1978-01-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, i rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which involves political interference by the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc). Given the fact that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment has diverted a $10 million federal government project, and 400 permanent jobs originally designated for the city of Moncton, to his home town of Shediac, which smacks of political interference and patronage of the most offensive kind, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That this House directs the government to investigate and review the impact on and the cost to citizens of Shediac, Moncton and the province of New Brunswick by the decision based on political considerations to divert 400 positions in the superannuation unit of the Department of Supply and Services, and a $10 million federal government project originally destined for the city of Moncton where services are now in place, to Shediac where such services will have to be provided at great and unnecessary expense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It deals with a matter of great urgency, especially to the veterans of this country. Therefore, 1 move,
seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House calls on the government to authorize the Minister of Veterans Affairs to introduce forthwith the necessary legislation to restore the basic rate of the war disability pension to the average take-home pay of the five categories of federal public servants designated in 1973, it being the view of this House that not to do so would represent a failure to keep faith with the veterans of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That this House expresses to Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, and Israeli Premier Menachem Begin, our concern at the suspension of Middle East peace talks, calls upon both leaders to recover the momentum toward peace which so inspired the whole world through the courageous actions of both leaders, and offers the good offices of the Canadian government in whatever way it could be of assistance in re-establishing the negotiations that must lead to a peace based on mutual respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the

January 23, 1978
House to present a motion concerning an urgent and very important matter.
As the law, as it now stands, stipulates that any person of 60 to 65 years of age who is married or living with another person of at least 65 and of the opposite sex is entitled to the spouse's allowance; as, under the act, when the older spouse passes away the right of the surviving spouse to the spouse's allowance ceases immediately; as this provision of the act leads to serious problems for those who are victims of it, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That this House urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to introduce without delay a bill to amend the Old Age Security Act so that anyone of 60 to 65 years of age who has, at some time or other, received the spouse's allowance, may continue to receive it even after the death of the older spouse.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the "minister of unemployment" has shown a consistent lack of sensitivity to the problems of the unemployed over the past few weeks by telling them that they are spoiled rotten, that they are doing very nicely indeed, that they should not feel disgraced, and there is nothing that the government can do to help them, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House direct the Minister of National Health and Welfare to enter into discussions with provincial welfare ministers to measure the full social impact of long-term unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The presentation of a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).l


ANTI DUMPING ACT
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that Algoma Steel has never been a traditional supplier of wide flange steel beams to the British Columbia construction industry, and in light of the fact that the Anti-dumping Tribunal's decision to uphold the appeal of Algoma Steel on wide flange steel beams has eliminated the traditional sources of supply to the west coast industry, thus causing severe disruption to the industry and the immediate loss of some 400 steel workers' jobs in B.C., with a further 1,100 B.C. jobs threatened over the next 12 months, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That the government of Canada invoke section 7 of the Anti-dumping Act exempting wide flange steel beams 25 inches and less from the act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House, Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a very urgent and important matter concerning the linguistic rights of all Canadians.
Hon. members will recall that on December 15 last, Ontario Premier Bill Davis wrote a letter to Mrs. Gisele Richer, President of the Ontario French-Canadian Association, to inform her that for the time being the government of Ontario has no intention of taking any step which would make French an official language in the province of Ontario.
Dismayed and shocked by such a negative and unacceptable policy statement from the premier of Ontario, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert):
That the House express its regret about the statement of the premier of Ontario and invite him to support any initiative which would recognize to English and French minorities the right to live and to develop in their mother tongue, and this in all Canadian provinces.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
January 23, 1978



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the continuing absence of the Minister of Finance, who seems to shun this House, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. This is the first day of parliament in 1978, a year which looks like it will become known as the year the country closes down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: There are 700 people laid off by Christie Brown in Toronto, 275 miners laid off in Marmora, Ontario and 700 employees laid off by MacMillan Bloedel at its plywood mill in Vancouver. In light of this very dismal beginning to 1978, will the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, tell the House of Commons what steps the government proposes to introduce and to take immediately to reverse and stop the pattern of lay-offs and to find jobs for the growing army of Canadian unemployed?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government believes, and the statistics support it, that the economy has been stimulated in the proper fashion by this government.


