1978-12-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the current debate over the use of motions under Standing Order 43, and the limitations extending to these motions which occasionally prevent matters of urgent national importance being brought to the attention of this House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That this House direct the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to immediately review the provisions of Standing Order 43 which now apparently prevents a motion being brought to the attention of this House congratulating the Canadian downhill ski team on their outstanding performance in the opening race of the World Cup, and exhorting them to greater success for the glory of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MEASURES TO INCREASE EXPORTS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
As it is essential that this country overcomes the $12.5 billion a year trade deficit which we have in fully manufactured goods, and as this can only be done if we greatly increase our sales effort abroad and let far more people in the world market know what this country has to offer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott):
That this government allow producers to write off 200 per cent of all expenses connected with making sales trips abroad, displaying their products at foreign trade fairs, and any other expenses incurred in sales promotion in the export market in excess of those made in the base year, the year before the plan goes into operation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, considering that Statistics Canada has confirmed that the real level of unemployment is much higher than the monthly labour force figures indicate, and considering that government job-creating funds are based on labour force figures, which means that certain regions, in particular Atlantic Canada and Quebec, get much less money than they deserve, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instructs the government to have included in the monthly labour force survey, the "discouraged workers" category so that job-creating funds will in fact go to those regions which have greater need.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the building industry has slowed down in recent months because interest rates are too high, since storm doors and storm windows are important items of construction costs and that a 5 per cent tax has been announced in the budget speech on November 16, 1978, I
1972

December 11, 1978
move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That to stimulate the construction sector which is labour-intensive, the 5 per cent tax be again removed to give a new impetus to that economic sector.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under, the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the importance of adding to the export value of Canada's resources and of the absolute necessity to protect export markets which have recently been developed to take Canadian manufactured products, in view of the fact that Canadian malt requires special handling through to the loading of containers at the port of export and that malt shipped in boxcars is damaged when handled through to container loading operation at such ports, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the Minister of Transport order the railroads to provide hopper cars for the movement of all malt moving to export markets.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of urgency and it is a plea that the government give priority to an issue of importance.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House views with deep concern the fact that the Publishing Centre of the Department of Supply and Services plans, as of April 1, 1979, to reduce severely the number of Canadian libraries which receive government publications free of charge, it being of particular concern that the plan is to reduce the

number of full depository university libraries from 28 to three, and in view of the fact that the government itself contends that there should be public access to government documents, this House calls upon the Minister of Supply and Services to reverse this decision and to continue supplying government publications to Canadian libraries on the basis now in effect.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43-a matter connected with the news that a number of people who were employed in a Second World War Defence Research Board plant which processed asbestos-filled gas masks have begun having problems associated with exposure to asbestos. An unusually large proportion of these people have died of lung diseases associated with asbestos exposure, and the others are undoubtedly at risk.
In the light of this situation and the government's liability in these cases, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae):
That the government at once set up procedures to identify all the employees of wartime defence plants who may be similarly at risk from asbestos exposure, arrange to have them monitored for the appearance of related problems, and compensate them adequately for the suffering involved. This compensation should, of course, include the widows and families of those who have already died from such problems.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of the same Standing Order.
In view of the announcement that substantial lay-offs will occur at Nabob Foods Ltd. in British Columbia, a firm recently taken over by Jacobs Ltd. of Switzerland with the
December 11, 1978

approval of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, 1 would move:
That an immediate investigation be undertaken by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and FIR A to determine whether commitments have been broken by that company with regard to that takeover and whether court proceedings should now be initiated by virtue of the legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the proposed motion. Is there unanimous consent that it should be presented?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Statistics Canada has now confirmed what we have been trying to tell the hon. gentleman for some considerable time, namely, that the hidden jobless rate in this country is much greater than we have been led to believe and substantially more than the figures released every month by Statistics Canada.
Will the minister, as a matter of course, when he releases or responds to the monthly labour force surveys by Statistics Canada, indicate the extent of this hidden unemployment; or, at the very least, since this data is to be computed on a regular basis, will he make known to us the number of people registered at Manpower offices across the country, a figure which is always substantially more than that given in the official labour force survey, so that we may have a true picture of exactly how serious the situation is?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada did conduct, in March of this year, an experimental project to determine whether this method of survey could be used. The result was that they felt it was experimental, it was not very solidly based, and they have informed me that the most solid and objective measure of unemployment is the number of those who are without work and who are actively looking for work. Countries which use the household survey method accept that this is, in fact, the best and most honest basis of determining the measure of unemployment.
The provisos expressed by Statistics Canada with regard to the difficulty of obtaining unambiguous and meaningful estimates of the number of people who want work and who are not actively seeking employment are likely to be ignored. They pointed this out in their report, to be fair to StatsCan, and in
Oral Questions
no way suggested that this number should be made available in addition to the others. We have indicated, in our labour force survey figures, the kind of information the hon. member is looking for. 1 believe the figure in November was something like 63,000.


James Aloysius McGrath: 1 asked this question with respect to the March survey in a question I placed on the order paper last June. It is rather interesting that the question was replied to in the House on October 10. At that time I was told that the result of the survey would be released and that they would give consideration to having this additional data on a regular basis. The minister tends to discredit this new data, so I ask whether he feels the same way about his own Manpower offices across the country, because according to the data in March when StatsCan was reporting 1,045,000 Canadians out of work, his offices across the country indicated there were 1,389,000 Canadians registered as looking for jobs.
I ask the minister, so that we can get a reasonable assessment of the situation, whether he could release monthly the number of registered Canadians with the labour force survey at Manpower offices so that we can get the true picture. If not, is he going to discredit his own Manpower figures; or what is the situation?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of discrediting Manpower figures. Many people who are registered at Manpower offices are already at work. Some of those who have registered at Manpower offices have already found work. So if we were trying to misinform the Canadian public, that would be one of the ways to go about it.
StatsCan has the officials, the experts and the professionals to do all of the labour force surveys. They are very good at their jobs. They have indicated that they are trying an experimental approach in March which, as they have said, is fraught with difficulties, fraught with errors, and it would be inappropriate to add those figures to the level of unemployed. We have indicated that to the best of our knowledge, given the information we get from StatsCan, the figure of-"discouraged workers", at the highest, is something like 63,000-and that information is made public.


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps I can approach it this way. I checked with my own province where we have, I suppose, more discouraged job seekers than anywhere else in Canada because of the chronic, long-term nature of unemployment. 1 find that in Newfoundland, for the month of November, while StatsCan was reporting 31,000 officially unemployed, there were 62,000 registered at Manpower offices as looking for jobs. I submit to the minister that those 62,000 people were without jobs: certainly, they would not be registered and looking for jobs in a province where the official rate of unemployment is considerably higher than other provinces.
Let me frame my question by asking the minister the following: in view of the fact that Manpower training and job-creation programs are based on official labour force sur-
80067-5.)'A

December 11, 1978
Oral Questions
veys from StatsCan, and in view of the fact that StatsCan, by their own admission, now admit to the inadequacy of labour force surveys based on the hidden jobless-the people who, out of sheer frustration, have given up looking for a job-will the minister now reassess the data that he uses to measure the extent of Manpower training programs and make-work programs?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, in his preamble, the hon. member has gone into four or five different areas. I have indicated to him that mere registration at a Manpower office does not indicate that an individual is unemployed. Many are looking for better employment, some are looking for jobs that would be easier for them physically, and others feel they are underemployed and would like to know, when jobs come up, that they will be called. So it would be misleading and inappropriate to use the numbers registered at Manpower offices.
I give full marks to StatsCan for trying constantly, through one method or another, to give us accurate statistics. They have indicated to us, and I quote them, that "the most solid and objective measure of the numbers of unemployed is indicated by those without work and who are actively looking for work." Given those particular statistics, they have a relative basis right across the country, so that no one is left out. As a matter of fact, the hon. member should know that his own province, in Canada works projects, ranks fourth in the gross amount of money that is received. If the hon. member is suggesting that is inappropriate, that cannot be helped by me.


MANPOWER
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration: it relates to a report on the training of skilled, blue collar workers prepared for the Department of Employment and Immigration by Robertson, Nickerson Group Associates Limited.
Will the minister tell the House whether he agrees with the report's conclusions that the federal government has failed to supply leadership, that government training programs "need a massive overhaul", and that "the opportunity for high level young Canadians to get into a skilled trade is so non-existent that this situation can be described as disgraceful"? If the minister does agree with this assessment, can he tell the House what action he proposes to take, as minister, to rectify the situation?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I always feel that individuals who are writing reports and come to a particular conclusion use words that are bound to catch the eye and are bound to be printed. The fact is that we have tripled the amount of money we are making available under the apprenticeship program, just as one indicator.
[Mr. McGrath.)
We have just completed ten agreements, one with each of the provinces, under the Adult Occupational Training Act. The hon. member spoke about federal government programs. With respect, I should like to indicate that education is a field solely within the jurisdiction of the provinces. In fact we are buying places in the provinces for the kind of training they want. I have indicated in the House and in other places that, frankly, I am dissatisfied with the fact, having done a study in southwestern Ontario primarily, that 75 per cent of the high skilled jobs were filled by immigration rather than on the job training. I am trying to encourage industry, through the shifting of funding to industry, to play a larger role in on the job training and to make more funds available to provide that opportunity for the young people in the country. I think it is a better approach than relying on immigration to fill these jobs.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the report is eye-catching in its conclusions. It points out the reason such a high percentage of skilled blue collar workers have come to Canada is that it was promoted by the federal government and not by industry because of the lack of skilled labour available for blue collar industrial trades. The report points out that of the 9,300 skilled workers in the study group, only 27 per cent were born in Canada. Does the minister agree with the report's conclusion? It reads in part:
-there is a shortage of upper skilled workers now and it will get more serious as the economy picks up. It does not understate the situation to say that industrial growth in Canada will be inhibited by a lack of skilled workers.
If he agrees with that, can the minister tell the House what specific action he is proposing to take, as the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration, to deal with this situation?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that substantial additional funding has been made available under apprenticeship programs. Also, I indicated the agreement we have entered into with each of the provinces to see if we can upgrade skills. I have made public the fact that 75 per cent of the highly skilled jobs being filled by immigrants in the manufacturing industry in southwestern Ontario is obviously inappropriate. Because of that, we are weighting our funding and our money into industrial on the job training programs. 1 think that is an appropriate approach.
However, companies have told us that they spend thousands of dollars in training individuals, only to find that when the training is completed they shop around. They would much prefer to do their recruiting from abroad. We have indicated that we will discourage this. If there are Canadians available-and there are jobs available now and there will be in the future-there will be first-class jobs in the particular skills which will be needed by Canada and I should like to see Canadians fill those posts rather than its being done by immigration. I have brought that point home very clearly to my provincial colleagues-all of whom share my concern, I might say.
December 11, 1978


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister. Statistics Canada have indicated that the real level of unemployment is approximately 225,000 persons higher than the government acknowledges, principally because of the inclusion of the category of "discouraged workers". This has a regional impact of profound proportions, because workers in Atlantic Canada and Quebec are more likely to be discouraged with the higher level of seasonal employment there.
Will the minister explain why he said just a moment ago that the current method of measuring unemployment by the labour force survey which excludes these workers is a more accurate indication of the level of unemployment in Canada? Can he explain why he made that assertion?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated, the interpretation, or the misinterpretation of these figures is being done also by the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party. Statistics Canada indicated that the tests were very imperfect and that there was a subjective test made by an individual. Often it is a matter of the question, "Do you want work?" If one goes into a pool room where there are eight guys standing around who are not working, and asks if they want work, they say yes, they want work. Do they want work, or do they want jobs? Statistics Canada indicated that there is a weakness in this basic method of interpreting.
We have indicated the number of discouraged workers according to the labour force survey statistics. These figures have been made available on a monthly basis. We have had the hon. member misinform and "broad-bent" the statistics long enough. I think he is once again doing a disservice in this respect.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that is complete and utter rubbish. The minister knows that Statistics Canada has made a complete mockery of what he has been telling the people of Canada for the past year. Statistics Canada has just confirmed what I have been saying for a year and a half, that the real level of unemployment is much higher, and now the minister is trying to say Statistics Canada is backing down on its own report. That is absurd.
Considering that Statistics Canada, in the long report I have here-I hope the minister has read it-points out that the figures are, in fact, higher because of seasonal employment patterns in Atlantic Canada and in Quebec, will the minister not agree that Statistics Canada is right, acknowledge he has been wrong, and do something to remedy the situation?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, just because the hon. member says that something is rubbish, and then proceeds to lambaste or bombast his question, does not make it so. The fact of the
Oral Questions
matter, for the hon. member's attention, is that the provisos expressed by Statistics Canada on the difficulties of obtaining unambiguous and meaningful estimates of the number of people who want work, but are not actively seeking employment, are likely to be ignored. That is exactly what the hon. Leader of the NDP is doing; he is ignoring the provisos that StatsCan itself put in.
I am not knocking StatsCanada. I think they are being very honest in what they are putting across here, a little more honest in their approach than the Leader of the New Democratic Party in interpreting that an additional 250,000 people are unemployed. That is not, in fact, what StatsCanada is saying.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that StatsCanada, which is responsible, unlike the minister, has indeed pointed out that there are certain problems with the methodology but has underlined the fact that unemployment is much higher than the regular labour force survey indicates, and considering that countries such as Great Britain, Sweden and a number of others in western Europe include the "discouraged workers" category in their official statistics, and considering that government grants in Canada for job creation measures are largely based on real levels, or ought to be, rather than based on labour force surveys of unemployment, which means that the poorer regions are getting less than they should, will the minister change the methodology to include the "discouraged workers" category so that particularly those parts of Canada which need more assistance, to which they are legitimately entitled, will get more?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member always remembers things that are included in the statistics of Sweden and Great Britain, and tends to ignore some of the things which are not included in England in their statistics on unemployment, statistics which are remarkably different from those used in Canada. On that basis, he is comparing apples to oranges when he suggests that "this" should be included and "that" should not. The hon. member shakes his head, but once again he is misleading.

tTranslation]


FINANCE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. He seems to be quite relaxed and I think he will give me an answer. At page 12 of his speech of November 16, we see that the 5 per cent tax on storm doors and windows has been abolished. Could he tell us what he means by storm doors and windows? I am asking that-and I am sure the minister will understand-because I have here a special bulletin which was sent by a manufacturer of doors and windows to his customers in which he tells them that he will have to charge 5 per cent more, effective November 17, to

December 11, 1978
Oral Questions
cover the federal tax because the exemption has now been abolished. Can the minister tell us how manufacturers must operate? Is this tax charged on the whole system of double doors or double windows or only on storm doors and storm windows?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we will consider these proposals in detail in a few weeks when the bill is introduced in the House. If the hon. member wants to submit a particular problem to me, I will be glad to consider it, to ask the officials of Revenue Canada who are responsible for the interpretation of the act to examine it and I will give him a direct and clear answer.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the minister having made this speech, 1 assumed that he was aware of the details. I have received a few notices from manufacturers and I suggest this is an important matter. What is more, I suggest that this is an urgent matter, for these people must be able to tell their customers on what parts of the storm doors, windows and storm windows the tax must apply, because this decision after all will have a very strong impact on the building sector, on various retailers and suppliers who wonder how they must proceed. That is the reason I am asking this question and I think the minister is now in a position to reply.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, a great many items are covered by these exemptions. For instance, while all building materials are covered by this special tax exemption to encourage insulation and energy conservation, other materials are not. A great many items are covered, and we must now clearly specify those which are covered and those which are not. However, question period and the House are not the proper time and place to do that. If the hon. member would kindly avail himself of the services of one of our many pages and send me the letter he has with him, I should be delighted to have it reviewed and reply to him as soon as possible.


ROYAL VISITS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council: it has to do with invitations extended to members to the Royal Family to visit Canada which require the acceptance and approval of the cabinet.
In the last few days, since the Prime Minister left for warmer climes, has the cabinet decided on the request of the government of Ontario to have the Queen Mother attend the Queen's Plate and Dominion Day celebrations?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate receiving the right hon. gentleman's question today because it gives me an opportunity to correct a report which was issued on the weekend, that in some way the government was preventing the Queen Mother from visiting Ontario.
As the right hon. gentleman knows, a number of invitations come in for members of the Royal Family to visit Canada and these have to be considered in respect of the over-all availability of the personage invited. In this particular case, the Queen Mother is being invited to attend the Queen's Plate and possibly some other events in Ontario.
I am sure the right hon. gentleman will recall that last year the same invitation was transmitted, on behalf of the Government of Canada, to the Queen Mother and that, unfortunately, she was unable to come to Canada at the time. At the same time, 1 would like to advise the House that Nova Scotia also has a request in for the Queen Mother to visit that province in association with the international gathering of the clans.
These invitations have been under consideration, and were probably discussed with the Queen Mother by the Prime Minister on the occasion of his visit to London last week. Upon the Prime Minister's return, it should be possible to have answers as to what the program will be.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer which has been given by the Deputy Prime Minister surely indicates that the press has power. Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House why, in view of the fact a letter was written to His Excellency the Governor General last July, it was necessary for Premier Davis to write a further letter in October because the Ontario government had not received a reply to its original letter, and why he received a reply in the form of a standard Xerox letter stating that the matter would be placed before the Prime Minister?
How many months does it take this government to make a decision? Surely it cannot be because of a shortage of civil servants. Is this just an alibi, or is it not? How many months does it take to get an answer respecting a matter that a government should be entitled to immediately?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to go over the correspondence which may have been exchanged between-


John George Diefenbaker: There was not any.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the government of Ontario and the Government of Canada. I do know that the Government of Canada would be very eager to have the Queen Mother attend the events in Ontario and Nova Scotia, and that that invitation has probably been conveyed by the Prime Minister to the Queen Mother. I hope that it will be possible for her to attend these events.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether that inexcusable, one-year

*%%
December 11, 1978

delay is the result of indifference, or arrogance toward the monarchy, or not?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: These little fellows over there are nonentities unless they interrupt in this way.
Why, for one year, was there no answer to the inquiries by the Ontario government until Nova Scotia indicated an interest, which 1 approve of entirely?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not, personally, believe that the lapse of time in dealing with this matter was that great.


John George Diefenbaker: It was. Every word is correct.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The request from Ontario, like other requests from groups in Canada, must be placed in the over-all context of the availability of the person invited to Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Why was there no reply?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the right hon. gentleman knows, at one time royal visits to Canada were rare and rather historic events. It ought to be placed on the record that since the present Prime Minister took office, the number of royal visits has increased very significantly, indicating the warm attitude which the Prime Minister and his government show toward the monarchy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FINANCE
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware of the widespread concern among bona fide, small employers in the service sector that they may no longer qualify for the small business tax deduction upon the enactment of the proposed revisions to the Income Tax Act?
Can the Minister of Finance clarify, for the peace of mind of these small employers, such as real estate agencies and insurance agencies, whether or not they will continue to be eligible for the small business tax deduction?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it is very important that these small businesses which have employees be able to qualify for the small business tax deductions and I hope to table legislation in the House of Commons in that regard very soon. What we are trying to do is make sure that people who derive their income from one employer do not incorporate themselves to qualify for this low
Oral Questions
tax rate. We have to clarify some sections in this regard, but of course, any bona fide small business with employees would certainly qualify.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I gave him notice of it.

Mr. Speaker, my question follows exchanges in the House last week when the minister described cases of faulty inspections and bad planning by CMHC as isolated incidents. Is the minister aware of a corporation-funded condominium development in my riding, at 100 Quigley Road, which is literally sliding into the Red Hill ravine, costing the unit owners $30,000 to shore up immediately?
Can the minister confirm that CMHC refuses any liability and will not assist in financing repairs to this dangerous erosion because it might, as one of his officials told me, open up the floodgates in terms of a precedent for similar projects across the country?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my answer is yes to both parts of the question of the hon. member.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister, on behalf of these financially hard pressed home owners-who were, after all, not responsible for this Quigley Road mess in the first place-who is responsible to ensure quality of workmanship and materials: is it CMHC, or the local contractors, and why can neither be held responsible for obvious planning problems?


André Ouellet: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a legal opinion in the House but 1 believe recommendations have already been made by some local authorities to the persons concerned in Hamilton. Clearly, they should consult a lawyer to find out what their rights really are. It seems obvious to me that there is a prima facie case against the building contractor and also, after having consulted their lawyer, that they should perhaps determine whether they should not also sue the city.

December 11, 1978

Oral Questions


SOCIAL INSURANCE
Mr. Jack Hare (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue, but in his absence and in the absence of his parliamentary secretary I will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister.
If a person has fears, when using his social insurance number to cash bonds, that such number might be used for other purposes, could the person invent a nine-digit social insurance number or ask the bank to supply one for him?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take that question as notice.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the remarks made by the Deputy Minister of Transport.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the Auditor General is a servant of parliament and not of the government, and that the House has established a public accounts committee to receive the Auditor General's reports, to receive the government's reactions thereto and the government's criticisms, if any, is it the position of the President of the Treasury Board-and would he take this position by way of direction, if necessary-that all criticisms by senior officials or, indeed, by ministers, of the Auditor General should be directed through the Standing Committee on Public Accounts; and would he, further, confirm that the recommendations of the Auditor General sanctioned by the committee are to be obeyed even if the public service finds it inconvenient?


Jack Hare: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of a letter from the former revenue minister to a constituent of mine, indicating there should be no fear in the use of the SI number in the cashing of bond interest coupons. The hon. senator stated that the number could only be used for internal use and it would not in any way threaten the civil liberties and privacy of Canadian citizens. He further stated, and I quote-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a supplementary question? If so, he should put the question.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us, as parliamentarians, expect the Auditor General to discharge his obligations to this House and carry out the terms of the legislation governing his activities.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Jack Hare: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This letter states the number can be invented. Is the idea of inventing a social insurance number one of government policy, and is it now in operation? If so, the ramifications are horrendous.


An hon. Member:: Come on, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What is the question?


An hon. Member:: Can the number be invented?


TRANSPORT
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It arises out of a report in the Ottawa Citizen of Friday that the Deputy Minister of Transport, a senior civil servant, had attacked the methods and procedures used by the Auditor General in fulfilling the mandate given him by this House.
Was the President of the Treasury Board aware of the remarks the Deputy Minister of Transport made, and does he support the view of this senior official of government that complying with the Auditor General's recommendations could cause more harm than good?


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare: it concerns Bill C-10, the bill which gives $200 per child for those Canadians earning less than $18,000 per annum.
I would like to know which provinces have made commitments with respect to their welfare legislation which would allow welfare recipients in those provinces to receive the $200 tax credit without suffering a reduction in welfare benefits as a result of receiving this additional income; and, in particular, what is the situation with respect to the province of Alberta?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, some provinces have made a commitment to pass on fully the additional benefits for individual Canadians regarding the GIS. Unfortunately, with respect to the child tax credit, no province has made that commitment yet, although six have recommended it to their cabinets: these are Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. I understand that Quebec has Bill 118 before its National Assembly right now, but I was not informed, nor did I get a copy of it. As for the province of Alberta, I received a letter last week saying that they do not know how they will deal with it yet. Personally, I think it is about time they did notwithstanding my numerous letters, telexes and federal-provincial meetings. I hope all members of parliament will join me by doing the same, making sure that individual benefits to Canadians go to them and are not to be considered additional transfer payments to provinces.

