates as to when this agency was set up. It is clear that this agency had nothing to do with these activities. It is not an operational agency. It is absolutely not involved in the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as its duties concern the analysis of the information which may reach the government.


TRANSPORT
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Are minutes kept of meetings between the Minister of Transport and provincial premiers and, if so, could these be made public so that the public might be able to grasp what goes on at these shadow parliaments?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is ordinarily our practice at these meetings to keep a record or a summary of the proceedings. I will have to consult with them and examine other practices to determine whether making the proceedings public would be a sensible procedure.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, might I ask by way of supplementary whether the minister would consult with the premiers of the four Atlantic provinces specifically so we could have some idea of what went on?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that. I will also take into consideration the question of general practices in this area.
Oral Questions BILINGUALISM


RELATIONSHIP OF COMMITTEE TO STUDY RIGHTS OF FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC TO RESPONSIBILITIES OF SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister had a press release or an announcement about a visit from French-speaking minorities who live outside of Quebec, and the Prime Minister announced the setting up of an interdepartmental committee to study this. Can the Prime Minister tell us how such a committee relates to what has been thought to be the over-all responsibilities of the Secretary of State for looking after minorities anywhere in Canada, either French-speaking or English-speaking? What is the rationalization for the committee, and how does it fit into the duties of the Secretary of State?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the question, because I understand there have been some areas or interpretation as to the function of this committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to make it clear. La Federation des Francophones Hors-Quebec gave us a very voluminous and interesting report, which concerned the actions of many departments. All I did in answer to that report was to say that I would set up an interdepartmental committee composed of the various departments involved. As is usual and customary, that committee is to be chaired by a member of the Privy Council staff. Of course, he will be reporting to the Secretary of State because of the capacity of the Secretary of State and his responsibility, as the hon. member puts it, for minorities, and particularly Francophone minorities outside of Quebec. That line of authority should be quite clear. The interdepartmental committee is merely a tool, at the departmental level, to report to the Secretary of State, and then the Secretary of State chairs an ad hod committee of ministers on this particular question. Then, of course, they will be responsible to the full cabinet through the Secretary of State.


POSSIBILITY INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE WILL DEAL WITH OTHER MINORITIES AS WELL AS FRANCOPHONES
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, can we assume that any minority, who feels aggrieved in our country, would go through this interdepartmental committee to have-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: Just listen, fais attention.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: With the greatest of respect, I find it rather extraordinary that a sensitive question asked by somebody who has spent his entire life here, interested in minorities no matter what language-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The crows can crow all they like. I happen to feel it is a terribly sensitive problem which has to be solved.

June 2, 1977
Oral Questions
I wonder if the interdepartmental committee will be confined to Francophones, or will it deal with other aggrieved minorities? What country do we live in? Obviously, we know there are minorities who feel aggrieved at this moment because of the ethnocentric policies of the government of Quebec, and I want to know about that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member's question perfectly normal and sensible. This committee was set up by me the day before yesterday in response to a particular brief presented by the FFHG. Other briefs have been presented by other minority groups in Canada-multicultural groups, Indian and native groups and Eskimo groups. They have all been dealt with in a similar or parallel fashion. This particular group has been set up to look at this particular brief. Of course, other minorities will always have a hearing from this government and we will deal with them in the most appropriate way.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I hope so.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the problems following a decision of the Kitimat Consortium to withdraw from the Kitimat line and the increase in tanker traffic which will be faced by the Gulf of Georgia. Could the minister advise the House as to the maximum claim a resident of British Columbia can now make in the event of a tanker spill in the Rosario Straits or in that gulf area? What is the maximum claim that the residents of British Columbia can make against the United States government as things presently stand?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as I replied to an earlier question, I am sure the hon. member will understand I would prefer to get specific information than draw on my memory for an answer to that question. I will get it is as soon as I can for the hon. member.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON ALTERNATIVES TO USE OF CHERRY POINT BY OIL TANKERS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: There are two routes which can be taken to avoid some of this extra tanker traffic in the gulf. I am sure the minister is aware of this. One is to offload at the Pacific port which does not affect the inside, or to take the surplus oil down to Los Angeles and ship it to the midwest through American territory. Has the minister, at any time, entered into joint negotiations with the United States to develop a west coast joint oil board so that the citizens of British Columbia can be protected in their inside

waters? Second, has this government ever taken a positive step in encouraging the Los Angeles terminal as the logical alternative to putting British Columbia waters at risk?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, to be quite specific, I personally have not had those kinds of conversations since I assumed these responsibilities. Once again, in the interests of accuracy, I would like to check the records to see what discussions of that nature have taken place. I will respond as early as possible.


TRANSPORT
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is checking into the background of this, in terms of the regulations which control tanker traffic in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, at the present time Canada is spending some $16 million in new radar installations which are not being installed on the United States side. Can the minister advise whether we have entered into any joint enforcement agreement or regulations in that strait? The Minister of Transport may be more aware of this. Can the minister advise whether we have come to any agreement with regard to joint enforcement of tanker regulations with the United States, since those tankers will be using both sides of the strait, coming in and going out?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have been making very good progress in that regard. We are confident we will have a full vessel management system in place.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Labour, but as he is absent from the House just now, I shall direct it to the Prime Minister.
Some time ago, I asked a question in the House concerning the millers' strike in Quebec, and it seems that although the government appointed a mediator, the millers are still on strike because of their union's dilemma with the Anti-Inflation Act. Could the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Labour who has just joined us, advise the House how the bargaining involving these striking millers is progressing? Because I do not know whether the minister has heard my question, I shall repeat it.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I met with the CSN yesterday afternoon in Montreal. We discussed the flourmill situation and some other matters. The CSN requested that my officers, with the Labour Depart-
June 2, 1977

ment in Montreal, intervene to see if some settlement could not be reached with the employers. I agreed that they would do so, and they undertook to do so today.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM PERSONS FROM WHOM GOVERNMENT WANTS AGREEMENT ON RESTRAINT PRIOR TO ENDING CONTROLS
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, as one who has spent several years studying the position of the government on controls. I would like to know what the government's present position is, fully realizing of course that it may be different somewhere down the line. Since the Prime Minister seems to be mistaken as to what is in the green paper, I would like to ask him who the principal decision-makers are from whom the government will be seeking a report. I ask this question because the Prime Minister seems to be under the illusion this has been spelled out, and it has not been. I think not only myself but the people of Canada are interested in knowing what the government's policy is. To whom is the government looking for a binding commitment on a position of voluntary restraint as soon as possible?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He is talking about an election promise.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the hon. gentleman has spent a great deal of time thinking about the problem of controls. In the question of controls, of course, he would want to be reminded that timing, like politics, is all. Perhaps he did not consider that aspect enough when studying this question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: His timing was not at fault. It took you nearly 18 months to implement his ideas.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: At some periods of the economic cycle the timing is wrong for controls. At other times in the economic cycle-


An hon. Member:: Like, after an election.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -it is right. As to the main economic decision makers, Mr. Speaker, I could, of course, name a whole series of them. These are people with whom we hope to enter into the proper kind of dialogue in response to the green paper and get the kind of agreement I alluded to earlier. Those whom we have met have been principally but not exclusively union leaders and representatives of large corporations; we have also had occasion to meet with many other groups across the country, and our consultations continue through the green paper, and directly.
Oral Questions


TYPE OF AGREEMENT BEING SOUGHT PRIOR TO ENDING CONTROLS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question without getting involved in the relationship between timing and, shall we say, frankness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the importance of the duration of the control period to Canadians generally, as well as to people whom the Prime Minister may be meeting privately, I ask, is the Prime Minister prepared to say precisely, not in the vague generalities of the green paper, what the position is, what kind of agreement the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are seeking which would bind the principal decision makers of the country. In other words, is this a serious position on the part of the government, or is it one of those timing propositions to keep things up in the air until it is suitable to announce something different to the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in introducing the notion of frankness the hon. member may be intent on proclaiming his own virtues but I can assure him that, to me, his answer spells out this: he has not understood what I said in my previous answer. In controls, whether of prices and incomes or, for that matter, controls of the exchange rate or controls of the dollar, it seems to me frankness is always desirable but the decision must be made almost simultaneously with the announcement of it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Surreptitiously.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore, I am somewhat puzzled by the introduction of the notion of frankness, as though this were something which existed for all time, as though it is written in the mind of God that controls will come in at a certain time. The hon. member knows that you do not announce those kinds of controls before they are actually brought in.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am quite prepared to accept that my right hon. friend outmanoeuvred me a few years ago; but if he intends to take the position that frankness is a matter of timing, that is something the Canadian people, excepting himself, will have some difficulty understanding. I ask the right hon. gentleman if the question of confidence in this country is not sufficiently serious for the government to come clean. Instead of playing games with me or anybody else is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance prepared, rather than issuing some wishy-washy, woolly green paper, to indicate to the people of Canada at this crucial time in our economy what the government's policy is, if it has one?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Come on, Pierre, answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I hear hon. members opposite urging a continuation of this dialogue of the deaf. I assure the hon. member that in my view his introduction of frankness is

June 2, 1977
Oral Questions
completely irrelevant. I did not indicate that frankness was a question of timing. I indicated that there was no great virtue in deciding a year or two in advance that you are going to control the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar one year or two down the road. You do that when you come to it and decide then.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Answer the question.


TRANSPORT
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As the minister is aware, urban commuter transit in Canada it still in serious need of help. In the Toronto area in particular the expansion of Union Station, and other programs, has been postponed until word is received if the federal government will provide additional financial assistance as promised. In view of this climate of uncertainty, and even the encouraging news that CN actually made a profit of some $11.8 million in the last fiscal year and could help to finance some of these improvements, I ask the minister if any further decision has been reached regarding federal funding for public urban transit; if so, can he say what the decision is; if not, when can we expect one?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, a further decision has not been reached. We made it clear to the province of Ontario that existing programs can be of assistance in projects such as the renovation of Union Station. Substantial assistance is available but they have not yet addressed themselves to these programs.


RAIL LINE ABANDONMENT RECOMMENDED BY HALL
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Since certain areas of western Canada will be severely affected by the Hall Commission's proposals for rail abandonment, particularly region 4 area of western Manitoba, and since it is proposed to close some of those lines as early as December 31, 1977, can the minister say what form of appeal is available to those communities which feel the report deals unfairly with their areas?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member would ask that question. I understood from other members of his party the other day that there was practically unanimous support for the recommendations of the Hall Commission.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not what he said. Why don't you listen?


Otto Emil Lang: Certainly, the job of the Hall Commission-


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not what he said.


Otto Emil Lang: It appears that the Conservatives again have found after reading the report that it is different from their first impression of it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: How do you know? Have you read it?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, I have read it. I also said, and I thought it was agreed by all sides, that the Hall Commission did a superb job of hearing people, receiving their viewpoints and analyzing the impact on communities and areas of sensitive proposals concerning rail service. The commission had to determine what rail service could be maintained, given the serious cost to the taxpayer of upgrading and maintaining the system. The Hall Commission did this job, and 1 will continue to pay a great deal of respect to the recommendations of that commission.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Why don't you try answering the question?


Donald Craig Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the minister playing politics with something so serious for Manitoba.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why don't you pull the plug, Pierre?


Donald Craig Stewart: I gather from the minister's reply that there is no right of appeal given to the communities of western Canada. They cannot appeal the Hall Commission proposals.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the question asks for legal advice, I suppose it is not appropriate. Obviously, there are provisions in law in relation to the actual steps to be taken to implement the recommendations of the Hall Commission. Indeed, as the law now stands, the Canadian Transport Commission has the final role in approving the abandonment of any line. They will be looking at that question progressively as they follow the timetables supplied by the Hall Commission. Of course, the Hall Commission did recommend that we in parliament move to a different form of approval for those discontinuations, and that is a matter which we may be considering when we have had time to analyse the Hall report.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Charles Edward Rea: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec having indicated clearly that he would continue the representations
June 2, 1977

made by his predecessor concerning the recovery of some $300 or $400 million for the service rendered for many years by the Quebec Police Force in lieu of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether or not his government will seriously consider this request in the next federal-provincial conference of justice ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is hypothetical since I am not aware of any federal-provincial conference and I do not know the agenda of that hypothetical conference.


Mr. Matte:: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
In the statement he made on May 14, the Quebec Minister of Justice indicated quite clearly that he would file such a request at the next conference. Therefore, would the Prime Minister tell us if his government has received such a request from the Quebec Minister of Justice about the reimbursement of these $300 or $400 million and how does he intend to deal with it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) just told me that a federal-provincial conference is indeed scheduled but to his knowledge this item is not on the agenda. If the Minister of Justice of Quebec wants to contact us, he knows where to find us. I do not think he has to go through the Social Credit member.


Jacques Lavoie: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hochelaga on a question of privilege.


Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. You will recall that last week I raised that same question with respect to an incident with the Canadian National, and I must thank the Chair for having made the necessary arrangements. But yesterday, after getting some information, and since the controller involved seems to recognize his mistake and to worry about the whole thing, I should simply like to ask the Chair not to seek the excuses I asked for, because that man got his lesson and has the right to earn his living like any other citizen. Therefore, I should like to ask the Chair that that man not suffer from any retaliation. As far as I am concerned, that incident is closed.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the House will be pleased to hear of the attitude of the hon. member. I was concerned, first of all, not so much with the details of the presentation of the pass, because if a member is issued with a pass, it can scarcely be against his privilege not to be given the rights that accompany that pass if he has not got the pass with him. That was not the problem. I was more concerned about the level of service of a federal agency to either a member or any other citizen, and in fact I want to make this very clear. I was not concerned that the individual member on the CNR staff at the time was not comfortable in communicating in either the French or the English language. I intended to express concern that there
Business of the House
would be nobody on the train representing the Crown corporation who could do so, and I am sure that that was not the case at the time and it was never the intention of the hon. member to convey that impression. 1 am pleased that the matter has been attended to by the hon. member raising it and that it is now closed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, are we now on motions? Mr. Speaker, considering that the CBC did not comment on the motion moved by Social Credit members yesterday in the House pursuant to the Standing Order governing allotted days,
I think that Canadians were not properly informed and that anyhow the inquiry on the CRTC will not be fair to the Canadian public as regards the business of the House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House do now adjourn to allow a discussion on the position and the treatment of the CBC as regards the House of Commons, particularly each opposition party in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Lotbiniere realizes that the motion to adjourn the House is pursuant to the standing orders provided, however, the hon. member gets the floor pursuant to the standing orders and not on a question of privilege as he is now trying to do. In a moment, on motions, the hon. member will have the opportunity to put this motion forward.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Today is Thursday and I wonder if the deputy House leader on the government side would like to inform the House of his intentions with respect to the legislative program to be presented by the government to the House through the course of the next week. While he is doing that, I wonder if he might consider as well designating next Tuesday and Wednesday as allotted days.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, we have no hesitation with regard to the latter portion of the hon. member's request. Indeed, the government was ready to designate next Tuesday and Wednesday as opposition days.
First of all I would like to thank hon. members for their co-operation as it seems that the legislative program is proceeding apace. We hope to terminate third reading of Bill C-25 this afternoon. We will then proceed to consideration of Bill C-3, the deposit insurance bill; then go on to Bill C-8, the Satisfied Securities Act; then Bill C-12, the tax conventions, and if we have time, and with the continued co-operation of

June 2, 1977
Adjournment Motion
hon. members opposite, we hope to proceed to Bill C-26, the scientific activities bill.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about the Canadian anthem?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I wonder whether the deputy House leader would like to go any further, in order that the co-operation, which is quite usual from this side of the House, may be continued, and let us know what other items of legislation might be forthcoming when we deal expeditiously with the bills he has named.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to have that further co-operation. Subject to alteration of the following order and depending on the bills that will be reported, with that co-operation, out of committees in the next few days, we intend to proceed with Bill C-13, the historic sites bill; Bill S-3, the insurance companies bill, and Bill C-6, the diplomatic immunities bill. In view of the co-operation that the hon. member offers, I would ask also for the co-operation of hon. members opposite at the committee stage in order that we get some of the important bills out of committees and into the House so that we can proceed with them prior to the end of June.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: In this atmosphere of co-operation I wonder if the acting government House leader will indicate when we will deal with Bill C-30, which has to do with Heritage Day?


Jean-Jacques Blais: In due course, Mr. Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table in both official languages the report of Dr. Finn on the inquiry into health and safety conditions in grain elevators, with particular reference to British Columbia.


MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. Andr6 Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, during the proceedings of the House of Commons on May 12, 1977, as reported in Hansard at page 5554, the Chair recognized that points raised by the Social Credit Party of Canada concerning

Radio-Canada could not be considered as a question of privilege but as very valid grievances, particularly those of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and mine. Since the corporation did not change its attitude after the by-elections and the work of the members of the Social Credit Party of Canada continues to be completely ignored by the corporation, we consider that we cannot wait any longer for the results of the CRTC inquiry and that the matter justifies an emergency debate. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), moves:
That this House do now adjourn.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,830, 1,976, 2,023, 2,069, 2,086, 2,166, 2,217, 2,220 and 2,351.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Will Mirabel Airport suffer a deficit of nearly $50 million by the end of this fiscal year and, if so, for what reason has there been a significant revenue shortfall?
2.	For what reasons did Mirabel planners not adjust the Airport's financial plans to take into account the shift in DOT policy which diverted some foreign airline landing rights from Montreal to Toronto?
3.	If present conditions remain the same, what will be the projected Mirabel Airport deficit for the fiscal year 1977-78?
4.	(a) What avenues is the government presently exploring to lower the Mirabel Airport deficit (b) can an announcement be expected for an airport policy change and, if so, on what date?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Yes, the forecast deficit is $47,500,000. This forecast deficit includes an amount of $43,000,000 carried as the interest charges on the construction costs. Revenues have not reached forecasted levels due to the fact that actual aircraft movement at the Airport was not as great as forecast. One contributing factor was the general downturn in North Atlantic sector traffic for the period in question. In addition connecting flights between Mirabel and other domestic points did not provide a good level of service, in terms of frequency and scheduling.
2.	During the development of the Mirabel Airport the financial plans were adjusted periodically to take into account many factors such as construction costs, inflation and anticipated airport activity which included changes due to foreign carriers being granted landing rights in Toronto. Landing rights for some foreign airlines were not diverted from Montreal to Toronto but extended to include the right to serve both Montreal and Toronto.
3.	The following financial information has been extracted from the 1977/78 Main Estimates. Operating and Maintenance Costs, $25,403,000; Forecast Revenues, $29,301,000; Surplus, $3,898,000; Amortization, Depreciation and Interest Charges, $60,458,000; Net Loss, $56,560,000.
4.	(a) A number of avenues are being studied at the present time to decrease the Mirabel Airport deficit, (i) Mirabel Airport is funded through the Airport Revolving Fund of Transport Canada. The structure of this fund and the means whereby the airports in the fund can be made financially viable are being studied. It is expected that the results of this study will be available by the summer of 1977. (ii) It is anticipated that traffic growth on the North Atlantic will generate new revenue, (iii) Landing fees and other common system charges were increased during the present fiscal year and have contributed to generating additional revenue, (iv) Operating and maintenance procedures at Mirabel are con-

June 2, 1977
Order Paper Questions
stantly reviewed to ensure that operating and maintenance costs are kept to a minimum, so that new revenue can be applied to retirement of the capital debt, (v) A study is in progress to determine the extent to which realignment of traffic at and between Mirabel and Dorval is feasible, with the aim of increasing the use of Mirabel, (thus increasing revenues) by providing more convenient connecting flights, (b) The study relating to the use of Mirabel will be completed in the Spring and following discussions with the air carriers and other principals concerned, I expect to be in a position to outline any changes proposed for the operating of Mirabel early in the Summer.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	From January 1975 to date, have any of the ships (a) Mount Blair (b) Sandy Point (c) Glencoe (d) Ambrose Foote (e) Stevenville (0 Marine Transport (g) Marine Voyageur (h) Newfoundland Coast been chartered to the CNR Atlantic Region and, if so, in each case (i) on what date (ii) at what cost (iii) what was the duration of the charter (iv) what is its cubic capacity (v) who is the owner?
2.	Was there any cost to CNR for repairs/refits to and/or maintenance of the ships and, if so, in what amount?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. From January 1975 to date, the following ships in question were chartered to CN Marine: (a) Mount Blair, (b) Sandy Point', (c) Glencoe', (d) Ambrose Foote', (e) Stephenville', (f) Marine Transport', (g) Marine Voyager, (h) Newfoundland Coast, (i) The date each vessel was placed on charter is listed below: (a) Mount Blair, 19/06/75; (b) Sandy Point, 19/06/ 75; (c) Glencoe, 01/09/75 and 29/07/76; (d) Ambrose Foote, 30/06/75 and01/06/76; (e) Stephenville, 30/06/75; (f) Marine Transport, 28/08/75 and 25/05/76; (g) Marine Voyager, 17/06/75, 25/05/76 and 24/11/76; (h) Newfoundland Coast, 20/05/75 and 26/05/76. (ii) The rate of charter is considered privileged information between the owner and CN Marine in that bids were received in a competitive situation. In order to protect the shipowners' interest, this information is held in confidence, (iii) The duration of each vessel's charter during 1975 and 1976 was as follows: (a) Mount Blair, 185 days 1975; (b) Sandy Point, 193 days 1975; (c) Glencoe, 104 days 1975, 142 days 1976; (d) Ambrose Foote, 129 days 1975, 160 days 1976; (e) Stephenville, 156 days 1975; (f) Marine Transport, 125 days 1975, 220 days 1976; (g) Marine Voyager, 196 days 1975, 274 days 1976; (h) Newfoundland Coast, 224 days 1975, 182 days 1976. (iv) The cubic capacity of the vessels in question is as follows: (a) Mount Blair, 34,699; (b) Sandy Point, 42,000; (c) Glencoe, 60,907; (d) Ambrose Foote, 8,245; (e) Stephenville, 16,000; (0 Marine Transport, 51,400; (g) Marine Voyager, 38,000; (h) Newfoundland Coast, 90,000. (v) The vessel owners are as follows: (a) Mount Blair, Claymore Shipping Ltd.; (b) Sandy Point, Stephenville Shipping Ltd.; (c) Glencoe, D. Frampton & Co. Ltd.; (d) Ambrose Foote, J.B. Foote & Sons Ltd.; (e) Ste-

phenville, Stephenville Shipping Ltd.; (f) Marine Transport, Marine Transport Ltd.; (g) Marine Voyager, Marine Voyager Ltd.; (h) Newfoundland Coast, Newfoundland Marine Services Ltd.
2.	Each vessel is chartered on a time charter basis whereby all maintenance and refit are the responsibility of the Owner and the cost of same is included in the charter rate.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount of money on the books of the pension funds of the Canadian National Railways as at (a) December 31, 1974 (b) December 31, 1975 (c) December 31, 1976?
2.	What rate of interest was earned on these funds during (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to these funds during the years ending (a) December 31, 1974 (b) December 31, 1975 (c) December 31, 1976?
4.	What amount of money was added to these funds from employee contributions during the years ending (a) December 31,1974 (b) December 31, 1975 (c) December 31, 1976?
5.	What amount of money was added to these funds as regular or current contributions by the Canadian National Railways during the years ending (a) December 31, 1974 (b) December 31, 1975 (c) December 31, 1976?
6.	What amount of money was added to these funds in any other way by the Canadian National Railways during the years ending (a) December 31, 1974 (b) December 31, 1975 (c) December 31, 1976?
7.	Is money owed to the above funds by the Canadian National Railways and, if so, how much and what arrangements are being made to meet such debt?
8.	What was the total amount paid out of the above funds in pensions during the years ending (a) December 31, 1974 (b) December 31, 1975 (c) December 31, 1976?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. As at December 31, 1974, $1,170,070,599; as at December 31,
1975,	$1,295,992,657; as at December 31, 1976, $1,461,873,667.
2.	To calculate the yield we have used the Statistics Canada formula, under which the investment is deemed to be opening investments plus closing investments, less earnings divided by two: On this basis, the yield is: 1974, 5.76 per cent; 1975, 5.95 per cent; 1976, 6.33 per cent.
3.	Year ended December 31, 1974, $61,131,731; year ended December 31, 1975, $69,727,964; year ended December 31,
1976,	$83,377,841.
4.	Year ended	Net
	December 31, 1974 December 31, 1975 December 31, 1976	S 47,897,419 51,609,714 50,057,197
5.	Year ended December 31, 1974 Year ended December 31, 1975 Year ended December 31, 1976	$ 83,838,271 94,746,365 116,673,8426.	Year ended December 31, 1974 Year ended December 31, 1975 Year ended December 31, 1976	$ 12,030,905 14,766,374 25,080,781
June 2, 1977

7.	At December 31, 1976 Canadian National Railways owed $4,442,995 representing December items. This amount was paid in January, 1977.
8.	Year ended December 31, 1974, $84,672,803; Year ended December 31, 1975, $93,567,159; Year ended December 31, 1976, $109,308,650.