An hon. Member:: With 8.5 per cent unemployment, you could not believe that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If hon. members refer to official statistics, they will see that in the third quarter of the past year the gross national product was growing at a rate of 5.3 per cent on an annual basis, that the merchandise surplus for the current year will be about $2.5 billion, and that housing starts in December were at an all-time high of almost 300,000.


An hon. Member:: The land is strong!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are many indications that the economic posture of the government is the proper one. The signs which are already apparent indicate that in the short run the economy is on the right course. At times in the history of a nation there are lay-offs and new jobs are created. Last year 250,000 to 300,000 new jobs were created. The stimulative posture of the government is in the order of $8.5 billion. It would be astonishing if the opposition were calling for a larger deficit than that. We believe that the mood of this parliament, and perhaps even of the Leader of the Opposition, should be one of looking forward with confidence to Canada's future, rather than dreading it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we look forward with confidence to the future of this country because this is a year in which this
Oral Questions
government, if it has the courage, will call an election and allow Canadians to choose a new government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister chooses his statistics.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Hon. members opposite try to shout me down, but in its December report the OECD revealed, among other things, that Canada has the worst unemployment record of all the industrialized nations of the world. This independent, international index went on to point out that the measures announced by this government last fall will not provide sufficient stimulus and that our rate of unemployment will grow even worse with this do-nothing government.
The agenda of parliament has no new economic legislation. Is that the plan? Or can the Prime Minister tell us what immediate steps the government intends to introduce, instead of doing nothing and telling the 700 people out of work in Toronto that everything is all right? What is the government going to do to alleviate the slump in the Canadian economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are not saying that everything is all right. In view of unemployment of this magnitude, we will announce steps which will indicate the government's very real concern. Although we are not saying everything is all right, we are, also, not saying the country will close down, which is the statement of the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In terms of new measures, there is a tax credit plan which will be put before parliament within a day or two. We expect very early action by the opposition on that plan, rather than its usual stalling when the government comes forward with plans to stimulate the economy.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this government has stalled for six months on bringing in that employment tax credit plan. If they were a responsible government at all that cared about the people of this country, they would have started this session of parliament by putting the legislation before this House of Commons, instead of the legislation being as absent as the Minister of Finance.
I ask the Prime Minister whether it is fair to conclude from his statements that his government has rejected completely the idea of following the OECD's advice and the advice of most other economists to bring forward major stimulative measures through tax cuts to try to bring back stimulation and growth to the Canadian economy this year.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition challenges us to start this session with this particular tax measure. I can tell him that the ways and means motion will be on the order paper today, and 1 challenge his party to support this plan.

January 23, 1978
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might go back and repeat my question to the Prime Minister for the fourth time. Will the Prime Minister of Canada tell the House whether this do-nothing government, this government that is prepared to ignore the plight of a growing number of Canadian unemployed, has rejected the advice of most economists that this economy needs stimulus, and has rejected the idea of a major tax cut as one way to provide that stimulus?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is falling behind the government's actions. If he were not reading only what some economists are saying, he would see that the government has already stimulated the economy to the tune of some $2 billion, and that there will be further stimulus after today's ways and means motion. The hon. Leader of the Opposition seems to forget that his party voted a tax measure presented by the Minister of Finance a couple of months ago which will have the effect of putting into the hands of consumers and Canadians SI00 or $200 this month and next month.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As the December report of the OECD on member countries paints a particularly gloomy picture for Canada, pointing out that there likely will be unemployment even in excess of the 8'/2 per cent mark toward the end of this year, and as part of that unemployment is undoubtedly due to former tariff reductions which in the absence of an industrial strategy have resulted in certain plant close-downs and lay-offs in this country, would the Prime Minister elaborate on the statement the Vice-President of the United States, Mr. Mondale, made last week to the effect that Canada will announce within a few days its willingness to join in pushing for an ambitious reduction of tariffs averaging 40 per cent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and other ministers have indicated quite clearly that Canada is a willing and active participant in the multinational, multilateral trade negotiations which are taking place in Geneva. I think that even the opposition would agree that Canada, as a trading nation, should be interested in the reduction of tariffs.
However, if the hon. member refers to statements made by the government in recent days, he will see that Canada's concern will be to make sure that those reductions in tariffs will only be given in exchange for equivalent advantages for Canada and would be phased in over a period of time during which, hopefully, even the opposition would want to see Canadian industry adapt and become as effective and efficient as possible. As to this government's aims in the multinational trade negotiations, we on this side do not think there is a great