December 11, 1978


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to assure the minister that we on this side in our party share her concern that welfare recipients should have the benefit directly, and that they should not suffer as a result of provinces failing to pass on benefits. My question relates to provinces like Alberta which have not as yet said whether they will agree to this commitment. A letter from the province of Alberta, dated November 17, 1978, to the executive director of the National Anti-Poverty Organization indicated that even at that time they had not yet made up their mind whether they were going to change their legislation to have the desired effect. Can the minister tell the House whether she is prepared to give a regular report to this House indicating which provinces are giving effect to the legislation and which provinces are not?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent, but an uncomfortable, suggestion which I accept. I will make a regular report for the House.


ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION
Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs, on behalf of the Legion and the many veterans in my riding, whether he and his department intend to go forward with the district office establishment that he announced many months ago and, if so, what will be their relationship with the Legion?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I gather the hon. member is referring to the office in Brampton. Those plans are going forward and I hope to have a director in place by May. From then on, once the office is in operation, there will be considerable publicity in the local media and also by the veterans' organizations.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). Could the minister tell the House whether any of the equipment which was to be used by Loto Select, the computerized lottery game, was purchased, or was the equipment simply leased from General Instrument? If leased, does Loto Canada have the right to sublease this equipment or to assign it?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the contract was one of lease. I am afraid I cannot answer at this time the other question put by the hon. gentleman because I have been asked specifically by the solicitors not to do so.
Oral Questions


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. The minister has made it clear that she cannot table at this time the agreement between Loto Canada and General Instrument. I understand that. She has tabled the agreement between the provinces and Loto Canada. However, there is a third agreement which I think we have been mixed up about in the past.
Would the minister be willing to table the telexes which, I believe, formed the agreement between the federal government, the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec as to the amount of money which Ontario and Quebec might be willing to contribute at this time to the federal government for Loto Canada?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, this was the subject of a question of privilege by the hon. member some weeks ago. There is not a third agreement, as he states. There is a legal accommodation between the corporation and the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. If I were to table these in the House at this time, I would prejudice the resolution of the contract. Therefore, I will not be able to do so at this time.


SOCIAL INSURANCE
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that posed by my colleague from St. Boniface. 1 think it goes most properly to the Minister of Finance, as it relates to the Bank of Canada.
Can the minister tell the House whether his then colleague, the then minister of national revenue, was speaking for the government when he said it was the policy of the Bank of Canada that Canadians who did not want to be identified by a social insurance number could invent their own number?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that letter. I am very surprised at what the hon. member said and I would like to analyse the problem. Of course, when you have a social insurance number you cannot invent another number. That is my judgment. However, I would like to look into it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to make available a copy of the letter from the then minister of national revenue, his then colleague, dated November 22, 1977, in which he stated that was the case. I would like an undertaking from the Minister of Finance that he will inquire of the Bank of Canada whether they are, in fact, pursuing his highly inventive policy, and report back to the House on that matter as quickly as possible.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not think that is a question, Mr. Speaker: everyone knows I am a very diligent minister.

December 11, 1978
Oral Questions FORESTRY


PRIVATIZATION OF FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATORIES
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of State (Environment). In light of the uncertainty he has created with regard to the future of the forestry service as a result of recent policy changes, changes which are resulting in a mass exodus of scientists and diligent public servants to other industries and other parts of the world, has the minister received iron-clad assurances from the private sector that his privatization scheme is, in fact, working? If not, is he prepared to defer previous decisions to close down the forests products labs and some of the research stations for the reason of lack of money?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, I will be making an appropriate announcement very soon. I want to assure the hon. member that our plans for privatization are going fairly well. I also want to tell him that he should be more careful in his choice of words, because not one of the research labs is being closed down. We have six research labs across the country. In terms of the privatization of those two forest products labs, the hon. member should not use the words "closing down". As a result of the planning now going on, and looking at privatization, we hope that once we have completed all the negotiations, those two labs will remain intact and, indeed, their position will be enhanced as a result of working with provincial governments, the private sector and the universities. Their service to the forest industry will, therefore, be enhanced.


Frank Oberle: I am encouraged by the minister's remarks. I interpret him to mean that the research labs will not be closed down even if his privatization plan does not proceed. I interpret his remarks to mean that his decision to phase out-the federal government's decision-by April 1 is being deferred. Can the minister communicate that comfort to the people who are leaving the department as a result of his decision? Can he, also, make reference to the institutions that are being closed in Ottawa, the Forest Management Institute and the Forest Fire Institute?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is no change in moving the Forest Management Research Institute to Petawawa: That is going ahead. The Forest Fire Research Institute's move to Petawawa is going ahead.
I have said on previous occasions in this House that we feel, as a result of the amalgamation of the Forest Fire Research Institute and the Forest Management Research Institute in Petawawa, that that facility will become one of the foremost research institutions for forestry in the country. I should also tell the hon. member that we think very highly of the Canadian Forestry Service. It has done an excellent job. I ask the hon. member to just wait for a little while until he hears the announcements we will be making.


DAIRYING
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
As the Federation of Dairy Producers of Canada expressed considerable concern last November, I believe, about the fact that the minister has not implemented his promise with regard to indexing-the consequences of which he is fully aware and should not be ignored-can he tell us today when he will act upon that promise that is of interest to the dairy producers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be aware of the fact that under this Minister of Agriculture and this government, the dairy farmers of Canada have been treated the fairest they have ever been in the history of dairy production in Canada. That fairness will continue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
I think that all hon. members particularly those from Quebec, are aware of the matter I raise. I know that several among them agree that the minister should fulfil a commitment. My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
In consideration of the increase at the production cost level, which was proved last June 30, the minister promised to apply an increase of some 52 per cent. Milk producers are wondering whether next January 1 the minister will fulfil his commitment. Then, again I ask the question of the Minister of Agriculture, in all respect, on behalf of those milk producers.
Does the minister intend to agree to fulfil a commitment he took himself and signed with milk producers already ten months ago?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I thought I intimated to my good friend, who has voiced the opinion of dairy farmers with regard to their feelings toward the Minister of Agriculture, that we have acted with fairness and will continue to act with fairness.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Canadian ambassador, Gerard Pelletier, says that the embassy in Paris has received instructions to issue travel
.



December 11, 1978

documents to Jacques and Louise Cossette-Trudel if they wish to return to Canada. Will the minister advise this House and the country who gave those instructions and from what level of government they came?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think they reflected the words that I stated in the House the other day, when I said that if these people wish to return to Canada they would be facilitated in so doing in the manner that I outlined. 1 am not exactly certain who sent the specific instructions, but clearly it was done under my authority. I repeat, I think it was consistent with what I said in the House the other day.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs for clearing up the confusion that was left not only in the House but throughout the country by the Prime Minister's answer to myself and to others who asked him that question. Do I take it that His Excellency solicited the instructions, or that those instructions were given to him by the Department of External Affairs under the authority of the minister in question?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I was not anticipating, nor was I given, any advance notice of this question. I am always reluctant to state specifically what kinds of procedures were followed; that is why I emphasized that the procedures were consistent with what I said in the House, namely, that there would be no prohibition put in the way of their return.
I am not sure of the actual technique of information or how the information was transmitted. I will make some inquiries. I am not in any sense trying to avoid the responsibility. 1 suspect that it is mine in law. If it is that way, then it was on my instructions.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MR. McGRATH-ACTIONS OF minister of employment and IMMIGRATION-RULING OF MR. SPEAKER
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On Friday last the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) entered into discussion of a matter of privilege of which he had given the Chair notice. It related to a regulation made pursuant to sections 4 and 146 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and its relationship to clause 2 of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971 which is presently before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, or was, at least, at the time the matter was raised.
I listened with great care to the arguments made by the hon. member for St. John's East as he evidently had a serious grievance of substantial significance. I listened as well to the counter arguments put forward by the minister and to supporting arguments put forward on both sides. On Friday, as the
Privilege-Mr. McGrath
House knows, I listened at great length to all members who wanted to participate in the discussion, although 1 did indicate early on that I doubted there were many more significant areas which could be covered.
I was aware, though, that a great many members had different aspects of the question with which they wanted to deal. I refer particularly to the fact that this combination of circumstances, in which, as it was alleged, the bill which is on the order paper contains in one of its clauses what appears to be an intent identical in scope and authority with that of the regulation enacted pursuant to the existing legislation, recently publicized and, more recently, gazetted, has placed a number of people in a somewhat extraordinary situation, as the hon. member pointed out. First, it put a number of hon. members in an awkward situation before the committee and it placed the public in a similarly awkward position in several instances.
That is why I listened to all hon. members who wanted to participate, and with special care to those members who were serving actively on the standing committee. Each of them drew attention to some of the difficulties which had been caused. Since, as I say, I sensed that a substantial grievance may have occurred, I felt obliged to examine the record to determine whether there were procedural steps which could be taken with respect to the grievance, to the difficulty faced by the members and, in turn, by the public, by witnesses before the committee and, particularly, by delegations appearing before it.
Such delegations come to Ottawa with the intention of doing what all of us want us to encourage the public to do, that is, to participate as fully as possible in the democratic process by taking advantage of various stages of legislation or other occasions to come before standing committees of the House to make their views known. To such groups, to hon. members, to delegations, to other witnesses who came and to the general public, both the minister himself and his officials have, I understand, extended regrets and apologies because the combination of the paragraph in the bill and the regulation did place them in an awkward situation.
It is not for me to decide whether or not this apology, expressed both in the House and outside, is sufficient or whether these complications are more severe than that. I do note, however, that an apology was expressed and the minister was, I thought, generous and direct in admitting the difficulty in which he had placed these people. Some members expressed the view that in the circumstances the apology was not sufficient and that other remedies should be sought, one of them being the pursuit of a question of privilege.
Nevertheless, as 1 indicated earlier, it seems to me we are concerned here with matters of law. Did the regulation derive legal authority from the existing act? That is not a question for me to answer. All I know, examining the matter from the point of view of procedure, is that the clause in the bill and the regulation which was published are both in order in terms of the authority of the Chair with regard to procedure. I cannot go beyond this authority and I cannot make a judgment on the legality of the regulation.
80067- 54'/2

December 11, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. Brisco
Having carefully considered all of the arguments over the weekend, I hope hon. members will understand that while I appreciate the complications they face and the difficulties with regard to which they expressed themselves so completely on Friday, it goes beyond my authority to try to deal with the matter on procedural grounds. I hope the contributions made by the minister both before the committee and in the House will serve as a complete answer to those people who were inconvenienced in that way, but procedurally I have no authority to go further in this matter.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, the House went into session on October 11. Today is December 11. In other words, two months have gone by. It is true I have been absent from the House for a while, but during that period I have been recognized on one occasion, as Your Honour will find if you consult the index.
Sir, 1 have stood today. I stood four times last week, four times the week before and twice the week before that. Without objecting to my hon. friends being recognized, I notice that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae), a new member whom 1 am proud and pleased to see recognized, has been recognized several times; twice a Liberal back bencher from Peel-Duffer-in-Simcoe has been recognized-


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Well, the hon. member may think it damned funny but I am concerned. I am not referring to you, Mr. Speaker, but to the characters on the other side. Besides, the exercises 1 have been going through are now producing muscular tetany. I shall have to start taking a calcium supplement.
I can anticipate the kind of response I am going to get from you, Mr. Speaker; I have heard you give that same response to my hon. friend from Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) and it is a very reasoned answer. But I would point out to you, sir, that there are occasions when a backbencher has things to bring to the attention of ministers which may not put him on the so-called priority list. I am finding that my patience is exhausted and I wonder whether there is any point in my continuing to go through this exercise of trying to catch your eye.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will try to extend as much patience as I can in dealing with the hon. member's problem, but I can tell him that if he wants to change places with me he is certainly welcome to try. He might want to take into account that I try very carefully to keep track of those who are unsuccessful in being recognized. During the last minutes of the question period today, for example, as I am sure he will be interested to note, his hon. friend from Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and his hon. friend from Prince George-Peace River (Mr. 
Oberle) were both attempting to be recognized, as they were on Thursday and Friday, and therefore had a slight edge over him since he was not seeking to be recognized on Friday.
It is as simple as that and it is an indication of how thoroughly I try to keep track of the days upon which members have attempted to be recognized. There are only so many minutes in a question period and each of the hon. member's colleagues to whom I have referred had simply been trying more recently than he had, although I recognize that he tried several times last week. However, with only a few minutes left I had to make a choice and that is the choice I made. I can only console him by telling him that the choice was among two of his colleagues, the hon. member for Joliette and the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River, and himself, since all three of them on that side of the House had been attempting to gain my recognition most frequently last week.
With respect to the hon. member's comments concerning the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae) and members from the government side of the House, I think he is straining the point a little. Surely the hon. member must recognize that they belong to different political parties, and if he has not observed by now that considerations with respect to each party have to be dealt with in a slightly different way, then a major difficulty which is faced in the question period has been lost upon him.
I am sorry, I have to correct myself. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) was attempting to be recognized on Friday. I regret that I overlooked that. That fact is in my notes, but in attempting to allot the last couple of minutes today I overlooked that. I owe the hon. member an apology. Had I not overlooked that, he might have taken precedence over two of his senior colleagues, the hon. member for Joliette and the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River. I therefore owe the hon. member for Kootenay West an apology.


THE OFFICIAL REPORT
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Friday as Your Honour was about to leave the Chair, with the Sergeant-at-Arms literally hovering over me with the mace in his hands and in the heat of the moment, 1 fired a rather cheap shot across the bow of my good friend, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Ouellet). It was offensive. I apologize for it, and I withdraw it unconditionally.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the good words he has just said in front of the House. 1 recognize that parliamentary life is a
December 11, 1978

difficult one, that in the heat of the debates discussions may become virulent; however, beyond the differences in political opinions, we achieve a mutual sense of respect through our working together in the House. Indeed, despite the differences that may exist on the political level, there is a sense of friendship and respect. That is why I appreciate so much the words of the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: I simply add that 1 would not want this to go by without the notice of the Chair. 1 hope that on occasions in the future, although 1 do not have the authority under our precedents to require the withdrawal of remarks which come close to being unparliamentary in nature but which may not be technically, I can refer back to this enlightened exchange as an example for other members in the circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. I am giving notice that I hope to move concurrence in the report, which deals with a regulation purporting to give the minister the power to enter on to private land adjacent to airports and to destroy natural growth.
[Editor's Note: For text of the above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS AND ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FINANCING ACT, 1977 MEASURE TO AMEND
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: for leave to introduce Bill C-26, to amend laws relating to fiscal transfers to the provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Order Paper Questions CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT

Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General for the Prime Minister) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-27, to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to amend the Post Office Act, to confirm certain orders and to make related amendments to other Acts.


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

Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-28, to amend the Northwest Territories Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 81, 83 and 265.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Text]
SALES OF PAPER TO ZAIRE Question No. 81 -Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
During the past five years, did Canada sell paper to Zaire and, if so (a) what types (b) in what amount in each case (c) at what cost (d) were the sales made through CIDA?


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: During the period 1973 to 1977 inclusive, the following Canadian sales of paper were made to Zaire:
1973	Nil
1974	(i) 694.6 metric tonnes of newspaper valued at


[Stage Direction]
(ii)	2,640.4 metric tonnes of writing and reproduction paper valued at $1,861,000
(iii)	40.6 metric tonnes of fine paper valued at $27,000
[Stage Direction]
December 11, 1978
Order Paper Questions
1975	Less than one metric tonne of converted paper valued at less than $1,000
1976	Nil
1977	2.9 metric tonnes ofunbleached sulphite or sulphate wrap valued at $2,000
In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned: Since 1970 CIDA has provided to Zaire subsidies in the form of 4,348 metric tonnes of paper for the printing of school textbooks and notebooks. This consists of 3,995 tons of offset paper for the publication of texts and manuals; 144 tons for the manufacture of texbook covers; 190 tons for school notebooks and 17 tons for miscellaneous uses. Total value of the Canadian subsidy for the purchase and transportation of paper is $2,858,175.27.
The disbursements were made as follows:
Fiscal year
1977-78
1975-76
1970-71-73-74
Disbursements
*53,809.08
229,737.01
0.00
46,434.38
1,584,338.05
943,856.75
*2,858,175.27
Mr. Brisco: What are the pay arrangements for employees at Yoho and other national parks with reference to calculation of meals, overtime and salary and are they calculated separately at Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa?


James Hugh Faulkner: All meal deductions are calculated at the Park and deducted from pay two weeks in arrears. Overtime for hourly paid employees is paid by time summary as received on a two week basis, along with regular pay. Overtime for salaried employees is submitted separately every two weeks and paid on a separate cheque.
All calculations for pay are performed on the computer in the Regional Services Office (D.S.S.), Edmonton. A post audit is carried out by the appropriate responsibility centre to ensure accuracy in payment. For retroactive pay, overtime hours are submitted separately from regular hours. This is to facilitate the pay process. All regions calculate pay arrangements for their employees with reference to meals, overtime and salary in the same manner as the above. No calculations are done in Ottawa.


Mr. Epp: From June 1, 1974 to date, what lawyers in the Constituency of Provencher were given work by the Department of National Health and Welfare and what amount was each paid per year?


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: In so far as the legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: None.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Orders:
November 24, 1978-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill S-4, an Act respecting Canadian non-profit corporations-The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask that we proceed with Bill S-5 first, since it was developed first. Bill S-4 proceeded from it. I have spoken to my hon. colleagues in the opposition. They seem willing to agree to proceeding with Bill S-5 first.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, a bill having been called, I do not know whether consent can be given; but if it can, we consent to changing the order.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) have the consent of the House to withdraw Bill S-4 from consideration?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
William Warren Allmand: that Bill S-5, to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce for second reading Bill S-5, which is legislation to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act. As hon. members know, it is by means of this law that we establish business corporations with limited liability and generally regulate several of their activities. Given that the effective life of the existing act is only three years, this appears at first glance to be an extremely complicated bill. That is, however, misleading. The bill is bulky because it proposes a completely new French version which is being introduced in accordance with an undertaking the government gave to the Quebec Bar in 1975. Most of the
December 11, 1978

other proposed amendments are mere technical changes designed to reconcile conflicts between sections or to fill logical gaps in the system.
On introducing the original bill for second reading in late 1974 the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs characterized the proposed law as comprehensive, clear, equitable, imaginative and, above all, practical. Moreover, during the passage of the bill through parliament departmental officials forecast that the proposed law would not result in any substantial number of new corporations at the federal level and that, in any event, because of the streamlined procedures set out in the bill, the new law could be administered without any substantial increase of resources. Three years of experience have clearly vindicated the minister's high expectations for the act.
The implementation of the new law has proceeded with few administrative complications, and the statute has been well received by the public, businessmen, and their professional advisers across Canada. Indeed, the law has been so well accepted that the forecasts of the officials did not prove to be quite accurate. The number of federal incorporations incorporated each year has increased from 1,800 in 1971 to 5,000 in 1976, the first year of operation of the CBCA, to nearly 8,000 in 1977, and to a projected 10,000 in 1978. In short, the annual federal incorporation activity has increased five-fold since the Canada Business Corporations Act became effective on December 15, 1975.
The officials' optimistic forecast of the administrative efficiencies that would be engendered by the new act proved, however, to be far more accurate. Partly because of the streamlined procedures made possible by the new act and regulations, and partly because of the computerized name search system developed in the department, the corporations branch has been able to handle approximately five times its previous workload with shorter delays and with no substantial increase in resources.
The wide acceptance of the act has not been limited to businessmen and their professional advisers. Provincial corporation law administrators also have been impressed both by its substantive provisions and its procedural mechanisms, and some have accordingly recommended corresponding changes to the provincial law to their respective ministers.
The provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have already enacted new business corporation laws based on the Canada Business Corporations Act, and at least three other provinces are currently reviewing their acts with a view to adopting many, if not most, of the provisions of the federal law.
It appears, therefore, that the Canada Business Corporations Act is achieving the objectives set for it in section 3, that is, to modernize the federal corporation law and to furnish a model statute that will lead to greater uniformity of corporation law across Canada. To this end, officials of the department did discuss the proposed amendments with several of their provincial counterparts as well as with experts in the
Canada Business Corporations Act private sector to ensure that this increasing tendency towards uniformity is not undermined.
The specific purposes of the proposed amendments are to fulfil two undertakings given by the government during the passage of the act through parliament.

The Department of Justice as well as the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have undertaken before the Quebec Bar to draft a new French version of the legislation which is not merely a translation of the English text but as much as possible a statement on the legislation in French using the language and ideas with which the members of the Quebec Bar are familiar. The Legislation section of the Department of Justice began in 1975 to redraft the French text of the legislation with the assistance of various legal experts and accountants to prepare the bill now under consideration. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank more particularly the members of the special committee of the Quebec Bar and the lawyers of the Legislation section of the Department of Justice who worked diligently in a rather short period to prepare that new French version.