Mr. Laprise: In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, what interest was charged to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and what amount (i) has been paid (ii) is outstanding?


Otto Emil Lang: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows:
TOTAL INTEREST Charged	Paid Outstanding
(a)	Jan. 1-Dec. 31, 1974 (12 Mos.) $40,899,644 $25,599,644 $15,300,000
(b) Jan. 1/75-Mar. 31/76 (15 Mos.)* 54,428,110 24,828,110	29,600,000
(c) Apr. 1 /76-Mar. 31/77 (12 Mos.)	46,175,559 21,175,559	25,000,000
By Order-in-Council P.C. 1975-799, dated April 8, 1975, the financial year of The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority was changed from the calendar year to the fiscal year. This resulted in a fifteen month accounting period from January 1, 1975, to March 31, 1976 and is reflected in the above figures.
IMPORT/EXPORT CONTAINER TRAFFIC MOVING VIA UNITED STATES PORTS


Mr. Crouse: 1.	What action has the government taken over the past years to stop the flow of containers with Canadian import/export goods via US ports, in order to help maritime and St. Lawrence ports to retain this traffic?
2.	How many more longshoremen would be employed in Canadian ports if such traffic would have moved via Canadian ports?
3.	Will the government take any action, in view of the recent statement made by the chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission, to investigate the introduction of legislation in the US Congress which will force all carriers to File rates via Canadian ports?
4.	Will the government require the American steamship lines to file their rates with the Canadian Transport Commission?
5.	Will the government require the Canadian Transport Commission to scrutinize the rates filed to ascertain whether or not they are compensatory?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. The government has developed competitive container facilities at major maritime and St. Lawrence ports and contacts users of United States ports to influence utilization of Canadian ports.
2.	Due to the difficulty in accurately determining Canadian traffic through United States ports and the various productivity levels for different types of cargo at each port, the net effect on manpower requirements of routing all Canadian traffic through Canadian ports cannot be measured.
3.	The government will take whatever action it considers necessary after examining the United States legislation.
Order Paper Questions
4.	The government will consider what action would be appropriate after examining the United States legislation.
5.	See answer to 4 above.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged in the protection and policing of public property?


Francis Fox: (a) 174; (b) 773.
Note: There has been an increase of 599 members so employed during the period involved. This growth is almost exclusively attributable to the creation, and expansion within the Airport Policing Branch, which increased from 66 members in 1968 to 646 members as of December 31, 1976, a total of 580 members.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	For (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, what was the total revenue collected by the National Harbours Board from companies operating the terminal used by (i) Manchester Lines at Montreal (ii) the CAST Group at Montreal (iii) CP ships at Quebec City?
2.	In each case, since 1970, was paving or repaving undertaken and, if so, is it fully and directly being recovered from the operator and, if not, what government agency paid for the paving or repaving?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1.
(i)	(ii)	(iii)(a)	1974	$826,631	$ 849,350	$802,655(b)	1975	647,487	876,178	519,081(c)	1976	708,375	1,007,755	752,773Original	paving	costs were	included in	the completed
construction costs which are recoverable through terminal revenues, and no subsequent paving costs have been incurred.


Mr. Matte: 1.	During the October 1970 crisis, were the families and residences of (a) Senators (b) (i) MPs (ii) MLAs (c) other citizens put under the surveillance of the Army and, if so, how many in each case?
2.	Were persons desirous of obtaining such surveillance required to submit a request to a committee and, if so, how many were on the committee?

June 2, 1977
Order Paper Questions
3.	Did the Quebec Provincial Police and other police bodies participate in the operation?


Ralph Goodale: 1. The Canadian Forces, in support of various police agencies, provided protection to the families and residences of some Senators, Members of Parliament, Members of the Legislative Assembly, and government officials. The numbers varied from day to day throughout the operation.
2.	No.
3.	Yes, as part of their normal police duties.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	For the year (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (0 1975 (g) 1976, what would be the dollar value of depreciation on all icebreaking vessels owned by the government assuming that the value of the vessels is depreciated over 20 years?
2.	For the same years, what is the government's best estimate as to the portion of that depreciation which should be pro rated to icebreaking services in the St. Lawrence River and the Gulf of St. Lawrence in aid of navigation for ships destined to ports on the St. Lawrence River?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Dollar value of depreciation on all icebreaking vessels (Value Depreciated Over 20 years) 1970-71, $6,082,954; 1971-72, $6,138,845; 1972-73, $6,138,417; 1973-74, $5,772,783; 1974-75, $5,801,972; 1975-76, $5,821,055; 1976-77, $5,849,001.
2. Estimate as to the portion of the depreciation which should be prorated to icebreaking services in the St. Lawrence river and the Gulf of St. Lawrence in Aid of navigation for ships designed to ports on the St. Lawrence River. Based on 1975-76 Costs: Total icebreaking services, $20,919,326; Total icebreaking costs (St. Lawrence river and Gulf of St. Lawrence), $9,788,202;


Mr. Rynard: 1.	For each year 1970 to 1976, by province, how many migrant workers entered the country for the purpose of harvesting (a) fruit (b) vegetable (c) tobacco (d) other crops?
2.	For the same years, what was the (a) country of origin (b) cost of transportation to and from the country of origin (c) average daily wage (d) average number of man hours worked daily (e) cost of food and shelter provided?
3.	For the same years, by province, what was the total amount of loss, if any, sustained by growers due to unharvested crops?
Return tabled.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary questions Nos. 1,941 and 1,945 which I placed on the order paper on February 24. 1 believe the parliamentary secretary will admit that I have not abused the order paper with an abundance of questions. These two concern two Liberal party hacks who have been inflicted upon the civil service of this country. 1 think the answers are being sat upon. I would like some answers.


Ralph Goodale: Without at all accepting any of the gratuitous elaboration which the hon. member just presented to the House, 1 will do my best to try to get the answers for him.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Before resuming the debate on Bill C-25 and recognizing the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) 1 might do as I did on Tuesday pursuant to the adjustments we have made for this month in our proceedings.
9,788,202
20,919,326
46.8%
Portion of depreciation which should be prorated, 46.8 per cent.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 2,350 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised on the adjournment motion at 6 p.m. are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie)-Sports-use of post office for delivery of departmental mail; the hon. member for Sur-
June 2, 1977

rey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-appointment of Mr. O'Neil to head public affairs programming; the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke)-Income Tax-legality of inclusion of benefits from low interest loans as income for tax purposes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. Bas-ford) that Bill C-25 to extend the present laws of Canada that proscribe discrimination and protect the privacy of individuals be read the third time and do pass.
Leonard C. Jones: As I was saying before the House rose at one o'clock it was not my intention, at first, to speak on this bill. I have now had an opportunity to read the measure more carefully and although 1 listened intently to what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) had to say, as far as I am concerned it really does not protect one's freedom of association or one's lack of freedom of association; it does not protect an individual from the ravages and sins created by discrimination by political affiliation or the lack of political affiliation, or against discrimination by language or lack of language.
In my own constituency, or, for that matter, in various constituencies across the country, people are being discriminated against in a subtle manner by reason of language, or the lack of it. Under existing employment and hiring practices and promotion practices in the public service, the Armed Forces, Crown agencies and the private sector, too, there certainly are discriminatory practices. Sincere and honourable employees are being punished by reason of language or lack of language. The Official Languages Act and its messy implementation may very well be part of the cause of this language discrimination. The minister tells us this is one of the reasons it was left out of the bill before us. When one speaks to English-speaking public servants and to numerous citizens in the private sector, it becomes obvious there has been discrimination which should have been prohibited by this bill. This discrimination creates hardship and financial difficulty not only for the employees concerned but for their families and all associated with them. Even as far as the Parliamentary staff here on the Hill is concerned, there appears to be clear evidence of inequitable employment practices based on language. I am reliably informed that in at least one branch of the parliamentary staff there is obvious discrimination. 1 have already drawn this to the attention of Your Honour and 1 hope the situation will be corrected.
Right here among members of parliament there is discrimination by reason of political affiliation or lack of it. I refer to my own position-my inability to become a member of any of
Canadian Human Rights
the committees of this House. This type of discrimination runs through the entire system of this House. This type of discrimination runs through the entire system of politics in this nation and 1 submit it is time it should be halted. This is the type of legislation which should be preventing these two types of discrimination-discrimination by reason of political affiliation, or the lack of it, and discrimination on the basis of language or the lack of it. This situation could have been corrected in Bill C-25. I believe the minister had the power to do so and he should have taken it upon himself here and now to ensure that the ravages and sins of discriminations should not continue in perpetuity.


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak on this bill which finally codifies the Liberal-this government's abhorrence of any discrimination against Canada's citizens.
As a woman, and one who comes from a minority racial background-a minority which suffered everything including torture and genocide for 2,000 years-I personally welcome this legislation. I have known discrimination because of race, ethnic origin, religion and sex. Probably, now, I will face it on the basis of age. On the job, sexual discrimination has even been worse than discrimination because of race or ethnic background. It was done more blatantly because of sex. It was done as of right by men. I remember being told I would be the managing editor of my newspaper if I wasn't a woman, and I accepted that situation as being right and proper. I applied for the job as police chief for the City of Vancouver. Twenty-two people applied. I was the only woman. My credentials were considered among the best, but because I was a woman I was not even interviewed. I did not really care whether I became chief or not. I just wanted to let women know that they ought to apply for these executive jobs because one day there would be a human rights bill in Canada, such as is now before us, which would assure that they have, at least, an equal chance to work at jobs of this sort.
I welcome the bill also on behalf of my constituents. At least half of the population of Vancouver-Kingsway is composed, like that of all Canada, of women; many of them in my riding are mothers alone, working women who must hold their jobs and support their families at salaries lower than men have the potential to earn. The costs for food, lodging and the raising of children are the same for women breadwinners as they are for men. However, the opportunities for promotion, or leaving the women job ghettos until this bill comes into force will be nil.
My constituency needs this bill because it is a microcosm of the entire Canadian variety of ethnic cultural beauty. This mix, however, is not recognized by some as beauty. Discrimination does exist. As an illustration of the mix of nations in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway 1 cite last month's international night at one elementary school-Selkirk. Children of 39 nations, with their parents, jammed into a comparatively small auditorium, sharing their food, their art, their music, dance and costume. It is hard to believe that such beauty can be juxtaposed against cruel incidents of discrimination.

June 2, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
I welcome the bill, also, for the reason mentioned by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). It could be atonement for that terrible, black time in Canadian history when the Japanese Canadians of British Columbia were herded from their homes and ridiculed, their property confiscated and their lives uprooted. The newspapers could, then,- and did-produce discriminatory stories calling them "yellow people" and sneering at their lifestyle and culture.
1 welcome this legislation too, because racism, such as we saw then, is starting to bloom again in the West. Last week, a Vancouver newspaper of considerable stature, the Vancouver Province of the Southam chain, lifted a phrase from a police record to decorate a crime series. All the stories carried a fancy, circled design throughout with the words "Greek connection". I presume the next time an Italian, Chinese, Jew, a Pakistani or Indian gets into high profile trouble there will be decorative art around large letters spelling out "Italian connection", "Chinese connection", "Pakistani connection", "Indian connection" and so on. It may be that passage of this bill will cause the people responsible for this sort of racial slur to think twice before publishing in this manner.
This bill is also timely in view of the Parti Quebecois plan to codify discrimination and a seemingly developing attack on all who are not French. Any time a government strives for ethnic purity, its direction is first to exclude from opportunity, joy and even freedom those who are not of that selected racial group. I believe that if Rene Levesque continues along his present route with his vocally militant associates-more dangerous, I think, than he himself-we will have a similar situation to that created by Hitler when he sought Aryan purity, or to that in Lebanon where the Moslems are striving for religious purity. 1 am proud to support a government that introduced this legislation. It is only a pity it took so many years.
Yesterday the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams), a man I respect and admire very much as a learned member of the justice and legal affairs committee, criticized the government with much support from very senior members who were in this House when that party had its brief stint at government. Why, when they formed the government of this land, did they not introduce a law of this sort? Yes, they brought in the toothless Bill of Rights. At least, it seems toothless to a woman who has lived with discrimination. Before that bill and after that bill discrimination continued without abatement or conscience, as I am personally aware. I believed then it was acceptable for men to be in control and for women to be subjugated. I had to accept it, and that Bill of Rights was a door closed against the advancement of women such as myself, as well as against different races.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Nonsense.


Simma Holt: My many friends of many races and every woman I knew in the work force were impotent against rules made for men, by men and administered by men. All jobs were

administered by men and the Bill stood in its pretty frame on the wall-without meaning to them. Personally-hon. gentleman may disagree-I felt that it inscribed the denial of my equal opportunity.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: You are dead wrong.


Simma Holt: It did many things to protect people, and it was there and was better than nothing. But hon. members could have brought in a complete human rights bill and saved many women and many races of my generation from hardship and pain of discrimination-could have given them an equal chance. Hon. members had the opportunity that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) had and which he has carried through. I just mention that in passing.
I am proud of this bill because it recognizes, in the language that it uses, that laws and opportunities exist for two sexes in this nation. I was interested to note that in every piece of legislation which has passed through committees the male pronoun has been used. Everyone self-righteously says that we have to look at the Interpretation Act. The Interpretation Act is the grossest form of subliminal discrimination which exists in Canadian statutes. But this bill is unique in that this type of sexist language has been expunged from it. Furthermore, the bill is written not just for lawyers but for people.
I do have some concerns about the bill. To my mind, it is not perfect. I wish the minister had deleted clause 14(6) which provides for exceptions. Any time a law allows for exceptions, the powerful and the rich can find a loophole. The minister, on the best advice of the lawyers of his department, added an amendment. I would have preferred it to be spelled out as recommended by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), so there was no doubt that the onus is on the employer to prove the grounds for the exception. The minister claims that his amendment does this, but it is not strong enough for one who has seen the powerful employer in large companies discriminate in the cruellest ways against women and those of different races so far as employment opportunities are concerned.
The amendment that I would like to see is the one put forward in committee to provide that the onus shall be on the employer to prove that the occupational requirement is bona fide. This is subtly provided for in the bill, but not strongly enough. I am a person who does not care for subtlety.
I am sure Canada has the quality of justice minister who, upon finding there is abuse, will correct it. In the meantime I am thankful for this bill. Ms. Lyne Kaye, of the National Action Committee, testified before the justice and legal affairs committee that she had hoped there would be no exceptions made, but in order to see the bill through, she compromised. As a minimum, she wanted a narrowing of those exceptions. She said, as reported at page 9:39 of the committee reports for April 26 last:
We feel it is totally unacceptable as it presently stands-
And the minister has changed the bill to meet some of the wishes of the National Action Committee.
June 2, 1977

-and that the minimum requirement is to have it narrowed right down to seniority and incentive which are the only factors we find reasonable or acceptable.
There are many lawyers I respect. Before I go on to the next part of my speech, I should like to tell the House that the greatest lawyer in this country is going to be in town today, a friend of mine, Mr. Justice George Law Murray. He is not sure if he taught me the law, or I taught him; but he is in town today. I also respect very much the members of the justice committee, with whom 1 have worked very closely, such as the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), the hon. member for Lafon-taine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), the hon. member for Toron-to-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau); and if I have missed anyone who is a lawyer, I apologize. I say this because of what I have to say next.
I have had a long career in the courts, probably handling more cases as a journalist-sometimes five or six a day-than most lawyers handle in a lifetime. But I have also seen the manipulations of lawyers, the cruelty they inflict and the games they play because they know the law. Even if they do not know it, they still use their professional training to confuse and to deal rather ruthlessly and cynically with the average citizen.
1 have personal experience of this. 1 like to be personal because the best proof I have is my own, and it is to be found in the area of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski). My family has been manipulated out of an estate in Edmonton, and I am sure that every one of us who helped build that estate will spend the rest of our lives fighting the lawyers who know there is much in it for them. I refer to two Edmonton lawyers in private practice and a third lawyer in a trust company, and a so-called trust officer in the famous Canada Trust.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mind the libel.


Simma Holt: We know they have done this, but because we do not have unlimited money-we have hired lawyers, too-we cannot cope with the situation. This is the law in Canada, and it must be happening everywhere in the country because of the laws lawyers in the departments of government write, the laws carried through here by lawyers, and the laws which are administered and manipulated by lawyers in our society. The hon. member can watch the law of libel because he is a lawyer and can play with people's lives, threatening libel. I resent very much what has happened to my family and to untold others at the hands of lawyers in this land.


An hon. Member:: The Minister of Justice is a lawyer, too.


Simma Holt: The Minister of Justice is a lawyer I happen to respect.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You must be sure that what you say is true.
Canadian Human Rights


Simma Holt: The hon. member does not like to have known what goes on in Edmonton, but the benchers there should start looking into their little household. Another behavioural pattern indigenous to lawyers is that they will not fight for a citizen if they endanger one of their brother's careers. That is happening in the hon. member's fair city. I suppose we could retain a lawyer there-and we finally did-one who was not afraid of the system. So doctors do that, too-protect their erring brothers. Some journalists do that, too. This happens daily throughout the nation because the law is written and administered by lawyers.
This bill has minimized the role of the lawyers. It is written in language understandable to the ordinary citizen, and the tribunal which is to be appointed is non-legal. I was originally very concerned about the amendment having to do with appeals moved by the hon. member for Calgary North. I had to decide what was best, a legal tribunal or a three-person, non-legal tribunal. I made the decision that I would feel safer with the human rights bill under a non-legal tribunal, and I voted against that amendment.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: Do not feel badly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) has the floor, and I suggest we listen.