future for a trading nation like Canada if we barricade ourselves behind tariff walls as the hon. member suggests.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary question to the Prime Minister follows on his statement. With the OECD indicating that unemployment in Canada will be at the highest level of the 12 industrialized nations which they reviewed, would the Prime Minister indicate if his government has conducted any study to determine to what extent our unemployment is being triggered by unwise tariff reductions of the past? If so, would he indicate the findings of that study? Also, could he indicate to the House what steps he will take to ensure that Canadian labour will not be brutalized further by unwise tariff reductions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member should refer to announcements made by the Minister of Finance and by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in very recent months which indicate that jobs, for instance, of workers in the textile industry and in the shoe industry have been protected by certain tariff measures. The same is true in the farming industry. There are all kinds of areas where the Canadian government has taken measures to protect those jobs.
Along with this protective action, Mr. Speaker, we are working with industry, management and the unions to ensure that the future is not one of constant protection. As the hon. member realizes, this results in higher costs for the Canadian consumer, for shoes, for textiles, for food or whatever it is. Because of this, Mr. Speaker, it is important that, while we take these protective measures, we also take steps to ensure that these industries become more modern and more cost efficient so that they can compete in world markets and therefore will not need the artificial protection of trade barriers, which seems to be the policy of the hon. member.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Last September he promised Canadians that almost 100 per cent of the pipe required to build the Canadian portion of the Alcan pipeline would be produced by Canadian workers in Canada. I should like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he is aware that the studies of the United States government completed before the agreement was signed last September assumed that 30 per cent of the durable goods for the Canadian section of the line, mainly steel pipe, would be supplied from American sources.
Related to that, is the minister aware that a major American bank is now trying to raise capital for the project on this basis, with advertisements in papers such as the Wall Street Journal-which 1 showed the minister-which appeared
T,iftW
January 23, 1978

recently. The article claimed that thousands of jobs for the Canadian portion of the line will be given to United States citizens? If so, I would like the minister to explain to the House the major contradiction which now exists between the American government's statements on jobs in this area and statements which the minister himself made last September.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not believe there is any contradiction between the attitude of the American government and the statements I have been making, which were repeated as recently as several days ago in the presence of the Vice-President of the United States. We have undertaken an agreement with the American government that each country will maximize its industrial benefits. I think I can convince the hon. member, when we come to the discussion of the legislation, that it will be possible for Canadian producers of steel, for example, to participate competitively and to obtain a very substantial proportion of that business.
As the hon. member knows, the applicant company has estimated a Canadian content of 90 per cent. When it comes to steel pipe, of course, the major Canadian producer has stated its ability not only to compete in Canada for business in Canada, but also to compete in the United States against American competition for supplies in that country.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, would the minister now answer the question apart from stating generalizations? Last September 9, to be precise, the minister at a press conference in this city promised Canadians 98 per cent of the steel would be produced here in Canada. The American government, according to advertisements that are now appearing in American business publications, are saying that 30 per cent of it will be produced in the United States. Even the minister with his Liberal past cannot have it both ways that much. Who is telling the truth? Did the minister receive guarantees from the Americans, in the agreement last fall, that we are going to get 98 per cent, or was he misleading the people of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there was no misleading of the people of Canada. What is clearly set out in the agreement, and what I believe will be carried out in reality, is that Canadian companies, through their own competitive ability, will be able to obtain a very large proportion of this business.


An hon. Member:: Seventy per cent.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have no way of commenting upon the advertising in the Wall Street Journal. I do not regard it as an authoritative source for Liberal philosophy. Maybe it is for the NDP.