The second undertaking was given by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to the House Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. That committee was concerned, because of the sweeping substantive changes being effected by the bill, that it might engender many problems for businessmen, lawyers and auditors. The committee, as a condition of approving the bill, therefore insisted that the department return to parliament within a reasonably short time to give the committee an opportunity to review any complaints that have arisen, to consider any proposed amendments to make the act work more equitably and more efficiently and, in particular, to review the broad regulation-making powers granted under section 187 in respect of stock exchange takeover bids.
Fortunately, only one major substantive problem has arisen since the act was implemented; that is, fundamental change, by way of arrangement.
The controversial policy issue, stock exchange takeover bids, has not yet been definitely resolved. Therefore, the government recommends that this issue continue to be dealt with by regulation to ensure maintenance of maximum uniformity among the provisions of the federal corporation law, the provincial securities laws and the stock exchange bylaws that relate to takeover bids through the facilities of a stock exchange or the over the counter market.
Knowing that each substantive provision of the bill will be scrutinized carefully in committee, 1 shall avoid discussing here the relatively minor changes, which may be characterized more as fine tuning than any fundamental change of policy.
The one major substantive change is the introduction in part XIV of the "arrangement" concept. The minister of the day and his officials had consciously omitted this particular tech-

December 11, 1978
Canada Business Corporations Act
nique of fundamental change for two reasons. First, they reasoned that the arrangement institution was superfluous in the act because a corporation could effect any fundamental change by exploiting any one or any combination of the specific fundamental change sections-amendment, amalgamation, continuance, dissolution-set out in the act. Second, they were concerned that the arrangement technique might be exploited to evade the shareholders' right to dissent and so subvert the policy fundation of part XIV.
I must report, however, that experience has proved that an arrangement provision, while perhaps not essential in theory, is a most useful technique to avoid extraordinary formal complications, particularly in respect of the unwinding of an unsuccessful amalgamation or effecting interjurisdictional transfers of corporations.
The government has therefore decided that an arrangement provision should be set out in the act, subject to safeguards that will preclude its use as a technique to squeeze out or freeze out minority shareholders.
The proposed section 185.1 seeks to achieve this goal. Characteristically, the provision gives very broad powers to a court to approve any proposed arrangement. But to ensure maximum protection of minority shareholders, it sets up a high entry threshhold, requiring a proponent of an arrangement to satisfy the court that it is not practicable to achieve the arrangement by use of the more conventional fundamental change institutions.
Moreover, this provision empowers the courts, in any event, to approve a proposed arrangement subject to the condition that any shareholders may dissent from the proposed arrangement and demand payment of the fair value of their shares, a limitation that will clearly discourage improper use of this changed technique in questionable cases.
In sum, although the arrangement provision entails some risks, consonant with the over-all development of the act, the government recommends that it be included in the statute to fulfil a demonstrated need, at least until actual experience proves that such a flexible institution does lead to abuse.
The predecessor bill was originally introduced in the Senate on November 8, 1977, and referred shortly thereafter to the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. The committee held several meetings between November, 1977, and February, 1978, to consider the bill, during which time the committee heard the testimony of witnesses from the Department of Justice and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The committee concurrently considered some informal briefs that were submitted to the committee chairman while the hearings were in progress. That version was introduced in the House on March 21, 1978, but died on the order paper at the end of the last session.
The present version, Bill S-5, was introduced in the Senate on October 17, 1978, considered by the Senate committee on November 8, and passed by the Senate on November 28. The bill contains 85 substantive clauses, each of which effects an

amendment to a provision of the Canada Business Corporations Act. In light of the testimony presented before the Senate committee, approximately 220 further amendments were made to the bill. About 170 of these amendments were mere language changes to the new French version recommended by a special committee of the Quebec Bar. Most of the remaining 50 amendments were made in response to suggestions of the Senate committee. However, several reflect new suggestions made to the committee or the department during the course of the hearings and during the intervening summer. I should like to thank the Senate committee and its chairman for the diligent and thorough work it has done to improve this bill.
In conclusion, I should point out that the act has been a notable success, that the amendments are largely non-controversial, and that implementation of the proposed new French version at the earliest possible date is highly desirable.
Although I do not want to press hon. members of the House so that they do not have adequate time to consider the bill, 1 should like to underline that the amendments are very technical and that the corporations affected by the act, as well as their technical advisers, are most anxious to see the amendments made. In particular, the proposed amendments to section 26 are required to enable federal corporations to react to amendments to the Income Tax Act effective in late 1977 and imposing December 31, 1978 as a deadline on certain transactions affecting special surplus accounts. Therefore, I recommend that all members of the House support the bill and send it to committee where it can receive detailed consideration as soon as possible.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will not speak too long on this bill. As the minister said, it is very technical and it is best dealt with at committee. As far as my party is concerned, there is no need to detain the bill very long in the House.
Aside from the amendments made after the bill received consideration in the Senate, the job done on the French version of it was an excellent one. The people in the Department of Justice, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Quebec Bar Association should be commended for the manner in which they have taken this bill and written it so that it can be used effectively in the province of Quebec. We should commend those involved in the handling of the bill.
Other than the French version, the provisions and amendments to the bill are very technical. I do not think I can say much more at this time. When the bill goes before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, I suspect there will be representations made by those concerned with some of the technical amendments. As far as my party is concerned, this bill should pass and be dealt with further at committee stage.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill, the minister pointed out that many of the amendments are of a technical nature. He could have mentioned something about the structure of the bill.
December 11, 1978

On the face of it, the bill amuses me. The government is very interested in the bilingual proposition, yet the entire bill seems to have been rewritten. The English version was written on 42 pages including the French section. Then it switches over and there are 160 pages of only French. Perhaps all the Senators are bilingual and understand what the French section applies to, but suddenly at page 42 the English section stops and all we receive is 160 pages of French with no translation. Perhaps the problem is more severe in the province of Quebec, but the minister opened up the entire bill. All the clauses of the bill have been opened, up and therefore there can be a general discussion. I should like to point out that we should have a general discussion.
This bill was put together from the old corporations act which had been amended by other pieces of legislation. This was brought together under the new Canada Business Corporations Act and put into its present form. There were very few changes and modernizations in the bill. Most of the changes were worth while. They affected the shareholders and their operations within the corporation, as well as relationships among the shareholders, the directors and the corporation. A number of the changes made were for the protection of shareholders. These changes have worked out very well for the shareholders. At the present time they have the right, if necessary, to put their stock on the market at a fair market value, and they can get out of the transaction if they do not agree with the board of directors. At committee stage I would be interested in hearing from the minister how many applications were made for the protection of the act in this sense.
One of the major categories affected by the Canada Business Corporations Act is the people of the country, the consumers and clientele. Very little if anything has been done for these people in Canada. On the other hand, citizens of the United States have been able to go after the large corporations. They have been able to bring before the courts some of the transactions which have taken place in boards of directors meetings, shareholders meetings and in the preparation of data and other paraphernalia which goes into the making of reports to directors and shareholders. They have been able to ascertain, on behalf of the customers of the country, whether a certain corporation was working in a reasonable manner. These facts were not foreign when the act was changed; they were fairly well known by some of the provinces. Therefore, a provision was introduced to appoint an inspector who would look at some of the transactions made by corporations in terms of the directors and shareholders to see whether corporations were working as good citizens or living up to their moral liabilities. Yet this has not happened.
This is no longer 1975 when the act was changed. It is now 1978 and we are approaching 1979. In the last four years a number of things have happened. As a private member, the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik) was interested in some of the machinations of corporations. He became involved in a very meaningful manner. He was concerned about corporations which were manufacturing unsafe products for consumer use. One of the products he was particularly
Canada Business Corporations Act interested in was aluminum wiring. It is interesting to note that in the United States there is a protection in that there is a provision to investigate companies which are producing something that may involve a safety hazard or a customer hazard, or doing something that amounts to a plain dishonest practice, something that corporations sometimes do.
It was suggested by some of my colleagues when this bill was before us in 1975 that we should have an ombudsman who would be able to look at some of the things corporations are doing, things that go beyond shareholder or board of director responsibility. The ombudsman would be appointed by the government with his expenses paid by the corporation he was investigating. This would mean that in Canada we would not have to wait until the United States, as in the case of Firestone tires, said a thing was dangerous and likely to kill people, that it must be recalled and taken off the market. The ombudsman would be able to look at complaints about a company or corporation so that we would have some corporate protection. In this way there could be an investigation and a report to parliament that changes should be made or products should be withdrawn.
This procedure could be followed under an extension of this act or under other acts. The corporate law in the United States is considerably more flexible than ours. The demand in their legislatures is for less secrecy and more openness. Their legislation requires that it is up to the company or corporation to prove that the release of certain information would be against the interest of the state or the interest of the public. Even then, if the government says that because of security reasons it is not in the interest of the state to release certain information, individuals can go to the courts under two or three procedures and obtain the information.
Recently in the United States individuals were able to obtain information about the hazardous aspects of two automobiles. We could not obtain such information in this country, probably for two reasons. First of all, if the government does not know what to do about a certain product or information it stamps it top secret and puts the material in a file. If that does not happen it is probably because the government does not have the information in the first place.
Specifically I am referring to the problem in the United States and in Canada in terms of the Bobcat and Pinto automobiles. It was established in the United States that members of the board of those corporations in their board rooms considered how much it would cost to modify the gas tanks in Bobcats and Pintos. In their wisdom they decided that a lost life was only worth about $475,000, and that would probably be the average for which they were sued. They decided they would probably have to pay for the loss of about 20 lives at that rate, which would amount to about half what it would cost to make the change. This decision was made in the board room by the directors and management.
Under the terms of this act as expanded, the shareholders and customers could probably have found out about that

December 11, 1978
Canada Business Corporations Act
decision. Under this act citizens probably would have the right to inquire about and obtain the background information for that decision.
In the United States citizens are able to obtain that kind of information through court and other procedures, and this has made high court settlements very possible. In one case I believe the amount of $120 million was awarded in respect of death as a result of an accident involving a Pinto. That award has been appealed. Had such a thing occurred in Canada it probably would have required this government to change the act, adding a protection for the general public. I know this government will not do that as it is not the least bit interested in making any kind of survey or inspection results available to the public.
It is of interest to note that people in this country are still driving around with the same kind of tires on their cars as those that were recalled in the United States. People in this country are still driving Genera! Motors and Ford products without dozens of modifications being made, modifications that have been carried out in the United States. I am sure the same is true in respect of washing machines, lawn mowers and almost any product you can name.
There is one particular field that we worry about, and that is in respect of children's toys. We worry about the fact that a toy fashioned after the craft that Lome Green flies around the galaxy shoots a rubber pellet that could cause injury to a child. We worry about that fact, and we worry about whether a child might put his head through the chicken wire on the side of a crib. We have done a very good job in this area, but how anyone is going to get his head through a two-inch wire mesh, I do not know.
It seems all right if adults are involved and are killed on our highways, it seems to be all right if an adult blows himself up as a result of a gas inspection not being carried out, and it seems all right if a house burns down because of faulty wiring, so long as adults are involved. One member of parliament mentioned today that the entire side of an apartment building is sliding into a ravine in Hamilton. He referred also to another case of a building that is only two or three years old and is sinking so fast they almost have to add an additional floor on top. This reminds me of the C. D. Howe method of building the DEW line. When a structure sinks into the permafrost you just add more on top and keep going.
Now that we have had the opportunity of seeing that this act works very well in respect of shareholders and directors, with very few having to pay the big penalties, and that it has brought some stability to the situation, it is time we as reasonable people looked at two other aspects. We should make some changes to provide a protection for the average citizen against a corporation which may be manufacturing shoddy goods. At the present time people have no protection through an inspection procedure, or through access to information about a particular product failure.
There are abuses taking place every day on the part of corporations in other fields. When a small company decides to do something that may be useful in a specific industrial field-

and I am particularly interested in mining-which may put that company into a competitive position with a large corporation, the large corporation immediately takes over that company and the improvement is left dormant. Many of these small companies are swallowed up by the large companies and things that might benefit the consumers are forever lost.
Consumers and consumer benefits are not taken into consideration by those who effect amalgamations. If any consideration is given at all in respect of consumers it is usually detrimental. Citizens should have some protection against such takeovers, amalgamations and the gobbling up of little companies by big ones. They should have protection against this kind of corporate manoeuvre, whatever corporate terminology is used today or even tomorrow. There should be some protection for the individual, the community and the country as a whole. I know this might interfere with the functions of FIRA, but that entity will be noted in history for the four takeovers it stopped and for paying no attention to the hundreds of others that were effected. It does not take very much to convince FIRA what is for the good of Canada.
I suggest that we eliminate FIRA and put its responsibilities under the control of an inspector according to this act. He would probably do a better job as an individual than the whole board of FIRA. It would not surprise me if the Petawawa army base was allowed to be taken over by the United States or China one day simply because FIRA could see some advantages to such a takeover.
I know that all these changes will not be made. This is a lame duck government and we do not expect very much from them anyway. I doubt that they really want to stir up the barrel again.
This bill should have been passed some time ago, but the government could not make up its mind who they would be hurting, who their friends were. I suppose the new changes in the elections act made them totally unsure, but it does not matter one way or the other. We now have an opportunity to look at the corporations bill again and there should be a number of changes made to it.
Something should be done to protect the consumer against the corporate rip-offs which many of these small and large corporations engage in. We should also put in an inspector to determine whether or not the changes being allowed a corporation are advantageous, whether it be a takeover, a roll over, a purchase and so on. Is it a good thing for Power Corporation to take over Argus, or would it be better for Argus to take over Power Corporation? I do not know, but it will make a great difference to many people in this country. Another takeover bid which should be looked into is Simpsons and Sears versus the Bay. Is it to our advantage? Will it increase or reduce the price of shirts?


Mr. MacFarlane:: Oh, oh!
December 11, 1978


William Arnold Peters: My friend from Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) must buy shirts, and maybe he is interested in having somebody inspect this section of the corporations act.


Mr. Nystrom:: Wait until Ian Deans runs in that riding.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: He'll lose his shirt.


William Arnold Peters: Somebody will lose their shirt and they are going to have to buy new ones. Takeovers among these major merchandisers must make some difference, good or bad, and we should not remain indifferent. Prices could go up or down, and most likely they will go up. Canadians should have a say in whether or not these takeovers should come about.
It is very important in this House to have a French translation and an English translation of any document. I would like the minister to inform this House some time as to why he had the French and English translations printed separately when normally they are printed on the same page, which makes it easier for comparison. My French is not good enough that I can make that comparison, but some people have that facility, and we are going to be in great trouble with translations if they are put in two different books.
After the election there will probably be a new government. I foresee a minority government, where some of these suggestions of mine will probably be given consideration. 1 think that the three or four proposals I have suggested are absolutely necessary in establishing a corporations act. The Canadian public is sophisticated enough to know that they are being taken advantage of by many corporations. While the company and its shareholders have considerable protection in this act, there is no act which protects consumers against actions of corporations.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to take part in the debate on second reading of this bill, but one comment made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) at the end of his speech caught my attention. He seemed to suggest that publishing the French legal text in a separate volume would cause enormous difficulties. At least, this is how I interpreted his comments. I would simply want to say to the hon. member that for many decades, and we could even say for more than one century, French-speaking Canadians have received second class services in their own language.
In Quebec, of course, people are entitled to be served in their own language under our constitutional guarantees, but it is only since 1969, when the Official Languages Act was passed, that any Canadian can now demand instead of begging to be served in the official language of his choice. 1 do not know what the hon. member was referring to exactly, but for my part, as a Canadian, I can get along very well with a legal text printed separately in French and in English. For many decades we have tried to do all sorts of things to be good Canadians, and I am not at all embarrassed that for once-
Canada Business Corporations Act this occurs very rarely-a French legal text should be printed in a separate volume and not necessarily side by side with the English text as usual. There are of course legal implications for French Canadians in the legislation and it is important not only that the citizens and the corporations that use the French language are aware of these implications, but it is also doubly important for people in authority to be able to compare the English and the French text occasionally. However, Mr. Speaker, what is most important in my opinion is that there be justice for everyone.


Walter David Baker: I was very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to hear the intervention by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), and I would like to address my remarks to the same topic. The hon. member was absolutely correct in his comments with respect to the difficulties which have arisen in this country with regard to both languages and the understanding of the laws and rules which apply.
It is extremely appropriate that we in this parliament should do things the way in which we do them in terms of publications by ministers, by committees, etc. I am sure that the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria will agree with me that even though a member of the House may be more familiar with one language than another, it is appropriate for those who are familiar with both to make the comparisons which must be made between the texts of the two languages from time to time. It has been a convenience to the House to be able to look for discrepancies between the two official languages when the English version and French version are side by side. I think there is a great advantage in the publication of the two texts side by side for the purposes of understanding.
It is interesting that this matter should be raised on this particular bill. When I have young people come to visit from my constituency and ask questions about the translation facilities in the House of Commons, I can tell them that this is one of the relatively few places in the country where I can speak in the language in which I am most comfortable and my friend from Madawaska can speak in the language in which he is most comfortable and we can listen to each other and understand each other as we are speaking. It is quite an advantage when one thinks about it. This instantaneous translation facility is an extension of the written translation facility that we have. I understand that was the way in which the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) was speaking. It is interesting in a country like ours to be able to sit in a chamber like this one and no matter in which official language a person speaks he can be understood by every one even though from time to time we do not agree with what we hear. It is an interesting phenomenon nonetheless.
There is another aspect which the hon. member for Timiskaming mentioned that is correct. He stated that when this bill goes to committee it is inevitable that that committee will look at the appendix of the bill and deal with the French version of

December 11, 1978
Canada Business Corporations Act
the law respecting business corporations, but also I think the committee is likely to take advantage of reviewing the whole of the law with respect to those corporations.
I hope that when the committee does so it will address one of the great problems facing Canadian business today. Whether we like it or not, there is no policy in this country with respect to business and says to Canadian businessmen when dealing with their own government that they will be given a greater opportunity than businessmen from other countries. If that kind of law is reasonable for other countries and is one which we support, greater consideration should be given to supporting it here. This kind of thing has been brought to my attention by businessmen in the electronics field. When dealing with the Department of Supply and Services they have found that the rules are drawn in such a way that struggling businessmen do not have that opportunity, that is, to deal with some advantage with the government of their own country.
I hope the committee will consider this bill in a way that might give that sense of advantage. I do not think it has to be advantage to the point where competition from other countries is excluded. Small businessmen are not asking for that. But they are asking, recognizing differences in our conditions, for equalizers from the point of view of dealing with government. We should look at any bill dealing with the operation of business from that point of view. When we are considering this bill in the committee I hope that we will bear in mind the problems that have affected us because this country has a branch plant economy.
Recently a conference was held in the Conference Centre in Ottawa. This centre used to serve as a railroad station. The conference had as its participants scientists and great thinkers. They talked about the conserver society, but they also talked about the difficulties of research and development. They talked about the difficulty of promoting research and development in a country whose economy has been dominated in other areas by other countries. It is not unusual that that has happened. We are all to blame because we have allowed it to happen. While this government gives lip service to research and to the necessity of developing Canadian business, what does it do to the forest research industry of this country? It cuts it across the throat. That is what it has done. It is in danger not only of harming research in that very important field; it is in danger of setting it back. It will set back experiments and cause Canada to lose its scientists to other countries. The government is discouraging scientific endeavour in Canada. Those are some areas I hope that will be borne in mind when we look at this bill in committee.
We had a budget that affected the business corporations to be governed by this statute to a great degree. Small business has been damaged by the position taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It has been stated that the government will not even consider, at least at this point, rebates with respect to the manufacturer's sales tax.
We have raised in this House of Commons the damage caused to every large sales outlet and business, some of them

governed by this statute, as a result of this government refusing to consider the rebate section. I have automobile dealers in my constituency who say that this measure will cost them $25,000, and it has already affected their current sales. There are appliance sales people in my riding who are affected. Why should these people be made to carry the burden for the government's change of mind? I hope that this matter will be considered, not only with respect to the income tax legislation, but whenever the problems of Canadian businessmen are discussed in the House of Commons.
Then, for some reason or other, the government has decided to close a loophole with respect to a tax advantage given to small corporations. In their discussion they have zeroed in on lawyers, accountants and dentists. The government has not realized that this change will affect artists, artisans, insurance people, in fact a whole range of people who have been advised at great expense to themselves to incorporate. We will consider this in detail when the income tax bill comes forward, but I wonder why a certain segment of business that perhaps deals in unusual ways has been distinguished in some way and set aside. I wonder what kind of consultation this government had with those sectors of the economy it was going to affect. If it had no consultation at all, then they have some time for redemption and the provisions which are set forth in the budget which might affect a segment of Canadian small business might be reconsidered. 1 hope that will happen and I hope Canadian small businessmen affected by that change will get in touch with this government. I hope the government will be flooded with telephone calls, letters and telegrams.
When something like this happened before when dealing with life insurance problems a budget or two ago, the government finally relented. I entreat the government to consider relenting their position on the manufacturers' sales tax and with respect to corporations. It has had a great influence on the business community. I think there is not a person in this House who does not think it important to promote the interest of the working man and woman of this country so that there is a strong, big private business sector, and an equally strong small business sector. Therefore, we should look at what kind of administrative burden this statute puts on the business sector. It is important that we consider it in that way.
Finally, we must consider the question of openness, the above board, cards on the table approach, that the hon. member for Timiskaming spoke of in terms of the business of a corporation. If this does not happen, there is a tendency toward monopoly. Monopolies are not always unhealthy. However, there are some that are.
From time to time in this country we hear that government monopolies are unhealthy, that the intervention of government in business in a monopolistic way is unhealthy. The tendency of corporations that come to the government for licences to become corporations and, therefore, become private, especially when they become large, have a tendency to promote that
December 11, 1978

aspect of monopoly which is not necessarily healthy. I hope we will also consider the bill from that point of view.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in response to the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin). He made some comments in response to what my colleague from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) had said about the translation of the bill. I want to assure hon. members that the hon. member for Timiskaming was not in any way criticizing the French language or anything with reference to Quebec. He was merely pointing out the fact that in this House we normally deal with a translated version of everything that happens. There are two printings of Hansard, French and English. With a bill, one column is in French and one is in English. That is the only point the hon. member was making.
The first clause of this bill reads:
(1) The French version of the Canada Business Corporations Act is repealed and the version set out in the schedule to this act is substituted therefor.
The hon. member was concerned about the 160 pages found here that are in one language only. He would have like to see both languages in order to make more of a comparison.
The hon. member for Timiskaming has been a tremendous supporter throughout his history in parliament of the use of the French language in this country, of bilingualism and the Official Language Act. 1 do not want to see his position taken out of context and twisted by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria. It is important that that point be emphasized because that certainly was not the intention of the hon. member for Timiskaming. He wanted to see both versions, i suppose in order to promote a greater sense of bilingualism, certainly with regard to this bill. I felt those remarks had to be made.
While I am on my feet, there are a couple of other comments I would like to make. When we discussed this legislation before, we were concerned that the legislation did not offer adequate protection to consumers and to customers of corporations in this country. The hon. member for Timiskaming gave a few examples of that. When this bill goes to committee, we should try to build in more protection for consumers in Canada, those who are purchasing goods from corporations.
Large companies in this country have immense power which is becoming greater with the passage of time. A lot of concern is being voiced in Canada, especially by members of the Conservative party, about the growth of government and Crown corporations. Because of that voice from our political right, a lot of attention has been drawn to the role of government in our society. One thing being overlooked is the role of the private sector, which is absolutely immense. When we look at the corporations in Canada, we see that a few very large corporations, particularly in the resource sector, dominate this country. A lot of these are foreign-owned multinationals which are extremely powerful. 1 need only look at a few examples close to me, such as the grain business. It is dominated by five very large companies. The Wheat Board, the grain pools and these very large grain companies hold the power.
Canada Business Corporations Act
We can also look at the way some of the food companies dominate the food business in this country. We see the tremendous impact they have on the life of the ordinary consumer. I could give many examples of that. The minister, being a progressive left wing or pink Liberal-I do not know which is the best adjective-is frustrated by the lack of power he has in the law with regard to fighting the power of some of these large corporations. He has said on occasion that he would like more power with regard to protecting the consumers of this country against some of the tremendous powers of the very large corporation.
At the present time we have a commitment from the minister to call in the heads of food companies to explain why their profits are so great. I know he is concerned about a number of things such as the rise in bread and turkey prices. When we discuss a bill like this in committee, we have to look at the power of these corporations. We must do this collectively so far as very large companies are concerned.
Another point that should be made may have been made by the hon. member for Timiskaming, I am not quite sure. Since this bill passed the other place, we have learned that several large automobile companies have secret warranties covering such items as rust, the deterioration of engine parts and the like. This matter came to my attention just recently when I was concerned about the phasing out of premium or super unleaded gasoline. When we examine this bill we should be concerned about corporate secrecy.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) recently made quite a name for himself on a good issue, that of government secrecy. The other side of the coin is corporate secrecy. Much of what is conducted by large corporations is secret. When I try to pursue a matter having to do with food or agriculture, I am frustrated by the secrecy of large companies. I have looked at what is happening in the food business and what companies are doing in terms of altering food, refining it and so on. Consumers often ask me what goes into their food. They ask how it is changed, how it is preserved, what additives and what chemicals are included. Most of that is kept secret by I. T. and T. and others involved in big business. When you try to get that information, it is like hitting your head against a brick wall. It is nearly impossible to get any information. I suggest we look at that aspect of companies in terms of corporate secrecy.
Many people say we have no business doing that, that the government is spending taxpayers' money, that it is involved publicly and in that way it is a public cost. I can argue on the other side, that a corporation is also spending taxpayers' money. They are spending consumer dollars. What difference does it make? Even the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling), who spoke on behalf of the Conservative party, has to eat. Therefore, he should be concerned about corporate secrecy as well.