Simma Holt: I am also concerned about another exception, and that is clause 63(2) of this bill which reads as follows:
Nothing in this act affects any provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or pursuant to that act.
In committee I voted for the deletion of this subclause, on the motion of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. I feel very strongly that the Indian Act is extremely discriminatory legislation. It is probably the most discriminatory legislation in the statutes of this country. It has a unique basis of discrimination in that it discriminates on the basis of blood. There is also blatant cruelty to women. In this respect, the discrimination is based on the choice of marriage partner, and this is only directed toward women. This continues, despite the concern of the whole nation-which members on the other side have heard-in regard to that legislation and the injustice it imposes.
It exemplifies the worst inverse discrimination by selecting a small group of people for special favours. It builds what I guess could be a billion dollar establishment around this small group, with a budget which runs around $24 million this year for special privileges which no other Canadians have-no, not even all native people, not all native women, not all who have partial Indian blood, and not the remnants of the Indian nations wiped out by other Indian nations.
I hope the Minister of Justice and the government of Canada will look into cleaning up this act or abolishing it. Rather than bringing peace, comfort and freedom to these
6222

June 2, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
people, the government has divided them between themselves and caused them to be weakened throughout the history of this department. It has been a breeding ground for discrimination against women, children and a large number of men. The minister expresses deep concern about the handling of this clause of the bill. He was most sensitive to the concerns of the members of the committee. Perhaps the committee will move one day on this one.
A woman named Mary Two Axe Early came before our committee. She was 72 years of age. I cannot remember whether she told the whole committee, but she told me that the Indian Act should either be abolished, cleaned up or altered considerably. She said that even if the land grants were settled, only a few people would benefit, and that it would not benefit women such as Mary Two Axe Early. Her statements before the committee are probably better than I can paraphrase them. I asked her if she thought there was any benefit in scrubbing the Indian Act. The justice and legal affairs committee report of April 26, at page 9:41, reads:
The Indian men will never want that Indian Act abolished. They can marry ten white women and all those women will have their rights on the reserves. They are getting money from the government, building homes for them, while their sisters are evicted. They have it too good, they will not want to change it.
She told me that she will never be buried on the reserve near her grandchildren, because she was driven off the reserve even though the wife of her brother, or her cousin-I cannot remember which-who is a white woman, can live in her place on the reserve. Mary Two Axe Early is a native-born Iroquois. The report continues:
I just wanted to say that I come from the Iroquois confederacy where we were matriarchal, and the government changed us to patriarchal-which is the man. We had clan mothers and I think we had a very good government, social life and everything. All that has changed.
She explained to me that when the Indian Act came into force, the government's dealings were with the Indian Brotherhood; the Indian Sisterhood was ignored.
This bill recognizes human rights. They will actually be realized only when society recognizes these fundamental rights. This bill is a step toward that end. Only when human rights are fully realized will we have a humane and human society.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I want to make just a brief intervention to re-emphasize the point I made on second reading of this bill with regard to clause 8 having to do with immigration. There is a provision in the immigration regulations whereby an applicant aged 35 or over is penalized one point per year to a maximum of ten points. That is totally contrary to the legislation proposed in this bill. Clause 8 deals with employment, the physically handicapped being prohibited employment. Therefore, reference to age is a discriminatory practice and should not be circulated in any form of application for employment.
Any application by immigrants who are sponsored, those who are nominated or individual, independent applications, must be accompanied by a Manpower 1234 form. There are certain exceptions, such as an application for a fiancee or if the

individual concerned is going to be bringing in enough money to be deemed an investor in Canada. In those instances the matter of age does not apply. In the normal course of events, an application by a person between 35 and 60 years of age is subject to a penalty of up to 10 points out of 100 points. In order to qualify and to be accepted as an immigrant, 50 points must be obtained, provided the further, and absolutely essential, condition of employment is met.
This piece of legislation is totally hypocritical at this point in time in view of the fact that the government has insisted for years that there shall be a points system. It insisted upon this under the white paper and also under the new bill. To me, this is totally wrong. I do not know how it could have crept in while the government has been encouraging people to hire persons over the age of 35. We know there are problems with group insurance plans, pension plans, and so on. It becomes extraordinarily difficult to fit these people into normal employment. The federal government, the provincial governments and all types of societies have been at pains to try to convince Canadian society which has behaved most mulishly and wrong-headedly in this connection, that any person over 45 was over the hill and unemployable.
I think that is wrong-headed and unjust, and I think the whole Canadian nation should hang their heads in collective shame because we overtly, and all too often silently, consent to this type of practice. We see this perpetrated in the Immigration Act. Why? It is a human right to be 45 years old and not to be discriminated against, in exactly the same way as it is a human right in this country to have a black skin and to be recognized as a human individual, or to observe any creed one chooses.
The Canadian Bill of Rights, passed in 1960, clearly indicates the position of a free Canadian. A number of provincial statutes, such as the Ontario human rights code and the Alberta individual rights code, are extensions of the Canadian Bill of Rights. But this bill is a sort of super blanket introduced in part for cosmetic purposes. Its very definitions condemn this government for allowing the inclusion of provisions in the immigration bill to which I alluded. I spoke to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) about this matter. Although I raised this point with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) during second reading, he failed to reply to my allegations. I now invite the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, whom I see in the House, to do so.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am here today.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister is in the House today. Perhaps it is his duty day.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, it is not. The hon. member is wrong, again.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Since I saw only two ministers in the House, I was persuaded it was the minister's duty day. I know ministers must serve on duty days and must have days away from the House. I do not criticize the minister
June 2, 1977

when I say this, but hope he will comment on the point I have made. I have raised that question in correspondence for I do not know how long. I have raised it in many committee meetings considering the estimates of the minister and of his predecessor. 1 know officials say, "Here we go again." Mr. Speaker, I raise it for this purpose: I insist that there shall be eradicated from our immigration regulations any and all vestiges of prejudice related to age, and that there shall be removed from the points system as it may be set up any provision whereby any person, by reason of age, shall lose points.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It's fun to be forty.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would extend this provision to a person who is the parent of an applicant, provided such person is in good health; in other words, standing up, able to see and to breathe, and not subversive.


Mr. O'Connell:: Would that not be discrimination by reason of marital status?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No; I spoke of a parent. If one applies the rule to a parent, will that be discriminatory? I do not think so. It is a matter of relationship. I am sure the hon. member opposite made his intervention with tongue in both cheeks, as it were.
I say there should be removed from the immigration regulations references to admissibility based on age. I hope the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will intervene on this point because, with all due respect, the House will rise some time in June, all our committees are occupied and I see no prospect of the immigration bill coming back before the end of this month. We hear reports of a new session to be called when the House resumes. Therefore, the immigration bill as presently constituted will die. The minister shakes his head. He must believe in miracles. I do not. I know many people in Canada are exercised about certain provisions of the present immigration bill.
I hope the minister will intervene this afternoon, since there is no way the bill can be reported back, debated, passed on third reading and considered in the other place by the end of the month. We know that members of the other place view with mixed feelings certain provisions of the bill. Consequently, I would advise the minister not to bet on the future viability of that legislation unless we sit all summer. On that unhappy note I will conclude. I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to say how his department hopes to prohibit discrimination by reason of age as presently applied under the points system, and to tell us the proposals concerning a new points system.
[ Translation]


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity offered by the study of this bill at the report stage to state very clearly the fact that discrimination exists and that you do not have to go very far to find cases of discrimination based on prejudices since we live in an era of
Canadian Human Rights
prevailing prejudices and witness a kind of discrimination that effects the very nature of Canada. If there are people who know what discrimination means in this country, these are French Canadians who, for centuries, have had to suffer all sorts of injustices for various reasons which should never have existed in the first place. And just to show you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not speaking through my hat, I will mention a particular case where a casual worker at the employ of the federal government is dismissed while other fellow workers doing very similar work are eventually hired on a permanent basis. This case has been submitted to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). It has also been submitted to a few hon. members opposite. It has even been submitted by myself to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who has not found a solution to it. Why? Because they take into account only the opinions of those who are precisely the cause of the discriminatory practices suffered by this employee.
Being quite informed about one side of the story, I would not want to seem to have prejudices of my own, however, as it is our duty here in this House to raise issues involving cases of discrimination toward individuals whose rights must be respected. To illustrate my opinion on the matter, I will take the liberty of reading to you large extracts from the grievances written to me by that Quebecer who lives at 38 Sylvain St. in Gatineau, Quebec, whose name is Gaetan Pelletier and who has tried for several months to seek justice. He eventually met me and has written to me this letter that explains his case.
Mr. Speaker, if the facts mentioned in that letter are grounded, and I do not see why I should have doubts regarding the circumstances and the facts related to me by this individual, then, it would seem to demonstrate that it is high time for the law to protect the rights of individuals. Here is the quotation:
Gatineau, April 14, 1977
Mr. Rene Matte,
Member for Champlain,
House of Commons, Ottawa Dear Sir:
You will find enclosed a copy of my grievance'and the answer I received from the department. You will notice that this answer deals only with the first request.
My union informed me today, April 12, 1977, that they cannot pursue the case further because under the law they cannot defend an individual who left government service. Any how, because of the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, all cases concerning temporary employees have always been lost.
I believe it would be appropriate to amend sections 90 and 91 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
After complaining that the union did not defend his grievance, he continues and I quote:
The minister, Jean-Pierre Goyer, did not make any research, he only asked the reasons to those who are against me. If Parliament can order a royal investigation into the CBC, why could it not do the same to compensate for injustice perpetrated against me?
What does the minister mean by colleagues? If he means the same opportunities as my French-speaking colleagues, it is questionable. But if he means the same opportunities as my English-speaking colleagues, then I say the minister is not well informed.
80016-5 3 Vz

June 2, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
As for the paragraph where Mr. Goyer says that the union dropped my complaint for discrimination, it is not correct. I did not file an official grievance; all I did was ask what the union could do for me. My informal complaint concerned discrimination between English-speaking and French-speaking employees.
What was even more unfair, was that I managed to make Mr. Mereweather understand that the University of Quebec courses met the requirements and that, moreover, francophones are seriously discriminated against compared to anglophones. I was allowed to register provided my employers agreed. They denied me this opportunity that I had worked so hard to get under the pretext that the office would gain nothing by it. I emphasize that I was the only one able to take that course, as my French-speaking colleagues were too late to register.
The only alternative the union offered me, since a casual employee has no rights, was to inform the media of the facts concerning the unfair treatment I got. Mr. Yvon Billard made it clear to me that the union could not promise me this would work, but that my only chance was the pressure of public opinion. I preferred to let the whole matter drop because anglophone opinion cannot care less about the manner in which francophones are treated.
Mr. Goyer claims that my employers are all of the same origin as myself. In that case, why did they not obtain for French-speaking employees what Englishspeaking employees already had? How is it that a CR4 managed to get in one hour and 45 minutes what had never been done in 2/i years? How is it that Mr. Fernand Labelle told me that it was not his fault if I was educated in Quebec, that it was not his fault if I had registered with the Quebec CGA? These people may be francophiles, but they are not francophones and even less Quebecers. How is it that before November 15, 1976, the memos from those people were written only in English?
It is strange that Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer does not dare to give the reasons why the CRTC no longer wanted me. I find it disgusting and immoral that they used facts which I could not disprove. I can give you the list of those reasons after having pressed H. Lane for a month to tell me.
Reasons:
1.	My Quebec flag was not appreciated;
2.	the employee with whom I shared an office did not want me to turn on the ceiling lights;
3.	I am accused of wanting to rearrange the files that I was supposed to update.
Mr. Speaker, the letter goes on in the same vein, with a whole series of facts as reported by that Mr. Pelletier and which, I suggest, show clearly enough that discrimination does exist. Even if those allegations were disproved by claiming that the matter was investigated and that the facts were not so, Mr. Speaker, it would be quite paradoxical on our part to think that someone who seems intelligent would suddenly make up the whole story. Therefore, I believe the situation 1 am now denouncing has existed for years, and if no more employees have complained, it is not because they had nothing to complain about, but junior employees do not dare claim their rights because they are afraid of retaliation as a result.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as can be seen, this letter was written only a few months ago, and as 1 happened to find out many times as well the situation thus denounced, namely that individual case which 1 submit to my colleagues in this House, happens time and again. For instance, when two young men, one from Quebec and the other from Ontario, with about the same education level, apply for a job, since the whole federal administration system is divised for the benefit of the Englishspeaking majority, there is basically a discrimination against the French-speaking applicant. This is what happened in the case I have just referred to, where a man was told that he could not be a permanent employee and would be laid off simply because he had been educated in Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable to see senior officials give answers like that in 1977, particularly when on top of that we now live in confusion about the future of this country from a constitutional standpoint. Those little things where one cannot display the Quebec flag because one works in a federal government office, on what grounds does that person not have the right to do that? So it is time that the law allowed those people who are caught in the tongs of prejudices and discrimination to be able to defend themselves adequately.
I do think that those were the intentions of the minister when he introduced his bill but I wanted to show that this bill must not just remain theory and that there should be no more cases like the one I just spoke about in detail where an individual can suffer serious personal injustices for the simple reason that the laws do not allow him to further defend himself and we have to refer precisely to those against whom grievances are laid. I mention that incident hoping it will enable us to set things right not only in this case but also in all cases of other individuals who in the public service or elsewhere are discriminated against in this way.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow a question?


René Matte: Of course.


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member say whether he would approach the government of the province of Quebec so the Canadian flag would be raised in the schools of the province of Quebec, as is done elsewhere, and to put an end to the current discrimination on the part of the government of the province?


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I do not see much discrimination there. I think there is no problem in that respect. The hon. member will note that I am wearing a badge that says: Proud to be a Quebecer, with the Canadian flag on top. I do not see any kind of incompatibility between the two, and I do not think there is any such thing since it always gives me great pleasure to send Canadian flags to schools in my riding which they display quite proudly beside the Quebec flag. I think the hon. member is missing the point here. There is no discrimination vis-a-vis the Canadian flag even if Quebec now has a government with a constitutional option for the future not only of Quebec but the whole country, and I do not think that is part of the debate.


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, as all those who have spoken on this bill since the beginning of the debate, I think individual freedom and protection of privacy are essential matters. We should ask ourselves the following question: will the bill now before us, namely bill C-25, truly contribute to ensure individual freedom and independence for all people in spite of the overwhelming bureaucracy and more particularly, data collecting agencies which are responsible for gathering personal information on individuals? It is clear that this bill means well, just as the road to hell is paved with good
June 2, 1977

intentions. It is an ambitious piece of legislation which aims at putting an end to all forms of discrimination through the appointment of a board and a tribunal on human rights.
These two bodies might become another administrative mess as well, bulging with ineffective officials trying to solve discrimination problems. Mr. Speaker, judging by the usual measures taken by this government, there is every reason to believe and especially to fear, that all this commission and this tribunal will do will be to reduce unemployment somewhat by providing good jobs at high salaries to a few cronies of the Liberal party. But, as I said, Mr. Speaker, it is possible, if not probable, that the government introduced this bill with the best intentions. For my part, I believe that we are once more on the wrong track with this kind of bill. It is not by setting up commissions, subcommissions and subcommittees that we are going to solve our problems. It is not either, Mr. Speaker, by lavishing money on problems that we will find answers. Before legislating to solve a problem, we should always ask ourselves whether legislation is a good means, an effective means of solving the problem. In the present case, the problem seems to be one of discrimination in all its aspects and of protection of privacy.
In fact, our interest in such problems is the economic implications of discrimination and violation of privacy. It is a fact that a person cannot get a particular job because of discrimination, or that an individual loses his job because of a report concerning his private life he was never informed of. In both instances, the individual that is economically dependent on the job he is seeking or the one he is losing is subjected to economic hardship by the unacceptable actions of his current or potential employer.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the individual is victimized in that his economic position, his economic security are jeopardized by the unacceptable actions of some individual who is in a position to cause financial harm to those against whom he is prejudiced because of the colour of their skin or the length of their hair. As far as I am concerned, they are the victims of discrimination, and I suggest that above anything else they cry out for the protection of their dignity. And the best way to protect an individual's dignity is to put him in a position where he will not be dependent upon those who want to revile him. Whenever he is independent from those who would deprive him of his rights, he can protect himself against their scorn and unacceptable behaviour. If, on the other hand, he is dependent, because for instance he absolutely needs the job that is available, he is automatically in a dependent position. Mr. Speaker, the law can force an employer to hire an individual, but it cannot prevent the employer from despising that individual or hurting him with subtle harassment that affects him deep down.
The tribunal is not always aware of the facts. The commission will not always be in a position to assess the quality of the relationship between the employer and the employee. Consequently, the main effect of this well meaning legislation, as I
Canadian Human Rights
said a while ago, will be to place discrimination sufferers under the control of the individual whose only aim is to strike a blow at his dignity and integrity. Mr. Speaker, is that the purpose of this legislation? I am convinced it is not. We all wish to make discrimination impossible, because it affects the dignity of the individual. We suggest that a person can be protected against discrimination only if his economic interests are protected against those who try to discriminate against him. Mr. Speaker, we may wonder how it can be done. We feel that by ensuring the economic security of each person, we would ensure individual freedom for all. No person is free if he is financially dependent. If he must crawl on all fours to earn his living, he is not free, he is utterly at the mercy of the person who gives him a mere pittance.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, Socreds have been demanding for several years a guaranteed annual income for each and every citizen as a basic and unquestionable right. We regard the guaranteed annual income as the basis of individual freedom. A person who has a guaranteed income does not need to ingratiate himself with, or work for, an employer who despises or is prejudiced against him. How many times, Mr. Speaker, did our dear and sorely missed friend Real Caouette mention how undignified it was for people over 65 to have to beg for any kind of menial work, because the government would not support them, when they could have stayed at home with the guaranteed income we are proposing.
Mr. Speaker, of course the guaranteed income will only be possible if we agree to a fundamental restructuring of our present economic system. The reforms we advocate are an essential prerequisite in that regard. I am afraid that members of other parties do not give social credit principles and solutions the attention they deserve. It may be because they think they know them well enough already, or perhaps because they are satisfied with the present situation. Judging by what some government members are saying, I am afraid those were not and never will be understood. The fact that they are pressing for urgent measures to solve our economic problems is evidence to me that they are not satisfied with the present situation. On the other hand, their everyday attitude demonstrates that they know nothing about the principles and solutions advocated by our party.
It is impossible to understand Social Credit unless one accepts from the outset the fact that changes advocated by this party imply fundamental changes in our economic system. The reason is very simple: the defects of the present economic system are so deep that the only possible solution lies in rethinking and rebuilding the financial system on new bases by adopting new principles. If one wants to understand Social Credit, the most logical procedure is to consult the works of its founder, Major C. H. Douglas. In 1933, replying to two professors who were critical of his ideas, as are many members in this House towards Social Credit representatives, he stated in a few words what he found wrong with the current economic system, and I quote:
First of all, financial credit claims to be, but is not, a reflection of real credit. This means that our society's financial organization neglects true factors of production and consumption.

June 2, 1977
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act
There is no logical and automatic relationship between, say, the capacity of the people to purchase goods and the capacity of the producing system to make them available.
That, the same Major Douglas used to say, is the main result of technological progress. Yet, we must admit that financial costs keep increasing, and this in spite of technological progress. It is therefore evident that the current financial system must distort reality. But let us push this line of reasoning a little further. It is generally recognized that we can improve our economic situation during any given period, that is to say our productivity is greater than what we are spending to market it. In other words, consumption is then only a fraction of production. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we want our economic system to reflect reality and if we accept the idea that the true cost of production is consumption, this means that if we want the public to have access to our production as a whole we must share among our people the purchasing power which represents the difference between what is consumed in the production process and the amount of production.
As for us, Mr. Speaker, we think that the guaranteed annual income we are proposing could be paid to every individual on the basis of this gap existing between the available production and the purchasing power now available to them. Accordingly, we would be better advised to try first of all to secure economic independence for every citizen, really without any discrimination, and give to every one regardless of colour, sex or hair length, a guaranteed annual income as a matter of basic right. So, Mr. Speaker, nobody would have, as it is proposed in this legislation, to work for an employer who could harass him because he is prejudiced against him.
The commission and the tribunal provided under this legislation will only be able to place an individual in a dependent position towards his employer by allowing him to work for someone capable of subtly torturing him by his scorn. Mr. Speaker, what I suggest and what we have always suggested is to allow the individual to be financially independent so he may have a decent life without having, in order to make both ends meet, to work for an employer seeking to humiliate him. This is, Mr. Speaker, a sensible position. This is a reasonable position. This is a proposition which could ensure respect for human dignity without going through the bureaucracy and the red tape which we will be facing when this bill is accepted at second reading. Then perhaps everybody, even some hon. members, may live to regret having endorsed the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


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


CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENTS RESPECTING PREMIUMS, SHARE CAPITAL, ETC. The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-3, to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance) moved:: That Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, be amended in clause 9, by striking out line 42 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"a deposit.
(4)	Notwithstanding subsection (1), for the purposes of deposit insurance with the corporation, where moneys are received by a member institution on or after April 1, 1977, for which the member institution has issued or is obligated to issue an instrument of indebtedness other than a draft, certified draft or cheque, travelers' cheque, prepaid letter of credit or money order,
(a)	the moneys do not constitute a deposit unless the instrument and records of the member institution specify the person entitled, at the date of issue of the instrument, to the repayment of the moneys evidenced thereby;
(b)	the person referred to in paragraph (a) shall be deemed to be the depositor in respect of the moneys unless particulars of a transfer of the instrument are entered in the records of the member institution in which case the most recent transferee shown in the records shall be deemed to be the depositor; and
(c)	the entry of a transfer in the records of a member institution is ineffective, if the entry is made subsequent to the termination or cancellation of the deposit insurance of the member institution.
(5)	Notwithstanding subsection (1), moneys received by a member institution on or after January 1, 1977, for which the institution has issued or is obligated to issue an instrument of indebtedness other than a draft, certified draft or cheque, travellers' cheque, prepaid letter of credit or money order, do not constitute a deposit where the instrument is payable outside Canada or in a currency other than Canadian currency."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give just a few words of explanation about the amendment. The present definition of "deposits", as it is in the act now, broadly speaking includes all demand deposits in Canadian dollars and all term deposits having a maturity of five years or less. Term deposits in this sense would include guaranteed investment certificates issued by trust companies and debentures issued by mortgage loan companies. One of the changes proposed in the definition would withdraw deposit insurance from debentures or deposit receipts that are issued in bearer form.
Since insurance is limited to $20,000 per person per institution, it is essential that the deposits be in registered form in order that a determination may be made concerning the amount of deposit insurance. When the act was originally passed, this was not considered to be a problem, but in recent years there seems to have been some tendency toward the use of bearer-type instruments. A provision to this effect was included in the original terms of Bill C-3. However, as a result of scrutiny of the bill, by the financial community in particular, it became apparent that the provisions as put forward did not adequately meet the problems or the demands of the market. It was on the basis of this that a redraft was considered and the present amendment put forward.
One problem that has come to light is dealt with in subclause (5) of the amendment. Not only are we dealing here with bearer-type instruments but with the issue of instruments
June 2, 1977

to holders outside of Canada in currencies other than Canadian dollars. The amendment to the bill arose by reason of the floating of an issue of debentures in the European market, using as part of the sale's presentation the fact that the debentures, as issued, would be insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. It was the view of the directors of the CDIC that the use of deposit insurance in this way was not in accordance with the general intention of deposit insurance and, consequently, this type of debt instrument should not, in the future, be eligible for deposit insurance.
The amendment, accordingly, proposed that instruments intended for sale abroad not be considered as representing a deposit, and also that bearer instruments not be considered as insured deposits. It was not intended to withdraw insurance from deposits made in Canada by non-residents. The revised wording has the advantage over the preceding wording, first, that questions of the validity of transfers of instruments are not raised. Instead, it is provided that an instrument does not represent an insured deposit unless the name of the payee is registered on the records of the issuing institution. As I indicated, the purpose was for clarification. There is a belief now in the financial community that this meets the requirement. As I said before, a number of the types of instruments issued in the manner in which they were issued went well beyond the original purpose of the deposit insurance. It is for this reason the limitation has been put forward.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the statement of the minister with respect to his proposed amendment, I remind hon. members that this is actually the second version of the amendment that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has proposed with regard to this change. I would point out that when the committee reviewed Bill C-3 it was not asked to consider this amendment. There was no suggestion that there was a problem at the time the committee studied the bill. It is most unfortunate that this lack of foresight is so evident in so far as the government's actions are concerned.
It is not just the economy that the government is running poorly. They are running their own internal administration very poorly in the sense that they bring bills into this House, take them to committee, make no mention of further amendments, and by the time they get to report stage, with apparently no particular demand from any source they propose new amendments, then withdraw those amendments and give us an amendment such as we have today.
I was rather surprised to hear the minister say that the amendment in its present form is acceptable to the industry. That is not my understanding. Over the dinner-hour I am going to check with the president of the Trust Association in Canada to find out whether at the last minute he acceded to the suggestion the minister has made.
It is a fairly important amendment that we are considering. Through the innovation of certain trust companies and loan companies we have been able to win some foreign funds expressed in Canadian dollars for the benefit of those who need mortgage money in Canada. As we know, mortgage
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act interest rates are unduly high in Canada. They are certainly unduly high compared to mortgage rates in many other countries. Our trust and loan companies have found there is a market for the sale of their debentures or guaranteed investment certificates in these foreign countries. Because they have shown that initiative, because they have been true entrepreneurs, the government steps in and says they do not want them to bring in these funds from foreign countries. The impact of this amendment is to make it difficult for the trust and loan companies to attract these funds and offer the general insurance provisions of the CDIC. We in the House must consider whether that is a wise move.
I hope the minister will respond to some questions later in the debate in order to give us some insight into why he and the Department of Finance believe we should accede to this request. Why are we making it more difficult to bring mortgage money into the country? That is the net impact of the amendment we are now considering.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Villeneuve on a point of order.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House so that the bill appearing in the name of Mr. Real Caouette, former member for Temis-camingue, that is Bill C-215, be transferred to the name of the hon. member for Richmond, Mr. Leonel Beaudoin, and that Bills C-257 and C-288 also in the name of Mr. Real Caouette, be transferred to the name of Mr. Andre Fortin, member for Lotbiniere.