John Edward Broadbent: The reality, of course, is there is no authoritative source for Liberal philosophy. It is such a bundle of contradictions that there couldn't be one source. 1 will direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister. A study was prepared by another minister's department, DREE, before the agreement was signed last September. It indicated that unless
Oral Questions
written guarantees were put into the agreement, Canadians would lose some $600 million of benefits.
Having had that study carried out by one of his departments, can the Prime Minister tell the House why the Canadian government did not insist that guarantees be put into the agreement? Related to that, will he, at long last, now guarantee that Canada will get the right to produce 98 per cent of the steel which the Deputy Prime Minister promised last September, and will that be in the legislation when it is introduced in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party is not only placing his faith in the Wall Street Journal, but he is obviously taking as gospel truth the statements and ambitions of American entrepreneurs. It is not our philosophy. We believe that Canadian entrepreneurs can compete. We believe they could perhaps even compete in the American portion of the line. We are hopeful that the Canadian people, the workers and the entrepreneurs, will show greater confidence in their ability to produce than the leader of the New Democratic Party, who seems to have more confidence in the Americans.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since a person between the ages of 60 and 65 who is living with a companion of the opposite sex who is at least 65 years of age receives the spouse's allowance, which is cancelled automatically the moment the older spouse passes away, will the minister undertake to amend the legislation to make it possible for anyone between ages 60 and 65 who gets the spouse's allowance to continue receiving it even after the older spouse has passed away?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have mentioned on a number of occasions the problems which have recently arisen from the practical application of a legislation which would greatly help many Canadian couples which have to manage suddenly with a single pension. 1 hope the hon. member will raise his voice to convince the businessmen who influence the government so that tax credits will be earmarked for the aged instead of other projects. It is a well known fact that public funds are scarce these days.
I have started to discuss with my officials everywhere in Canada the practical problems of people who are living on nothing but a pension, and we are reviewing the situation.

January 23, 1978
Oral Questions


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for her good answer and for her invitation to communicate with businessmen. However, in view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is a woman and that Canadian women have frequently complained that male lawmakers do not fully understand them and that their rights are encroached upon, will the minister take advantage of her position to introduce a law which would aim precisely at ensuring that the rights of women aged between 60 and 65 are respected, because the victims of the present law are mainly found in this age group, and at the same time, to add a guaranteed income for single persons aged between 60 and 65, whether they are male or female?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member, I must tell him that this has nothing to do with discrimination based on sex. It is a problem of redistribution of income, of which we are all very much aware, and we are striving to find the most innovative solutions possible to this problem. If the hon. member has any doubts about the commitment of this government and of the female ministers who participate in it on an equal basis with their male counterparts, or about their awareness of the problems of women, 1 have to add that I have recently been told how mothers were happy to benefit from full indexation of their family allowances from January on.


PARLIAMENT OF CANADA
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister on this the opening day of parliament. I would again point out to him that parliament consists of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Commons. During his absence an announcement was made by an unidentified person, unknown in his office, that the Queen had been divested of certain of her powers, the detail of which I shall not refer to now, which amounted to an evisceration of her rights.
I want to ask simply one question. Was that done by action of the cabinet? If so, upon what date was the decision made that the Queen's powers should be so reduced that the Governor General virtually becomes the president of this country? Was it done by order in council, or how was it done?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the right hon, member asks the date and asks how it was done. It was done in 1947 by publication of letters patent giving the Governor General in Canada all the powers exercised by the Queen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister at the time, Mr. St. Laurent, respected the Crown-something the Prime Minister has not done. Throughout he has done everything to destroy the monarchy in our country. It was not done in 1947. I ask whether anything was done by his government, by order in council or action of the cabinet, that brought this about or brought it to a head. Surely that is a simple enough question. Or was it done by himself in his general efforts to emasculate the monarchy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the statement of the right hon. member and perhaps his unwillingness to understand the facts, it was in 1947 that the letters patent were issued transferring from the Queen in England authority to the Governor General in Canada to exercise in Canada, for Canada, all the powers hitherto exercised by the Queen. No order in council was necessary pursuant to that issuance of letters patent.


FINANCE
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Has Treasury Board undertaken to underwrite the additional expense to be imposed on the taxpayers of the town of Shediac, in the province of New Brunswick, by locating the 400 persons' superannuation unit of Supply and Services in Shediac, the constituency of the Minister of Fisheries, where municipal, provincial and school services must be provided, instead of in the city of Moncton where the capacity already exists?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details of any additional expenditures required. I will certainly look into the matter and comment on it.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the publicized and considered opinion of many organizations, including the Quebec League for Human Rights, that counsel at the McDonald inquiry have not been tough enough in their questioning of witnesses and their criticisms, does the Solicitor General intend to amend at the McDonald commission's terms of reference by order in council or otherwise to require it to recognize the requests for standing before the commission from those parties which have expressed such an interest?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker.