William James Kempling: What about socialist secrecy?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The hon. member asks about socialist secrecy. I say to him that at a recent socialist gathering in Vancouver,

December 11, 1978
Canada Business Corporations Act that was one question to which we addressed ourselves. The socialist parties agreed that governments in Germany, France and so on should exchange information about the multinational companies of this world and the power they hold. In other words, there is too much secrecy by the multinational corporations. If we had more access to information and it was made public, it would be a lot easier for countries to plan their economies and conduct their affairs.
Those are the three or four points I wanted to make. The first point was the misinterpretation by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria of the comments with regard to the French text of the bill made by hon. member for Timiskaming. I assure hon. members that the hon. member is in the forefront of promoting equality in this instance. He has always spoken out adamantly when it comes to the promotion of French language rights.
Secondly, we do not think the bill makes sufficient provision for the protection of consumers. Then there is the question of corporate secrecy. We have been dealing with government secrecy; I think we should take a look at corporate secrecy as well. If we enact strong laws to make sure that information which is of public interest is made available to the public, I think this would be a better country in which to live.
[ Translation]


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very short. I would like to refer to the comments of the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) and only to that. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) have already pointed out the importance of clause 1 of Bill S-5. I am going to read it because it is most important for us to wonder why it was decided that only the French version would be printed in the schedule to the act. The first paragraph of clause 1 of the bill reads as follows:
1. (1) The French version of the Canada Business Corporations Act is repealed and the version set out in the schedule to this act is substituted therefor.

We have every reason to wonder why this approach should have been taken to producing a French version of an act which figures in the consolidated statutes of 1974, 1975 and 1976, chapter 33. I am not sure whether the minister addressed himself to this aspect during the course of his remarks because, unfortunately, I was out of the chamber doing some research. Whether or not there were some serious errors in the French version, as I suspect, I may say one has noticed such before in translations from one language to another. Frequently we find variations between the text of English and French versions of statutes which would cause a great inconvenience to anyone in a court of law trying to decide which version ought to be followed in a particular case.
The most notable example which occurs to me relates to a bill on the fisheries. Just as a matter of interest, I counted up the number of definitions in the English version and compared

it with the number in the French version. There were 12 definitions in the French text, and only 11 in the English, or it may have been the other way around. This looks to me very much like laxity, a lack of care in the translation process, which needs to be watched very carefully. Unnecessary problems can be created if definitions do not correspond. It is only recently that the definitions have been given following the English alphabet and, in the French version, following the French alphabet. That is fair enough. Definitions are easier to look up that way. Until very recently they followed either one pattern or the other and the translations were opposite one another.
1 find it extraordinary that there should have been such serious errors that the French version had to be withdrawn and replaced with a new one as an annex. The indifference of the translators to this question ought to be underlined. All ministers should take particular care to ensure that when bills are put before the House the French and English versions correspond entirely and there is no chance of misinterpretation on this ground.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. If the hon. minister speaks, he will close the debate.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I think I should take a few minutes to answer some of the questions hon. members have raised and to correct certain misunderstandings.
The appearance of the complete French version in the schedule is due to a situation which arose after the enactment of the new Canada Business Corporations Act in 1975. That act was first drafted in the English language, as was the common practice up to that time, and then translated into French. When the bill was brought to parliament and examined by French-speaking lawyers, particularly by the Bar of Quebec, it became evident there was a good deal of criticism of the French expressions used in the law. Members of the House finally agreed to let the bill go through in the English and French versions on the understanding that the minister of the day would take the raw material of the act and have it drafted de novo in French. So what we have in the schedule is not simply an altered French version; it is, in terminology and expression, a version acceptable to the French speaking lawyers of this country. We worked closely with the Quebec Bar on this project and the draftsmen were French speaking.
Many statutes are now prepared along those lines; the raw material is drafted in English and French and experts in both languages make sure that the final version has the same meaning. What we have in this instance is a version prepared by draftsmen rather than by translators. I agree with the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) that it is very helpful in committees of the House to be able to refer to the English version side by side with the French version. The English version can be found in the Revised Statutes-there has been no change, basically, there-but we shall try to arrange that both versions are available so that hon. members who wish to do so may follow them side by side.


December 11, 1978

Certain other matters related to corporations were mentioned; for example, securities and taxation questions, mergers, foreign takeovers and so on. I consider these to be very important matters but for the most part they are dealt with under other statutes. In Canada, securities legislation is provincial whereas in the United States it is federal.
The hon. member for Timiskaming referred to securities legislation and to the law in the United States. 1 would remind him that in Canada securities legislation is provincial. Then again, matters relating to the taxation of corporations are dealt with under the Income Tax Act and related measures; for instance, budgetary measures introduced by the Minister of Finance. Mergers are dealt with under the combines legislation. Foreign takeovers are dealt with by FIRA and CALURA deals with corporate reporting. So, while all these things are important, they are not the basic subject matters of the corporations act. The basic subject matters of the corporations act are the incorporation of companies and the rules which relate to shareholders, boards of directors, the publishing of prospectuses and so forth.
I wanted to clear up some of the misunderstanding with respect to the French version in the schedule and also to point out that, while we consider these other matters with respect to incorporations important, they are not usually found in the corporations act. One must remember that corporations, as legal entities, must obey all other laws.
Motion agreed, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


CANADA NON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS ACT MEASURE RESPECTING CHARITABLE CORPORATIONS
William Warren Allmand: that Bill S-4, respecting Canadian nonprofit corporations, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce for second reading Bill S-4, which would amend our law relating to non-profit corporations. Like Bill S-5, which is legislation to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, this bill also appears to be a long and complex one, but its size belies its actual content. It is in fact largely a repetition of the Canada Business Corporations Act but modified to make the uniform provisions apply specifically to non-profit corporations and to add a number of new provisions which are essential and which apply uniquely to such corporations.
Of the total of about 1 5,000 non-profit organizations carrying on their activities in Canada about 3,000 are federal non-profit corporations. To give the House and the country some examples of these, I will mention the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the United Way or Centraide, the Canadian Heart Foundation, the Canadian Medical Associa-
Non-profit Corporations
tion, the Canadian Cancer Society, Hockey Canada and the Vanier Institute. These are but a few examples of our many federal non-profit corporations.
Although small in number, because many of them carry on their activities across Canada and are perceived as Canadian as distinct from local institutions, their impact on Canadian social life is enormous. That is the principal reason why these institutions merit the special attention of parliament.
On being advised by the authors of the Canada Business Corporations Act proposals that they would recommend enactment of a new statute to apply only to business corporations, in 1970 the department retained Professor Peter Cumming of Osgoode Hall Law School and instructed him to prepare a report on a proposed statute to apply uniquely to non-profit corporations. Professor Cumming undertook immediately to analyze the activities of non-profit corporations in Canada as well as the content of several modern, non-profit corporation laws, and in particular those of the State of New York. Professor Cumming submitted his report to the department in 1973. The department published the report in 1974 under the title "Proposals for a new not-for-profit corporations law for Canada". Like the business corporation proposals which preceded it, the report was presented in the form of a model act accompanied by a second volume of section by section commentary.
Immediately after their publication the department distributed copies of the proposals to a large number of federal non-profit corporations, to the managers of non-profit organizations and to a number of lawyers and accountants who participate actively in the administration of the affairs of non-profit organizations, requesting their comments on the proposed model act.
The department received several major briefs and a large number of specific comments on the proposals and, working in close collaboration with the legislative section of the Department of Justice, began in 1975 to draft a statute in accordance generally with the proposals but modified in the light of the critical comments received. The department's plan was to table the bill at once after passage of the Canada Business Corporations Act in late 1975 to bring the non-profit corporation law into line with the new business corporation law. But because of the criticism of the French version of the Canada Business Corporations Act on which the non-profit corporation law is based, the minister had to defer completion of the bill on non-profit corporations until the new French version of the business corporation law was completed.
The proposals contained three main recommendations. The first was that parliament should enact a discrete act to apply to non-profit corporations which parallels in all respects the business corporation law except that provisions must be modified or added to deal with the specific requirements of nonprofit corporations. The second recommendation was that the non-profit corporation law should be characterized with respect to the purposes of the two kinds of non-profit corporations, charitable corporations and membership corporations, and not with respect to the lack of power of such a corporation

December 11, 1978
Non-profit Corporations
to issue shares. The third major recommendation was that the proposed law should apply to all federal non-profit corporations including, as well as those corporations subject to Part II of the Canada Corporations Act, all non-profit, special act corporations and all corporations subject to the Boards of Trade Act.
The bill, therefore, by design parallels very closely most of the substantive and formal provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act. As a result, it raises very few new policy issues. Generally what the proposed law seeks to accomplish is to modernize the federal non-profit corporation law and to set out substantive rules and procedures which are familiar to all corporate managers, their professional advisers and government administrators.
The proposed law above all seeks to establish a system that gives non-profit corporation managers broad, flexible powers to manage, subject to the rights of the members of such corporations to participate effectively in the management of non-profit corporations' affairs and to check any abuses by directors or officers.
Because of the extremely technical nature of the bill 1 do not propose to discuss any specific provisions of the bill at this time, with the understanding that these can be discussed in committee. I would like, however, to mention several of its principal characteristics.
First, consonant with our general concepts of freedom of association in Canada the bill permits incorporation as of right, subject only to the condition that its express or implied purposes must not contravene any law of Canada, particularly the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Second, the single distinguishing characteristic of a nonprofit corporation is that, except in narrowly specified cases, it cannot pass through any of its money or property to its members. It can carry on business and may earn profits but, if it does so, any such profits must be applied to further its charitable or membership purposes.
Third, the proposed law distinguishes between the two basic types of non-profit corporations. The first is the charitable corporation which carries on activities which are primarily for the benefit of the public. With respect to financial disclosure it is cast under the bill as an analogue of a business corporation which distributes securities to the public. The second is the membership corporation which carries on activities primarily for the benefit of its members. Under the bill, for the purposes of financial disclosure it is cast as an analogue of a closely held business corporation. It must make full financial disclosure to its members but not to the public.
Fourth, the present Canada Corporations Act characterizes a non-profit corporation as a corporation without share capital. Although the proposed law abandons this characterization to focus on the function of a non-profit corporation, it continues to prohibit a non-profit corporation from issuing shares, since ownership of shares connotes a right to dividends and to share in any liquidation distribution of property of a corporation.

Fifth, the bill does expressly empower a non-profit corporation to issue debt obligations and, subject to qualification of any prospectus by a provincial securities commission, to distribute its debt obligations to the public.
Sixth, like the Canada Business Corporations Act, the bill requires extensive financial disclosure in accordance with proposed regulations.
Seventh, it clarifies the rights of an aggrieved member to a fair hearing in any case where the corporation proposes to discipline him or terminate his membership. It also simplifies the procedures that enable an aggrieved member to seek judicial review of any such action by a corporation.
Eighth, and finally, the bill deals with the distribution of any remaining property of a non-profit corporation on liquidation and dissolution. In the case of a charitable corporation a liquidation distribution must be made in accordance with the corporation's articles or, if the articles contain no such provisions, then to another charitable corporation that has similar purposes and that is approved by a court. In the case of a membership corporation, a liquidation distribution must be made in accordance with the articles or, if the articles contain no such provision, then rateably to the members existing at the time of liquidation and dissolution.
Because the two laws are so closely related, the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce considered together both Bill S-5, the CBCA amendment, and the present bill, Bill S-4. The Senate committee conducted several hearings on the bill, heard witnesses both from the private sector and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and recommended a number of amendments in the light of the testimony presented to it.
To maintain the bill parallel with the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Senate committee made some 30 general amendments as well as some 100 amendments to the French version. In addition, in response to the briefs presented to it, the Senate committee made four substantial amendments. The first was to legitimize indirect voting provisions such as those set out in the constitution of the Red Cross. The second was to simplify the holding of members' meetings outside Canada, which renders the policy of the bill consistent with the government's policy of encouraging foreign non-profit organizations to meet in Canada. The third requires a membership corporation that has solicited moneys from the public or obtained a grant from government to make public financial disclosure as does a charitable corporation. Finally, the Senate committee approved an amendment that excepts a board of trade or chamber or commerce from the right to dissent, treating those organizations differently from other membership corporations on the ground that their functions are unique.
The predecessor bill, Bill S-3, was passed by the Senate in March, 1978 and introduced in the House on April 3, 1978. It did not proceed to second reading and hence died on the order paper at the end of the third session.
Although the bill does not revolutionize the federal law relating to non-profit corporations, like the Canada Business
December 11, 1978

Corporations Act it does attempt to clear away a great many conceptual myths, to eliminate unnecessary formalities, and to render compliance with and administration of the law efficient.
In sum, the proposed law attempts to create a system that assures members and public contributors will be treated fairly, that permits members to participate effectively in the administration of a corporation's affairs, and that, equally important, enables corporate managers to achieve the purposes of such corporations effectively. Thus, like the Canada Business Corporations Act, this statute, although quite long, is clear, comprehensive, and practical.
Therefore, I recommend the bill to the House and hope for its quick passage so it can go to committee for detailed examination as soon as possible.


Mr. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing the minister's bill go to committee, as the minister indicated, because, although the bill does not raise any specific policy issues, it raises some general policy issues with which I would like to deal. It is also extensive in terms of its attempt to deal with a staggering variety of non-profit corporations and other organizations in what might be called the volunteer area in our society.
I note in particular that, when the matter went to the other place, considerable discussion took place with respect to the role that some of the organizations might play. I think as we go down the road over the next couple of years, we will find that the role of the non-profit corporation will increase, not only in the area of social policy, as the minister has indicated, but indeed in a variety of other ways, as has already been the case.
Part of the difficulty in discussing this subject is that we tend to look on non-profit corporations as being not entirely productive. They are organizations which we need because their activities are not part of the normal economic transactions in our society. That is something with which we will have to cope very soon.
In connection with that subject, a very good essay was written recently for the Vanier Institute of the Family which puts the matter in good capsule form. Most of us accept the fact that the really important things done in society are done in the resource sector, the manufacturing sector or the services sector, but very often we forget that all of that is held together by what some people refer to as the household and community sector. I dislike the word "sector," but it is one that is used here.
Let me quote from this essay what 1 think is a very useful and thoughtful comment. Let us suppose we looked at all the activities which have no value in the marketplace and which do not come under the category of the gross national product, and let us see what it would cost us if we exacted a price for them. I refer to the various things done in the household and in the community. The following is a quote from Hugh Stretton, an Australian political scientist, who said:
Non-profit Corporations
How easily we could turn the tables on the economists if we all decided that from tomorrow morning, the work of the domestic economy should be paid for.
The reference here is to everything that is done in the household and in the community. The quotation continues:
Instead of cooking dinner for her own lot, each housewife would feed her neighbours at regular restaurant rates; then they'd cook for her family and get their money back. We do each other's housework and gardening at award rates. Big money would change hands when we fixed each other's tap washers and electric plugs at the plumbers' and electricians' rates. Without a scrap of extra work the gross national product would go up by a third overnight. We would increase that to half if the children rented each other's backyards and paid each other as play supervisors, and we could double it if we all went to bed next door at regular massage parlour rates.
I might add that that is a quote. I continue:
Our economists would immediately be eager to find out what line of investment was showing such fabulous growth in capital/output ratio. They'd find that housing was bettered only by double beds and they'd recommend a massive switch of investment-
To the household and community sector.
That is very important because for a long time we have not recognized that all the work which passes for real endeavour in the household and in the community does not fit our economic categories. Anybody who has been in this place for any longer than a week understands that the gross national product is the real trinity of this place. Of course, you can increase or deflate the g.n.p. and accomplish nothing in the process. That is why more and more people will find the use of the non-profit corporation to be of real value to the community. Whatever the changes are in relation to the non-profit corporation, they must be helpful to specific groups.
I went through Bill S-4 as quickly as I could because I only received it this morning, but I could not find anything in it specifically related to non-profit housing corporations. I do not know if they are included in the bill, but some portions of them are assumed to be included in the act. There are non-profit corporations in the housing field which relate to municipalities so that some municipalities have their own non-profit housing corporations. Those organizations are entirely different from a series of private non-profit housing corporations. For example, they have different capital, funding sources, modus operandi and mandates from church groups, labour unions and service clubs.
Even though these people want to contribute to society in areas other than their specific mandates, it should be remembered that private non-profit housing corporations are very, very different from public non-profit corporations. There is nothing in the bill dealing with that area. By indirection the government, without perhaps thinking about it, almost annihilated private non-profit housing corporations. The government did not realize this because it was not paying attention to the fact that it was a different kind of operation, with a different corporate structure.
The same is true respecting the field of culture. 1 am sure the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) will make comments in that regard. The bill primarily deals with changes as they affect very large non-profit and volunteer corporations.

December 11, 1978
Non-profit Corporations
The discussion in the other place dealt with the Red Cross, boards of trade and chambers of commerce, very large and traditional organizations. But the bill does not contemplate non-profit organizations which will emerge in the near future because of a variety of concerns and needs.
I should like to refer to the very good study "People in Action", a report of the National Advisory Council on Voluntary Action to the Canadian government of one year ago. Using 1975-76 figures, approximately $200 million was spent by the government, divided into 52 programs in 24 departments. Very often when groups are looking for grants, tax advantage or some non-monetary advice on getting into business to serve particular needs, they hardly know where to turn. Although the changes in the act are good for non-profit corporation lawyers, most people find the act difficult to comprehend.
I should like to turn to clause 109 in the bill which specifically deals with the indirect vote. When the other place dealt with this matter, it was quite properly concerned that an organization such as the Red Cross could not gather together all its members in order to have an election of officers and conduct its business. The Red Cross has approximately 80,000 members. It was estimated that it would cost $300,000 in order to bring all the members together in one place at one time. It was felt that the Red Cross could use that $300,000 more productively towards the needs of Canadians, rather than organizing its business meeting. In large sectors across the country, the Red Cross elects certain delegates. Those delegates elect other delegates, and by the time they get through the pyramid, approximately 75 members do the voting.
The clause which allowed for indirect voting was adopted. It is a very good provision for organizations such as the Red Cross. It makes sense, given the size of that organization and the fact that people know it, trust it and depend upon it. Its members do not have to worry about decisions taken which affect them. However, that clause applies to new non-profit housing corporations.
From my experience in this area, I can assure the House that the members should have more control than the clause provides. For a smaller organization of approximately 50 or 60 people which does not have a position of trust gained over time in a particular community, clause 109(3) allows for an oligarchic situation whereby a small number of people control the organization. If nothing else, the touchstone of a non-profit corporation, particularly one which deals in a voluntary manner, is that it must be accountable to its membership. It is absolutely essential that the membership not be shut out by what can be construed to be appropriate indirect election. When it comes to the crafting of corporate legislation for non-profit organizations, it is essential in the name of uniformity that we do not create more difficulties than we have had in the past, particularly if we get into the situation whereby there are more and more of those corporations.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming)-Communications-Televising of House Proceedings; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Air Transport-Jet service to western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan; the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn)-Labour Conditions-Occupational health and safety of workers exposed to asbestos hazards.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) stood by unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: We will now proceed to notice of motion No. 5 standing in the name of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier).


ATLANTIC REGION FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ACT
Mr. Claude Tessier (Compton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act in order to change the current boundaries and include the Eastern Townships.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as we heard it, the motion I am putting forward today reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act in order to change the current boundaries and include the Eastern Townships.
The so-called select territory now includes Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and that portion of the province of Quebec that is south of the St. Lawrence River and east of Quebec Highway 23, being the highway connecting from Levis through St-Georges de Beauce with the Maine boundary.
December 11, 1978

Mr. Speaker, the motion gives us an opportunity to remind the government that areas such as the eastern townships can no longer wait that the great economic and industrial strategies bring about the results expected by the government itself. In other words, we can wait no longer and, as responsible government members, it is not good enough to attack current government strategies. We must advocate immediate and fast implementation of regional strategies, with special provisions for the economically and socially needy areas.
The motion put forward proposes one thing only: amending the current boundaries to include the eastern townships, more specifically the area within a 30-mile radius from Sherbrooke and the eastern part of that city, that is the area bordering all of Highway 1 up to the American border. I could hardly understand someone opposing this, because it would be running counter to the purpose of the current act, questioning its validity and efficiency. In other words, what I am asking for is that an area with competent and hard-working industrialists and a local manpower that can and wants to work be allowed to produce the goods it can make. Of course, producing is not enough because the goods must be sold, and they must be sold at competitive prices. But if to the real costs of production the real and significant transportation costs are to be added, given the distances, we must admit that we are ruining our regional economies, that we are literally emptying our regions and in fact it is totally unacceptable. The great economic and industrial strategies of the government are designed for well to do municipalities and we must demand henceforth that strategies be elaborated for vulnerable regions, that is for poor regions which are running the risk of becoming even poorer. I concede that the proposition I am making today is a very weak weapon to fight back the heavy pressures brought to bear upon us by the present state of the economy.
The motion before us today allows me to raise questions which would normally call for answers, yet these answers cannot be dilatory but must rather be responsible, comprehensive and practical. The first, and maybe I should say the only question is the following: is it necessary to raise the issue of an individual's right to work and whether this issue is restricted to a given area of Canada? Of course, one day we can talk about the right to prosperity and the distribution of this prosperity.
However, to raise the issue of everybody's basic entitlement to a job is perhaps like engaging a dialogue of the deaf and, if one happens to sit on the government benches, he is running the risk of being told that he is speaking like a member of the opposition. I think it is time the government considered the right to work is a top priority because it is the main cause of the present anxiety, and particularly in areas where job creation is more a matter of chance than of economic and industrial strategy.
Freight Assistance
It must be acknowledged, however, that if it is up to the government to take the lead as far as the recognition and the organization of the right to work are concerned this right will come out of a consensus, particularly at the level of economic agents. Present strategists, and in particular economists, place a large share of the responsibility on ordinary workers, and they do not hesitate to ask them to tighten their belts and to be reasonable, making them believe that it is the only solution. It is probably part of it but it is high time workers could count on spokesmen who will state to everyone that they are not solely responsible for the economic balance and that they will not be the only ones to accept restraints that one can easily agree with them to find unacceptable.
The workers are willing to understand but to them logic lies primarily in facts. For example, how can we explain the sense of social responsibility of a company such as Cadbury which did not hesitate to lay off 500 people for reasons that are difficult to explain and are most certainly embarrassing both for the company itself and for all those who need social conscience as a law for the operation of democracy. In Canada when we ask the workers to co-operate, we ask them first to tighten their belts, and finally to move or to expatriate themselves. Strategists call this mobility and recycling. I am in favour of mobility and recycling, provided there is a possibility of choice. If it becomes a utopia to long for happiness, we should at least have a say in our misfortunes.
Mr. Speaker, the motion I move today provides an opportunity to remind the government that there are needs throughout Quebec to which nobody brings adequate answers and for which government measures are inadequate, if not inexistent. My suggestion today is thus essentially constructive, and even if it is only a means, nobody can question its effectiveness, provided its application in the long term is guaranteed.
I have already mentioned the creation of a department of rural development, the setting up of a developmental infrastructure, the necessity of regional strategies for economic and industrial expansion. This, Mr. Speaker, is the motivation behind the motion which I have moved today, because I feel it can serve as a basis for the right to work. I must proclaim before this government that Canadians want to work and that we must do our utmost to make it possible for them to work, especially in the eastern townships region. To reach this aim, we need our own financial resources, including the budgets which will allow us to create permanent jobs at a minimal cost.
That is the challenge I am now asking the government to accept, and I suggest that the amendment I am proposing today is tangible evidence that the government is prepared to consider our particular needs, especially when it means the right to work for people who are able and willing to work.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to add a few comments on the motion put forward by the hon. member. Undoubtedly, one cannot but endorse this invitation regarding the objective he described a few moments