Ralph Goodale: I certainly would have no objection to that proposal, but I would ask the hon. gentleman to allow us a little time in which to consider its regularity from a procedural point of view. I would be happy to take it up with the House leaders-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We would agree right now.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And we would give consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course, unanimous consent would be needed, but I do not see why we should not follow the

June 2, 1977
Continental Bank of Canada
suggestion of the parliamentary secretary. It might be done this afternoon.

I think that the hon. member, who needs the unanimous consent, cannot reject the proposal of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) who is merely asking for a delay. The House seems willing to accept that solution and the Chair would be prepared to put the question in due time.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand the reservation made by the parliamentary secretary. However, 1 thought that the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and the government representatives had met in that connection to obtain the unanimous consent and make the change. Evidently, the parliamentary secretary needs some delay to think about it and it could mean various things. It could mean two hours, five hours and even five months. I would like that delay, if necessary, to be as short as possible so that in a few days the bills would appear on the order paper under the names of the members suggested by the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Ralph Goodale: I shall certainly try to deal with the matter before six o'clock today.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand that as a result of discussions which have taken place there is general agreement that we should spend the first part of private members' hour on Bill C-1001, with the understanding that if we complete that debate we shall revert to Bill S-2.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is one occasion on which the hon. member for Assiniboia did not say "No".



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 5, 1977, consideration of the motion of Mr. Reid that Bill C-1001, to incorporate Continental Bank of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Charles Edward Rea: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes to conclude the remarks I made on May 5, remarks which meant to demonstrate that if we are serious in the House, we should, before we grant IAC its request, be able

to answer very precise questions on the grounds for granting this company its request. For instance, why does IAC want to become a chartered bank? Why should we grant it a charter and, if we do, why not grant similar powers in other areas, to ease the creation of credit?
Mr. Speaker, the answer is obvious: why does IAC want a charter? To make profits, but more easily than it does by lending real capital since, to lend real capital one has to have it, while banks, through their charter, can lend air, credit, and consequently, can lend figures; so, one readily understands that making profits out of nothing is interesting and consequently that is the goal IAC has set for itself.
One could ask: Why should IAC not be granted a charter when dozens of other financial institutions across the land are? To that I would say that I object to its request because it does not need a charter. Do we really need, at this point in time, more financial institutions to make things easier for the consumer where credit is concerned? No. I would go even further and say that, on the contrary, there are enough of them. One can then wonder whether a new bank is being created to give more services, with which I would agree; but I doubt that it is the case in this instance, and I proved it on May 5. On the other hand, if we agree to give that charter, we should take advantage of the situation to have a say about what is good for IAC shareholders.
Why should it not be good for the Canadian provinces also? Why, in other words, should the provinces not be able to turn to that possibility and create the credit they need and so achieve the progress that is essential to their development? Mr. Speaker, the question is quite simple, and we have been putting it to the House for years; but, unfortunately, it is a question to which we have been refused an adequate answer.
Of course the principle under which IAC could lend up to $16 million against a $1 million deposit is not bad in itself, if we have the potential. But in the current inflationary crisis where indeed we are witnessing a day-to-day price escalation the end of which is not in sight, we must wonder how long we can go on approving new financial institutions when the problem is the people's purchasing power. People have no real capacity either to buy what they need in everyday life, because the system has finally succeeded in creating all by itself a genuine inflation, or to sustain the level of production that may be needed.
If we in this House decided on granting what IAC wish, we would be inconsistent. We would solve none of our current problems, we would simply allow financiers to exploit the people still further by granting loans with rather high interests rates. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the granting of a new charter to IAC, to the extent further that the same principle is disallowed when it comes to the government helping citizens achieve what would be needed for the progress of our country as a whole.
June 2, 1977


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express very briefly my views on second reading of Bill C-1001, concerning the corporation commonly known as I AC, which is requesting a bank charter under the corporate name of Continental Bank of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have often questioned in this House the principle of granting chartered banks the right to make money out of the nation's credit, to allow institutions to make profits by creating the deposits needed for private industry and even the government to make certain operations. Looking at statistics, we realize that the Canadian banking system is making profits while other segments of the economy are hard put to survive. We are even experiencing a high rate of bankruptcies by Canadians firms, headed by experienced people but not afforded the privileges granted to chartered banks. The right hon. Prime Minister himself (Mr. Trudeau), in an interview given to Fortune magazine, was emphatic about this, bitterly complaining about bankers.
Having said that both inflation and unemployment are high at the same time he asks: "What do bankers say to that?"
He was asked that question: What do they say? Here is his answer, Mr. Speaker, and I quote:
1 shall tell you what they say. They say that the federal government interferes too much in business, that the government must put an end to that policy, that that policy of interference is at the root of all our problems.
He added, and this is what I find unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, it expresses the conviction of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and it is the same conviction I want to express myself. He said this, and I quote:
"The worst grumblers . . .
What is a grumbler? It is somebody who has all the advantages possible and yet complains about the fact that others have some advantages. So he said this, and I quote:
"The worst grumblers are bankers. They have never had it so good since I am at the head of the government.
He rightly added, and I quote:
1 am ashamed. They make much more profits than the manufacturing sector, the natural resources sector and the service area as a whole.
They are at the top of the scale as regards profits. This is understandable. Mr. Speaker, if 1 enjoyed the same advantages, you can be sure that 1 would have at my disposal almost inexhaustible revenue sources which would enable me to be among those who make up what is known as the financial dictatorship. But as I do not have such means and I am in a position to realize they are in the hands of private institutions which compete with the state financial system, 1 believe it is my duty as a member of parliament to tell the House it is time for this situation to change.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the government has introduced legislation asking Parliament to postpone the introduction of a banking legislation which should normally expire in 1977, since under the law, the legislation concerning banking institutions and chartered banks must be reviewed every ten years, but as the years go by, this government, with the
Continental Bank of Canada
approval of chartered banks, is about to skip a decade. By continuously postponing reconsideration of legislation, we manage to delay and this year we are still delaying so that we might succeed in skipping a whole decade. But that is not the point.
The Canadian banking system goes back to 1817, according to some research I have made, when nine Montreal merchants went into partnership to carry banking operations. Similarly, two banks without statute began to operate in Lower Canada in 1818. The first to have a legal status was the Bank of New Brunswick, the smallest of the provinces in Confederation. Its incorporation was considered by the provincial legislature and received royal assent in 1820. The other three banks of Lower Canada did not get their charter before 1822. Other banks were established in the following years; most of them under provincial charters which tried to guarantee their stability and security. In 1850, an act which provided the free operation of banks in this province, inspired by the New York State legislation on the freedom of banks, was passed in the province of Canada.
Under that act individuals, alone ,or in partnership, and limited companies could set up banks if they had a minimum capital of $100,000. However, those banks could not have branches and their liability could not exceed three times the amount of the paid-in capital. Notes intended for circulation had to be obtained from the receiver general of the province and guaranteed by a deposit of an equivalent amount in government bonds. Those notes had to constitute a preferential debt on the liability of banks and were convertible on demand in gold. The act allowed any commercial bank which already had the right to issue notes to forgo that right in part or in its entirety. Those government notes were not subject to the 1 per cent tax set up in 1841 on bank notes in circulation.
Senior members in this House will remember seeing notes of different Canadian chartered banks. But after the Bank of Canada was set up in 1935, chartered bank notes gradually disappeared from circulation and were replaced by Bank of Canada notes. But the fact that chartered banks relinquished such privileges did not stop them from continuing to control and monetize the credit of the nation. So much so that in 1976, according to Statistics Canada, the money supply in Canada stood at $71 billion and was controlled in a proportion of up to $66 billion by chartered banks in Canada through the creation of deposits to make loans to institutions, businesses, or even governments either of Canada or the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, that provision regarding the multiplication of credit organized and allowed by the legislation provides that with a reserve of 8 per cent a bank may create deposits and lend money known as bank money. Under the law, that allows banks with, let us say 8 per cent reserves on which the bank pays interest, to create deposits and lend up to $100 to private borrowers, I think, or governments. If this is not a case of a government relinquishing its right to control the creation of currency under the form of credit, I wonder what it is. Mr. Speaker, I understand quite well that the fact that creating a bank or letting one disappear is not going to change anything
6230

June 2, 1977
Continental Bank of Canada
to the system, and when a corporation applies to become a chartered bank putting forth as an argument that this will enhance competition in Canada and in so doing lower interest rates, I do not believe it, because at one time we had 25 banks in Canada and competition was no fiercer than today.
These banks have merged over the years, with or without permission being granted by the Canadian government and we have reached a state when we now have only 10 chartered banks and the most recent one created by an act of Parliament, the Unity Bank, is in the process of merging with the Provincial Bank of Canada. Even if there were 12 or even 15 they will still have the same privileges of creating money for the purpose of making loans either to individuals or to the government, and that is precisely what is wrong with the system.
Mr. Speaker, chartered banks should be subject to the same legislation as savings or credit cooperatives, which cannot lend money by creating deposits and which must use deposits made by members of the institutions. It is this formula that we oppose, this generosity on the part of Parliament, this privilege for these new institutions, the issue of new bank charters to people or corporations wanting to become incorporated under the Bank Act.
I would like my contribution to be understood by all Canadians because I am convinced of one thing, and that is that if all Canadians were truly aware of the way in which our chartered banks operate because of legislation passed by Parliament, not many of them would approve of the monetary system of our country. The private monetary system is in the hands of the chartered banks, which control the money supply of the country and before whom the Canadian government has to go down on hands and knees to obtain the necessary credits to be able to face the many problems of our country. This is why we have inflation. This is why the government and the whole country are now facing serious unemployment. It is because money has become the monopoly of these institutions instead of the servant of the whole nation.
Even if I talked for one hour, I know that it would change nothing in the situation. I am aware of this, but at least I want to do my duty as a representative of the people and to make every effort to urge for a change of this situation. Nevertheless, 1 know that the majority will necessarily win eventually, but I will surely have the opportunity to speak again before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs if the bill is referred to this committee for future study, and we shall certainly then be able to suggest amendments so that at least the bill may correspond to the general legislation instead of providing for exceptions. Many clauses of this bill are in contradiction of the Bank of Canada Act.
We can see exceptions for this and that if at least we stick to the letter of the Bank of Canada Act and of the legislation requiring that a bank charter be given to some institutions or businesses in conformity with the present statute. In any case, I hope that in the next twelve months at least we will have the opportunity in the House to discuss in depth all this banking legislation, our monetary system and that, together, we will

endeavour to correct this whole system to serve the government and the whole nation so that instead of having a people prostrate before the dollar sign, we have a people which forces the dollar symbol to serve the nation.
[DOT]	(1720)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to bring to the attention of the House that if I give the floor to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) at this time he will close the debate,


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank hon. members for their co-operation. I want to assure members that when the bill is in committee very attentive consideration will be given to amendments which have been proposed and which will be proposed. I want, also, to thank the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) for deferring to me today in order to permit this bill to come forward.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the point of order which was raised at the beginning of private members' hour with respect to three bills which have been standing on the order paper in the name of the late Mr. Caouette, Bill C-215, Bill C-257 and Bill C-288.
[DOT]	(1730)
It was proposed that the House might agree unanimously to having the names of other hon. members substituted as the proposers of those particular bills. I said earlier that, although I had no fundamental objection, I would want to inquire about this proposal. I have made those inquiries and can report that we agree to the suggestion which has been made. I point out to hon. members that in order to expedite business in private members' hour we have gone through the list of bills as they have been coming forward for debate. We have made a commitment to deal with the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on June 10. Beyond that, we have made no commitment. 1 ask for the indulgence of hon. members in order that we may be able to fulfil that commitment and so expedite the business of private members' hour. Beyond that slight procedural reservation, we agree to dealing with the matter as proposed at the beginning of this hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we agreed to this request at five o'clock, and we still agree to it.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why that restriction. The House is merely asked to substitute for the name of the late hon. member for Temiscamingue that
June 2, 1977

of another hon. member, so that when they come up as usual, in the established order, when they are called, someone will be able to answer instead of Mr. Real Caouette who cannot be with us. It changes nothing in the procedure. It merely means that we want to make sure the bill will have a sponsor present here in the House.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the hon. member, for that is precisely what 1 have agreed to on behalf of the government. I wanted to alert the House to the commitment we had made with respect to one item of business for June 10. Beyond that, we intend to deal with the entire private members' business list in the usual way, with the names to be substituted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It seems the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) now understands that, in short, the government had merely come to an agreement with the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), bearing in mind that the bill that could have been studied on June 10 was listed under the name of Mr. Caouette. So, because of the change, 1 am sure he would not want any change to be made in the agreement reached with the hon. member for St. John's East on Bill C-229.

Is it agreed unanimously that Bills C-215, C-257 and C-288 in the name of the late Mr. Caouette shall be transferred in the following manner: Bill C-215 shall appear in the name of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin); and Bills C-257 and C-288 shall appear in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BELL CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. O'Connell that Bill S-2, respecting Bell Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before I recognize the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) again, may I inform him that he has already spoken for 17 minutes and has three minutes of his time left.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would have been more pleased if Your Honour had not told me how limited my time is; however, at least I know. When I spoke on March 10 of this year I said Bell Canada is hoodwinking us in its application with regard to its capital structure. Its relationships with its subscribers are not what they appear. The company is not operating, 1 suggest, only as a public utility. It has a monopoly hold on certain sectors of the economy and the activities of certain of its subsidiaries are highly questionable.
Bell Canada
I am pleased to note that by reason of government action, deliberate or otherwise, the CRTC, and not the Canadian Transport Commission, is to oversee the functioning of Bell Canada. By so doing the government made a wise choice. Although the commission has not looked into the question of stock relationships, it has criticized the company's operations, particularly the operations of certain subsidiary companies the operations of which it is difficult for the company's shareholders to control. Actually a large majority of the company's Canadian shareholders have all but lost the ability to control the operations of certain subsidiaries. The commission said that the company appeared to have made a profit of about 12 per cent, not the 7.8 per cent the CTC originally said was reasonable. It questioned the company's seeking some $3 million in advance payments or deposits from people it considered a poor credit risk.
When I last spoke on the bill I mentioned a small telephone company not far from Ottawa operating an exchange with 121 subscribers. By some strange quirk that small company controls a fleet of jet aircraft used by Bell Canada, controls Place Bell Canada, and prints telephone directories. At least it controls their printing. I think the directories are published by Tele-Direct.
The question is, how can such a small company control such large investments? The company operates a small telephone exchange serving 121 subscribers whose rates have not been increased for some time; so far as I know they will never be increased. How could a small company, serving a small number of subscribers, amass the capital with which to buy one jet costing between $5 million and $6 million, let alone a whole fleet of jets? How could it gain control of Place Bell Canada? I see that my time has almost ended, Mr. Speaker. I want to say much more. Perhaps I will be able to do so later this afternoon.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, not only does the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) want to continue his speech; I am sure we all would like to hear him. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the word "that", and by substituting therefor the following words:
"Bill S-2 be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. The question is on the amendment.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to speak to the amendment. As I was pointing out on the previous motion-


Ralph Goodale: Deal with the amendment now.
80016-54(6

June 2, 1977
Bell Canada


William Arnold Peters: -Bell Canada came to parliament and asked us to make a change in their relationship to their shareholders. In asking for time to allow them to reconsider the situation I think it would be wise for us to go back to see exactly what they did years ago.
Bell Canada was set up by the Canadian Transport Board in 1927, according to information which I received from Robert E. Babe, Ph.D., telecommunications economic consultant. The Board of Railway Commissioners, later called the Canadian Transport Commission, dealt with the first general rate case in 1919. The board held that the company should be permitted to earn profits sufficient to pay a $2 dividend per share plus "just and reasonable" retained earnings. This basic method of regulation continued in existence up to 1966. Bell paid a $2 dividend every year from 1891 until the mid-1950's, with the exception of the depression years.
In 1927, another rate increase was sought by Bell. The Board finally realized that the above procedures alone afforded very little protection to the subscribing public. While Bell was prevented from making excessive profits by regulation, the company was able to sell stock to existing shareholders at prices well below market value and pass on monopoly profits in the form of capital gains rather than income. However, since the new capital funds raised in this manner were insufficient to purchase assets that would yield the approved earnings per share, the company was able to argue in rate cases that it could no longer meet its dividend and permissible earnings per share under the existing rates.
The following quotation from the 1927 decision of the Board is instructive:
It was stated that it was not an unusual practice with prosperous companies. On this point it would seem proper to draw a distinction between a company engaged in competitive business and a company having a monopoly in operating a public utility. In the case of a competitive company the burden of its acts rests upon itself. But in the case of the company whose service is a monopoly and whose tolls are fixed or varied on the responsibility of public authority ... I am unable to concede that the company should be authorized to charge tolls which have in view the payment of an 8 per cent dividend on stock which did not realize for the company the increased assets that its actual value made available, to the amount of $3,529,217 on the $17,843,900 of stock which was sold to the shareholders at par in the years 1921 to 1925.
In 1929 parliament revised the Bell Act to require approval by the regulatory authority for all issues of stock.
Since 1929 the regulatory board has approved the issue price of Bell's stock and the company has been forced to sell its stock at prices above par, that is, $25. However, sales of stock at substantial discounts from market value have continued to be an important factor in Bell's financing down to the present, in spite of regulatory supervision. Note, for example, the decision of the Board of Transport Commissioners in 1966 at pages 658 and 688 where it is noted that new shares were sold to existing shareholders and employees at prices equal, on average, to 75 per cent of market value.
In pamphlet No. 16, 1966, of the judgments, orders, regulations and rulings of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada it is indicated that there is a cost saving to the company in issuing common stock only to shareholders and

employees, namely, the underwriting fee. This cost saving should be deducted from the difference between the issue price of shares and the market value of shares in order to estimate the net amount of stock dilution. In the 1975 issue of 5.2 million "units", comprised of one share in Northern Electric and one half warrant of Bell Canada, the issue price was $26.50, the underwriting fee was $1.25, and proceeds to Bell were $25.25 per unit. For exemple, the underwriters' fee was 4.72 per cent. This is a far cry from the average discount of 25 per cent given employees and shareholders. It is estimated that Bell lost about $166 million in capital through such stock dilutions, 27 per cent of capital raised through stock issues, over the period 1960-1971.
At the company's urging, the regulatory board revised the methodology of regulating the company in 1966, replacing control on earnings per share with percentage return on average total capital. This, to a substantial degree, has lessened the incentives of the company to water its stock.
Since the company is now allowed a percentage return on its book equity-book equity being net proceeds to the company from stock issues-the company has an incentive to inflate its rate base by issuing stock at as high a price as possible.
In the brief prepared by the consultant for the Consumers' Association he argued that earnings per share plus control over the issue price of equity is a much more effective way of regulating the company than the present percentage return on capital. If legislation is passed to prevent the regulatory body from authorizing the terms and conditions of new stock issues, a return to this effective method would be impossible.
What all this means is that Bell Canada has been playing around for a long time with issuing stock, and the method which it adopted mainly was a very simple business practice. Their criterion was not to try to serve the public as a public utility operating for the common good, or to try to satisfy the subscribers on the basis of the myth which they created that the company is controlled by several million Canadian shareholders, small people like the man who lives across the street from you, Mr. Speaker. They are basing it on the idea that the stock must carry a dividend sufficient to allow that little old widow, whom everyone knows but really has not seen for a long time, to live. Because of this they ask for such things as a 20-cent pay telephone charge.
I am pleased to see that the CRTC is not nearly as stupid as the Canadian Transport Commission has been over the years. The CTC has never found out why things are done. Perhaps even the CRTC would not have acted if it had not been for some bright newsman who pointed out that when you put a quarter into the slot to make a 20-cent call, you do not get a nickel back. Bell was stealing a million dollars from the Canadian public.
It is very interesting to read what the CRTC is reported to have said. It is rather complicated. It always is. The CRTC said that there is an inconsistency in the decision to charge 20 cents in some places, because in hospitals and certain other
June 2, 1977

insitutions the cost is ten cents. It is very difficult to justify why it is ten cents in hospitals but 20 cents in senior citizens homes and other places. The CRTC said it would get rid of this disparity by reducing the rate. That is the first time I have ever seen a government agency do that kind of thing. They usually get rid of disparity by raising rates, not lowering them.
The CRTC told Bell it could not charge 20 cents anywhere, that it would have to reduce the rate to a uniform ten cents. If the CTC, which deals with freight rates, had been dealing with these public telephone rates, it would have required everyone to pay 20 cents. It is interesting that up until recently the CTC adjudicated on these matters as well as freight rates. Even the government found that rather odd, so now we have the CRTC.
Nobody believes that pay telephones make money, but as a result of this reduction it is said that the loss to Bell will be about $9 million a year. The CRTC ruled that it is the responsibility of the telephone company to provide the public with convenient access to telephones at a wide variety of locations. All 20-cent telephones must be converted to ten-cent telephones within six months, and the commission is further undertaking to find out whether Bell has enough pay phones in service and, if it does not, where additional telephones are needed. CRTC looked into a number of other things. A lifeline service has been put into effect in a number of places. It looks as though the CRTC is doing something with this corporation.
However, considering what has been done with regard to Bell stock, considering the shocking way Bell has treated its common stockholders, and considering what Bell has done in terms of capital, which has affected very disproportionately the common and preferred shareholders of the company, I feel that it has not been managed responsibly. Bell has been able to tell the public to take or leave its service because it has a monopoly, and there is nothing the public can do about it. Certainly if there is any nationalization to be done in this country, the first company to be put on the list should be Bell Canada. I think everyone in the country would agree that if nationalization is justified in the public utility field, it is justified when it comes to telephone service.
I do not know how even the most unenlightened person could look at the assets of Bell and listen to the arguments which have been made before the commission without agreeing with me. Bell has indicated to the commission that it is not able to meet the basic requirements which have been established. One provision allows Bell to have a profit which would allow a $2 share dividend on common stock, and yet Bell has been able to buy an organization called Northern Electric. It has been able to buy Northern Telephone and a number of other small companies across the country.
Bell has established satellite control. It controls Capital Telephone, with its vast resources but no income at all. Bell has been able to do all this in the public field without being cited for stealing. Bell has not been cited for any of its other abuses. I suppose it would not be very difficult for a preferred shareholder or a common shareholder to lay charges against Bell under the normal procedure and to get some kind of redress for what has been done to him. However, if anybody
Adjournment Motion
had been at a commission hearing and seen the battery of lawyers retained by Bell Canada, he would know that in a life of 50 years or 60 years there would not be sufficient time to proceed with that type of action.
Now we are being asked to allow Bell to do a number of things it was not previously able to do. It seems to me that, before parliament makes these changes, this matter should go before the CRTC so that it could weigh all the "b.s." it has been handed with regard to Bell's rate structure and its financial background and ownership. Bell is having problems with deferred profits. It has been able to distribute those profits over the years, but it is now having difficulty with them because they fit into a capital gains position. There is a problem with regard to how to dispose of those deferred profits, but with people always coming into Bell Canada there will always be a disposition of those profits.
Northern Electric and Bell Canada have always been related as far as rates are concerned. Mr. Speaker, I see it is six o'clock, and I would like to continue this for several more hours, so I would like to call it six o'clock at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I asked a question of the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo). I asked whether her department is no longer using the Post Office but, rather, using a courier service to deliver its mail. She said that to her knowledge it is not using a courier service but that if it ever does she would probably entertain the idea of using Newfoundland dogs. That was significant because she is not now using Newfoundland dogs; she is using a Newfoundland minister.
Last Friday the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), the minister from Newfoundland, utilized a government jet at a cost presumably of approximately $3,000 or $4,000 to fly from Ottawa to St. John's, Newfoundland, to perform the ceremony of handing over a cheque to the Canada Summer Games Committee in St. John's. The ceremony took place at the airport. I have a picture of the minister in all his glory handing the cheque for $1.5 million over to the chairman