January 23, 1978


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The Canadian Labour Congress has indicated that it will seek standing, and the right to cross-examine witnesses, when the commission considers the activities of the security service as they relate to organized labour in this country. Will the Solicitor General be instructing, or has he already instructed, his counsel to oppose this application?


Francis Fox: No, Mr. Speaker, no instructions in this regard have been given to my counsel. The decision as to who actually has the right to appear before the commission and which counsel have the right to cross-examine witnesses who are heard before the McDonald commission of inquiry is completely in the hands of the commission. It is master of its procedures and of indicating the way it wishes its proceedings to be handled.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Do 1 understand the Solicitor General is telling us that his own counsel, who has appeared before the inquiry and has opposed the application in the past, did this on his own initiative without instruction from the government?


Francis Fox: Surely, that is not what I said. I tried as far as possible to answer the specific question the hon. member put to me. The hon. member asked me what instructions 1 gave to my counsel. Questions have been put to me in the House concerning representations that have been heard in the past as to the right to cross-examine witnesses. If the hon. member cares to look at the record for the month of December, he will see what answers 1 gave. I indicated that I had not issued any instructions with respect to the CLC obtaining the right to crossexamine witnesses. 1 expressed the view that the commission itself was the master of its own actions. As far as I am concerned, the commission is there to act in the public interest, and it is quite capable of handling the job of cross-examining witnesses appropriately.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the hon. gentleman had an opportunity to review the reports of the ad hoc committee concerning the upgrading of Hamilton airport? Has he reviewed these reports personally, as well as the report of the technical committee, and is he now prepared to make an announcement with respect to what might happen at Hamilton airport?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: I have now had an opportunity to review the documents. It is, of course, a long time since I received and reviewed the report of the community committee which did such a great job in analysing the situation in the Hamilton area. I received the report of the technical committee only last week. I anticipate 1 shall be able to
Oral Questions
make an announcement shortly in connection with this matter, perhaps within a week.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker,
I would direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. It involves political interference by the Minister of Fisheries which in my view smacks of pork-barrelling and patronage. 1 refer to the 400 guaranteed jobs which were to be provided in Moncton and which are now being diverted to Shediac, which apparently is in the minister's riding. In July, 1976, these jobs were directed, without equivocation, to the city of Moncton, yet as of October, 1977, they were directed to the "Moncton area". Hon. members will notice the difference, because it brings in the Minister of Fisheries.
Would the President of Treasury Board, in the goodness of his heart, refer this whole matter to the appropriate standing committee in order that a complete investigation might be made of this questionable action by the Minister of Fisheries?


Robert Knight Andras: 1 am sure my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, made this recommendation after due consideration of all the factors there-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: -and the necessity to bolster the economy of that area. I would not be inclined to take the action the hon. gentleman suggests.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Are we to understand, then, that pork-barrelling and patronage is the way of life of this government? I put this question to the hon. gentleman with regard to federal government relocation programs for the purpose of creating regional work. Will he cease using as criteria for such relocation partisan political considerations which primarily involve patronage? I ask this question bearing in mind that of the 24 relocations known to me, 11 are going to constituencies of ministers, nine to those of lesser Liberals, and four to those of opposition members. Will the minister cease and desist from this rotten practice?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister may wish to answer the question, but it does contain an argumentative element.

January 23, 1978
Oral Questions POST OFFICE


SERVICE PROVIDED BY LETTER CARRIERS-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Postmaster General. The Prime Minister recently suggested that we might one day have to do without some of our luxuries and start walking to get our mail. Is the Prime Minister also suggesting that the 20,000 members of the Letter Carriers Union will also be taking a walk-to the local Manpower office, that is? Will the Postmaster General inform the House whether the Prime Minister was talking through his hat, or whether his remarks are an indication of present or future policy within the Post Office?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: I would recommend that the hon. gentleman consider the Prime Minister's remarks in their full context. I would also ask him to read the comments I made shortly after the Prime Minister had spoken. I indicated there was no intention of doing anything which would have a negative impact on the letter carriers or, indeed, on home delivery. The hon. gentleman is well aware of my personal views as to the essential nature of letter carrier service, and it is my intention to do the best I can to enhance home delivery and the excellence of the service presently provided.
Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the Prime Minister's statement since indeed-