December 11, 1978
Freight Assistance
ago, that is the right to work. We are still, as we have been for a long time, favourable to this job creation, and to this fundamental right to a decent job, but, to this end, the programs designed by the government have to result in direct and indirect job creation and in real job creation.
Undoubtedly, the motion before us should make us more aware of prompt us to give particular attention to this area. I trust all the colleagues of the hon. member will want to consider the motion jointly in order to allow all members of the House to make a worthy contribution in the committee. 1 believe it will be quite a special and interesting opportunity to sit on the committee and to discuss these changes to the boundaries for freight assistance. There is no doubt that the eastern townships would benefit from some changes. That would certainly give us the opportunity also to discuss other regions where changes could be made to give incentives to industry and thus create, not full employment perhaps, but additional jobs, which is urgent.
I therefore understand, what the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier) is trying to tell his colleagues. And he does not have to ask if we agree on changes which are aimed at creating jobs. Of course we agree with job creation and for a long time we have been respectful of the right to work. We know full well that at this time the right to work must be respected more than ever, and any change which would help industry will naturally be supported by this side of the House. I will be brief in my comments because I would hope that before six o'clock we could count on the hon. member's colleagues for referring the motion to committee.
Under the circumstances, and especially since this concerns a region in my province, I could not help but stress the importance of this motion. I want to indicate to the hon. member for Compton that it is not this side of the House that he will have to convince of the validity of this suggestion. I can see the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay), who certainly agrees with the motion, and countless others from Quebec, as well as the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Caron). As for the parliamentary secretary, we will have to convince him. That is rather surprising, Mr. Speaker. Or else it is just a joke on the House to say that we will have to convince the parliamentary secretary. Those people are in power. Of course the electors of the riding of Compton, like those of the hon. member for Levis, are convinced that they have some power, that they are in power. Yet they would not manage to convince the parliamentary secretary, who comes from Quebec if I am not mistaken; he would refuse the study in committee of most interesting proposal that could do much to help stimulate and remedy the current economic situation in Quebec.
There is not one single hon. member among my colleagues who is not concerned about the problems we are now experiencing in the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Campton speaks of a well defined sector. Other hon. members could speak of their own regions and ridings. My own riding

has its problems too, Mr. Speaker; it has its problems but that does not keep me from understanding those in other parts of Quebec or other provinces. So, in light of those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I am making it my duty, which is also an honour, to invite the parliamentary secretary in particular, because he comes from the province of Quebec, he knows the eastern townships very well and he is well aware that right across the province there are people who are waiting for a job. We have people waiting to work. And the parliamentary secretary knows full well that the latest budget cuts have the effect of upsetting certain sectors in the province of Quebec. So perhaps that should be compensated by certain amendments. I see the hon. member for-I always forget the name of his riding; I do not know if it is because he does not speak often enough in the House, but I forget the name of his riding in any case. I am perfectly aware that when the government of Quebec denounced the budget cuts resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs, the Minister of Finance did not answer the questions I put to him to show that serious studies had been made. And I have every reason to believe that the government did not make serious studies on the consequences of those budget cuts. Of course we recommended cuts in government spendings. But they had to be done in the right place and at the right time.
We still have serious doubts about the way those cuts are being made and particularly the absence of analyses on the consequences they could have. In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I repeat, I do not want that motion to die and I am relying of course on the objectivity and honesty of the parliamentary secretary who understands the needs and the consequences of that motion. I see the hon. member for Bonaven-ture-lles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) who is also one of his colleagues from Quebec and who I imagime will not hesitate to urge the parliamentary secretary to favour the passage of this measure so it will be examined in committee, and in any case, no one doubts that many members from Quebec and others from both sides of the House will be interested in having an excellent discussion in committee and perhaps open a very valid discussion on other sectors in Quebec and other sectors in Canada. So, Mr. Speaker, I will limit my comment to this: I hope my colleagues opposite will understand the real situation and allow every motion to go at least to the committee stage.


Miss Coline Campbell (South Western Nova):: It is a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, for me to rise on this motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act in order to change the current boundaries and include the eastern townships.
I can understand the problem of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier). However, I do think that the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act has been designed primarily and specifically for the Atlantic region, the Gaspe peninsula and the lower south shore of the St. Lawrence River. In these areas transportation is a problem, and that becomes very clear
December 11, 1978

when one leaves Montreal and proceeds along the south shore into the eastern provinces.
I also feel that the hon. member's problem is not only related to transportation but also to the economic and social growth within the eastern townships. The geographical area of the eastern townships is much closer to the markets in Montreal and to the west of Montreal.
This motion affords me the opportunity to review the usefulness of this program. As a member of parliament from the Atlantic region, I have watched closely the effects this program has had on my own province of Nova Scotia and how it fits into the national transportation policy. The Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act is, in my opinion, a very good piece of legislation for the promotion of regional development in the Atlantic region, the Gaspe and the lower south shore of the St. Lawrence River. A fundamental principle of our national transportation policy is enshrined in this act, and that is the principle of equity between the various modes of transportation which support regional development and allow us to establish markets to compete with other areas in Canada.
The essential purpose of this legislation, introduced into the House in 1969 by the then minister of transport who is presently Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), was to extend to the trucking mode the intra and westbound subsidy programs provided for under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Until that time, only the commodities shipped by rail benefited from the subsidies. The provincial governments concerned, the trucking industry and members from all parties recognized the need for such legislation, and it has contributed to the further development of a viable and efficient trucking industry in the select territory, which includes Newfoundland, P.E.I., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the portion of Quebec which is south of the St. Lawrence River and east of highway 23 for the trucking mode, and Diamond Junction and Levis for the rail mode. In so doing, it allowed for a better utilization of transportation resources.
If one looks at the various subsidies paid out, one is struck by the very rapid increase in subsidy payments for the movement of commodities by truck.
For example, in 1971-72, $7 million was paid to the trucking mode for both intra and westbound commodity movements. In 1977-78 these payments reached $26.5 million. In addition, in 1974 a 20 per cent selective westbound subsidy was added and the payments have grown from $0.7 million in 1974-75 to $1.5 million in 1977-78.
During that same period of time, from 1971 to 1978, subsidies paid for the rail programs under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, both intraregional and westbound, grew at a less rapid pace, from approximately $13 million to $16 million. As in the case for the trucking mode, it should be noted that the selective westbound subsidy also applies to the rail mode and for that particular subsidy, payments have grown from $0.9 million to $1.9 million. The total subsidy payments under the Maritime Freight Rates Act and the
Freight Assistance
Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act amounted to $45.9 million in 1977-78 and it is estimated that the payments will be higher in 1978-79, principally, due to the increased movements of coal, pulp and paper products and other manufactured goods. The increasing amount of subsidy paid is a reflection of rate or tariff increases as well as growth in the volume of shipments originating in the select territory.
In 1970 we saw the establishment of the federal-provincial committee on Atlantic region transportation. Since then there has been a very high level of co-operation between the provinces concerned and the federal government on these matters and, as a matter of fact, on a wide range of transportation initiatives.
The general trend in so far as these subsidy programs are concerned has been to make them more selective and more responsive to economic and industrial development strategies as designed and implemented by the provinces with the support of the federal government. Members will agree that, in a great number of cases, it does not make economic sense to subsidize the shipment of raw material out of the select territory and then, months later, see them return to the region in the form of various finished products. This, of course, is only a general observation and may not apply to all cases, but given the various factors related to determining the location of firms, or trade patterns and that sort of thing it is a very important one.
This is in fact one of the reasons why the federal-provincial committee on Atlantic region transportation was established. Federal and provincial officials guided by their respective governments now look closely at each application for the selective westbound subsidy and make recommendations as to the advisability of including a given commodity under the program based on a number of criteria. Generally speaking, the aim is to select commodities which are highly sensitive to transportation costs, that have or display a potential for maximum value added in the region, and that are related to the development strategies of the provinces concerned.
As members know, until September 1, 1978, the intraregional subsidy program was a blanket program covering virtually all commodities shipped within the select territory, the select territory including Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and that portion of the province of Quebec which I have already outlined.
In 1972 a major study was undertaken by the committee which aimed generally at identifying in some detail the main commodities moving intraregionally by rail and truck. More precisely, the objective of the study was to identify the commodities for which the existing intrasubsidy was playing a significant role, or conversely, where the subsidy contribution was so small as to be insignificant. This information, together within other transportation and economic data, was subsequently used as the basis for the design of a revised intrasubsidy program.
Following ministerial meetings and extensive consultation with the provinces, shippers, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Associa-

December 11, 1978
Freight Assistance
tion and the railways, the federal minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) announced in December, 1977, the introduction of major improvements to the intraregional rail and trucking subsidy program to be effective September 1, 1978.
Let me summarize, Mr. Speaker, the essential elements of these changes. The most far-reaching one, I believe, is that the intraprogram no longer provides for a blanket subsidy. The program is now selective in the sense that it only applies to a list of eligible commodities or eligible commodity groups that are produced in the region. It should be noted that although selective, there are still a large number of commodities covered; in fact, most are covered by the program. As in the case of the 20 per cent additional selective westbound subsidy introduced in 1974, most farm products, forest products and fresh fish and other marine products are eligible. This reflects recognition of the importance of these sectors to the economic base of the region. In addition, several other primary products and most manufactured goods are also eligible. This new trend away from the blanket-type subsidy will ensure that subsidy funds are spent more effectively and that transportation assistance will be far more responsive to the needs of the region.
The new intraprogram provides a level of assistance equal to 15 per cent of the rates which would normally apply. Also to help ease the transition to the new program, a phase-out period was introduced for those commodities that are no longer eligible. For them, a provisional level of assistance equal to IV2 per cent is being paid beginning September 1, 1978, and will last until August 31, 1979, thereafter being reduced to zero.
Finally, and this is also an important aspect of the changes brought to this program, the intrasubsidy has been extended to the air and marine modes. In so doing, all carriers are treated more equitably and shippers will benefit from a wider choice of transportation modes.
However, Mr. Speaker, there is one criticism in this area from persons concerned and from the shipping industry in the Atlantic area and that is that an appeal procedure has not yet, been put into effect. It seems that transport officials have promised an appeal procedure, but the effort of getting it in place seems to be slow. This would benefit those people who have had their commodities excluded in the east. They could have them looked at and the shipper could have his case heard on a certain product. Provinces are saying that they cannot help a shipper in the area because the appeal procedure has to be set up at this level.
It is important to underline that the effect of the new subsidy program does not amount to a net loss in payments to the region. In effect, the savings incurred as a result of the new program are being reallocated to other essential priority transportation projects and programs in the region.
It is in that context that the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Program was announced in 1977. Under this program the federal government proposed to spend up to $125 million within a period of three years, to help improve transportation services in the four Atlantic provinces.

This program is designed to upgrade the primary highway network, $32 million to be put into Nova Scotia by the federal government as well as $32 million to be matched by the province. The province, of course, has determined the priorities of which highways. I know that many parts of highways 101 and 103 are being covered under this program.
The program is also to improve transportation and to rationalize freight and passenger subsidy payments within the region. The new intrasubsidy program is in fact part of this package. It may also be worth mentioning that studies are now beginning with regard to the westbound freight subsidy program in order to determine its effectiveness in promoting regional development.
There is some criticism from people in the area who are most concerned, those in industry, that they will not be given the opportunity, before a program is put in place, to be consulted by Transport Canada officials. As we know, this happened with proposed changes that were announced in December, 1977. After eight months of hard work with industry, they were changed to the satisfaction of industry. It is hoped this will not happen again and that the various groups in the Atlantic region and Gaspe Peninsula will be approached this time. As I said, the program includes a major highway strengthening program to which the federal government will contribute $100 million for the costs of approved projects. It also includes a passenger transportation program designed to improve the network of intercity bus service. Of the $25 million total, $4 million is to go to the bus service. However, I understand no proposal has yet been sent by the province of Nova Scotia for improvements to this intercity bus service.
There is also included in this program improvements to local and regional airports, as well as improvements to viable rail passenger services.
The federal government will contribute $25 million over the three years toward bus and airport improvements and, through the national rail passenger policy, a 100 per cent payment of operating deficits on those rail passenger services which are retained as essential.
In summary, since the adoption of the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act in 1969, the federal government, with the full co-operation of the provinces concerned, has introduced several measures to ensure that transport subsidies become an efficient tool, in promoting regional development and also contribute to the rationalization and improvement of the transportation system in our part of Canada. I share the concern of the hon. member for Compton. However, one has to look at the objectives, as I have outlined them, in the proposed legislation to see' how, over a period of years, they have become effective in a given area of transportation because of distance. The motion implies that transportation costs are an important factor for economic and industrial development in the Eastern Townships. Only a detailed survey of all the industries in the region will reveal to what extent their products are sensitive to transportation costs and, to what extent these costs are a determining factor in lowering their ability to compete in various markets.
December 11, 1978

The Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act has taken a long time to get where it is today and to be acceptable to shippers of the area. In the future there will be other areas and problems to be ironed out. Perhaps the hon. member should look for a study to see whether his area comes under the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier). I intend to resume my seat well before six o'clock. I hope the House will agree with the subject matter of this motion and send it to the appropriate committee. This is only a request of the government to consider. There is certainly nothing compulsory or mandatory with regard to implementing the intent of the motion.
I hope that as the result of this motion the hon. member for Compton and others on the government side will get a message to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) regarding the whole issue of user-pay and the freight rate structure which takes into account our geography and climate in relation to the markets, where goods are produced, and where people want to travel.
The minister issued a press release last February 17 on the Maritime Freight Rates Act and the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act in which he said that the interregional subsidy would be reduced to IVi per cent only until September 1 next year, but there would be a 15 per cent subsidy paid on an agreed list of commodities. These are commodities westbound from the Atlantic provinces and from that part of Quebec south of the St. Lawrence and east of highway 23.
The hon. member sponsoring this resolution wants that boundary moved further west. 1 do not blame him. There are a lot of communities in the townships west highway 23 that have manufactured products and agricultural products, both raw and processed. They would like better access to the markets of central and western Canada. I support that concept. However, you cannot have it both ways.
The government has been saying we must have competition, free enterprise, and profitability in transportation in Canada. With our geography and our thinly scattered population, it does not work that way. My friends in the official opposition have been spouting the same line about profitability and transportation. If you insist on accomplishing that, you will get a reduction in service and a discrimination against producers of agricultural products and manufactured products. This is as a result of where they are located and their access to the major markets.
We support the resolution. We could have an inquiry, but I do not suppose more inquiries are needed. We would like to see a combination of subsidies and/or equalized freight rates applying to a host of commodities which Canadians are very good at producing. However, faced with competition from central Canada and from outside our borders, they are faced with a very difficult problem in the area of transportation costs.
Freight Assistance
It would be more appropriate to select modes of transportation most suitable according to distance and the kind of commodity eligible for subsidy. It is wasteful and inefficient to give subsidies to truck transportation hauling heavy bulk commodities for long distances. It is wasteful and inefficient to give subsidies to railroads for small lot shipments over short distances. If we ever reconcile that problem in transportation costs, not only in the Altantic provinces and eastern towships but all over Canada, we will have a much more equitable distribution of our industrial production in this country, both agricultural and non-agricultural.
In any case we support this resolution. We hope the hon. member's friends will agree with him, unless he is moving his motion solely for local consumption in his own riding and in a couple of ridings around it. I am sure his motives are much higher than that, though. He is serious about this and is anxious to obtain the support of members on his side. I trust the motion will be passed, at which point the hon. member will probably want to enter into serious discussion with his hon. friends, including the hon. member who preceded me in this debate, with the Minister of Transport, and with his parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think each member of the House should meditate on the statements made by my colleague for Compton (Mr. Tessier), in particular when he asks whether our problem is not that the strategies implemented by Canada in regional economic development and job creation, are those of rich towns. We should also meditate the question he put as to whether some people have the right to work when others do not just because they come from remote or less developed regions.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker-and statistics tend to prove it- the government creates every year more jobs than any other industrialized country of the world. As the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) announced it, we know that in 1979-80, the employment strategy of the federal government will amount to $715 million against $420 to $425 million this year.
We also know that between $200 million and $300 million will go to job creation for young people of 18 to 30. However, Mr. Speaker, it can be seen that these programs which in principle are valuable-for instance the employment tax credit which brings much benefit to businesses-cannot be easily implemented in ridings like those of the hon. member for Compton and the hon. member for Charlevoix constituencies where there is no industrial base. The millions of dollars which are being invested through that program will not really help the most disadvantaged areas but will rather have the effect of strengthening the urban industrial base.

December 11, 1978
Freight Assistance
Extending to the eastern townships the subsidy program which was originally set up for the Atlantic region could benefit the industrial infrastructure of that region. But, Mr. Speaker, a federal-provincial standing committee on transportation matters in Quebec was established four years ago by the Quebec and the Canadian governments. There is a similar committee for Atlantic Canada and another from Ontario and another for the prairies. And this committee's mandate is precisely to make a continuous and permanent review of the efficiency of those assistance programs and make relevant recommendations to concerned political authorities.
Of course, I feel that the issue of freight rates is a major item of any industrial development strategy. That review is already under way, Mr. Speaker, and we will have to make a global review of the whole structure of transport subsidies. And considering the areas whose economic potential is very high and which are very remote, for example the north shore of the St. Lawrence River, and considering the iron ore from the Sept-Iles area we realize that sooner or later the whole north shore of the St. Lawrence will have to be included in an assisted or subsidized area. And in Bill C-20 introduced in the House early in this session, review, Mr. Speaker, which every Canadian province has urged us to make as quickly as possible, I know my colleagues of the opposition are not in full agreement because they want to play politics with those important matters of transportation; they are not too eager to pass Bill C-20 quickly. But, Mr. Speaker, precisely in that bill we tabled in the house, a bill to revise the transport policy, we have enunciated a basic principle, and 1 quote one of the paragraphs of the preamble of that bill, as follows:
3. (1) It is hereby declared that the objective of the transportation policy for Canada is to achieve a transportation system that serves as an effective instrument of support for the achievement of national and regional social and economic development objectives, is efficient and provides accessibility and equity of treatment for users and it is further declared that the objective of the transportation policy for Canada includes the encouragement and promotion of the integration of services employing the most appropriate modes for each service and that it is the responsibility of governments to attend to the provision of the transportation system.
Further on, Mr. Speaker, still concerning the principles of the legislation, it is said that a decision of the government of Canada or of the Government in Canada and one or more provincial governments requires that the achievement of national or regional social and economic development objectives take precedence over the objective of commercial viability.
Mr. Speaker, we are now very far from the scarecrow raised by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) to the effect that the government is committed to the principle of profitability and the "user pay" principle.
Mr. Speaker, hopefully, Bill C-20 will be passed rapidly when the government introduces it in the House. To come back to the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act, I believe we should go back over the history of this legislation to see

why the legislators decided originally in the twenties and again in the sixties to introduce such legislation.
My colleague for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell) has already mentioned these principles, which are quite easy to understand. Following the establishment of the Canadian confederation under the British North America Act, which contained a commitment towards the Atlantic provinces to build a railroad to bring their products to the markets of central Canada, that is Upper and Lower Canada or the regions of Montreal and Toronto, which are the major consuming areas of our country, it was obvious that we had to assist those areas situated far from major Canadian markets through transport subsidies to bring their products to these major consuming centres. A line had to be drawn somewhere, and 1 believe that this was done around 1923 when the Duncan commission established by the Right Hon. Mackenzie King recommended that this line be drawn at Levis and then east of the highway. There was no highway at that time, but centres east of highway 23 were included, I believe, in the review made in 1969.


Claude Tessier: It was not moved far enough.


Charles Lapointe: Perhaps, as my colleague from Compton says, it was not moved far enough. Of course, I wish too that Charlevoix were included so that our forest products, for instance paper from Clermont, may have access to major markets with more advantageous freight rates but, honestly, Mr. Speaker, I could not say that the distance between Montreal or Toronto and the eastern townships is as considerable as the distance to Charlottetown, Halifax, Gaspe, Rimouski, Riviere-du-Loup or Matane. I do not think it is exactly the same distance.
But the remarks of the hon. member are very interesting and I believe it is essential that, as members of parliament, we make regularly that kind of remarks to enlighten the administrations responsible for the implementation of those programs. For instance, I am assured that the federal-provincial committee responsible for revising all transportation policies concerning Quebec, as a result of the remarks from the hon. member for Compton, will study more carefully transportation subsidies in the eastern townships area.
Mr. Speaker, obviously the eastern townships have a diversified and relatively stable industrial structure. It is also true that this industrial structure is partly based on manufacturing industries that are facing problems, particularly as concerns textile and footwear industries. But before we decide if the intervention of the government in commodities transportation, as proposed by the hon. member for Compton, might have beneficial results, it is essential to study carefully the objectives of the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act. Hon. members opposite try to interrupt me by shouting: Question! I do not know exactly what they are saying, Mr. Speaker, I
December 11, 1978

intend to speak until six o'clock, I have seven minutes left and I am going to use them.
Then, that Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act was passed in July 1969.
Mr. Speaker, we have to go back further in time to 1927 and consider first the intention of the legislator of the time, that is when the Maritime Freight Rates Act was adopted in 1927. This act that set up to define the selected territory, the members for Compton (Mr. Tessier) would like to see amended in order to include the eastern townships.
Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to give an unduly long historical background. However we have to go back somewhat in time to determine why the need for this legislation was once felt. As I said earlier, the Maritime Freight Rates Act was adopted following the report of the Duncan Royal Commission of Inquiry which sat in 1926. Among other things, the commission outlined the relationship between some obligations laid down in section 145 of the British North America Act and the situation in the maritimes in 1926. Basically this section provided that the federal government committed itself to building a new railway line linking Halifax to the St. Lawrence. This is how the Intercolonial Railway was built and completed in 1876. You will recall that later, in 1923, it became an integral part of the Canadian National Railways. The Intercolonial Railway was designed to achieve a particular purpose which was to guarantee maritime merchants and manufacturers access to the vast markets of the rest of Canada.
Furthermore, at the outset, approximately from 1876 until 1912 Intercolonial Railway freight rates were maintained to a lower level encouraging exchanges between the maritimes and more crowded regions of central Canada.
But between 1912 and 1927 a succession of hikes in transportation rates reduced the advantageous position of maritime manufacturers. This situation triggered off a wave of vehement protests and discontent in the Atlantic provinces and it was in this context that the then prime minister set up the Duncan commission whose mandate was the following, and I quote:
To undertake a task of national importance in inquiring into the maritime province grievances . . . The commission ... should take every opportunity for the fullest and frankest discussion of the economic difficulties facing this part of the Dominion, the endeavours which have been made to overcome them, the causes of any shortcoming in these endeavours, and the most effective and practicable remedies.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker that is a short historical account of the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act, 1927. It is essential to see how at the time the present limits of the chosen territory were set. The Duncan commission recommended a 20 per cent reduction of the rate on rail traffic originating in the Atlantic
Freight Assistance
division of the CNR. At that time, the Atlantic division ended at Riviere-du-Loup, but the Duncan commission recommended-


Mr. Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Question! Question!