June 2, 1977
Adjournment Motion
of the summer games. The contribution of the federal government to the games is a paltry one, some $4 million in total; the province of Newfoundland is contributing over $5.5 million.
The minister took the cheque to Newfoundland by jet but, Mr. Speaker, the cheque could have been given to the members of the Canada Summer Games Committee when they visited Ottawa on May 16, or it could have been sent by registered mail for 20 cents or 30 cents. Either way would have saved the taxpayers of Canada several thousand dollars. Rather than that, however, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is supposed to be a busy minister, jetted to Newfoundland to present the $1.5 million cheque.
A newspaper report said that the minister stepped off the government "King Air" jet at Torbay airport, complimented the committee on what it was doing, and disclosed that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Governor General will officially open the games. He added that the games would be of enormous benefit to the province, jumped back in the plane, and took off for his riding where he spent two days politicking.
This is improper use and wasteful use of government funds. The minister could have travelled to Newfoundland first-class on Air Canada as he is entitled to, at a probable cost of $400, but instead he took the government jet at a cost of $3,000 or $4,000.
Questions have been put on the order paper about the minister's air travel. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) set down Question No. 2,028 on March 7, and last December I set down a question inquiring about the minister's travels to Newfoundland in the jet last September in relation to a byelection to be held in October. Those questions have not been answered; the minister refuses to answer them. I would venture a guess that his travel bill exceeds that of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in the last two or three years. Neither of them wrote the book "The Fear of Flying". I would say that the Lang air service has now been out-paced by the Jamieson jet service or the Jamieson "air farce".
I ask the minister, or whoever is going to answer for him, to tell the House when the questions on the order paper will be answered. Perhaps the minister has lots of time now. We know that CIDA has been taken from him and given to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen); we know that all negotiations with French-speaking countries have been turned over to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). It reminds me of that old joke about putting your false leg in the corner and putting your false teeth in the glass. The minister will soon have nothing left to do. As I said yesterday, he will be the minister responsible for Saint Pierre and Miquelon if all his duties are given to other people. Perhaps he has nothing better to do than to fly back and forth to Newfoundland.
This silver tongued orator will find his tongue turning to gilt if he will not answer some of these questions. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs wants to jet to Newfoundland to present a cheque, or if the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) wants to take a government jet to British Columbia to present a cheque, surely the public is entitled to

know the cost of this pandering to the wasteful habits of cabinet ministers.
In the old days there was a movie entitled "Flying Down to Rio", that has. been replaced by the picture of cabinet ministers thinking that they are emperors, flying about in jets no matter how lowly the mission-delivering cheques, delivering mail, picking up dogs, flying their nannies around. I think the public is entitled to know the cost of this arrogant behaviour.
I have a poem here in honour of the minister, which goes as follows:
You may fly free to St. John's
If you are a friend of Don's
If you think the cost too high
Don't cross Don's path in the sky
It is becoming positively dangerous to use the commercial airways because you never know when one of these ministers in their jets will be delivering a cheque to your area. I certainly do not want to get in the way when the Secretary of State for External Affairs has in his hot little hand a cheque for $1.5 million and is rushing to St. John's with it to have his picture taken.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary to answer question No. 2,028 set down on March 7 about the minister's travelling expenses in the last several years. On October 12, question No. 29 was put down by the hon. member for Leeds about the use of DOT aircraft. On October 12, question No. 30 was asked by the hon. member for Leeds with regard to the use of Department of National Defence aircraft by the minister.
On December 17, 1976, I asked question No. 1,397 about the minister's trips for political purposes to the St. John's area in September and October 1976 at the time of the by-election. If on those trips the minister was engaged in politics, that should have been included in the Liberal candidate's election expenses. I want to know how many trips the minister made then. That is a question that will take an official in the department ten minutes to answer. This is another example of fantastic arrogance. We want the answers. If these trips are going to be made, we should have the information as to what they are costing the electorate.


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) was requested by his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard), to represent the federal government at the official opening of the St. Lawrence Central High School in St. Lawrence, Newfoundland. The High School was constructed at a cost of $3,337,120 and was financed under the Canada-Newfoundland Special Areas Agreement between the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the government of Newfoundland.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion contributed the total cost of construction through the agreement; 50 per cent of which was made in the form of a non-repayable
June 2, 1977

grant, with the remaining 50 per cent through a long-term repayable loan to the province of Newfoundland.
The St. Lawrence Central High School is one of 22 educational facilities constructed in Newfoundland in recent years with the assistance of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the special area programs.
Other facilities constructed include seven elementary schools, three junior high schools, seven high schools, one vocational school, and extensions to three others.
In addition, partial funding was provided through the agreement for the construction of the Memorial University of Newfoundland Engineering School.
The Special Areas Agreement expired in March of this year and the official opening of the St. Lawrence Central High School completed the construction undertaken through this agreement.
With regard to the hon. member's question concerning the use of the mails by the Ministry of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, he will be interested to learn that approximately 37,000 pieces of mail have been deposited with the Post Office for delivery since September 1, 1976.
Contributions by the federal government in aid of major sporting events have been delivered by several representatives of the federal government. In the case of the last contribution to the 1977 Canada Summer Games, the amount of the cheque was $1.5 million. This brings the total value of the federal government contribution to the games, in both direct funding and services, to $3.7 million.
In the interests of public awareness of the federal government's involvement in the 1977 Canada Summer Games, the formal presentation was made in the home of this year's games.

In answer to the other questions put by the hon. member I would say that they are now on the order paper. I also want to tell him that the department is now in the process of studying the questions and preparing the appropriate answers, and that the work will be completed as soon as possible.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-APPOINTMENT OF MR. O'NEIL TO HEAD PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAMMING-POSSIBILITY OF MORE BALANCED PROGRAMMING
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on May 5 the Montreal Gazette carried an article with the headline "O'Neil to head TV public affairs". It reads in part:
The former press secretary to Prime Minister Trudeau has been appointed head of public affairs programming for the Radio-Canada television network.
Pierre O'Neil served Trudeau until September, 1975, when he went to the University of Dakar in Senegal to train French-language journalists. The date his new job begins has not been set because he is still in Africa.
That led me on May 17 to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the following question:
Adjournment Motion
I ask if, in making the personal appointment, the Prime Minister instructed the CBC to make a balanced presentation of public affairs and news programs in order to avoid those situations of which government members were so critical?
It strikes me first of all that the Prime Minister did not deny the purport of the questions, that is, that the appointment of Mr. O'Neil was a personal appointment to be a kind of a watchdog over CBC television programming. That is his specific duty.
This is to be seen against the backdrop of some outspoken statements by cabinet ministers. 1 have here some screaming headlines from the Toronto Star, for example, of February 23. In the article itself, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) was reported as saying, "If you were to ask me if there were to be no CBC until after the referendum would I be more comfortable, I would say, yes." If that is not a kind of veiled blackmail, I don't know what it is. In effect the minister is saying, "Hey, if we can't get the CBC to perform the way we would like it to perform, we would be better off without a CBC."
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) have made similar outbursts. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what would it be like to be a CBC reporter putting together a news broadcast or an editorial comment on the CBC presenting material which was mildly critical of the government? It seems to me we are developing a climate where everything is valid and objective only if it is in agreement with the government line. I do not know whether we ought to tolerate this.
The Minister of National Revenue, for example, is quoted in one article as saying that the CBC reflects separatism and nothing else. Another thing which strikes me as remarkable is that the premier of Quebec, a former colleague of the Prime Minister, was formerly an announcer and broadcaster for the CBC and nobody thought there was anything strange about this until after November 15 last. One of the cabinet ministers in Quebec had the most popular show in the province for months, even years, before her election. Nobody thought anything of it even though they knew she was a PQ partisan. That is the backdrop against which the Prime Minister's appointment must be seen.
I repeat: what must it be like to be a newscaster or an editorialist on the CBC today when all the time they are afraid that if they make a comment, or broadcast a news comment which is unfavourable to the government, they are likely to find one of the cabinet ministers bursting out in headlines in the next day's paper, saying, "This is not loyalty; they are not representing the government fairly."
The issue today is freedom for the public broadcasting system. Since the Prime Minister has made his own personal appointment to a very sensitive area of the programming department and of Radio Canada, 1 wonder whether Mr. O'Neil is not the watchdog, whether he has a red telephone to the Prime Minister's office over which he will be saying, "Look, there is something here which is not quite the way you would like it."

June 2, 1977
Adjournment Motion
The issue here is freedom, but it seems to me that the Prime Minister's interpretation of freedom in broadcasting is freedom for himself to regulate it and put his own man in place so that he can control the news coverage which emanates from the system. The power of the government is the power of appointment, and as long as the government exercises this power in such a partisan way, making sure that its own people are in these posts of great sensitivity, we shall find a government which is increasingly paranoid every time something is broadcast to which it takes exception.
I find it objectionable that the Prime Minister would make such a personal appointment in such a sensitive area in order, it would appear, to control the kind of news which comes out of the province of Quebec. I think it is time for the Prime Minister to become a little less sensitive about the kind of news broadcast in the province, and to preserve genuine freedom and objectivity, and thereby the unity of our nation.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I find regrettable the attitude taken by my colleague for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) of assuming that because Mr. O'Neil is a former press secretary of the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) his nomination was decided by the Prime Minister, because this assumption is totally wrong. That nomination was decided by the CBC management, as it is supposed to be. Hon. members are well aware that the only positions in that corporation where candidates can be designated by the government are those at the upper management level, namely the members of the board of directors.
If you will allow me some comments on the choice made by the CBC, I will mention to you some information made available to me by that corporation; in addition to having been in the position that he is mostly known for, namely in the service of the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. O'Neil has also been a correspondent of two newspapers, La Presse and Le Devoir, at the Quebec National Assembly as well as in the press gallery here in Ottawa. This man has therefore held some prestigious functions in the news-reporting business and has acquired a broad journalistic experience especially in the field of politics and government. One can therefore understand why the CBC chose to name a man of such experience to such a position, so the inferences made by my colleague from Surrey-White Rock are less understandable given the fact that the Prime Minister did not deny it lately. I can understand why the Prime Minister did not deny it for it is crystal clear that he was not the one who made that nomination.
Regarding the remarks made by my colleague concerning the balanced programming we should be getting from the CBC, I must tell him once again that we are dealing here with a mandate which is entirely placed under the jurisdiction of that corporation, and that neither the present government nor any other government of Canada can interfere in that respect because of the legal conditions that surround the creation of the CBC. And finally, let me add that if, on various occasions, some members of the present cabinet have raised their concern
[Mr. Friesen.)
about certain things they did not like with the CBC, this is precisely because the CBC is an independent body. If the government were in charge of the CBC programming, the ministers would have no reasons for disagreeing with the contents of certain programs simply because assuming the government were to control those programs, the corporation would have to go along with the views of the government. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to set the facts in their true light and remind the House that this nomination stems from a decision made by the CBC management, as should be the case and as provided for by an act of Parliament, without undue interference on the part of the government.


INCOME TAX-LEGALITY OF INCLUSION OF BENEFITS FROM LOW INTEREST LOANS AS INCOME FOR TAX PURPOSES
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, this debate arises out of a question I put to the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) on May 19 concerning the proposal which the minister announced to tax the benefit provided by low interest loans from employers to employees. I asked this question inasmuch as the courts, it seemed to me, had ruled that there was no necessity for anyone to charge interest at any specified rate, or indeed any rate or interest. The minister relied in her answer on section 6(1 )(a) of the Income Tax Act, which provides:
There shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year as income from an office or employment such of the following amounts as are applicable:
(a) the value of board, lodging and other benefits of any kind whatever-
The provision then goes on to list some exceptions, which I should like to refer to later. The minister may have been correct in the narrow sense of the law, although she made reference in her answer to the spirit and the letter of the law.
I should point out that in 1956 the words "of any kind whatever" were added to that section or its predecessor section in the former Income Tax Act. That may have been because of an Appeal Board case in which the minister was seeking to tax interest to a shareholder, who may have also been an employee, because he borrowed money from the company in order to buy majority shareholders' interests. At any rate, it was held that no benefit was conferred on the appellant by the company in the years under question, 1952 and 1953. The exact words of the Appeal Board tribunal were:
Apart from specific legislation in a taxing statute, I know of no law which imposes an obligation upon a lender to demand the payment of interest in connection with a loan granted by the lender to a borrower, and if the lender does not require the payment of interest, the borrower is under no obligation to pay interest.
I would like to refer also to a case from the Exchequer Court, which was the forerunner of the Federal Court of Canada. In this case companies were being dealt with, but I think the principle is the same. This is the Pillsbury Holdings Limited case, and I would like to read from the summary as follows:
June 2, 1977

The amounts of interest so foregone by the subsidiary companies in favour of their parent company were construed by the minister as benefits conferred on a shareholder within the meaning of section 8(1 )(c),...
The taxpayer's appeal was allowed by the Tax Appeal Board, and the minister appealed to the Exchequer Court. The Exchequer Court held the following:
That a benefit received from a corporation by a shareholder must be received by him qua shareholder for the benefit to fall within section 8(1 )(c); a taxable benefit could not be imputed in respect of a bona fide transaction;
The fact that the interest was waived in this case was not held to be material and the minister's appeal was dismissed by the Exchequer Court.
The day before I asked the question, the minister responded to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on a similar point. She said:
We have noticed a considerable increase in the loans, at low interest rates or without interest, being granted by employers to employees. We have therefore decided to revise our last interpretation bulletin to the effect that the difference between the interest rate on those loans and the bank rate will be considered as additional income, for income tax purposes, this ruling to become effective on January 1, 1978.
While it may be according to the letter of the law, there is certainly no equity involved in this. If it is the spirit of the law,
I doubt it very much because the government tells us that equity is the spirit of the income tax law.
Section 6(1 )(a) exempts any employer's contribution to or under a registered pension fund or plan, group sickness or accident insurance plan, private health services plan, supplementary unemployment benefit plan, deferred profit sharing plan or group term life insurance. If we are going to capture the benefit of so-called interest free or low interest loans from employers to employees, then I wonder when we shall be examining the matter of subsidized meals and employee discounts for retail outlets and that sort of thing.
Section 15 of the act allows a loan to shareholders, who are officers or employees of a company, without tax consequence if the loan is used for the purchase of a dwelling, to purchase treasury shares in the company, or to purchase an automobile to be used in the fulfilment of duties. It can also apply to a shareholder if the loan is repaid within one year.
We are creating a second class of taxpayers and further inequities by allowing deductions to certain classes of taxpayers, that is shareholders, and not to simple employees, and by legislating by the size of the loophole. The taxation of this so-called benefit was not thought of until it was realized that too many people were making use of it.


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) raised a question in the House of Commons on May 19, 1977, about a departmental interpretation that employees or shareholders borrowing money at less than a reasonable rate of interest receive a taxable benefit, and that commencing January 1, 1978, the value of the benefit will be computed as the amount by which the interest paid by the borrower is less than it would have been had a reasonable rate been charged. The hon. member referred to court rulings that
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act there is no obligation for a lender to charge a specified rate of interest on loans, and asked how we would enforce such an interpretation without legislative approval. The Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) replied that there had been consultations with the Department of Justice respecting this matter.
The point is, Mr. Speaker that while it has been held that it is not obligatory for a lender to charge interest on a loan, in our view it does not necessarily follow that the borrower in these circumstances does not receive and enjoy a benefit. Such a benefit is taxable under the Income Tax Act.
In earlier years it was not a widespread practice for companies to make loans at low or zero interest rates to employees and shareholders, and where this was done relatively small amounts were involved. But the practice has grown over the years and in many instances substantially large sums of money are involved. The department feels it has a responsibility to check a practice that has clearly become an abuse.
Perhaps a simple example will suffice to illustrate how unfair it is to taxpayers generally when some taxpayers are able to enjoy the benefits of an interest free loan without incurring tax. Employee A accepts a $30,000 a year job. He buys a home, and out of his earnings pays $5,000 a year in mortgage interest. Employee B accepts a similar job for $25,000 but also receives an interest free loan from his employer that has enabled him to buy a home of the same value as Employee A's. Both employees would have $25,000 left, but under the practice that has been developing Employee A reports $30,000 of income whereas Employee B is taxed on only $25,000. The new interpretation has been issued in the interests of fairness and equity to all taxpayers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion before the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 6.30 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-3, to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, as reported (with-
[Stage Direction]
June 2, 1977
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act out amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and the amendment of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, prior to the dinner hour I had been speaking on the amendment of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) which is now before us with respect to Bill C-3. Perhaps I should read the portion of the amendment with which 1 want to deal. The amendment is in general reference to the activities of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. Subclause (5) of the amendment reads:
Notwithstanding subsection (1), moneys received by a member institution on or after January 1, 1977, for which the institution has issued or is obligated to issue an instrument of indebtedness other than a draft, certified draft or cheque, travellers' cheque, prepaid letter of credit or money order do not constitute a deposit where the instrument is payable outside Canada or in a currency other than Canadian currency.
The reason that I read the subclause is that it will have two effects. One is that when an institution such as a trust or loan company takes a deposit that is payable in a foreign currency, it is not covered by CDIC. We do not object to that, that is fine, we are not suggesting that foreign currency obligations should carry in any way the insurance protection which CDIC is able to extend.
What we take exception to is that a Canadian dollar obligation, simply because it happens to be payable outside Canada, will not carry insurance protection. That is the effect of the subclause to which I have referred.
This amendment was triggered by the fact that Canada Trust placed a $25 million issue in Europe through a reputable investment house at 9.25 per cent, the issue being due December 31, 1981. Canada Trust did this in the latter part of last year. It was obviously a five year debenture which was placed by that underwriter with European investors. The interesting thing is that at the same time the Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation placed the same amount, $25 million, at 9.75 per cent, with the same due date. In short, Canada Permanent did exactly the same thing. Its issue had the same due date, but Canada Permanent ended up paying .5 per cent more than did Canada Trust. Over the life of the debenture, that .5 per cent represents $625,000, so we are talking about a considerable saving, and I remind hon. members that that saving eventually accrues to mortgage holders in this country. That will mean cheaper mortgage financing for those who wish mortgage funds in Canada to the extent we can win cheaper foreign funds than are available in Canada.
The important question for us to consider is whether the department is correct in saying that that should be stopped, because frankly I do not think anybody in the CIDC had thought of it before. It was the innovation of the trust company to which I referred which triggered the department, and I think the department arbitrarily said that somehow it is wrong to have an issue like that placed in Europe with insurance attached to it. We say it is not wrong. What is wrong with getting cheaper mortgage money for Canadians?

If a trust company, loan company, or any other insured institution wishes to take in those funds anywhere in the world, as long as they are expressed in Canadian dollars what is wrong with winning those funds and hopefully getting cheaper mortgage rates for Canadians?
Prior to five o'clock the minister stated that he understood that the financial community was generally in agreement with the wording which we now have before us. Mr. Art Mingay, who happens to be the president of the Trust Companies Association of Canada says "No way". It comes as a great surprise to him that that representation should be put before us in this House. Incidentally, his company, Canada Trust, is the one I referred to when I referred to that $25 million issue.
Mr. Mingay feels that it would be preferable to refer this matter back to the committee and to allow the trust industry, perhaps the loan industry and other industries which are involved, to have an opportunity to explain why they feel that this is not a desirable thing to encourage as far as Canadians are concerned.
Our position on this amendment is that while certain parts of it-for example, the part which restricts the use of bearer certificates-are acceptable, we feel we cannot accept the suggestion that money which would result in lower mortgage rates for Canadians should be turned down arbitrarily just because a bureaucracy says it did not have that in mind at one point. There is no question that the insurance applies only up to $20,000. The issue which was placed in Europe is subject to that restriction. Those who are putting the money up in Europe, or wherever it is placed, are insured only up to $20,000 per depositor. Our suggestion is that the minister should reconsider this amendment and either withdraw it before the bill is passed this evening, or refer it back to the committee where that committee can have a second look at the bill with particular reference to the proposed amendment. Hopefully the amendment can be amended or withdrawn at that stage.
Do we in this House wish to encourage cheaper mortgage funds for Canadians, or, because the bureaucracy says it does not think that should be done, should we let the bureaucracy rule? Should we say, "To hell with the larger sector of the mortgage community; they can bear the heavy mortgage debt at higher rates; we feel that the bureaucracy must rule?"