Stan Darling: I am well aware of what the Postmaster General is trying to do. However, with all due respect to him the Prime Minister takes precedence over the Postmaster General, which is why a lot of us are worried. It is now more than a month since the Post Office hired temporary workers to help with the Christmas mail, yet some of those 8,000 people have not yet received their cheques. Will the Postmaster General inform the House whether or not the delay is being looked into, and whether the balance of cheques will be sent out immediately, hopefully by special delivery rather than by ordinary mail?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has brought that problem to my attention. I can assure him that indeed all the people who were hired for the Christmas period have already been paid or will be paid shortly. If there are any specific cases he would want to point out to me, I would be glad to hear them and give them all due attention.


ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Labour. The telephone dispute in British Columbia has gone on for 91/2 weeks. Some 10,000 workers have been idle, and there has been considerable damage to the economy of the province. The commissioner, Dr. Noel Hall, recommended a settlement of this dispute back in May, but it was rejected by the telephone company.
Will the House of Commons see legislation implementing the settlement of that dispute in the event the report, which I believe is either in the minister's hands now or is expected tomorrow, does not settle the dispute by the end of the week, so we can put an end to the tremendous economic disruption that has occurred in the province of British Columbia?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of this question. As the hon. member probably knows, the Minister of Labour is in Quebec city today taking part in an important federal-provincial conference. I will take note of the question and report the information to the hon. member in the House tomorrow.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, there has been strong suspicion for some time that decisions in regard to this dispute are in fact being made by General Tel and Tel in New York, the parent company of the B.C. Telephone Company, and not by the local management in the province of British Columbia. Has the minister made any inquiries to determine who, in fact, is making the on-the-scene decisions in respect of the company with regard to this dispute? If he has not, does he intend to do so in order that we can see who is running the B.C. Telephone Company-local management or New York city?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making pure speculations. I will check the file and report tomorrow.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to put a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In November last, I believe, I had the opportunity to introduce a motion urging the government to institute special programs for the thousands of young unemployed in Canada. The government refused that motion and I note that on January 9 last, the minister remembered that great idea which
January 23, 1978

I submitted to the House when he created an advisory committee for the establishment of employment programs for young Canadians. Since the first meetings were held a week or two ago, could the minister tell us what kind of programs his department will introduce and how much money will be earmarked for those programs?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously misreading the purpose of the National Youth Advisory Group. That is an advisory body which advises the minister on the programs we have in place, as well as on other recommendations and suggestions that have been made as a result of meetings, for example, of the OECD, and representations that come to us from across the country.
In the interim, we have several programs in place for the young. I am happy to say that the Chambers of Commerce and Boards of Trade across the country have seen to it that our pilot project on job experience and training will probably be expanded twelvefold over the winter months. We have the Young Canada Works program, through which we have been able to place a number of students. We also have young people working at our Canada Manpower centres and universities across the country. Myriad programs are in place.
Just recently I signed a co-operative education program with the province of British Columbia. Many things are, in fact, in train. The advisory committee is there to evaluate the projects we have and where emphasis might be placed in so far as job creation for youth is concerned.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Of course 1 am sad to see that the minister is not considering a special program and under the circumstances, considering the existing programs which have proved to be clearly unsatisfactory to reduce the percentage of unemployed, especially among young Canadians, 1 would like to ask whether the minister continues to brush aside the idea of establishing a strategy or setting a special program to find employment for our young Canadians greatly concerned about the future of their country?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, here, again, the hon. member holds out the false hope that one particular program can do the job he suggests needs to be done, namely, lowering the unemployment rate among youth. I am suggesting there are various programs in place in various regions of the country which I think will have a positive impact. We have received commendations from the OECD on the programs we have in place, some of which they wish to emulate in other countries. I think it is wrong to denigrate the programs we have in place by suggesting that one massive expenditure of some nature, which is pretty hard to determine from the opposition, might do the job.
Oral Questions



YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT-FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DISCUSSIONS TO ALLEVIATE