Charles Lapointe: The hon. member has a vocabulary worthy of the most enlightened parrot. If he can say something other that "Question" Mr. Speaker, perhaps he might rise to intervene in the debate. At that time, as I said, the Atlantic division ended at Riviere-du-Loup, but the Duncan commission recommended that it be extended to Diamond Junction and Levis, since Diamond Junction, on one hand, was the point of intersection of the Transcontinental and the Intercolonial and on the other hand, the construction of the Intercolonial had been extended to Levis in 1879. The 1927 legislation approved that geographic definition of the chosen territory which still prevails today.
Mr. Speaker, let us skip now to the present to deal with the legislation directly related with the motion of the hon. member for Compton.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let us have the question!


Charles Lapointe: We are discussing the freight assistance legislation. If the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) cared to listen, perhaps he would not need to make that remark because I am talking specifically about the proposed amendment or the motion put by the hon. member for Compton.
Mr. Speaker, until 1969 only freight moved by rail benefit-ted from reduced rates, as provided for in the act of 1929.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
MEASURE RESPECTING CHARITABLE CORPORATIONS The House resumed consideration of the motion of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), that Bill S-4, respecting Canadian non-profit corporations, be
2004
[Stage Direction]
December 11, 1978
Non-profit Corporations
read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, prior to the dinner break I was dealing with the bill, primarily in connection with two points. First, I indicated that over the next two years we will see an increase in the number of non-profit corporations, particularly as local communities become more and more involved in activities which heretofore governments looked after; and second, as a consequence of that, we will have to make sure that we are clear on the kind of corporate structures we are crafting to carry out those specific purposes.
Of course it would be wise for us to give uniform consideration to corporate structures, but I do not think we can assume that uniformity will serve our need. It will have to be the kind of structure-and perhaps they might vary from one place to another-to fulfil the needs of the different communities. I might say in passing that when I spoke earlier I had not had the opportunity to read the background paper on the bill, and I note that although the minister's speech came to us, we did not have an opportunity to study it. It seems to me to be always more beneficial and helpful in a debate if we all share the same information.
There are two matters which I should like to touch upon. Although this bill deals primarily and almost wholly with structure and form in relation to non-profit corporations, I do not think one has to be around government very long to recognize that structure and form very often determine content. The first thing I would like to mention is to remind those who are interested in the matter that, as we become more and more involved with non-profit corporations, particularly those dealing with charitable works, we must remember that there is a delicate balance between the operation in connection with government as non-profit corporations carry out those services which the government would normally have to deliver, and the right to participation.
I well remember a matter which was before the House and which was being widely discussed by the public last spring. There was a note from the minister on May 17 in which he indicated that the circular which was put out restricted political participation on the part of those who engaged either in obtaining government grants or were involved in the government in some fashion with respect to non-profit corporations. There was a clarifying statement, which was a good statement, which ended by saying that, according to the courts, political activities are not charitable activities. I appreciate that from the point of view of form and structure, but when form and structure determine content we always run into the difficulty that there is a tendency on the part of government to try to use that form and structure to organize content, and therefore, either inadvertently or with abandon, not worrying, when they should properly be worrying, about the right to political participation by non-profit organizations.
The second area I would like to touch upon is that, as more and more non-profit corporations are established to deal with local needs, we should find a way in which we can make sure
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
that the purposes of those corporations are related to local government.
I do not think members of this House need me to remind them that for a long time municipalities in this country had an enormous difficulty in obtaining funding from the federal government for non-profit corporations to meet local needs. Most of those corporations we are talking about deal with such things as non-profit housing, assistance to the arts, theatre, culture in general, sport, and social services. All of those concern municipalities. As a consequence of having at least three, and sometimes four levels of government which participate financially, I realize it is difficult to organize in such a fashion that it is responsive to local needs. That is the challenge. As we deal with the content of what non-profit corporations will be doing in the fields of housing, art, theatre, sport, social services and other cultural events, it is absolutely essential to realize it is dovetailed and connected with what municipalities do in the country. That is their particular, peculiar responsibility.
Certainly in the last ten years there has been a desire on the part of the federal government to have what has been called the federal presence. I assure the government that federal presence has been known primarily because the government seems to have intruded and to be organizing its affairs in relation to non-profit organizations. Rather than organizing its affairs in relation to the needs of local communities through their municipal councils, the government seems to be acting in defiance of them and confusing them. In relation to the federal government's contribution to local needs stems the provincial government's. Provincial governments have their own concerns. Over the next few years it will be absolutely necessary to work harder in order to ensure that as, the federal government participates, it does so through provincial agreements with municipalities.
If the federal government is looking for a presence by the expenditure of its money, then perhaps it ought to remind itself that it can do so by being known for its good work and not necessarily its advertising. The municipal councils of this country have known too often a federal government which has participated and created confusion. That is something which will be of greater difficulty in the years ahead, as community organizations and non-profit organizations within communities participate in order to serve the needs of communities.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks let me say that we on this side have had a great deal of difficulty compiling information respecting Bill S-4. When we looked around to see what was available, we found the bill. We looked at the committee hearings in the other place from which we gleaned some information. But we lacked an information kit from the department, providing some background information. After a couple of calls to the department, we received at approximately five o'clock a booklet entitled: "Detailed background on the paper for the Canada Non-profit Corporations Bill". I am not cynical enough to
December 11, 1978

believe that this was withheld on purpose, but it says something.
If one wants a good debate in the House, be sure that there is adequate information. If one wants a shoddy debate which will contribute very little to the legislation, dry up the information. Perhaps that is what will happen as we consider this bill. I hope not, because it is an important piece of legislation. It is not something I can become really emotional about, but it is a piece of legislation which has beer, needed for some time.
There are approximately 15,000 non-profit corporations in Canada. Some of them come under federal jurisdiction, approximately 3,000. In the past they have been controlled either under the Canada Business Corporations Act or the Boards of Trade Act. The Canada Business Corporations Act was brought down, put together, debated, and finally passed. The section dealing with non-profit corporations was left out on purpose, because the government felt that non-profit corporations should be dealt with separately. I concur with the government's wisdom in that regard.
Non-profit corporations cover a wide range of activities from health matters to sporting and cultural matters which touch all our lives. The scope and range of volunteer organizations are something which has not been explored adequately. They have the power and ability to react rapidly to situations, far faster than governments. If the bill helps to bring their expertise into focus, then we will have accomplished something.
In the town of Dundas where I lived for approximately 45 years, a young gentleman was set upon by persons unknown and very severely beaten, so much so that he could not work for approximately eight months. No sooner was he out of the hospital and able to go back to work, than his house was burned to the ground by persons unknown. There was a hue and cry to help this man. There was no organization available at the time which could step in and do anything for him. The organizations in the town did not have the funds or structures in place to build him a new house. He had ongoing medical bills which had to be looked after, but no steady job.
The town fathers had a meeting and passed a resolution. They went through the town collecting money, virtually door to door, and received a substantial amount. One thing which hindered them was the fact that they could not say to people donating money that they would be provided with receipts in order to deduct their contributions from their income tax. The reason for that was that the letter sent to the Department of National Revenue was lost somewhere in the maze of mail in the department. In fact I made six or seven telephone calls to the department. To this date I have been told the letter has not been received, even though we know for certain it was mailed. The result of the efforts of the town fathers was very limited. Although some funds were collected to help this individual, certainly it was far short of what could have been done.
Generally speaking, the entire matter of charitable foundations is one which should be examined. I welcome some of the provisions in the bill before us, particularly those which dwell upon the reporting of these foundations. I do not mean to say
Non-profit Corporations
for one moment that there are any instances of fraud. As far as we can ascertain, there has been very little fraud in this field. We can ask anyone in business for the number of organizations requesting donations in the course of a year, and we will see the potential for something going awry. I have experienced this, and like a lot of people in business I received so many requests for assistance that I developed a kind of defence mechanism. Some businesses will put a dollar amount on what they are prepared to give a charitable foundation or a non-profit corporation of one type or another. Others will say, "Write us a letter and we will put it before the committee within our company which will then judge how much we are prepared to give." Others say yes, but when they get off the phone they forget and do not follow through.
We found, as a result of an investigation I undertook with a group of businessmen at one time, that the city where I was doing business was divided into areas and people in fact almost had a franchise to collect funds in those area. No matter what charity was involved, it seemed that different individuals, through some right, and we could never determine just how, collected the funds, and very often the commission rates were as high as 45 per cent.
When I say I welcome the reporting structure contained here, it is because the public donating the funds has a right to know where the funds are going and how they are being dispersed. I might say that the bulk of the sort of thing to which I referred, that is, the general approach to people collecting money on a commission basis, has gone by the boards-at least I hope it has. Nevertheless, that practice was in existence and was very strong over the years.
There have been organized appeals by people who make an outright business of collecting money, and the unfortunate part of it is we do not see very much reporting about where the money actually goes. I think one of the most blatant cases of that in this country took place around World War II times in the form of the "Bundles for Britain" organization across the country. That organization collected millions of dollars, I suppose, and what actually reached the people who needed it amounted to only pennies. The majority of the funds collected was used up on advertising, overhead, travelling expenses to meetings, rallies, and so forth. The actual amount that ended up with the people in Britain who had suffered during World War II was minimal.
We welcome this approach. The ability of charitable foundations to mobilize public interest and gather funds to help research is something of which we are all aware. I have the greatest respect for those who devote their time to the diabetes research group, the heart foundation, the cancer fund, the cystic fibrosis group and other organizations. Those who collect money, including fire departments and various service clubs assist in keeping this research going, with the help of federal and provincial governments. This is a way in which we can express our concern. I know the people in the florist business are unhappy when they see an obituary that says
80067 -5514

December 11, 1978
Non-profit Corporations
something like, forget about the flowers and send a cheque to the heart or cancer foundation, but people like to express their feelings in different ways. Many people I know prefer to send a cheque to one of the worth-while charitable foundations that are contributing tremendously to health research, and we should encourage them.
With this inflow of funds there must be a structure in place to see they are handled properly and meted out to the various research organizations which fulfil the functions set forth in their individual charters. From that point of view this measure is good.
I noted in reading the minutes of the proceedings of the other place that the department has a kit it intends to send out to these charitable organizations which report on an annual basis to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister would be doing us a favour if he were to see that each member of parliament received one of those kits. In carrying out our duties as members of parliament we come into contact with many of these organizations. If you sent out a questionnaire to members of parliament I am sure you would find that most members are directors, honorary members or patrons of one type or another of charitable foundations. We could do a good deal of missionary work by spreading information about this bill and the requirements various organizations will have to adhere to in coming years.
We note there is a five-year compliance period in the legislation and a further period during which an organization which has slipped by for five years can get back in through an appeal to the governor in council. This is a wise provision and a good way to go about handling the measure. People who work with these charitable foundations, non-profit corporations and membership groups, are usually well-intentioned and well-informed and I would not want to see a club held over their heads. By taking this five-year compliance approach we are allowing them to review their charters, their bylaws and regulations, and a sufficient time to review the legislation in order to determine how it fits in with their organizations. This also gives them an opportunity to amend their constitutions, bylaws, charters, whatever the case may be, in order to comply with the provisions of Bill S-4.
Let me return to the matter regarding information given or not given to us. The preparation of this measure has been going on within the department for a number of years. The department has been trying to get a handle on non-profit corporations for five or six years. As the minister mentioned, the department employed Professor Peter Cumming of the Osgoode Law School to carry out a review. He produced a report, and it would have been very helpful if we had received a copy of that report along with the background detail. This would have given us a much more in-depth idea of what is to be required, and would probably have resulted in faster passage of this measure through the House and the committee.
We have no desire to hold this measure up unnecessarily, but we are at a bit of a disadvantage in that it is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The Christmas break is looming and we have the chairman of that

committee telling us he would like to have this measure considered and reported back to the House before the Christmas holidays on the twenty-first, yet we really do not have adequate information. My colleagues will do their very best to see that this bill moves along at an appropriate pace. If the information is forthcoming it will be passed, but if the information is not made available it likely will not. That is the size of it.
There are many other aspects of this bill on which I could speak. I assume that when we get into non-profit corporations we touch many organizations somewhat international in scope and that many of our Canadian charitable or non-profit corporations are branches or affiliates of organizations in other countries, particularly in the United States.
One of the difficulties facing our department of tourism today is that these organizations are prohibited from coming to Canada to hold conventions, which means a loss of many tourist dollars. Although both countries say that it has nothing to do with the legislation passed that dealt with Time magazine and the closing of the border to American television advertising in Canada, this legislation has caused a good deal of resentment in the United States, and it is one of the reasons that these organizations do not come to Canada. Through an amendment made by the Senate, non-profit corporations and, I suppose, charitable foundations and membership corporations, if they so desire and if I read it correctly, will be allowed to hold their annual meetings outside Canada. I hope that reciprocal regulations will be extended to American non-profit corporations. At least it shows that the government recognizes that there is a fault in this regard.
Another aspect of this bill deals with the closing out of a particular corporation and allowing those three types of organizations to merge. Where there cannot be an equitable agreement on the distribution of any funds remaining, there are provisions for the appropriate organization to apply to the courts to have the distribution made.
We do not make enough use of non-profit organizations and particularly charitable foundations, in this country. Several members of service organizations have spoken to me about this. The president of the Rotary Club in Burlington said to me recently that his club at one time undertook many charitable functions in the course of a year and that it now seemed to him that the government had more or less taken over this sort of activity and did not seem to be too interested in organizations like the Rotary Club, Lions, etc. taking on charitable activities. In my constituency there are many senior citizen accommodations which were made available as a result of the work done by such organizations, and 1 for one would like to see them taking a more active role again.
These organizations can fill the gap and ease the drain on the public purse. They gather together people with tremendous backgrounds. We have to get more of the public and community spirit back into such acts. I may be old-fashioned to say so, but at one time I got a great deal of pleasure out of giving to charity and not getting a receipt for national revenue
December 11, 1978

purposes. I enjoyed imagining someone in the organization saying, "I wonder who gave us $100." I enjoyed this more than the approach we have today when someone says, "Will you give us a donation for so and so? It is tax deductible." I realize that we are working on a larger scale today and things are no longer the way they were, but I think a lot of pleasure and real compassion have gone out of charity giving because of this approach. Perhaps getting some of these service organizations back into the field through legislation will help to change this trend.
If this legislation were to provide a framework and guidelines within which such organizations could work, I am sure the pattern of how they operate would be adopted by the provinces which would in turn probably introduce parallel legislation, if they have not already done so.
I hope the minister will listen to our pleadings about inadequate background information, and that the next time he has a piece of legislation to bring into the House he will remember our pleadings and see that we are adequately informed before we enter debate so that it can move along at a good pace and we can make some progress.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: I am not going to speak long in this debate, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to make two or three points which I hope will be useful to the over-all context of the discussion, particularly as the bill goes to committee for more detailed examination. It has struck me that both the debate we are having now with respect to non-profit corporations and the debate we had earlier today on amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act which, by nature, was primarily a linguistic amendment, more or less hit at the root of the way in which our society operates today.
I can remember hearing a very fascinating speech approximately two years ago, given by a former member of this House and of the present administration, the Hon. Eric Kierans, who talked about the evolution of corporations in the European-North American context, and in which he stated that the whole notion of the corporation and its importance in our society is a relatively recent phenomenon. I would like to talk more about that, because I think it is wise to keep this theory in mind in terms of the major amendment which is before us this evening.
It is important to note at the outset that this particular piece of legislation provides some kind of federal structure for two basic kinds of corporations as defined in the act. As I understand it, we are to have two kinds of membership corporations, one which basically carries on its activities for the benefit of the public, and is therefore defined as a charitable organization, and one which carries on its activities primarily for the benefit of its own members. In either instance these are not commercial enterprises in the true sense of the word. Such corporations-the minister himself has stated that there are some 15,000 of these bodies in existence-are really a recent phenomenon. I do not wish to sound like Methuselah, because when I say recent I am talking about the last century, and in the history of mankind that is not a very long time.
Non-profit Corporations
We have become so accustomed to having these institutions around that we have, by and large, taken them for granted. It is stated very clearly in the background notes for Canadian non-profit corporations that basically the bill is cast as a registration statute. The bill states unequivocally that a corporation has the capacity and also the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person. That, I would contend, is a very interesting phenomenon. In a sense we are providing a more up to date framework for a situation where we are creating an artificial person. That is really what a corporation is under the law. It is the creation of an artificial person for the purposes of certain rights, powers and privileges. It is an artificial person in an ultimate sense that there is no individual person who carries responsibility, liability, or who exercises certain privileges. Because of that fact and phenomenon, in a business sense we have seen evolve in our lifetime a whole new category of "persons" which exercise power in our lives, of a very great magnitude.
In our lifetime it is interesting to note that we have corporations which are much larger than even nations themselves. Some of the largest corporations that exist in the world today,-and I am thinking of corporations of the size, say, of General Motors, or I might even use the description of some of the very large religious bodies that exist that have millions of members,-exist for the purposes of this act as persons within our country, and yet they are not persons. I mean that it is possible for them to make decisions which ultimately affect all our lives without any individual being responsible. To me that is a very great responsibility. It is one that we will have to reflect on at greater length as the years go by.
When I realize the particular definition or responsibility that we are talking about this evening has to do with creating more order and hopefully less government regulation or less discrimination with respect to the operation of non-profit corporations, I am somewhat troubled that we have continued to provide a framework or to provide legitimacy, if you like, for corporate activity in our society without ensuring that it is fundamentally responsible to people.
It is quite one thing to provide a framework for either commercial or non-commercial corporations under national law as we do today, but it is quite another to think of the way in which corporations exist which are not covered under domestic law. Certainly that is increasingly the case with a growing number of transnational corporations. I will not take the time of the House this evening to go on at length about the problems that are being encountered in various United Nations forums in trying to deal with this phenomenon. We have only to deal with the problem that we have in our own situation of trying to ensure adequate disclosure.
I am delighted to see, in this particular legislation we have before us, that there will be much more effective disclosure than is presently the case for non-profit organizations. Although I have not studied it, I would assume that some similar forms of disclosure exist for the Canada Corporations

December 11, 1978
Non-profit Corporations
Act. Perhaps that is something we can explore in committee, or maybe the minister may want to set me straight if I have it wrong with respect to the bill that covers the larger area of commercial legislation, that is, the Canada Business Corporations Act.
I think we must be sure that as corporations, whether commercial or non-profit, receive greater privileges and rights in our society, that that comes with an exercise of greater responsibility. Responsibility must ultimately be in the area of disclosure. The right of the public is to know and to exercise some kind of response when corporations obviously trespass on the basic rights the minister refers to when he talks about this bill ensuring corporations that are registered under it will be operating in harmony with the Bill of Rights. I think that is what he said this afternoon.
That in itself struck me as being interesting. I would like to have heard him speak at greater length about that. However, I am pleased to see that he views this legislation, no matter whether there are 3,000 or 5,000 non-profit corporations registered, as insuring that they will in effect operate in conformity with human rights legislation. I would hope that we might ensure that all federal legislation, in terms of both legislation and regulation, would operate in such fashion, although we know that is not always the case. However, I commend the minister in this instance for ensuring that that framework will exist.
Also I believe it is important, as pointed out in this background document, that, as it says, "The bill requires mandatory financial disclosure by a membership corporation to its members and by a charitable corporation to the public." Here the distinction is made between the two types of non-profit corporations, those that basically serve the membership and those that service a wider constituency. This business of public disclosure, as my colleague, the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) mentioned, is very important. In this day and age when billions of dollars are being raised by charitable organizations, it is important that the general public, as well as the direct membership, be fully assured that these moneys are being raised for legitimate purposes and that the money is being efficiently and responsibly dispensed. So I look forward to the disclosure that is to take place.
May I say that I am particularly concerned about this section because I have attempted to gain, over the last year or two some accurate picture as to the situation in terms of the registration of charitable organizations, as Your Honour is well aware. I have found it most confusing. Perhaps this is because I am not a lawyer and I am unable to understand all of the legal arguments that have been put forward. But as far back as about two years ago, about two ministers, as my colleague from Esquimalt-Saanich says, two ministers of national revenue, I have been trying to find out even the names of those registered as charitable organizations in the country. Quite frankly I have been baffled and I do not think it has ever been properly explained on the floor of this House, and certainly not in any correspondence with me, why it has not been possible for the Department of National Revenue to

make available a simple list of those organizations today that have received a charitable tax number and that are in the position of being able to offer charitable tax status or benefits to those who contribute to them.
In most instances individual organizations which solicit support will tell you whether or not they receive that status. This information is required when filing income tax returns, and yet in requests that I have made on the floor of this House and in correspondence to successive ministers, I have never been given an answer. Usually I am told that it would create some such thing as too much paper work or, in the disclosure of this particular information about the specific names, that somehow or other this would be giving information that would be either damaging, dangerous, or a disservice to these particular organizations. I cannot for the life of me understand the kind of rationalization or lack of response in this area. Therefore I register the mild hope that this particular bill will encourage the new Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Abbott) to be forthcoming on this matter.
I think this is a basic right of the people and taxpayers of this country, to know on an annual basis, if you like, those that are registered for purposes of charitable donations. If anything it will be one form of insurance where an individual may- because we have had cases of fraudulent situations reassure himself that the organization he is giving money to at a specific point in time has been registered, or has been registered for a period of years, if he wants to know that there is some continuity of likelihood of that organization being able to carry on and fulfil the objectives set forth in the pursuit of its particular program.
I look forward quite optimistically to having a more regular statement. I do not want to know in a detailed way each and every charitable organization's activities, or the disbursement of its funds. I presume that information will be available to those who want to inquire directly of a specific organization. As I understand it, that will be the law. I do think it is not beyond the range of responsibility and possibility of a government to provide an annual list.
Certainly I will press for that to take place on a regular basis.
There is something else about which I am concerned. This will come as no surprise to members of this House. I refer to the way in which the government treated charitable organizations when they began to raise issues embarrassing or disturbing to the government. This goes back over two or three years.
I recall the first instance when this became an issue. It was about two years ago. A particular religious group was demonstrating about the rights of certain people who were being discriminated against in the Soviet Union because of their religious views. In that instance, a particular group in Canada was advertising that it was going to demonstrate in front of the Soviet Embassy. When officials in Revenue Canada heard that this organization was going to carry on a demonstration against the Soviet Embassy because of what was happening to
December 11, 1978

some of their confreres in the same religious group in the Soviet Union, Revenue Canada suggested in conversations with this group they would not get their charitable status renewed. Apparently they had suspended it for a period of time and it was not going to be renewed if that group participated in that kind of political activity. There was quite a row raised on the floor of this House about that kind of intimidation. The threat was then withdrawn.
Less than two years later a more recent minister of national revenue issued a set of guidelines, so called, that were circulated to all groups which had this charitable tax status, listing the kinds of proper and improper activity which they could engage in, a kind of setting forth of the guidelines for acceptable political activity.
Putting it the other way, any group that engaged in political activity would, according to the definition of Revenue Canada, soon lose its charitable number. Again this whole position was based on the flimsiest kinds of grounds.
First, it was based on a couple of court cases that were certainly not recent and which showed very little relevance to the present situation. The interpretation that was put on these cases went, from my point of view, away beyond what those particular cases in effect decided. I thought it entered very much into the situation of departmental officials, if not ministers, beginning to intimidate or to some degree limit the freedom of action of charitable organizations of this country. From the number of groups I heard from-church groups, service clubs, voluntary organizations of one kind or another-[DOT] this did not go down well. It did have the effect of raising some very real fears among these groups as to whether the government might be able to cut off their charitable tax status. We still have not resolved that issue. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, the government finally suspended or withdrew the particular memo. However, he very much implied in the answers he gave in this House that the basis on which those regulations were set out still stood. There has been no substantial clarification or clearing of the air on this very contentious matter.
We are left in a real dilemma as to what are the criteria, the acceptable role if you like, of charitable organizations. We are also left with the question of who really decides what those criteria should be. Unfortunately, the danger still exists in terms of the kinds of intimidation that can occur, even in this legislation.
On the first page of the background papers, there is this intriguing and somewhat disturbing statement, and I quote:
-the bill, although it applies specifically to non-profit corporations seeks to achieve the same general goals as does the CBCA; that is, to set out a legal system that is clear, comprehensive, and practical:-
No one will disagree with that.
-to minimize the scope of the administrative discretion exercised by department officials;-
That is to be commended. Here is the important part:
-to relegate to the regulations the detailed rules, particularly the financial disclosure rules; and to simplify all statutory formalities with a view to increasing operational efficiency in the respective offices of the corporations,-
Non-profit Corporations
It is still implied very clearly that there will be a section for regulations or, as it states, detailed rules, not just the ones having to do with financial disclosure but perhaps other interpretations that some zealous official might put on what is a properly constituted activity of a non-profit organization in the charitable field.
It is becoming increasingly clear that we must have a good airing of this matter. We must have a thorough public examination of the role of charitable organizations in our society today. The more I have thought about this whole debate and the issue of contention that has existed here with successive ministers of national revenue and their officials, the more I have become concerned about some of the attitudes or philosophic assumptions on which some of this debate has been based.
There has been almost an automatic assumption that somehow or other the activity of charitable organizations and political issues are mutually and totally exclusive of one another. Quite frankly, that is extremely superficial. If one thinks about the very nature of charitable organizations, the reason for which a great many of them are brought into existence, one realizes in many instances they have been brought into existence to deal with issues with which the government or elected authorities have not come to terms.
Certainly most of the major social changes and improvements with regard to governmental responsibility over the lives of people very often began with voluntary associations or charitable groups. If we think of improvements in the situation with respect to people's housing, the provision of various social services, the whole issue of medical care and health services, many of these began with groups and associations that were purely in the charitable field.