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was before the committee this amendment was not mentioned. It seems to me that it is unfair of the minister to propose this amendment at this time when we have not had an opportunity to quiz him on it.
The main point which was brought out in committee was that there have been only two cases in which the fund has been called upon to protect the borrowing public, and these took place in two provinces, Alberta and British Columbia.
I would like to refer to page 2:7 of the minutes of the standing committee for November 4. The hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) was questioning Mr. Gingras as follows:
June 2, 1977


Mr. Clermont:: This means that you had two claims to settle so far, and in only one case did you make a refund, which in that instance came to about $600,000.
MR. Gingras: That means that we paid out about $25 million to the depositors, but when all these assets are liquidated, our loss will come to about $600,000.


Gaston Clermont: The $25 million you are going to have to pay out is therefore a claim.


Mr. Gingras:: Yes, that is the case, since we paid out money to depositors.


Gaston Clermont: Was it a federal or provincial corporation?


René Gingras: It was provincial.


Gaston Clermont: In which province?


René Gingras: Alberta. That is why Alberta paid ... excuse me. The case in which we did not suffer any losses concerned Alberta. The claim made by British Columbia resulted in a loss for us.
MR. Clermont: It was a provincial corporation in that instance as well.


René Gingras: Yes, in both cases.


Gaston Clermont: It is left up to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to decrease or refund certain premiums, which amounts to a reduction of the premiums. Is this why I see the following heading on page 8 of the Annual Report:
The hon. member continued on that very point. This was the main issue brought before the committee while it was investigating Bill C-3, and I think it behooves the minister to accede to the request of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) to allow this amendment to go back to the committee so that we can find out just what its consequences might be.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as it is possible there are going to be other divisions this evening I wonder if there could be agreement to postpone this and have all divisions taken at ten o'clock.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there is a possibility of other divisions on the bills coming before the House. I think we would be agreeable to defer taking the divisions, let the other business go ahead, and try to arrive at a mutually satisfactory
Income Tax
time for taking the divisions. If that is not possible we might then proceed at the earliest opportunity to call in the members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we will agree to deferring the vote on the understanding that the time for calling that vote be worked out by consultation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I have heard the representations of the three parties that there is unanimous consent to deferral of the vote without any set time. Is it agreed to defer the vote?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The House will now proceed to consideration of Bill C-8. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) on a point of order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there has been some consultation across the floor and the rather more substantial matter for discussion now is the tax treaties bill. I wonder if we could change the order of business by agreement, deal with Bill C-12 at this time, and follow it with Bill C-8.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Bill C-8 having been called, is it agreed to proceed with Bill C-12 instead?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


INCOME TAX
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-12, to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Before we proceed with the report stage of Bill C-12 I might put on the record some remarks concerning the approach to consideration of the different motions that have been received. On today's notice paper there are 31 motions to amend Bill C-12, 24 in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), and seven in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).
The effect of motions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29 and 30, in the name of the minister, if carried, would be to delete from the bill all references to an agreement between Canada and Germany for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.

June 2, 1977
Income Tax
Since all 24 motions deal with the same aspect of the bill, or the same principle, it would be my intention to group them for the purpose of debate. I would also suggest that when the question is put on motion No. 1, a recorded division, if required, would dispose of the remaining 23 motions.
Likewise, motions Nos. 2, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 31, standing in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe, have a similar intention as those of the minister by deleting from the bill all references to a convention between Canada and Switzerland. It is also my intention to group them for the purpose of debate, and a division on motion No. 2, if required, would dispose of the remaining six motions.
Is this to the satisfaction of all hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: If the House agrees I shall read only motion No. 1 and assume that the other 23 motions are read into the record. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 1:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by deleting from the long title the words "an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and".
He said: Mr. Speaker, as you pointed out so correctly, the purpose of the amendments standing in my name is to deal with the tax agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany. I should explain that since the tax agreement which is incorporated in the bill was negotiated between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany, that country has brought in a new system of corporate taxation. For that reason it is the view of the Government of Canada that the tax agreement with that country should be renegotiated. On this basis we are asking parliament to delete all reference to West Germany from the bill so that we may go back and engage in these negotiations.
Under the old system in West Germany, undistributed profits were subjected to a corporate tax of 51 per cent while distributed profits were subjected only to 24.5 per cent. Under the new system the rate of corporate tax on undistributed profits is 56 per cent while the rate on distributed profits is 36 per cent. This, coupled with the 25 per cent witholding tax which is recognized in the new Canada-Germany tax treaty, would result in a substantial increase in the taxes paid by Canadian shareholders of German companies. The Canadian government therefore asked the German authorities for a revision of some of the provisions of the new agreement between the two countries.
The principal change in the agreement would be made in the dividend article; technical changes may also be made to other
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
provisions of the agreement but they are expected to remain substantially the same.
I should tell the House that discussions with West Germany are scheduled for July in order to revise the agreement, and it is expected that the agreement will be resubmitted to parliament as soon as it is concluded.
I should also make reference to one minor amendment that is proposed to the treaty, and that is to correct an error that was made in the Canada-Morocco double-taxation convention. It is a typographical error in the Moroccan convention. On page 50 of Bill C-12 the cross-reference at the end of paragraph 2 of article 13 is to article 22, namely, the methods for prevention of the double-taxation article. It should instead refer to Article 21 which deals with taxation of capital. As I said, the error was incorporated in the original text which was signed between the parties. We have now received the agreement of the Moroccan authorities to make the appropriate convention in the treaty. The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to reflect in this enabling bill the change that has been agreed to between the two sovereign states. This is the explanation of the changes put forward in my name.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to the statement he just made that the agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany is being renegotiated. As I understand it, the agreement that had been negotiated before the bill was drafted was to take effect as of January 1, 1977. Is it intended that the revision of that agreement, or the new agreement, will have that same effective date?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, at the moment that question has not been determined. Obviously it would be desirable, given the impact of our own law, to try to make it effective from that particular date. However, I do not want to prejudge what the negotiators might come up with.
By way of further comment, there have been changes in the Canadian tax law which would have an impact as of January 1. It certainly would be desirable to hold to that date, but I think I would be prejudging what the West German position might be if I gave an assurance at this moment. That certainly would be a desirable objective. We will have to wait and see what the Germans have to say about it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, with regard to motion No. 1 in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the motions related to that motion, they have the effect of deleting the treaty that is now within the bill dealing with the Federal Republic of Germany. We have no objection to the minister's motion and the effect of it, which would be the deletion of this treaty from the bill that is now before us.
June 2, 1977


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The adoption of motion No. 1 also disposes favourably of motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29 and 30 appearing in the name of the Minister of Finance. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 3:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by striking out Part I, the heading preceding Clause 1 and Clauses 1 to 3 and by renumbering Parts II to VIII as Parts I to VII respectively.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 4:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by renumbering Clause 4 as Clause 1.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 5:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by
(a)	renumbering Clause 5 as Clause 2;
(b)	striking out the words "Schedule II" in line 16 at page 2 and substituting
therefor "Schedule I".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 6:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by renumbering Clause 6 as Clause 3.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Income Tax
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 7:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by renumbering Clause 7 as Clause 4.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 8:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by
(a)	renumbering Clause 8 as Clause 5;
(b)	striking out the words "Schedule III" in line 6 at page 3 and substituting
therefore "Schedule II".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 9:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany, and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by renumbering Clause 9 as Clause 6.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 10:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by renumbering Clause 10 as Clause 7.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 11:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by
(a)	renumbering Clause 11 as Clause 8;
(b)	striking out the words "Schedule IV" in line 32 at page 3 and substituting
therefor "Schedule 111".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 12:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by renumbering Clause 12 as Clause 9.

June 2, 1977
Income Tax


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 13:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by renumbering Clause 13 as Clause 10.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 14:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by
(a)	renumbering Clause 14 as Clause 11;
(b)	striking out the words "Schedule V" in line 25 at page 4 and substituting
therefor "Schedule IV".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 15:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by renumbering Clause 15 as Clause 12.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 16:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by renumbering Clause 16 as Clause 13.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 18:
An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double

taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by renumbering Clause 18 as Clause 15.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 19:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by renumbering Clause 19 as Clause 16.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 21:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocoo, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by
(a)	renumbering Clause 20 as Clause 17;
(b)	striking out the number "VII" in line 4 at page 6 and substituting therefor "VI".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 23:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocoo, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by renumbering Clause 21 as Clause 18.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: "convention"';
(/') striking out line 22 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"text of such".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 27:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by
(a)	striking out line 25 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"20. (1) An order under section 19 shall be";
(b)	striking out lines 47 to 50 page 8 and substituting the following therefor: "order of a like nature to implement a".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 29:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by
(a)	renumbering Clause 24 as Clause 21;
(b)	striking out the words "section 23" in line 27 at page 9 and substituting
therefor "section 20";
(c)	striking out the words "section 22" in line 29 at page 9 and substituting
therefor "section 19".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: motion No. 30:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by
(a)	striking out Schedule 1 and by renumbering Schedules II to VII as
Schedule I to VI respectively;
(b)	striking out the last line of paragraph 2 of Article XIII of the renumbered
Schedule I at page 50 and substituting the following therefor:
"paragraph 3 of Article XXI."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mir. Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 2 appearing in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), which will also dispose of motions Nos. 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 31. I will read motion No. 2 to the House. Is it agreed that, in doing this, it will be considered as though the other six motions have been read?
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: motion No. 2:
That Bill C-12, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco. Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the
Income Tax
avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be amended by deleting from the long title the words "and Canada and Switzerland".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I hope in the spirit of co-operation that is showing this evening that having acceded to the minister's motion No. 1 the minister will now accede to our motion No. 2 which we feel will have an identical effect to the minister's motion. He dealt with the treaty dealing with Germany. We are dealing with the Swiss treaty. We are simply suggesting that the Swiss treaty should also be deleted from the bill before us.
In dealing with the amendments I propose, 1 wish to point out that they are aimed at improving a bill which, with but one exception, is acceptable to us on this side of the House.
The general provisions of Bill C-12 respecting withholding taxes on dividends, interest, royalties and the like are, I believe, basically sound, and follow established international practice. Most members of the House would agree that mutual conventions of this sort are usually considered essential today in promoting the flow of trade and investment.
We have no objection to any of this. Our objections to this bill and the subsequent amendments arise in particular from the treaty with Switzerland and specifically from the provisions which ask us to confirm, under treaty, the privileged secrecy of those who would hide behind the secret numbered Swiss bank account.
Of all seven treaties-it is now six-embodied in this bill, the Swiss agreement is the only one to limit severely our access to information which would be vital in prosecuting tax frauds and other international cheats.
When we view it in comparison to concessions the Americans have won from the Swiss, the arrangements struck by our negotiators are sadly inadequate and do nothing to protect Canada from the numbered account type of dodge.
Following on the heels, as it does, of recent revelations that our own Crown corporations have been linked to unethical, and possibly illegal, payments into secret Swiss bank accounts, I find this treaty poorly conceived and ill-timed. It is a treaty which at this time defies common sense and the best interests of Canada.
1 would like to put on record four points which I urge hon. members to consider in the debate on this bill.
First, Switzerland is a tax haven. Despite the adamant insistence of the government in committee that Switzerland is not a tax haven because it levies taxes, a number of international financial experts think otherwise. One authority has this to say:
For more than a century Switzerland had been recognized as the most popular tax haven in Europe and the most stable on any continent ... In fact, surveys show that today Switzerland remains the leading tax-haven, next to Panama, in numbers of foreign based companies established in a single nation.
The source which gives several reasons for this, including low taxes, federal taxes on world-wide income begins at 3 per cent and graduates to 8 per cent, a hospitable climate for foreign investment and a unique banking system, is a publication entitled, appropriately enough, "Tax Havens of the

June 2, 1977
Income Tax
World" 1976 edition. If the minister is not familiar with that booklet, I am willing to send it to him so that there is no doubt in his mind as to whether Switzerland is in fact a tax haven. In fact it is the most sought after tax haven in the world, bar none. The fact that our negotiators are unable to identify a tax haven when they see one is reflected in the relatively weak safeguards embodied in this treaty we are asked to ratify.
Second, our negotiators have failed to gain concessions from the Swiss that were granted to the Americans as far back as 1951. U.S. officials, under a series of treaties with the Swiss, are able to obtain bank account balances, particulars of deposits, and even, in some instances, names of account holders when they are U.S. nationals suspected of tax fraud, forgery, or other criminal activity recognized by both countries. Swiss banking authorities have told me how naive they believe Canadian negotiators have been. Naturally, they speak off the record. But they say that compared to the negotiators from the United States our people literally did not know what they were doing when they sat down to hammer out this treaty.
The original 1951 U.S.-Switzerland treaty includes a phrase similar to ours limiting exchange of information, but with one major exception-Article XVI (1) incorporates a clause providing for the exchange of information "for the prevention of fraud and the like in relation to taxes which are the subject of the present convention."
The treaty before us may offer some little help in this regard but nothing so broad as is embodied in the U.S.-Swiss treaties which the Swiss Supreme Court has ruled can even take precedence over Swiss domestic laws of secrecy.
I would emphasize that our treaty contains specific words limiting our access to anything that is contrary to the laws of Switzerland. The contrast between our treaty and the American treaty is startling.
In the Prentice-Hall "Federal Tax Treaty Reporter" the following is stated in paragraph 82.014 regarding the case of X versus the Swiss Confederation Tax Administration:
Under Swiss Income Tax Treaties Swiss authorities could provide the Internal Revenue Service with data from records of a U.S. citizen's bank account when that citizen was charged with tax fraud, a crime in both countries, substantiated by the IRS and generally confirmed by investigation. Bank secrecy could be lifted for fraud as distinguished from mere assessment.
I suggest there is nothing in the Swiss treaty placed before us today which would give us anywhere near the kind of advantage the Americans have gained in lifting the veil of secrecy from those who would defraud their government. 1 might add that the Swiss are the first to state that they wish they could change the American treaty. They acknowledge the Americans have negotiated a tough deal. But, surely, Canadians can be equally tough-or, if they are not, we must draw other inferences from the fact that they have concluded an agreement with the Swiss as favourable as the one before us tonight.
As late as last August the Americans ratified a judicial and administrative mutual assistance treaty which provides for the

exchange of certified bank records, expert testimony and other assistance necessary for the prosecution of mutually recognized crimes. That treaty went into effect in January of this year, yet the government is proposing ratification of a treaty with Switzerland which falls far short of these conventions. It is inconceivable to me that we would not insist on similar concessions from a tax-haven country, especially in the light of the recent revelations which have been debated in the House and to which my colleagues will be referring later in the debate tonight.
We have little to gain from ratifying this treaty at this time and much to gain from waiting. Highly placed sources within the Swiss banking community have indicated that Swiss authorities are alarmed by certain defalcations in their banking community which have arisen from the use of secret accounts. Apparently only a few officials at any time-usually two-are allowed access to banking records and the government is unhappy about the lack of control over secret bank accounts. The Swiss, I understand, are themselves considering a crackdown on non-disclosure practices in that country.
Similarly, other nations, including the United States, are reportedly pressing for more open disclosure practices. These nations are urging the adoption of an OECD model agreement in the hope it would lead to better international co-operation in taxation administration and the prevention of fraud.
Why are we rushing into this treaty at a time when the Swiss themselves are questioning secrecy? In what way does this anxiety to sign a treaty with Switzerland to assist tax dodgers, with their secret accounts and a kind of pay-off system, tie in with the government's attitude toward Polysar? We have to ask some of these pertinent questions before voting one way or the other on this important bill. In short, why are we rushing into this treaty? A reform of the Swiss secret account system might yield, at another time, a more beneficial treaty for Canada.
The Swiss government itself is pushing for amendments to the treaty which is now before us. This was not made clear during the committee sessions. It has not been made clear by the minister to date. The treaty we are being asked to ratify tonight has, in fact, been partially amended, certainly in the initial sense, by the Swiss and the Canadian authorities. The reason we do not have the amended form before us tonight is that the government apparently intends to give effect to the amendments by order in council at a later date. It is interesting that these amendments should have been prompted by Swiss banks which were balking at certain provisions in the treaty which they felt could create an administrative nightmare for them.
In short, while the treaty goes far further than the Swiss would normally have expected, it goes far further than the United States treaty in terms of ensuring the secrecy to which I have been referring. On the other hand the Swiss bankers have said that it is too complicated, from an administrative point of view, and they hope to have those complications removed. We understand the Canadian authorities have hastened to assure them that this will be done on the assumption
June 2, 1977

that once the bill has passed through parliament here the desired amendments can be made by order in council, in that way avoiding the need for frankness in this Chamber.
Hon. members should note that the treaty is retroactive to January 1, 1976. On this point the government has not been candid with us, as I have just explained. I ask hon. members why we should not have the final treaty presented to us before we ratify an agreement of this nature.
To deal with the German treaty, as the minister indicated earlier, when dealing with motion No. 1, there have been extensive changes in German tax law so 1 think the minister can correctly state that the treaty he was bringing before us for ratification could not be proceeded with at the present time, on the ground that it would be rather meaningless. On the other hand, despite the fact that there is every intention of amending the Swiss treaty, the government is pushing ahead with it whereas it could easily be held up and dealt with later.
Mr. Speaker, the administration has clearly failed to negotiate terms that would be in Canada's best interests. Now they are trying to slip this through in a bill ratifying five good treaties and one bad one.
The Swiss treaty does nothing to prevent the Polysar type affair; it does nothing to give us meaningful access behind the shroud of secrecy that protects those who would violate our laws. It is inadequately negotiated. It is unnecessary to implement it at this time. That is why I am proposing in my amendments that the Swiss treaty be deleted and not ratified. That is why I have proposed amendments aimed at setting aside the Swiss treaty until cooler, more rational minds prevail.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to deal with the hon. member's four points. Dealing with the first one, the hon. member has questioned the competence of federal officials and their word in this matter, so I will not rely on them for my authority on this particular occasion. Indeed, I will go to that rather fascinating body of literature which he referred to, the tax haven literature.
The observation may be made, and has been made, that while Switzerland was at one time looked on as a tax haven, since the federal decree of 1962 this can hardly be accurate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I referred to a 1976 book.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, indeed. For example, the highly respected magazine Tax Haven Review of February, 1975, asked very directly the question "Switzerland: Is It a Tax Haven", and on page 12 the author wrote:
The short answer to this question must be emphatic: No. Public opinion has erroneously come to regard Switzerland as a tax haven possibly because of general misconceptions held about Swiss banking laws . . . The truth of the matter Switzerland has no tax haven facilities in the generally accepted sense of the term.
Income Tax
Mr. Marshall Langer in an article entitled "Tax Havens of the World", published in the Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation, Vol. XXIV, stated the following:
Switzerland is probably the most difficult country to generalize about as a tax haven. Most direct taxes are levied by the cantons (of which there are 25), rather than by the federal government. Switzerland has concluded tax treaties with many other countries. Some of these countries complained to Switzerland that people from all over the world were using Swiss companies to take advantage of treaty concessions to which they were not entitled. A 1962 decree of the Swiss Federal Council has effectively put an end to these alleged abuses.
In the "International Tax Strategy" service published in London under the direction of Mr. Michael Edwards-Kerr, it is stated at page 1 of chapter 27, devoted to Switzerland:
Even now, despite the existence of special "favourable" legislation in various cantons, quite a heavy tax burden must be paid for using Switzerland ... Up till the early 1960's Switzerland was the favourite tax haven . .. Since the passing of the Federal Decree of December 1962 the attraction of Switzerland as a tax haven has diminished substantially.
In his book entitled Tax Havens Encyclopedia, Mr. Barry Spitz states on page 4 of the chapter devoted to Switzerland:
During the past decade a slight change in the attitude of the government towards tax haven operations has become manifest. The cantonal authorities generally have been more restrained in granting special tax status. This attitude is due principally to the influence of foreign governments especially those with which Switzerland has signed treaties to avoid double taxation.
With regard to the rates of total tax burden, Mr. Speaker, according to Mr. Milton Grundy in his book "Grundy's Tax Havens-A World Study", the total tax burden by his standard, in West Germany, for example, is 35.1 per cent-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On international income?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -in Great Britain it is 32.8 per cent, in the United States 28.3 per cent, and in Switzerland 25 per cent.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Not on international income, come clean now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think, on the whole, Mr. Speaker, I would have to accept the judgment of Mr. Grundy rather than that of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Make it clear. He does not say on international income.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: So it is quite clear that the hon. member is badly misinformed, that he has passed on judgments from the pre-1962 period. For this reason I think the House may safely reject the first of his arguments.
The hon. gentleman complained about the form of the tax treaty, particularly with regard to provision of information. I would point out to him, as he must know, that the form of this treaty is the same, for example, as the form for West Germany in terms of provision of information.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is not.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is indeed. I would refer him in particular to Article XXV of the Swiss convention, which is

June 2, 1977
Income Tax
in substantially the form of that of the Federal Republic of Germany in regard to provision of information.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Communist Germany?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member says "Communist Germany". If he does not know that the Federal Republic of Germany is not communist Germany, maybe he should not be sitting in this House. So we are talking here of treaties in the form of the OECD model tax convention. The hon. member for York-Simcoe said that he approved of the other five treaties. They are in accordance with the model tax convention, as is this one right here.
The hon. gentleman made the allegation that amendments could be made to this treaty with Switzerland by order in council in such a way that they would not be known generally, and in particular that the House would have no opportunity of passing judgment on them. May I just point out to the House that while it is true that provision is made in this bill to have ratification of supplementary agreements on the tax treaties with the various parties made by order in council, there is a specific provision in the bill, Clause 23, providing that the order in question must be tabled in the House, and providing for a negative resolution procedure so that the House of Commons may debate that particular judgment, so that far from parliament not being given an opportunity to pass judgment on these questions, the tax law which we are specifically putting before the House this evening does provide for that kind of parliamentary action in regard to any of the orders which might be made.
The hon. gentleman referred to the fact that there have been discussions with regard to the tax treaty. Indeed 1 think he suggested at one point that the Swiss did not want this particular treaty to be ratified. I have seen no evidence that that is the Swiss viewpoint. Indeed my understanding is that there is an expectation on their part that the treaty will be carried into law.
I think it is fair to point out that, in the absence of this kind of treaty in regard to double taxation, Canadian nationals who may have business operations with Switzerland do run the risk, if we take the advice of the hon. gentleman, of having to bear a heavier tax burden than would be the case if the treaty is carried into effect. Therefore, far from being in the interests of any sinister forces in Switzerland, the reason that a government enters into a tax treaty with another country is to secure equitable treatment for its own nationals in relation to the foreign tax system.
1 suggest, in light of that, and in light of the mistaken impressions under which the hon. member for York-Simcoe labours and which he put before the House, the House should vote against these particular amendments, and that we should move on from here to provide for approval of the Swiss tax treaty.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for York-Simcoe is rising on a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the hon. minister permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Go ahead.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister has stated that the exchange of information provisions in the Swiss treaty and the German treaty are substantially the same. Before I ask him a direct question may I refer him to page 183 of the bill before us, where in article XXV of the Swiss treaty, under "Exchange of Information", it is stated:
The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall exchange such information-
This is the important part.
-(being information which is at their disposal under their respective taxation laws in the normal course of administration) as is necessary for carrying out the provisions of the present Convention-
I should like to direct the minister's attention to Article XXVI at page 31 dealing with exchange of information, which is the comparable section to the German treaty, that reads as follows:
The competent authorities of the contracting states shall exchange such information as is necessary for the carrying out of this agreement.. .
The important words which were inserted in Switzerland and the reason we are making our amendment tonight is the information which is at their disposal under their respective taxation laws in the normal course of administration.
I would like to direct a question to the minister. Does the minister not agree that those two clauses are substantially different and that the Swiss treaty carefully protects and makes any obligation under their Swiss treaty subject to Swiss law, which is not the case in Germany?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with that judgment at all. Very obviously the same provision would apply to Canada. It is information which is in the possession of Canadian authorities, in the normal application of Canadian law, just as is in the application of tax laws by any other country which is involved in this regard. Therefore the distinction which the hon. gentleman draws is distinction without a difference.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the minister could explain to the House why the words in the brackets of Clause 25 of the Swiss treaty were inserted in the Swiss treaty but not in the German treaty? Those words read as follows: "being information which is at their disposal under their respective taxation laws in the normal course of administration". Why were those words inserted in the Swiss treaty but not in one of the other six treaties we have before us tonight?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, they are the result of negotiations between Canada and Switzerland. I should invite any member to look at the words again, and he will note that the words really express only the obvious in this
June 2, 1977

regard, namely, that it is information which is in the hands of the respective tax authorities of the two countries which is provided by this. There is no substantial difference involved by the words added in parenthesis.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I should like to participate briefly in this debate in order to endorse strongly the position taken by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and to raise with the minister some concerns and apprehensions I feel might arise by virtue of accepting this part of the bill relating to the Swiss treaty, at the present time.
The point has been well made by my colleague from York-Simcoe that there is a distinction in the wording with respect to exchange of information. The identical provisions are not in the treaty with West Germany as are contained in the treaty with Switzerland. The minister may want to discount those particular words referred to by my colleague by simply saying they are merely an administrative provision. 1 would suggest to him that he look at the provision more closely in light of the well-known provisions in Switzerland relating to secrecy in bank accounts.
There has been considerable discussion in this parliament on the use of Swiss numbered bank accounts with respect to payments made by Crown corporations. That was referred to by my colleague from York-Simcoe. At the present time the Swiss are reviewing the whole question of their numbered accounts. I mention this fact because, in dealing with the observations and criticism raised by my colleague from York-Simcoe, it is my understanding that in Switzerland secrecy rules are not waived with respect to bank accounts. In criminal investigations tax evasion is not an offence in Switzerland. This is a very important point for us to consider in this debate.
On the basis of my reading of Article XXV of the treaty, any information we may want to get in Canada with respect to moneys going into numbered Swiss bank accounts, by virtue of an attempt to avoid the payment of taxes in Canada, does not necessarily have to be provided by Swiss officials. They do not have to provide that information to us under the terms of this particular agreement.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In fact it is a criminal offence for them to do it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As the hon. member for York-Simcoe should know, the Swiss officials are now in the process of reviewing the whole question of Swiss bank accounts and are trying to set down a new code of ethics and a new set of rules with respect to numbered bank accounts. An attempt is going to be made to bring them under stricter control with a new agreement between the National Bank of Switzerland and the Bankers' Association.
Professor Leo Schuermann, the director general of the Swiss National Bank, said:
... the agreement will "settle to an important extent" the issuance of numbered accounts in Swiss banks-a special service long offered to assure anonymity.
Income Tax
The director general may be attempting to establish a new set of rules with respect to Swiss bank accounts. They have good intentions in Switzerland. I do not doubt that at all. As has been suggested by the hon. member for York-Simcoe, the acceptance of this treaty in its present form is somewhat premature, especially when we consider the fact that Swiss bank accounts are a very important element with respect to the whole question of double taxation and taxation matters in general.
The whole question of Swiss bank accounts has come under considerable pressure in Switzerland. They are pushing for reform as a result of a banking scandal last month at the Chiasso branch of Credit Suisse, one of the country's three largest banks. Losses from the scandal apparently involved an unauthorized flight of capital from neighbouring Italy, which is estimated at something like $400 million. One can understand that there is great concern with respect to that kind of flight of capital and funds into Switzerland.
The Swiss have their own reasons for wanting to improve and revise their own system with respect to numbered bank accounts and the secrecy provisions. These provisions have been in effect since the thirties. They were as a result of deposits of money from Germany, by Jewish and other German citizens, during that period of time. At that time Swiss banks facilitated the flight of money from Germany. The removal of money from Germany, prior to the second world war, was a capital offence. That is the genesis of the establishment of anonymous numbered accounts.
As I have said, pressure is developing because of the suggestion that since the Second World War secrecy and numbered accounts have led to repeated clashes between Switzerland and other western countries which have claimed that Swiss bank accounts have facilitated the flight of hundreds of billions of dollars to that country, largely to avoid taxes. That is the whole point of this particular treaty.
For the minister to stand up and suggest the provisions of Article XXV are clear and unequivocal, with respect to this very important factor, is premature on his part. That particular factor has been brought out clearly by my colleague from York-Simcoe. As he showed, some serious questions concerning this treaty need to be answered. We should not ratify the treaty until the Swiss have revised their own rules governing numbered bank accounts.
The government seeks to ratify this treaty after certain developments have taken place concerning government agencies. Those developments were reported by the media. The minister himself has had experience of and contact with Polysar, one of the Crown corporations now in the news.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He was the minister.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He was the minister when certain developments concerning certain payments came to the fore.

June 2, 1977
Income Tax


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I was not the minister at the time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The hon. gentleman says he was not the minister at the time. Since he was a member of the cabinet one assumes he knew about it. I hope he knew about these developments. Surely the government's attitude is strange.
A Crown corporation for which the federal government is responsible was involved in the payment of funds into a numbered Swiss bank account. The government surely is under the obligation to make sure we have the power or ability to obtain all necessary information, to enable us to identify to whom those payments were made, that is to say, who operated the numbered Swiss bank account, and why those payments were made. What was their purpose? Such information has not been forthcoming. 1 suggest there is a distinct relationship between that activity on the part of an agency of the federal government and our sanctioning this treaty at this time. I say this in view of the language of the treaty, or in view of the language of Article XXV concerning the obtaining of information from Swiss authorities on taxation matters and information relating to collection of taxes from Canadian citizens, corporations and nationals.
I understand that in Switzerland tax evasion is not an offence. Perhaps the minister can verify this. In other words, if taxes are evaded in Canada, or if Canadian taxes are evaded, that is not an offence in Switzerland, and they would not be obliged to give us information. If we try to collect taxes from people using a numbered Swiss bank account, we shall be whistling in the dark, for they could use a numbered Swiss bank account in order to hide money taken from Canada illegally.
The minister is responsible to this House. He ought to review the position and consider again the ratification of this treaty. He should accept the eminently sensible advice of the hon. member for York-Simcoe and accept his proposed amendment. After all, we can still consider the treaty. Apparently the Swiss will begin reviewing their numbered bank account system on June 6, or in four days. I suggest we should not pass this particular part of the bill. Perhaps this treaty could be introduced in a separate bill, once the points raised by my colleague from York-Simcoe have been met. We could do it after the Swiss have reviewed the operation of numbered, anonymous Swiss bank accounts. I say this because we may find, even after the Swiss have enacted a new code of rules governing their numbered accounts, that the code is still not satisfactory.
We may want to change the language of Article XXV to provide for carte blanche exchange of information without qualification. The minister may want to seek a legal opinion on the effect of such a provision. Perhaps we shall need to renegotiate the treaty, but I think the Swiss authorities will be receptive to this idea, if my colleague for York-Simcoe is right; since he is right 99.9 per cent of the time, I am sure he is right this time. Actually, I think he was wrong only once, and that's so long ago that it is most difficult to remember the event.

1 do not think I make an unreasonable request. I suggest the Government of Canada should consider the consequences of ratifying a treaty imperfect in form, of perpetuating unsatisfactory conditions, and of countenancing the possibility of further incidents similar to the two or three raised not long ago in this House. I am talking of incidents involving Crown Corporations either directly or indirectly under the control of this government. I plead with the minister to reconsider the wording of Article XXV, to bear in mind the review which will soon begin in Switzerland, and to adopt the amendment proposed by my colleague from York-Simcoe.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) is still working on about 36 treaties. It seems to me that at the end of the month they will be about 18 months behind schedule. Speaking on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) the minister commented on tax treaties, suggesting that we like to enter into tax treaties with co-operating countries. That is true in some cases. However, in other cases as in the case we are considering, the minister does not distinguish between countries which co-operate with Canada and countries which do not.
I wish to put on record some incidents concerning our dealings with Swiss enterprises, to show why the House should support my colleague's amendment. I suggest most hon. members remember that a Canadian Crown corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, paid $2.5 million U.S. as its part of the fee due with respect to the sale of a reactor. The money was paid to Intercontinental General Trading Company, a nominee of Banca Della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland. We could trace the money that far. Many attempts were made to trace the money further. All attempts to discover the destination of these funds were met with silence on the part of Swiss banks, although Swiss officials were fully co-operative.
I shall read some letters into the record. The first letter was written by the treasurer of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to the head office of the Royal Bank of Canada, in Ottawa, dated December 14, 1976. It reads in part:
Could you please supply us with a copy of your transmittal wire and wire the above bank for the following information, with a copy to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited:
1.	Date of payment
2.	Name of payee
3.	Name of signing authority for payee.
Some weeks later the Royal Bank duly replied to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, with this information. I quote the letter the Royal Bank sent, under the signature of W. J. McCartney, dated January 7, 1977, which reads:
Dear Sirs:
Further to our letter of December 15th last, we wish to advise that on your behalf we contacted Banca Della Svizzera Italiana Lugano, Switzerland, who respond by telex as follows:
"Re: Your telex of December 21, 1976-Atomic Energy of Canada
We apologize for delay due to absence for Christmas holidays. We
confirm that we have credited account of Intercontinental General Trading
June 2, 1977

Establishment with U.S. dollars 2,500,000 on April 26, 1974, according to your telex of April 23, 1974.
Intercontinental General Trading Establishment of Schaan agrees with us to forward you the following information:
Intercontinental is a company acting on a fiduciary basis on behalf of clients and the amount involved of U.S. 2,500,000 had been immediately transferred in accordance with instructions received.
The principals are at present on journey outside Europe and we are sorry not to be able to give a complete answer to your telex until we will be released from professional and bank secrecy. We shall revert to the matter as soon as possible.
With our best regards
Banca Della Svizzera Italiana Lugano"
The letter continues:
As indicated in the last paragraph of their telex, the correspondent indicates that on return of the principals they will advise further. We will inform you of their response immediately on receipt.
Yours truly,
W. J. McCartney
If the commitments indicated in that letter had been followed, we might not have had such a problem and we might not be so concerned about this bill. However, despite the Christmas holidays referred to and the holidays outside of Europe also referred to, there was a further follow-up from the treasurer of AECL to the Royal Bank of Canada, which triggered a further letter of January 24, 1977, from the Royal Bank of Canada to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in Ottawa for the attention of Mr. E. Deslauriers, treasurer. 1 am afraid that again I have to read the letter because it says it as clearly as it can be said. It reads:
Dear Sirs:
Further to our letter of January 7th and yours of January 14th last, we quote below a telex message received from Banca Della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland.
"Further to our telex of Dec. 30, 1976 re Atomic Energy of Canada, we believe that it might be of interest for you to obtain the text of our statement we released to the Canadian Press on January 13, 1977.
-Quote
With reference to the recent CBC broadcasts in which the names of Banca Della Svizzera Italiana (B.S.I.) of Lugano, Switzerland and the nominee company Intercontinental General Trading Establishment (I.G.T.) of Schaan, Liechtenstein were mentioned in relation to a certain payment allegedly made in connection with the sale of a nuclear reactor to Argentina B.S.I. wishes to make the following statement on its own behalf and on behalf of I.G.T.:
1.	B.S.I. and I.G.T. are not and have not been parties and/or participants in the above mentioned sale of a nuclear reactor to Argentina either as principals or agents.
2.	B.S.I. and I.G.T. have acted in this matter only as a banker carrying out routine banking functions.
3.	B.S.I. and I.G.T. stand ready if required to provide any further information which they may lawfully give to any properly instituted authority.
-Unquote
The telex continues:
Kindly note that we now have been informed by our principals that:
1. The ultimate beneficiary of the remittance of doll.2,500,000 was neither a Canadian citizen, nor a company or other body subject to Canadian law.
Income Tax
2. Furthermore the above mentioned beneficiary was neither the company
Italimpianti, nor a company or another body controlled by the same.
Hoping to have been of assistance to you, we remain, with best regards,
Banca Della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano."
We trust the foregoing will be of some assistance to you.
Yours truly,
W. J. McCartney
I am sorry to put all that material before the House, but I think the story has to be set out in a little detail so that we can understand the significance of the extended absences and of the spurious agreement to give further information which may be lawfully given to any properly constituted authority. Of course the answer that comes to us loud and clear is that it is not lawful under any circumstances to give any further or meaningful information.
The media were not entirely satisfied with the progress that was made by the Canadian parliament and its committees, and they made some attempts themselves in that direction in a recent story which, I believe, appeared in the Financial Post. The following paragraph was contained in the newspaper which indicated that the Swiss officials were at least in some way concerned. It stated:
Meanwhile, in Lugano, the public prosecutor for the Sottoceneri region of southern Switzerland confirmed he has opened an official investigation into AECL's payment of the $2.5 million secret commission to I.G.T., the Banca Svizzera Italiana (B.S.I.) nominee company. Partly owned by Banca Commer-ciale Italiana, Italimpianti's bankers, B.S.I. has its headquarters in Lugano.
Nothing ever came of that investigation and no further information was ever made available to the Canadian parliament of its committee.
One might consider that that would be regarded as an isolated instance, but of course members of the House will also be aware of the fact that there was another Canadian involvement in the way of Polysar Limited, a Crown Corporation, and further millions of taxpayers' dollars were paid into numbered Swiss bank accounts. The fact that they are numbered may not be completely significant because I understand all accounts are numbered, but the point is that these were secret accounts.
Polysar, in the light of these transactions, as a Canadian Crown corporation stood accused of involving itself in procedures which could have had the effect of hiding tax revenues from the Canadian taxation authorities. These practices would have enabled foreign customers to avoid foreign exchange regulations in the countries where they were located. They could have had the effect of evading income taxes in the countries involved, and they could have had the effect of defrauding minority shareholders in the customer companies.
Many officials from the companies came and testified, and others were invited to come and lend their testimony to try to sort out this matter for the benefit of the taxpayers of Canada whose many millions of dollars had been involved in these practices. However, we found that many witnesses, first of all out of fear of the Swiss secrecy laws and Swiss laws which

June 2, 1977
Income Tax
prohibit disclosure of any information on the basis of confidentiality, refused to appear at all, and finally, on the assurance of the committee that no proceedings would be initiated against them for what they said here, they still feared their prosecution under Swiss law and said they would only appear if they were allowed to appear with Swiss counsel at their side so that they could be advised before they answered.
1 think my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), made reference to the banking reform that is taking place now in Switzerland in light of certain irregularities that have been discovered in the banking industry there. It seems that his plea that we wait until this reform is completed is a good one.
I would like also to refer to Article XXV in the treaty. I think the hon. member for York-Simcoe already referred to this. We find that in the Swiss treaty, unlike many of the others which we are being asked to pass at the same time, there is a strange reference to the exchange of information, and referring to this exchange of information the following clause is added: "being information which is at their disposal under their respective taxation laws in the normal course of administration".
It is difficult to understand that the minister was unable to explain what purpose this clause had in this particular agreement when it did not apply to the agreements of any other countries. And when one puts together the fact that Swiss law prohibits the release of information concerning bank accounts to any other competent authority, including the Government of Canada, and the fact that Swiss law would therefore not permit any information to be exchanged because it would not be at Switzerland's disposal as required under that clause, this can hardly be considered as the action of a co-operative and friendly government. I think the minister is not doing service to the House or to the Canadian taxpayer by rushing this bill through without considering these very important factors.
The minister well knows-and his colleagues can certainly remind him-of the furore which was created over the apparent careless use of millions of taxpayers' dollars in the instances to which I have referred.
For all these reasons I want to give my full support to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. I reiterate that we have little to gain at this time by passing this now, and we may have very much to gain by waiting until these glaring anomalies have been clarified by the Minister of Finance.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my contribution to the debate tonight will not be a long one, unfortunately, but I have not had very much time to prepare because I did not realize that this bill would be debated tonight when I am on duty. Having the distinct pleasure of being on duty today, I would like to say a few words about this bill in support of my colleague, the hon. member for York-

Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), who has proposed a very worth-while amendment.
It is certainly an unusual and unlikely event to see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) here today equating himself with Swiss gnomes. He is the most unlikely Swiss gnome I have ever seen, at least here in this House, but tonight he aligned himself with the Swiss. When I refer to Swiss gnomes, 1 refer to financial gnomes. Why is Canada rushing to engage in a tax treaty with Switzerland? If there is any need to engage in a tax treaty with Switzerland, obviously we should try to get something out of it which is to our benefit. Other countries besides Switzerland are used by financial dodgers, financial skimmers, financial scallywags, financial carpetbaggers, financial birds of prey, or financial flim-flam men as places to take their ill-gotten gains and bury them in unnumbered, numbered, or unknown bank accounts.
If we are going to have a tax treaty with Switzerland, would that not be an opportunity for us to try to get some concessions from Switzerland so that our government will no longer have the excuse, when a matter comes up before the Public Accounts Committee regarding pay-offs to agents or whatever it is, of saying that it cannot get information on that matter, so that our government would be in a position to get information when information is needed for tax purposes or for criminal prosecutions, and so that the government can get information from Switzerland?
The government's absolute lack of action and lack of enthusiasm about doing anything to get some information for the Public Accounts Committee on what happened in connection with AECL and the pay-offs which occurred with reference to the Korean contract, and the pay-offs which occurred with reference to other contracts with Polysar, have been the most laughable things I have noticed in my brief months in this House. The government has had an absolute lack of vim, vigour or enthusiasm in attempting to get information on those matters. It is laughable that the government should absolutely accept the statements made by the people involved, who said that if they were to give information to the Public Accounts Committee they would violate the laws of Switzerland or some other country. They said they positively could not be expected to inform one of our House committees of the facts in connection with these pay-offs made by Crown corporations to agents, customers, or otherwise.
Frankly I am fed up with this. If Canada is going to enter into a treaty with Switzerland, with Panama, with Costa Rica, or with Liechtenstein, Canada should be getting something in return, and Canada should take some action to stop these countries from being havens for birds of prey who use them as places to transfer their ill-gotten gains, in a manner unknown to their own jurisdictions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Let me give the House an example. We all know about the Churchill Forest Industries incident in Manitoba and about how an entrepreneur from outside the country was able to sweep into Manitoba, inveigle the govern-
June 2, 1977

ment into participating in the Churchill Forest Industries complex there, make millions of dollars, take them out of the country, hide them in Switzerland and in other countries around the world, and get away with it. That person still has not been brought to justice.
In Newfoundland we had a similar experience. When we came into office in Newfoundland in 1972 we came across a situation in which one John C. Doyle, a promoter for Canadian Javelin Limited, was involved in a matter with the previous government. The premier of the province, (Mr. Smallwood)-I think it was in 1965-gave a company known as Society Trans-shipping Incorporated of Liechtenstein-another tax dodge haven and another refuge for the criminal element of the world-a letter which said that company had the right to cut wood in 10,000 square miles of the mainland of Newfoundland, Labrador.
There was no order in council, no Crown lease, no Crown grant, and no document approved by the cabinet, but there was a letter from the premier of the province to Society Trans-shipping Incorporated telling that company it had the right to cut in 10,000 square miles, which I believe is bigger than the whole province of Prince Edward Island. There are 110,000 square miles in Labrador. Society Trans-shipping Incorporated of Liechtenstein, which had a bank account in Switzerland, sold its letter to Canadian Javelin Limited for $3.9 million. I am using round figures, but it was in that area.
Any lawyer who ever graduated from law school in this dominion could have advised Canadian Javelin Limited that the letter was not worth the paper on which it was written, that it did not have a scrap of legal validity, and that Society Trans-shipping Incorporated had not a jot or tittle of a right to do what it did. In fact even a layman could have advised that. Anyone but a numbskull, nitwit, or crook could have advised that that letter gave nothing. It certainly gave nothing worth $3.9 million belonging to private shareholders. That scrap of paper was signed by a premier and was authorized by a government, but there was no order in council and no legislation passed to validate it.
The question is: who owns Society Trans-shipping? That is the $3,900,000 question. Although I know who owns it 1 cannot prove it, nor can the Newfoundland government prove it, because no one can get behind the laws of Liechtenstein to find out who owns it. Are we putting up with this in Canada? We have no power in connection with Liechtenstein, but if a treaty ever comes before this House in connection with anything in Liechtenstein I will be 100 per cent against it until the Minister of Finance can find out from that country who is behind Society Trans-shipping and similar enterprises. That is the same sort of thing the government should be looking for in connection with Switzerland.
I happen to know that the $3,900,000 or whatever got transferred to Society Trans-shipping, went to Liechtenstein and passed through that country like a thief in the night to a bank in Switzerland. We can only guess where it went from
Income Tax
there. I could use the immunity of this House to say who I am 100 per cent sure it went to, but I shall not.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


John Carnell Crosbie: No, I will not.