Donald W. Munro: Yes, and anti-slavery.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: And anti-slavery, as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) reminds me. Many began in a voluntary way. It was only a few years down the road that governments decided to exercise their responsibility on behalf of all of society.
If a very strict interpretation had been put on this from the beginning, if at the outset officials had narrowly defined the issue of political activity as that famous circular did earlier this year, where would we be now in terms of responsive and responsible society? We would be in a very sorry state. That is why I am quite alarmed and very much concerned that a government minister or an official would think that somehow or other we could separate this into the kind of watertight compartments envisioned in that regulation.
If a charitable organization is being responsible, it will from time to time likely be involved in issues, sometimes of controversy, and sometimes of criticism of those in positions of authority. If we are going to have a narrow definition, if we are going to have regulations that prohibit the expression of opinion, even to lobbying from time to time on specific issues, we will not only do a disservice to charitable organizations and

December 11, 1978
Non-profit Corporations
the basis on which they exist today, but we will do a major disservice to ourselves and our society.
Therefore, I simply argue at this point in the context of this bill that we not begin to envision regulations or begin to have narrowing definitions that really take the life, heart and some of the purpose out of what has been of primary importance in the activities of charitable organizations. As the minister knows, there are only 45,000 to 50,000 of these, and only a small number are registered for these purposes under this kind of legislation. Many would never seek nor in fact need this kind of national registration. What happens, of course, is that the major ones come under this kind of law. Therefore, any change they make will set the style, pace, and direction which many of the others will follow.
I hope in committee there will be more opportunity to explore this area. It is of very great concern, particularly having seen the many instances in the last year or so when officials who are either overly sensitive or overly narrow in their definition, or simply not realistic, impose the kinds of restrictions that do nothing but harm to voluntary and charitable activity in our country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this may not be the occasion of a very exciting debate but I should like to register the opinion that some very important things have been said by all those who have taken part in this discussion. That goes for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) and for all my friends to the right who have spoken.
I should like to underline some of the things which have been said, and perhaps add two or three words. First, may I refer to the comments which have just been made by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) about the relationship between work done by voluntary, non-profit organizations and the services which are provided by the state through various agencies. I subscribe to the views he has expressed in that connection. I go on to say, as I have done many times in the House, that the thing of which I am most proud about the public life of this country in the last few decades is the fact that we have greatly improved the services which are available to our people. Those services include not only maintenance of income but a whole range of health programs which are available through the various health centres. I think of areas such as rehabilitation and assistance to handicapped people in many ways. There just is no comparison between what was available two or three decades ago and what is available now. However, I did not rise to make that speech-members have heard it made a few times before.
I simply want to say that as one who is most excited about the gains we have made in the public sector, I join with all those who have spoken in saying that a very important sector in our society is occupied by voluntary and non-profit organizations. The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kem-pling) mentioned some of them, and other organizations have also been mentioned. I think of groups that work with crippled

people, associations which are interested in paraplegics or multiple sclerosis patients.
We all know our own constituencies best, and in my own constituency I think of organizations like the Ellen Douglass Association which works with the staff and teachers of the Ellen Douglass School caring for crippled and handicapped, children. I think, too, of the work done by the Manitoba Association for Crippled Children and Adults. Such organizations do a tremendous amount of good work. They are pioneering in efforts the state may yet take over, and they are doing a tremendous service. They deserve recognition. They deserve this bill-I wonder whether many members have gone right through it to determine whether its substance matches its volume.
I think of various groups working with youth, with women, with boys and girls. There was an organization known, not long ago, as the Boys Clubs of Canada; in keeping with the times it has become the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada. Then there are the veterans organizations. Today, a number of them work not only with veterans, disabled and otherwise, but are branching out to render services to civilians who suffer from disabilities of which they have experience. War Amputations of Canada is an outstanding example of this. And, of course, there is the Sir Arthur Pearson Association for the War Blinded.
We do well to take these few minutes today to pay tribute to the voluntary organizations, the non-profit groups that do this kind of work. I know that when I visit a place like the Ellen Douglass School in my own constituency I am impressed not only by the kind of service which is given but by the patience and the warm, human touch of those who teach and care for these disabled and handicapped persons. They deserve whatever praise it is to have their work mentioned in the House of Commons.
Having joined in that rhetoric-it is part of this debate and I regard it as important rhetoric-I want to support as strongly as I can one other theme which has been mentioned by previous speakers. The theme I wish to support has to do with the income tax regulations. I listened with interest to the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth saying it used to be more exciting to give for the sake of giving than to give because you get an income tax rebate. But today that is part of the way in which our society works, and many organizations of a voluntary character depend upon the contributions they are able to get because income tax deductibility is available to those who make those contributions.
I found it quite disturbing a year or so ago when the Department of National Revenue put out guidelines or a circular which seemed to warn some of these voluntary organizations that they had better not get mixed up with anything which might sound to the department as if it were political, or that they had better not be critical or caught saying anything which might be embarrassing to the government, if they wanted to keep their tax status. Surely, groups of people who are working for the good of their fellow human beings on a voluntary basis ought not to be looked upon with suspicion by
December 11, 1978

the government as though they were trying to get income tax deductions they did not deserve. I am not satisfied that the matter has been fully straightened out even yet. The previous minister did not get it straightened out in this chamber, nor did he do so in the other chamber. And since then he has lost that job. Of course, members of the other place go on and on-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: For ever.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not really. They are only allowed to go on until they reach the age of 75. Fortunately, that is not the case in this chamber. At any rate, I am glad two or three hon. members have made this point tonight and I hope the government will take it seriously.
There is one other thing I want to say. I find it rather strange that the government should have brought in this bill at the very time we have learned that as part of the program of cutbacks the Department of Supply and Services has instructed its publications centre to cut down drastically the amount of government informational material it makes available to libraries generally, and to university libraries in particular.
Like many other hon. members around here I have been waiting for several days to participate in the question period in connection with this matter. When one waits several days and does not get into the question period, he falls back on Standing Order 43. That is why I moved the motion under Standing Order 43 I did today to make the point. I am sorry that the new Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. De Bane) was not here to hear my motion, but I shall see that he knows about the proceedings both this afternoon and this evening. For a government which is talking about wanting people to have greater access to government documents and government publications to be cutting down on the extent to which it is prepared to make those publications available to the libraries of this country, and to be imposing particular restrictions on university libraries, I think is a very sad mistake.
It is perfectly true that we are getting letters about this matter. I am glad we are, and I hope the letters are coming not only to us who are private members in this House but also to the government. I know that every time we stand up in this House and say "This is a cutback which ought not to be made," the government says, "Well, we have to cut somewhere." Mind you, the government cannot say to us the things it says to my friends to my right as to which way they are going. We just happen to think that involving government in the life of this country is an important way to advance the cause of civilization. We do not advance the cause of civilization when we cut back on the material which is made available both to libraries which are open to the general public and to our university libraries.
I hope that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is here for this debate and who, I hope, is following it, will take that message to his colleague, the new Minister of Supply and Services. I understand that some of the
Non-profit Corporations
ministers who have taken over departments they did not have before are wrestling a bit with some of the decisions they are expected to implement. I hope the Minister of Supply and Services will see fit to reverse the decision about supplying government publications to libraries generally, and to university libraries in particular.
Those are the few thoughts I wanted to add to this discussion. This debate may not reach the crescendo of excitement we sometimes get around here, but I believe we are talking about something which is very important in Canadian life.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, remembering the remarks which have just been made by my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to the effect that we are talking about something important this evening, I am frequently puzzled by the priorities assigned by this government to the legislation it brings before this House. I just happened to look at Friday's Hansard, and I noticed on page 1941 that the order of business as set forth by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) was, first, Bill S-4, legislation respecting non-profit corporations, and then Bill S-5, Canada Business Corporations Act amendments. The order in which we have dealt with those two bills today has been reversed. Then came Bill C-13, amendments to the Electricity Inspection Act and the Gas Inspection Act. Then came legislation dealing with the Canada-France trade agreement, which is facetiously described as the champagne bill. In the present state of Canada's economy these are considered by this government to be the bits of legislation we should be studying.
True, we have dealt with a number of quite important bills since we came back here in October. We have dealt with the family allowances bill, the old age security bill, and the unemployment insurance bill. Some of these bills have gone through, and some are still in committee. We dealt with a borrowing authority bill. The government had to backtrack on that one. It had to move back from $17 billion to $7 billion. It had to lop off $10 billion because it could not tell us where it was going to spend it.
This afternoon and this evening we have been dealing with two bills, Bill S-4 and Bill S-5, which by their dimensions at least are important. The bill we are considering now is 150 pages in length and contains 242 provisions. I would like to come back to that in a moment. However, as I say, I am puzzled by the priorities this government set for its legislation. Where, for example, are measures which would deal with the key problems of unemployment, inflation, and business uncertainty, which are facing our country today? Where are the ways and means provisions which flow from the budget? Where are the changes to the Income Tax Act which are required? Where are the changes in the excise tax law and in the customs tariff law which are required? We are still waiting for them. The country is waiting for them. Business is waiting for them.
We have before us Bill S-4 and Bill S-5, which set up elaborate paraphernalia and structures to create and to put
2012

December 11, 1978
Non-profit Corporations
corporations in place, be they non-profit corporations or otherwise.
I did not have an opportunity to be present at the hearings regarding this bill which took place in the Senate. We learned on Friday last that this bill was to be before us today. I have not had a chance to see what representations were made to the Senate by non-profit organizations, about their concerns regarding the complexities of the structures which are set out.
I wonder if those who drafted this legislation ever considered such small charitable or non-profit organizations-a huts non-lucratifs, as it is aptly put in the French language-as the organization which is set up to ensure that the leg-hold trap will be abolished in Canada. That is a small group. It gathers dollars and fifty cent pieces from school children and adults all over Canada, but in order to quality as a non-profit organization this group has to subscribe to this bill comprising 150 pages and 242 clauses. This organization will have to have a lawyer. It will have to pay subscription for lawyer's fees in order to make sure that they are operating within the law. It seems to me that a non-profit organization is a nonprofit organization is a non-profit organization. I cannot see why we have to use 150 pages to define one. There are some- they are specified separately here-which have a somewhat different nature. I refer to chambers of commerce and the like, but what about voting powers, proxies, and that sort of thing? I am sure those provisions are not needed for all non-profit organizations in Canada.
My friend, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), mentioned the number of non-profit or charitable organizations there are. I recall putting a question on the order paper about three or four years ago. I received an answer saying that there would be so much work involved in producing this kind of information that it would not be economically feasible. As my friend was speaking, it occurred to me that there is one way of doing this. There must be a list somewhere, there must be a list in Revenue Canada, otherwise there would not be a little X, Y, Z number. Maybe they have the SIN too, I am not sure. If they do not have one, they can invent one, as my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) said, because that is the new system. If you do not have one, you invent one and you proceed in that way.
There must be a list of the organizations which are given the right to issue receipts for income tax purposes. Where is it? I would say it is with Revenue Canada. Why is it not available? Why is there not just a copy of it available? Let us have just one copy in the Library of Parliament. That is one place where it could be. I see no reason why it should not be there. It must be a public document. Those of us who want it or need it would then know whether this or that organization was entitled to issue receipts for income tax purposes, and because of the inter-library loan system, that document would be available for consultation in any library in Canada. Thank goodness we do have that inter-library loan system. I think if there were specific titles of groups mentioned on the list, they could be

looked up in the copy which would be in the library and, I suggest, in the Public Archives of Canada. It could be changed from time to time, but there is a loose-leaf system for making amendments to government regulations.
I wonder whether there is a swimming pool incorporated, for example, that is on a charitable organization's list so that those who build swimming pools for prominent people can obtain their income tax deductions that way.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Be more specific.


Donald W. Munro: I do not think there is any need to be any more specific. What I have in mind is fairly evident.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Take the plunge.


Donald W. Munro: I will take a dive at it.
I am also a little concerned about the matter which was raised by the hon. member for Egmont. He stole some of my thunder, but I think it is worth going over the matter again. I can remember when, in the month of May this year, those regulations came out and the furor that was raised about what they meant, about who was going to bite the bullet and who was going to continue engaging in the activities in which they had been involved. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that there was an information circular dated February 27, 1978, No. 3. I think it is worth putting it on the record in part. It reads:
The purpose of this circular is to explain to registered charities and to charities seeking registration the consequences of having objects and carrying on activities that are political in nature.
I well remember that my friend, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, raised the question on May 1 and 1 raised the question on May 3, and during two or three weeks in May the government was balancing from one foot to the other, saying that the circular was not really an instruction but was merely an accumulation of the jurisprudence on this matter. There is no jurisprudence in this document. These are threats, plain threats.
Then, toward the end of the discussion in the House- because I do not think the discussion is fully ended since this was left very vague-the Prime Minister said in a pet, "All right, I will rescind it for you, if that is what you want." Do you rescind information circulars? Surely you can cancel them. I do not think rescinding was quite the word to use. You can withdraw them, which I think would have been the proper word to use. Rescinding has a somewhat different meaning. I have not looked it up recently in the dictionary, but it does not bear quite the same meaning of permanence that cancellation or withdrawal has, to my way of thinking.
I should like to go on and cite one other piece from this information circular. The second paragraph begins:
It is well established at law that an organization whose purpose is the attainment of a political object is not organized for a charitable purpose.
When the hon. member for Egmont was listing some of the activities of organizations, I mentioned the anti-slavery organi-
December 11, 1978

zation in the eighteenth century. What about the organization to change the penal laws in the nineteenth century? That was political acitivity. They did not get deductions for income tax purposes in those days, I am sure of that. But today there is the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society. These societies are formed for the sole purpose of making sure that the penal system of this country is run in a humanitarian way, and when there are any regulations or any pieces of the law which, in their view, do not correspond to their definition of what is humanitarian, they are not mute and, God bless them, they should not be. They should stand on their hind legs and scream, and they should not be penalized for it either. The same applies, as I was saying, to those who are showing their opposition to the leghold trap. They became involved in political activities; they wrote to their members of parliament. It says here in the circular, "An object normally is said to be 'political' if its ultimate intention is to influence the policy making process." It speaks here about writing to members of parliament and so on.
I find that sort of circular issued to organizations which are fulfilling a very important role in our society an abomination. They are fulfilling a role that no government in any democratic country will ever be able to fulfil or should fulfil. These channels should be open to our citizens to express themselves, and to influence legislation and legislators. This particular information circular is an abomination. When we were asking these questions we could not say too much in our preambles, but "abomination" is the only word I can think of to describe that document. I would like to think that it will be definitely withdrawn, as in some other unfortunate incidents in which this government has been involved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a long list too.


Donald W. Munro: Yes, it might cover even more pages than this bill covers. I think that this particular information bulletin might go along with many others.
As I mentioned, I was rather staggered to see the size and complexity of this bill and the detail into which it has gone for the proper constitution of organizations that are designed to fulfil charitable purposes or of those who wish to come together on a voluntary basis to further a legitimate social cause. I do not know why they have to go any further than that-that is a simple definition, I should think. I suppose it could be refined a little more. But I do not see the necessity of going to this length to define that type of organization.
The booklet outlining the detailed background of this particular bill is a fair number of pages in length and is in fine print. At page 11 it reads as follows:
As a result, the bill, although it applies specifically to non-profit corporations, seeks to achieve the same general goals as does the Canada Business Corporations Act-
Non-profit Corporations
It continues:
-to relegate to the regulations the detailed rules, particularly the financial disclosure rules; and to simplify all statutory formalities-
Goodness gracious, there are 150 pages of detailed description, and there will be regulations in addition to that. How will associations out to ban the leghold trap fit into that system? How will those seeking amendments to the Criminal Code or other federal statutes, such as those affecting the gun laws, fit into that system? They have a legitimate right to stand up, complain, and make a corporate joint approach to government on pieces of legislation to which they object. They want to be within the law. They do not like the law as it is, and they want to see it changed. What about those concerned with the death penalty, prison reform, and abortion?
This bill is 150 pages long and contains 242 clauses, in addition to regulations. It defies the imagination of one who feels we ought to be thinking in simpler terms about our legislation and not in more detailed terms. I doubt that people with causes to further will be able to get from the beginning to the end of this bill without going to sleep. They will go to sleep and not understand more than the first two or three pages, if that. Yet, they will have to subscribe to it.
Therefore, among the comments the minister will make as he closes this debate, I hope he will address himself particularly to the status of this information bulletin. It is not a bulletin which emanated from his department. It belongs to the Department of National Revenue. If he does not make some comment about it, I am sure the matter will be brought up again in committee. That dreadful document should disappear because it is a shadow over all charitable organizations. They want to know exactly where they stand and where it stands with regard to them. If the minister is not able to say anything about that particular regulation, I hope he prevails upon the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Abbott) to come before the committee and make the appropriate statement.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words before the minister closes the debate. Bill S-4 is a very weighty tome respecting Canadian non-profit organizations. Supposedly it will have the effect of lessening the possibility that moneys donated to and expended by charitable organizations and membership corporations will not be used for the purposes for which they were intended, and that occurrences of abuse or fraudulent behaviour will be reduced.
The bill is a vehicle to expedite the work of the volunteer sector of our society. For that reason I applaud its objectives. But sometimes I think that we would do a lot more to encourage volunteers if a bill of this complexity could be written in plain English so that those to whom it applies would find it more comprehensible. As it stands, probably it necessitates the services of a corporate lawyer for days and even weeks to read, understand, and transmit its intricacies to the voluntary sector.
Because I have a very healthy respect for what volunteer organizations contribute to our society, and because I have a
80067-56V4

December 11, 1978
Non-profit Corporations
belief that they could do even more if they were not so hampered by bureaucratic red tape, I attempted to plough my way through this particular bill to see if it made reference to a matter which has been raised on a number of occasions this evening. It is a matter in which I am particularly interested and which I and others have raised in the House on a number of occasions. I am referring to the information circular which was noted by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).
This circular was issued by Revenue Canada last spring. It dealt with charitable organizations and political activity. But search as I would through the 242 clauses of the bill, I could find no reference to that particular aspect of the role of volunteer organizations. One might say this is not surprising, since the matter should more rightly be dealt with by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Abbott) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). That is true after a fashion, but since the government has promised for many years to do something about updating the rules and regulations concerning the activities of volunteer organizations, particularly as they pertain to disclosure, I thought possibly this bill would be used for the purposes of clarification. I am referring to clarification as far as the guidelines of last spring were concerned. Those guidelines issued by Revenue Canada, far from recognizing the contemporary role of volunteer and charitable organizations, had the effect of restricting their activities considerably.
When I stopped to consider this promise by the government to attempt to make the rules and regulations covering charitable organizations more applicable to contemporary society, I found I had to go back eight years, to the time when the promise was first made in the budget speech of Edgar Benson. At that time, in 1970, he said that a review of the tax laws, as they relate to charitable organizations, would be undertaken. As far as I can find out, that is when the promise was first made. But in 1977 the government's advisory council on volunteerism recommended a series of measures to safeguard citizen groups from political pressures. Even that more recent advice to the government has not been heeded.
Did the government consider proceeding with reform of outdated rules and regulations? Did it consider getting on with the work of clarifying these vague laws? No, that was not the manner in which the government proceeded. It did not decide to clarify and set out what could be considered contemporary legislation regarding charitable organizations. Instead, last April it circulated to charitable organizations across Canada this circular 78-3.
As has been stated by my colleagues, this circular warned churches and charities that they risked losing their tax exempt status if they engaged in so-called political activity. Political activity was defined in the circular as any activity that has as its objective the changing of any legislation or even the maintenance of existing legislation. It included seeking support for their objectives from members of parliament or from the general public by means of the media. That may have been
acceptable to the then minister of national revenue, and it may have been acceptable to his colleague, but to those of us on this side of the House, sir, not only did that approach seem to be very punitive, it also had the effect, as far as we were concerned, of stultifying rather than encouraging the work of the volunteer sector of our society.
At that time an editorial in the Toronto Star responded to the activities of the government and to the circular put forward with regard to charitable organizations. In that editorial of April 18 it referred to the way in which the Trudeau government was trying to muzzle volunteer organizations. It said:
This is outrageous. It's based on National Revenue's interpretation of a body of law that goes back to Britain 300 years ago and which takes the narrow view that while charities can directly aid the needy, for example, they can't advocate changes in public policy that might benefit the needy.
It pointed out the incongruity of that approach.
As a result of that there was a series of questions asked in the House by a number of us on this side, members who were very concerned that this particular circular represented a very dangerous intrusion into the democratic right of free speech. At that time questions were raised in the House, in the committee, and during exchanges between this chamber and the other place where the minister was then sitting, and he replied to my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) by a letter, explaining that the charitable status of organizations "would not be prejudiced by limited attempts to promote the interests of those organizations at the political level". At this point the minister introduced a new note to the discussion for debate. This issue became compounded by that of limits or the lack of limits of ministerial discretion.
I asked the minister at that time in what way he was able to sit in judgment on the activities of churches or charities, as to whether their attempts or interests should be limited in any way and, if so, how he would define those limits and where he got his authority to do so.
As has been noted, under heavy attack in this House the government finally agreed to withdraw the circular. The victory was a very uncertain one, because government spokesmen insisted that they would continue to enforce the law according to their interpretation of it, circular or no circular. As a result of that, Canada's charitable organizations were left with the threat hanging over them, that if they did not conform and if they did not curtail their political activities, they might face punitive action by Revenue Canada. That, of course, is what happened, and has happened on a number of occasions since.
When I look back over my records I find it was on May 3, the then minister of national revenue wrote to inform me that he had decided to withdraw circular 78-3, for review by his officials. Having received that kind of communication from the minister, one might have gathered that the intimidation which was connotated in the circular would also have been withdrawn. Yet, sir, on June 11 of this year it came to light that a women's group, the Brampton Women's Centre, had been forced to sign a statement that it would take no part in