An hon. Member:: Put up or shut up.


John Carnell Crosbie: I want hon. members opposite to bring in some legislation relating to Liechtenstein so that we can find out. This kind of skulduggery, this kind of crooked deal, this kind of suspicious deal, this kind of high level white collar, ingenious theft, is taking place every week of the year in Canada and other countries. Are we doing anything about it?


An hon. Member:: How do you know that?


John Carnell Crosbie: I have just given one instance of it, and we know there are hundreds of others. We can look at Churchill Forest Industries, Canadian Javelin, Society Trans-shipping, and we can look at who is down in Panama right now. That is another question, Mr. Speaker, and this gives me another opportunity to bring it up. I see the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) is in the House. The unequal administration of the tax laws of Canada is another matter that is not yet settled and it will be heard about in this House until the laws are administered equally.


Miss Begin:: Explain.


John Carnell Crosbie: How can a taxpayer who owes millions of dollars in taxes be allowed to go 24 years without paying, go to Panama and stay there, a fugitive from justice, while this government does nothing about it? This matter will be heard about in the House until the answers are forthcoming.
When the Minister of Finance brings in a tax treaty with Switzerland or Panama or Liechtenstein or Costa Rica or anywhere else where the carrion of this world gather with their ill-gotten gains, we want to see what benefits Canada gets from it. What is Canada getting from this treaty with Switzerland? Are they opening up to the Department of Finance and the RCMP the unnumbered bank accounts of Canadian citizens who might be suspected of having ill-gotten gains over there? Is that one result of this treaty? Are they going to give our police co-operation in looking * into financial frauds, in Switzerland? If they do not, then I say this bill is not worth our support and I will vote against it.
The criminal who steals a loaf of bread or breaks a window goes to jail for six months or a year, but the white collar, high flown, financial flim-flam confidence man gets away with millions. What is done to bring him to book? Nothing is done about it.
We all heard about the just society in 1968. Ha, ha! Where is the justice while the scallywags, the skimmers, the carpetbaggers, the birds of prey, and the flim-flam men roam the world-Liechtenstein, Panama, Costa Rica, Switzerland? I say let us put an end to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 2, 1977
Income Tax


John Carnell Crosbie: I am only an unsophisticated country boy from Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. I never thought I would see the day when Crown corporations would be whacking the money out to agents in Switzerland while a committee of this House was unable to get co-operation from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) or any of the hon. lot opposite to find out where it went and to whom.


An hon. Member:: Did you say the hon. louts opposite?


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. lot-the hon. crowd opposite, the hon. gentlemen.
I do not want to occupy the time of the House tonight Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: More, more.


John Carnell Crosbie: I have learned of the interest of the Minister of Finance in Grundy's tax havens. I never thought there was such a thing as a Grundy tax haven, but I suppose if one is interested in a tax haven even Grundy's is better than nothing.
1 will end with this piece of poetry in honour of the occasion, Mr. Speaker.
We will follow Sine to Toronto or Rome
Rather than Donald the giant Swiss gnome
Reject this tax treaty in the Liberal tax haven
Their gall and effrontery is truly amazing.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You ought to be a critic. You are terrific.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You get nine out of ten for that one.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to warn all hon. gentlemen opposite about something 1 learned on a trip to Switzerland last year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: To check your account?


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Did you open an account?


John Carnell Crosbie: I did not open an account. But when you are in Switzerland, Mr. Speaker, never say to anyone, "I've got your number!" Your life would possibly be in danger.
I must admit I have a sneaking admiration for the Minister of Finance-particularly on learning that he is going to leave us this fall. 1 hate to vote against a piece of legislation that he has laboured so long and so hard over, as a Swiss treaty. I know he stayed up nights working on this one-it was to exemplify his whole career in federal politics. To have to vote against this touches me sorely. The only thing that might persuade me to vote for the bill is a piteous plea for mercy from him tonight not to spoil his departure from this House into retirement and into the decent security of a $1 million a year with McCarthy and McCarthy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Crosbie.)


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, 1 agree that it is going to be tough to vote against this bill when the hon. minister is to leave us so shortly. Perhaps he read in the paper today that he is supposed to bring in a new budget because the dollar has dipped below 95 cents. It has touched psychological bottom.
In regard to the Swiss connection, I must say it seems that this would be the time to try to find some solutions to the problems that beset us-the problems of the Churchill Forest Industries which negotiated under cover of unnumbered Swiss bank acounts, for instance. These things are all the more difficult now that we are proceeding to ratify a treaty with Switzerland.
The United States seems to have better luck in getting information from the Swiss on people who are suspected of tax fraud and other criminal activities. We also have these difficulties with Liechtenstein, as the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) indicated. Surely it is time we got to the bottom of all this. They cannot even seem to find the individual involved, let alone his numbered bank account. If they knew where his bank account was, it might help.
There does not seem to be anything to gain from ratifying this treaty at this time with Switzerland. No effort seems to have been made to ascertain whether they would be willing to give some information to our authorities.
I believe that the Swiss people are having second thoughts about the use of numbered bank accounts which has brought that country into disrepute. It is ridiculous to pass this bill when the Swiss themselves are indicating they would like to stop some of what has been going on with other countries. The Swiss are pushing for amendments to the treaties. Are the Swiss banks balking at the provisions of this treaty which could create an administrative nightmare for them? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has not spelled out why it is impossible for the Swiss authorities to open their books to our law people in order to find out what is taking place.
We seem to have the idea that Crown corporations are beyond reproach. We have reservations about their ability to carry on business, but whatever else they do, they do honestly. However, the Polysar evidence has cast some doubt on this. We will not know what is happening on Polysar until the treaties are amended and we can find out through the numbered Swiss bank accounts who received what and where it went.
I wish to add my objection to passing this section with regard to Switzerland at this time. I hope the deal can be renegotiated so that we will have more fair and equal treatment. It would clear up some of the cloud behind which many people hide, using Swiss bank accounts for purposes not in the best interests of this country.


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join this debate for a few moments to add my comments and a few words of support for the arguments
June 2, 1977

advanced tonight by my colleagues, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) who just spoke, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) who led off this debate on behalf of our party, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Clarke).
Like all members, I consider it a privilege to have sat in this Chamber this evening and have heard one of the new fellows. 1 speak as a two-term veteran in the House in so referring to him. I refer to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and his eloquent remarks tonight-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: -and also his entertaining remarks. I believe even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) found some enjoyment when the hon. member for St. John's West referred to greener pastures which may lie ahead for our friend from Toronto, the Minister of Finance.
There seems to be a theme which has pervaded the remarks of members on this side of the House in our contribution to the debate. It is a theme I would like to endorse and speak briefly upon. It refefs to the question of openness, especially in matters of finance, particularly as they relate to government.
Since the tragic occurrence in the United States known as Watergate, there has evolved abroad in this land a cynicism about public life which is very discouraging to one of that generation that now forms over 50 per cent of the Canadian population.
When I was first elected to the House of Commons in 1972, I was asked, I guess because I was much younger in those days, to speak at a great many high schools in my constituency and in other places. Very often the first question put to me by students in assembly was: how does one go about getting elected to the House of Commons? At that time students were very excited about public life, interested in its challenges, and thought it to be a worthy pursuit.
A /ew weeks ago I spoke at two high schools in Hamilton. That question, which had not been posed for some time, was turned around and asked in reverse. I asked the students assembled if any of them would like to serve in public life at the municipal, provincial, or federal level of government. In the first high school I could not find one student who wanted to pursue a career in public life. At the second high school I found one student who thought he might take a chance in seeking public office.
I believe the reason for this change in such a short number of years in the attitude of Canadians generally, but especially young Canadians, about public life and a career in politics, has to do with the central theme to which I am referring-honesty and openness in politics, in business, and in our general approach in our everyday dealings with one another.
On the international scene relations between countries are really no different because countries are no more than a collection of individuals. Obviously we have different feelings toward different individuals, and countries have different feel-
Income Tax
ings toward one another. In all of those relations, be they interpersonal on a one-to-one basis, or be they in the international field of economics or politics, there should be certain constant principles. Foremost among them would be that of honesty.
The question facing us tonight is not only what benefit would accrue to Canada and the Canadian people by this bill sponsored by the Minister of Finance. Behind that we should approach it with these questions: does it promote honesty in our relations with other countries? Does it help promote honesty in the business of politics? Does it encourage a belief that there is honesty in international finance, honesty in diplomacy, and honesty and openness in public life?
Regretfully I must conclude, buttressed by members of the Conservative party who have spoken tonight, that the answer to these questions would be no. Rather than open up these central questions in a way that would encourage Canadians to believe that there is a new spirit of honesty in our approaches to international financing and politics, it does the reverse. It covers up. At a time when we most need openness and honesty, it is doing the exact opposite to what we need. That is deeply regrettable.
Mention has been made of Swiss bank accounts. As the hon. member for Dauphin noted, the Swiss authorities themselves are questioning the age old practice of having secret numbered bank accounts in Switzerland. Those of us who sat in the House throughout the scandal related to the payments made to a person or persons unknown using such bank accounts must be especially concerned as to what this legislation will do. It may encourage such practices to continue. I hope not. If that is the case, it is doubly regrettable, and surely no hon. member here would wish to see it passed.
I wish to congratulate those who have put forward in greater detail our reasons for opposing this proposition put before us by the Minister of Finance. I hope he will take our comments to heart, bearing in mind that it is not a case of opposition for personal reasons-during the debate several kind things have been said about him and if he does not find them encouraging he must certainly find them refreshing coming, as they do, from this side of the House. I endorse the remarks made by hon. friends because if we lose the interest of young Canadians in public life because we fail to pursue actively policies of openness in all our dealings at every level, nationally and internationally, there is no future for this country and no future for this institution, because politics will be lost by default, and those with higher aspirations will have lost faith in us. This may appear to be a supplementary issue, but I state it, to use a phrase often employed by another member of this House, with all the sincerity and conviction I can command as being a deep concern of mine.
I hope the minister and his officials, should this bill go forward, given the majority situation in which the government temporarily finds itself, will take these views into account and reconsider the action to which they have committed them-
80016-5S

June 2, 1977
Income Tax
selves. I hope we can see the dawn of a new day in which politics will be restored as the high calling 1 believe it to be, so that all of us can visit high schools across the country and reply without embarrassment when young Canadians ask us why it was we entered public life.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motion No. 2, and likewise on motion Nos. 2, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 31 standing in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more then five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is there agreement that we defer this vote as well as the others?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to some comments in the House earlier this evening, there were discussions held regarding the divisions which might be required to dispose of the business this evening. Further to these discussions, I believe there is a general disposition in the House that any divisions which are required should be deferred until next Tuesday at 11 o'clock.


Steve Eugene Paproski: There is no 11 o'clock sitting on Tuesday; it is an opposition day.


Ralph Goodale: If there is no morning sitting on Tuesday, perhaps the most appropriate time would be immediately following Routine Proceedings. If that is agreeable perhaps we could make that an order of the House at this time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable from our point of view. There will be no sitting in the morning on Tuesday, it being an allotted day. Therefore the first opportunity would be after Routine Proceedings, and we are quite agreeable to having that order made now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let me make it unanimous, Mr. Speaker. It is our understanding that there will be no morning sitting on Tuesday, it being an allotted day.

I also agree with the others that an appropriate time for these votes would be immediately following Routine Proceedings on Tuesday afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There seems to be general agreement that votes on Bill C-3 and Bill C-12 be deferred until Tuesday at the end of the question period. Is that agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, although I think the rule calls for it, could it not now be understood that the bells will ring on that occasion for only 15 minutes?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed and so ordered that the bells will ring for only 15 minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT AND SATISFIED SECURITIES ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-8, to amend the Financial Administration Act and to repeal the Satisfied Securities Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Alex Patterson (for Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West)) moved:: That Bill C-8, to amend the Financial Administration Act and to repeal the Satisfied Securities Act, be amended in Clause 1, by adding immediately after line 20 the following new subsection:
"(3) In this section the instrument of release or discharge as referred to in
subsection (1) shall be deemed to be a statutory instrument within the
meaning of Paragraph 2(1 )(d) of the Statutory Instruments Act".


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I should like to speak to his suggested amendment; the hon. member cannot be in the House this evening. I draw the minister's attention to the fact that at the first meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs held on November 2, 1976, the amendment before the House was substantially discussed, and at that time the minister's parliamentary secretary attempted to satisfy the committee with regard to the point.
In short, the amendment arises from the uncertainty which seems to exist in regard to the impact of the amendment that is in Bill C-8 itself. Hon. members who have read the bill know that the government is asking that the Financial Administration Act be amended in order to give greater facility for the signing of various discharges and other types of releases. My colleague from Edmonton West raised the point that he felt
June 2, 1977

that it had not been clearly defined exactly what the impact would be of these instruments and releases or discharges, whatever you like to call them. The suggestion was then raised that it would be better simply to refer to the instrument as being included within the definition which is found in clause 2(1 )(d) of the Statutory Instruments Act. That act was assented to on May 19, 1971. It appears as chapter 38 in the Statutes of Canada for 1970, 1971 and 1972.
For those who are interested, the subsection my colleague has referred to in his amendment is found at page 2 of the act. It is quite a lengthy description, but essentially it clarifies what a statutory instrument is. The thrust of the amendment before us is that, for clarification, the amendment the government is seeking should be added to with the view that it will be clear that an instrument of release or discharge shall be deemed to be a statutory instrument within the meaning of clause 2(1 )(d) of the Statutory Instruments Act.
To summarize, I am simply saying we are hoping the minister will accede to this request. It will clarify what we are seeking here in the main amendment which is found in Bill C-8. For greater certainty people would turn to section 2(1 )(d) of the Statutory Instruments Act to see what a statutory instrument will include. This point was raised at committee because the government seemed to be very casual in indicating what the releases for the discharges would be for which it was seeking the new found power to give. It stated that it was casual stuff which involved the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and sometimes mortgages were required to be discharged and other instruments of that type. We are fearful the amendment may be intended to cover that type of thing, but it will be interpreted in a much larger sense in due course. We will find releases and discharges may be given in a rather casual way, as a result of the amendment which the government is proposing, much more casual than is the case of such releases or discharges clearly defined as statutory instruments.
Statutory instruments, of course, would be reviewable by the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. It is a proper safeguard for the Parliament of Canada through that committee to have a look at what exactly are the releases and the discharges which are being signed by ministers of the Crown. In truth, it is a tremendous power to be giving to a minister-the right of the minister to sign on behalf of the Government of Canada rights which otherwise might be accruing to the Government of Canada. Why not define it as a statutory instrument so that we have the protection of that act and the reviewability of each of the releases and the discharges before the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments which is contemplated?
In order to expedite matters tonight, that is as far as I should go. It would be interesting for members to hear the minister explain why he will either accept our amendment, or if not, why he decides to turn down this clarification we are seeking.
Financial Administration Act


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with here, in the very simplest terms, is the present provision of the Satisfied Securities Act which requires an order in council and a cabinet decision about each discharge of a mortgage-or a lien of some kind taken by the Crown under one of the many statutes which provide financial assistance to various kinds of Canadians. At present the law requires that each one be as a result of a specific decision by cabinet or by a cabinet committee. For a better sense of administration, this responsibility should be transferred from the cabinet level to the ministerial level. This makes good sense in terms of administration. We are talking about the hundreds of thousands of instruments which are delivered every year under the Veterans Land Act and under the various kinds of statutes for which my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) is responsible. It does not make much sense to have this procedure dealt with at the cabinet level. It is a ministerial decision.
I have some difficulty understanding why the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) would want to have the committee look at thousands of chattel mortgage discharges or lien discharges. It is not the kind of statutory instrument with which the committee was set up to deal. One might almost say that to include this provision, to encourage the committee to look at thousands of such documents every year, is a Machiavellian way of occupying the committee's time and therefore render it less able to concentrate on more fundamental matters.
There are two reasons for not accepting the amendment, and the first is purely practical and sensible. If you are talking about discharging mortgages, you are not talking about lawmaking statutory instruments. Indeed it is fair to say that we are not talking about statutory instruments at all. The relevant characteristic of a statutory instrument is as follows. I quote from the Statutory Instruments Act, that act cited by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). It is that it is made "by or under an act of parliament by or under which such instrument is expressly authorized to be issued, made or established otherwise than by the conferring on any person or body of powers or functions in relation to a matter to which such instrument relates." It is my view that the proposed section 95.1 of the Financial Administration Act does not result in the creation of a statutory instrument to be issued, made or established but rather confers a power on an appropriate minister to execute and deliver an instrument.
As I say, it is somewhat hard to see the relevance of the issue. The only significance flowing from the fact that an instrument is a statutory instrument would be that pursuant to Section 26 of the Statutory Instruments Act it would stand referred to the statutory instruments committee. I am advised that the practice at the moment is that none of the instruments currently made by order in council pursuant to the Satisfied Securities Act is being referred to that committee. These documents are not required to be published in the Canada Gazette; therefore the position has been taken that they should
80016-55%

June 2, 1977
Financial Administration Act
not be referred. Since it is clear they would only relate to a particular individual and a particular transaction and be of no continuing interest or public concern, there would be no reason to publish and refer to the committee of parliament. Indeed, these relate to routine legal transactions that are carried out innumerable times by the legal profession in Canada.
I have listened to the hon. member presenting his argument, and read on the record what the hon. member for Edmonton West said in support of it. He must have a mistaken impression of what is involved. It does not seem to me that instruments which, under provincial law, are discharges of chattel or real mortgages are the kinds of instruments which should be included under the Statutory Instruments Act. I cannot see the value of that suggestion. That is why my parliamentary secretary and I are not persuaded it is a good argument and suggest that this would not be a useful addition to the work of the statutory instruments committee. I would therefore oppose the amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived on division.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since this report stage amendment has been disposed of, perhaps my friends to the right would agree that we give third reading to the bill and get something out of the way today.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-8, to amend the Financial Administration Act and to repeal the Satisfied Securities Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION (SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES) ACT, 1976 MEASURE RESPECTING ORGANIZATION OF CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES OF GOVERNMENT
Mr. Faulkner (for the Prime Minister) moved: that Bill C-26, respecting the organization of certain scientific activities of the Government of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Hugh Faulkner: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this bill for third reading. It was introduced last December, it has been reviewed in detail in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and it has been the subject of discussion with the university community. I might say that I appreciate very much the co-operation I have had from both sides of the House in proceeding with the bill. I would just like to make some comments on this final stage of the bill.
The main impact of this bill will be on the university community. I believe the reorganization of the granting councils will open the way to a new relationship between the government and universities in research matters. Perhaps I might speak about that for a moment.
The growth of university research over the last 15 years or so has been considerable. In 1961-62 the granting councils provided $26.5 million to the universities; in 1977-78 the estimates for the councils call for $172 million to be spent on research grants.
In the rapid development of the universities in the 1960's, there was strong competition among the universities to gain recognition and status in research. Universities vied with one another in trying to build up schools of graduate studies very
June 2, 1977

quickly. I think it is fair to say that most of them had had little experience in guiding efforts in research, and few had a conscious policy which gave direction to these efforts. The emphasis was on attracting individual researchers of great ability who were then supported in research of their own choosing. Our universities, and Canada as a whole, benefited by bringing into their ranks scientists and scholars of outstanding calibre.
On the other hand, a price was paid. In nearly every university there are some well developed programs of research in certain departments, but generally there is a wide dispersion of research competence spread thinly over most disciplines. One would have to say this has been a consequence of the laissez faire attitude of both the universities and the granting councils to research growth. We cannot be too surprised at this. Priorities for research have not been clearly enunciated by government or the universities, and the councils, reflecting the prevailing view, have judged research or scholarly projects almost entirely on the competence of the applicant and on the scientific feasibility of the project. There has been little, if any, co-ordination of university research objectives regionally or nationally.
Since becoming minister of science last September I have visited many universities and talked to many university scientists and scholars in an attempt to understand what the role of university research should be. Is the main purpose of this role to push back the frontiers of knowledge? Is it to train graduate students to be competent researchers? Should it be helping to solve problems posed to it by governments or industry? These are difficult questions because universities are complex institutions serving many goals and constituencies of our society, but I believe the answer is all three. My perception is, however, that there has been an imbalance in favour of the first two and at the expense of the third. I have reached the conclusion that the universities must begin moving more of their research and inquiry into the mainstream of effort aimed at understanding and solving our pressing national problems.
I am not saying by this that research which is stimulated solely by the imagination of the researcher and whose objective is discovery, nothing more, should not be supported or should
Scientific Activities of Government be downgraded in any way. Curiosity-oriented research-or discovery oriented, as John Polanyi has said-must continue to receive solid support. Although the last few years have been tough, I believe that an even more selective process is needed, however, which will allow those relatively few individuals whose research is of recognized quality, at least nationally and possibly internationally, and who have shown a rare blend of knowledge, imagination and passionate interest in discovery, to be supported well, perhaps better than they have been in the past.
There are, on the other hand, many individual researchers and groups of researchers whose talents and dedication might equally be challenged by identifiable issues of priority concern to governments and the public at large. It has become apparent to me in my visits that the nature of the research enterprise in universities has been changing. The existence of cross-disciplinary groups-in environmental and policy institutes, for example-and the collaboration that has been taking place on large projects is shifting the attitudes of university researchers. Whether recognized or not, the laissez faire attitude to the support of university research has a much narrower validity than it once had.
What this means is that the time has come for a more activist approach by the granting councils to the determination of research priorities and to the creation of new policies and programs which will give university research an even greater opportunity to respond to national needs. Bill C-26 is important because it creates a new and dynamic framework in which this vital, evolutionary change in the direction of councils can take place.
I disagree wholeheartedly with an hon. member opposite who, quoting a university person, said in the committee "This bill represents an idea whose time has come and gone". I believe its time is very much now. Mr. Speaker, I see that you are agitated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The time is now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being 10.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Friday, June 3, 1977