December 11, 1978

political activities if it were to receive or qualify for its standing as a charitable organization and receive charitable status for purposes of tax deductions. The president of that particular group admitted she had signed only under pressure, because without the charitable status that was to be accorded her organization, the organization would not be able to continue or exist. I ask you, sir, is this an example of government action which is directed at promoting voluntary activity in our society?
At that time I referred to the incident regarding the Brampton Women's Centre as a danger to our entire political system, and a failure to keep a promise to redraft the circular. A little over a month after the minister had assured me that the bulletin was being withdrawn and reviewed, his department was proceeding to threaten organizations such as this one, the Brampton Women's Centre, because it was felt that they would engage in political activity of a nature relating to women's interests. It strikes me as rather ironic, sir, that if Agnes MacPhail and Nellie McClung, in their fight for women's rights in this country, had been forced to withdraw from their activities by governments of the day under that kind of intimidation, probably I would not be in a position to stand in the House of Commons this evening.
As a result of that incident regarding the Brampton Women's Centre questions were raised in the House of Commons as to the intent of the government in respect of volunteer organizations. Once again I heard from the then minister of national revenue. Having promised that the circular would be withdrawn for review and clarification, he apologetically explained to me that what was involved was a specific paragraph in the Income Tax Act, and that he had no authority to withdraw that. He went on to include this paragraph in his letter of May 24:
It may well be that the legislation is too restrictive ... that it has not kept up with the time. For that reason I have asked my colleague, Hon. Jean Chretien, Minister of Finance, to review the applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act. Meanwhile, however, my officials must administer the act in accordance with its present provisions. I assure you, nevertheless, that the department's practice is not to be unduly restrictive with charities.
What kind of language is that with regard to charitable organizations in this country?
Earlier I mentioned correspondence which I had from the minister that referred to limiting attempts of charitable organizations. Subsequently he wrote that he would not be unduly restrictive regarding charitable organizations. How can we assure that charitable organizations in this country will carry out work on a voluntary basis, work that we desire them to carry on, if they are to be threatened, or their activities curtailed by implication that the government will not be unduly restrictive? What does this really mean? What does it mean?
We have already seen in the case of the Brampton Women's Centre that they would not have received their funding had they not given a commitment that they would not take part in any political expression. How many other organizations across
Non-profit Corporations
Canada since that time have received similar threats or have been similarly intimidated, and about which we do not know? How many charitable organizations which might have been functioning, refused to place themselves in a situation where they felt that their freedom of speech was being curtailed or their activities limited? How much of this has gone on of which we are unaware?
There are some things we do know for certain. We know that the Department of National Revenue has not yet got around to involving voluntary organizations in any redrafting of circular 78-3, or even to seeking their opinions on redefining what their role should be in the 1980s and the 1990s. It is a very different role from that of the 1930s or the 1950s and whatever prehistoric legislation upon which the government bases its circular 78-3. We know that the Minister of Finance has not got around to revising the restrictive clauses of the Income Tax Act which curtail the activities of voluntary organizations very significantly at the present time.
I note in this Bill S-4 that a non-profit charitable organization will still have to apply to the Department of National Revenue for a number in order to qualify for tax deductible status. In this bill we are presented with rules and regulations as to the number of directors, the meetings of these directors, the practices of quorum, the use of proxy, the role of the auditor. How much better this bill could have been had the minister urged his colleague, the Minister of Finance, or the Minister of National Revenue, or both of them, to do what Mr. Benson promised in this House eight years ago, to review and to update the tax laws as they relate to charitable organizations so that no one would feel pressured or intimidated, and no charitable activities would be restricted or organizations' work curtailed by the heavy handed government interfering with the true goals of voluntary activity in our society. I hope that the minister takes that message to his colleagues.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: A person should not have to speak on a bill like this, Mr. Speaker, but sometimes it becomes necessary because of the very poor drafting. We have here some 150 pages, plus another number of pages with schedules, which mean absolutely nothing to the ordinary person who actually makes up the majority of memberships of non-profit and charitable organizations in this country. Its purpose is to set up another bureaucratic empire for this government to take further taxes from this country.
Bill S-4 is for the formulation of the Canada Non-Profits Corporations Act. Nowhere in the definition section, however, is the word non-profit defined. It seems to me that if we are going to have an act with 150 pages defining what it is, at least the word non-profit should be clearly defined. The definition for charitable organizations is very general, and upon reading other parts of this bill I wonder what is the real principle. I believe that the real principle behind the bill is to set up another bureaucracy to take away the powers of voluntary or service club organizations. Nowhere in the definition section are the words "religion" or "philanthropic", words which are used in most non-profit corporation acts in our country. It is

December 11, 1978
Adjournment Debate
just another empire or bureaucracy, with more taxes and waste.
I wonder, too, if this bill, S-4, is really inter vires this House of Commons. It came from the Senate, but does its object really come within the powers of this parliament? It may for raising money, but that is not what it purports to be, an act to provide for the incorporation of charities or non-profit corporations.
What of those companies which have already been incorporated by provincial statute? Many of the non-profit, charitable and voluntary organizations across this country have in fact been incorporated under provincial statute, under a reasonably fair set-up, with little cost to them for set-up, and with very few forms to fill out. With this bill an organization will have to hire not just a plain lawyer to incorporate but a Philadelphia lawyer to decipher it.
As one reads through this bill, clause after clause, the general principles are, "as prescribed by legislation or as the ministry decides," but then that happens all the time in this House.
Shall I call it ten o'clock?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council tell us what the bill of fare is for tomorrow?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will be dealing with Bill C-9, an act respecting public referendums in Canada on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to place on the record some of my concerns as a result of a response made to a question I posed to the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) last December 1. I might say at the outset that my concern does not rest on the competence or the sincerity of the parliamentary secretary, but rather with the spirit of the response, which I do not think adequately replies to the concerns which I dealt with at that time.

What has happened is that in metropolitan Toronto an organization called Rogers Cable Television has been presenting on their community cable channel the House of Commons question period live each day, and, as well, on one of their upper band channels reached by a converter they have been playing question period and, I believe, some other House of Commons programming. The regulations of the CRTC say that when a company has House of Commons programming on an available channel other than the so-called community channel, then you should not use the community channel for House of Commons programming. I termed this situation, in my original question, as regulation wise, common sense foolish.
In the course of a conversation on other matters a few weeks ago between an officer of Rogers Cable Television and an officer of the CRTC, the question was posed by Rogers as to whether there was any difficulty, because of existing regulations, with their playing question period live on that regular community channel which is readily available to anyone with cable television in the Rogers subscribing area. It was indicated in that conversation, as I understand it, that if a company had House of Commons material on another available channel, then it should not, according to that regulation, be broadcasting it on a community channel. Perhaps the principle behind the regulation is to prevent interference with community channel programming. It is a very wise-sounding and equitable regulation. The problem is that not all cable subscribers have converters, and thus in one fell swoop, a result of that interpretation and that telephone call, Rogers Cable felt it would be wise not to be in contravention and withdrew question period from their community channel.
I understand from a conversation with someone from Rogers Cable this afternoon that they have 200,000 units in homes in Toronto. They have sold about 30,000 converter units to some of those homes. Another 30,000 people have rented units, for a total of 60,000 out of 200,000, which would leave 140,000 homes, not people-there are many more people-who all of a sudden because of that regulation wise, common sense foolish decision no longer had available to them the proceedings of the House of Commons of Canada, the focal point of activities at the federal level. To me this seems to be an absurd development.
It may well be there are fewer than 140,000 people lost this service, because one could purchase a converter in any store. But, at best, at least half of those people, or 100,000 homes in Toronto, could receive question period live until a week or so ago. Today they cannot. Surely if we want people to understand better the operations of government and the concerns expressed by representatives from various parts of our country, that kind of silliness is unnecessary.
I understand there are very serious negotiations under way with regard to bringing the proceedings of the House of Commons to Canadians across the country, and I gather this problem will be resolved in the not too distant future. I do appreciate the principle that one channel on the main band
December 11, 1978

using cable is intended for community programming. I also understand there were no serious disruptions and that the few changes that were made to accommodate question period on that community channel via Rogers Cable in Toronto were made with no difficulty and no complaints. Meanwhile, I argue further, what could be more important or considered of more, community interest than the proceedings of this House, especially daily focal point which makes evident what is troubling people across Canada, what the points of confrontation are, and the differences among the various parties?
I know that my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary, being a wise and reasonable man and a former broadcaster, who represents a great community, one of the most beautiful areas of Canada, one well known to me, will probably say in a moment or two that this silly business has been resolved.
If he does not, I will forgive him, but I count on him, because of my confidence in his ability, to go back and urge his minister to address this issue to the CRTC. Hopefully we can have a good common sense resolution and bring back the proceedings during the question period to at least those 100,000 homes in Toronto, a good many of which are in my constituency.


Mr. C. Douglas (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) for the kind things he said. I wish I could give him a more complete assurance than I am able to tonight concerning the problem he has put before the House. I must be quite honest, however, and tell him that according to the information I have received the problem has not been solved up to this point. But I am sure the CRTC, knowing the importance of broadcasting proceedings of the House of Commons to all citizens of Canada, not only to those in the city of Toronto and in the riding of York West, will be endeavouring as early as possible, as is the committee of the House of Commons itself concerned with the broadcasting of the proceedings, to provide the citizens of Canada with the best coverage of the House that is available.
One of the prime considerations we have to look at is the definition of a community channel. The purpose of a community channel is to represent and involve the community in a particular licensed area. The hon. member for York West made the eloquent plea that broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons, in particular the question period, in that prime area would be of community interest. I agree that the happenings here in the House of Commons are of community interest to a large majority of the population, but is it community programming? We can probably get into quite a debate on that.
The view put forth by the CRTC is that it must involve participation of the people of the community that it serves to qualify as community programming.


Mr. Dinsdale:: What about the MP?
Adjournment Debate


Crawford Douglas: The hon. member asks about the MP. We would be making quite an exception to the rule, not only in the city of Toronto but all across the country. We must realize there are areas outside the city of Toronto that are unable to receive the types of programming and broadcasting, particularly the cable service, which is available to viewers in that fine city on the shore of Lake Ontario.
I believe, because of the participatory role, the community itself should contribute to programming on the community channel. Therefore in this case, with a few members of the House of Commons, most of them from Ontario, the proceedings of the House do not fall within the parameters laid down by the CRTC as community programming. While the House proceedings do, without question, have a wide community interest, they clearly do not and cannot be construed as Toronto programming.
I do not say that broadcasting of the House proceedings should not have wide national distribution. I would put forth the idea that proceedings of parliament should be available to as many Canadians as possible. One way of achieving that would be to make the question period available as part of the national broadcasting service through the CBC. This would mean that approximately 98 per cent of all Canadians, not just those in Toronto, would receive the question period, which, as the hon. member said, involves members all across this country. The full proceedings of the House could then be carried over cable, but not on the community channel.
This is a very fine definition. I do not believe the community channel is the answer to providing wider access to the broadcasting of proceedings of this House. It should and must be done through our national broadcasting system.


AIR TRANSPORT-JET SERVICE TO WESTERN MANITOBA AND EASTERN SASKATCHEWAN
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal tonight with the perennial subject of air service to western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan. I do so because it has become critical. The Canada Winter Games open in Brandon on February 12. Air service is essential to the success of the games.
There have been repeated promises that air service would be available. However, the way things are proceeding at the moment, we will not have the required air service. Let me repeat the promises that have been made over a long period of time. On May 23, 1974, on a special trip to Winnipeg during the election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced as follows:
The undertaking I am announcing on behalf of the government is as follows: we have asked Air Canada to work with each provincial government to determine what action is necessary to put in place in each province a third-level air carrier system that will provide high quality local air service, promote industry, reduce isolation and provide jobs. Air Canada will then co-operate with the existing carriers in each province to put in place this service. Air Canada will if necessary, either directly or through a subsidiary, provide that service.
Later in the statement the Prime Minister was more specific, and I quote:

December 11, 1978
Adjournment Debate
In another area of air service, air policy, industrial development and job creation, I would like to announce the following: approval in principle has been given by the government for the provision of air services linking Winnipeg, Brandon, Dauphin, Yorkton and Saskatoon as a test of possible new third level air policies, the ones I talked about earlier. This will be air services linking these western cities.
That is a definite promise-an election promise, it is true, but election promises should be fulfilled.
After a series of questions in the House and after various delays, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), in a news release dated January 31,	1977, made the following
announcement:
The government will make contributions to operating deficits not exceeding the amounts indicated below for either jet and/or non-jet type services over the following possible routes: for jet services Regina-Brandon-Toronto, $1.1 million ... for non-jet services, Winnipeg-Yorkton-Saskatoon, $.5 million-
This is another specific promise made by the Minister of Transport. Transair, the regional carrier, applied to provide these services. They were taken over by Pacific Western Airlines. Great Lakes Airlines applied for the rights that would be abandoned by Transair and made an offer to buy out Nordair so that it would have sufficient equipment. Instead of agreeing to the proposal of Great Lakes Airlines, which is a reasonable regional carrier in this part of Canada, the ATC not only denied the sale but the government itself decided to buy Nordair. This was described by Mr. Geoffrey Stevens in the Globe and Mail of November 8 as "a weird decision". He wrote:
Its the weirdest decision to come out of the Government of Canada in many, many moons. Just as the airline industry was losing hope that the cabinet would ever make up its mind. Transport Minister Otto Lang announced late yersterday afternoon that the cabinet had reached a decision on Air Canada's proposed purchase of Montreal-based Nordair.
Well, we were back to square one, because Nordair refused to provide air service to the western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan area which represents a population of some
200,000.	They are willing to provide jet service to Dryden, Ontario, but not this important area of western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan.
I was in touch with the Minister of Transport and he explained that, in these circumstances, there seemed to be no financially practical way of providing Brandon with air service to the east and west, desirable though that would be. This was in a letter dated October 11, 1978. Yet in the House the other day, in reply to a question by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the minister came up with a new theory. He stated:
I continue to support the right and wisdom of ministers making judgments on the basis of social needs as well as economic needs and I am glad to stand here and say so on behalf of my predecessors and myself.
Later, he added:
It is also my impression that I fully answered the hon. member and told him why it is that sometimes, on a non-economic basis, a minister will make decisions and recommend situations to government on the basis of what is good for a province, region or development, not necessarily justified on economics alone. I said that and I said it very fully.
That contradicts the response he made to me that western Manitoba could not be provided with jet service on the grounds that it was not economically feasible.
The minister has received petitions from large numbers of people. The government of Manitoba has made a special appeal to the federal cabinet. The deadline for making a decision on these matters is almost due with respect to the winter games, and I urge the Minister of Transport-I am sorry he is not with us tonight for this important discussion- to authorize Air Canada to provide this service. Air Canada flies over the area several times a day. The only difficulty is that it is hard to reach it at an altitude of 30,000 feet. Air Canada is the one carrier which is now able to provide this service. In 1974 the Prime Minister promised that Air Canada would be authorized, if necessary, to provide this service, and I trust that whoever speaks for the government in reply on this matter will indicate that there will be air service in time for the winter games, which commence on February 12 of next year.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, there is still some misunderstanding surrounding the matter of the provision of jet service to western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan on time for the opening of the Canada Games in Brandon in February. I would like to take the opportunity to try to shed some light on that matter.
It is already established that the airlines decided themselves not to provide that service to Brandon or Yorkton after the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) invited them to do so. It should be specified immediately that no airline made a request to provide a jet service to Yorkton and that only Transair made such a request for Brandon but withdrew it afterwards.
It has also been suggested that if Great Lakes were now the owner of Nordair they would provide that service to Brandon. I feel there is nothing less sure. Great Lakes, as all other carriers asked to submit an application, have reviewed the financial implications of a service to Brandon and have found that they would incur very heavy financial losses. It should not be concluded that the possibility of a jet service to those locations has been definitely discarded. The air carriers have considered the service and have merely decided that at present it would not be profitable. In addition, if the carriers find that the demand for an air service is sufficient, they could then submit an application to the Canadian Transport Commission to obtain the necessary permit.
I am sure that my colleagues know that the Minister of Transport cannot ask Air Canada to provide that service to Brandon as long as a regional carrier cannot do so, as requested by the hon. member, even if Air Canada aircraft fly over that area several times a day. I should point out that in such a case it is proper to let airlines decide what services they will
[Mr. Dinsdaie.j
December 11, 1978

provide and file an application with the Canadian Transport Commission.

I think that the government lived up to its promise when it announced financial assistance for Prairie Air Services on January 31, 1977 and provided for a contribution of up to $1.1 million for jet service between Regina, Brandon and Toronto, and a contribution of up to $0.9 million for jet services between Winnipeg, Yorkton and Saskatoon. I have already stated that the result of this effort was that no carrier applied to service Yorkton, and only one offered to service Brandon, an offer which was later withdrawn.
The Minister of Transport has had continuing discussions with the airlines to encourage some interest on their part in coming forward with an application. The government has done all it could on the matter to this time. The carriers have indicated that this service to western cities would be a non-economic venture at this time unless a greater demand could be shown.
The Minister of Transport still stands ready to provide whatever help is required to make that kind of application work.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Get rid of Nordair and let Great Lakes do the job.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY OF WORKERS EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS HAZARDS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, on November 23 I addressed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), who is responsible for protecting and maintaining the health of Canadians. At that time I asked the minister to investigate claims arising from a U.S. court case that Canadian asbestos companies were aware of the potentially fatal health hazards to which their employees were exposed but that these companies took no action to inform their workers.
In fact, one of the documents introduced in the case against the asbestos giant, Johns-Manville, indicated that although the company took steps to warn Americans of the asbestos danger as early as in 1964, it did not do the same in Canada until 1968.
It is a sad fact that thousands of Canadian workers may have had their lives put in jeopardy because information regarding asbestos dangers was suppressed. I asked the minister to look into the matter and to discuss with the provinces what action might be necessary. The minister expressed some reluctance to do this. She stated that she did not want to create "unnecessary panic in the public", and those are her exact words. I also do not wish to create panic, but it is certainly time to express more concern than the government has demonstrated so far.
I am not so much interested this time in assessing individual corporate guilt or innocence in this matter, although that certainly bears further investigation. For the most part, the
Adjournment Debate
damage has been done, but I am interested in determining what is being done for the victims, or for those who will soon be recognized as victims, since asbestos-related diseases usually strike 20 to 30 years after exposure. In the United States, the health secretary has already warned that as many as half of the workers who worked with asbestos during and after the second world war might be afflicted with lung cancer or other asbestos related diseases, such as asbestosis. Some medical experts are worried that we may soon have an epidemic of asbestos-related diseases on our hands.
Only this morning it was reported that five workers who were employed during the Second World War in a Defence Research Board plant which processed asbestos filled gas masks have died as a result of a disease associated with exposure to asbestos. Others who worked in this plant are undoubtedly at risk.
Clearly it is now incumbent upon the government to set up procedures to identify all the employees of its wartime defence plants who suffered similar exposure to asbestos. It must be determined if they have developed asbestos-related diseases and, if so, they and their families must be compensated for the suffering involved. The government should set an example for the asbestos companies, if the companies themselves refuse to take any action. This would be one small step in the right direction.
There is now sufficient medical evidence, and a sufficient number of cases have been made public, to suggest that immediate action should be taken to determine how many Canadians have been affected, and what can be done to assist them. To this end, it is imperative that the Department of Labour's new Centre of Occupational Health and Safety enter into discussions with the provinces and develop a co-ordinated plan of action.
When I made this suggestion to the then acting minister of labour last month, he informed me that there have indeed been consultations on this subject. I would like to ask the new minister or his parliamentary secretary what was the result of those consultations. Were they aimed at determining what persons have been affected, what medical attention is appropriate, or what government involvement will be required.
This problem has been ignored by the government and by the asbestos companies for far too long. It has developed into a series of horror stories of hardship and suffering on the part of innocent people who worked in the asbestos industries, ten, 15, 20 and 30 years ago, not knowing that they were constantly exposing themselves to health hazards. I feel it is only fitting, as a result of what we have found subsequently-and indeed there have been some asbestos-related diseases that were discovered and documented as early as 1903 and during the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s-and that it is incumbent upon the federal government, in concert with the provincial governments, where asbestos companies are operating, to provide ways and means, financial if necessary, for the victims of asbestos-related diseases not to go the compensation route, which is not nearly enough, but to provide them with financial assistance, where necessary, in order to bring civil actions in a

December 11, 1978
Adjournment Debate
court of law, against the companies if the companies refuse to compensate them themselves.
It has been proven that companies have been derelict in their duty to inform workers or personnel concerning the dangers of working close to asbestos, and therefore exposing themselves to asbestos-related diseases. If the companies refused to inform the workers, then the workers should have the right to sue their employers if they have contacted asbestos-related diseases, which are practically always terminal in nature. If workers died as a result of exposure to asbestos, then their children and wives should have the right to sue the companies. Workmen's compensation is simply a cheap way for companies to get off the hook and put it back on taxpayers, government funds, and contributions made by the companies to workmen's compensation.
I ask the government to take action on this and to provide financial means where necessary, so that these persons who have contacted asbestos-related diseases from working in asbestos mines, even if they have been retired for several years, will be able to bring actions in a civil court of law against their employers or former employers.


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, on November 23 the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) asked the now Minister of Public Works (Mr. Ouellet) if discussions were taking place between the provinces and the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety concerning the health effects of asbestos on persons working with or exposed to it.
The act authorizing the establishment of this new centre was proclaimed on October 1. Since then further action has been taken to bring it into operation at an early date. Members of the governing council of the centre, drawn from labour, management, and provincial and federal departments, are in the
process of being appointed. The inaugural meeting of the council is being planned for mid-January.
I appreciate the concern of the hon. member regarding this serious occupational hazard. I know his concern is shared by many members in the House. Certainly I will bring this question to the attention of the council for its early consideration. However, I should mention that in 1975 the Department of National Health and Welfare completed a study of asbestos in the work place. It recommended that all jurisdictions adopt a more stringent standard, namely, two fibres per cubic metre. This reduction of exposure limits from five fibres to two fibres was promptly made applicable to all industries operating under federal jurisdiction and subject to the dangerous substances regulations pursuant to part IV of the Canada Labour Code. I understand a number of the provinces have taken the same action.
The seriousness and complexity of this hazard, both in its occupational and environmental aspects, are widely recognized, nationally and internationally. It is my hope that the centre, by fostering collaboration among all jurisdictions and facilitating joint action, can bring about real progress in providing more effective protection to those whose work exposes them to asbestos in its various forms and usages.
Also I am aware of the recent report of health problems of employees of the defence research plant which made mask languid asbestos. The Department of Labour will investigate this situation. We will attempt to identify any persons whose health has been adversely affected by virtue of this contact with asbestos. We are prepared to apply provisions of the Government Employees Compensation Act if appropriate. I will inform the hon. member later with more specifics.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock p.m. tomorrow.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.31 p.m., without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, December 12, 1978