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we have an alarming increase in the rate of youth unemployment in Canada, apparently standing at 15.2 per cent for those in the 15 to 24 age bracket, which will be considerably aggravated by the new crop of graduates in about two months' time. In other words, the problem has grown beyond the scope of the government's existing programs. Apart from setting up an advisory committee, which is an admission that the government does not have any answers, I would ask the minister whether he took advantage of his meetings with the provincial ministers of manpower on January 17 to discuss this very alarming problem of lack of job opportunities for our young people.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Very definitely, Mr. Speaker. We commented on the apprenticeship program, the adult occupational training programs and how they might be given more effect so that young people will get their training and apprenticeship at an earlier age. The setting up of this special advisory group is only one more weapon in the arsenal to deal with this specific problem. We have dealt, not only on a bilateral but on a multilateral basis, with the ministers of education, of labour and of manpower for the provinces, and also internationally at OECD, searching out every avenue that is available to us to cope with this problem which is not unique in Canada. Certainly, the unemployment rate among youth is too high in Canada, and we have to bring to bear all the weapons we can to deal with the situation.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice which deals with the function of the office of ombudsman he has suggested setting up. The functions he sets out will deal with maladministration, incompetence and inefficiency of the various departments of the government, but will not deal with illegality. Why will they not deal with illegality, and who will determine whether there is inefficiency or illegality?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should have thought it obvious that the police and the courts are the proper agencies to deal with illegality. Obviously, if in the course of an investigation or an inquiry by the ombudsman he were to come across facts which indicated there was criminality or illegality involved, 1 would expect him to exercise his duty and refer the matter to the police.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact there has been maladministration, incompetency and gross inefficiency on the part of this government, before the minister issued this

January 23, 1978
Oral Questions
statement did he consider and ascertain the cost to the Canadian taxpayer of setting up such an empire?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, such an empire is not set up and there is no intention of setting up such an empire. Obviously, this will be a matter of discussion in cabinet as we approve the legislation, which has not yet been approved. It will be a subject for discussion in the parliamentary committee and ultimately for negotiation between the ombudsman and members of the treasury board.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council which relates to the special committee on the review of personnel management and the merit principle in the public service. Will this committee hold public hearings? If so, when? Also, will MPs and others be given the opportunity to express their views?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will have to verify the impression I have that it is not the intention to hold public hearings. I will make sure whether that is the correct situation.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for the status of women. It relates to the latest unemployment statistics, which show that the rate of unemployment among women in the province of Ontario is twice that of the rate in respect of men. Given this high rate of unemployment among women, and the fact that the minister's colleague, the Minister of Finance, indicated in a speech last week in the city of Toronto that he considered the participation rate of women in the work force as a major contributor to ongoing high unemployment, 1 should like to ask the minister what steps he is taking to counter this discriminatory attitude on the part of his colleague, and to see that it does not extend to or influence the operations of Canada Manpower centres with regard to the placing of women in the work force.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to indicate to the hon. lady that there is nothing discriminatory in the statement made at the time by the Minister of Finance. These facts are well recognized by all labour economists throughout the labour market in Canada. We have been creating jobs in Canada at a higher rate than any other
[Mr. Woolliams.J
industrialized nation in the world. We have also had difficulty in respect of unemployment because of the large number of young people coming into the labour market, and also as a result of the very rapid increase in the participation of women in the work force. I rejoice, as does this government, in the fact that women are joining the work force in greater numbers, but obviously one should not ignore this phenomenon in terms of its impact on unemployment.
At the present time, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has taken many steps over the last two years, in co-operation with his colleagues in cabinet, to make sure women are given a fair deal in the representations they are making at Manpower centres when they are looking for jobs. The government itself has taken steps inside its own operations to ensure a fair deal for women. There is still a long way to go in all respects and the government is committed to improving the situation.


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Speaker, I accept the fact that the minister has indicated he and his colleagues have a long way to go in this respect. Has he considered the words of the Minister of Finance to the effect that next year unemployment will depend to a considerable extent on the participation rate especially among women? If he does not consider that discriminatory, will he have a little chat with his colleagues to see, at this time of economic distress for many Canadians, that the attempts of women to gain an equal role in the economic and social life of this country are not undermined by this government?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, not only the government, but society as a whole, has a long way to go. That is what I said. We have a long way to go to ensure equal opportunity to women in our society. This government is committed to that role; it has been committed to it for years. We have taken steps in the last few years to put Canada ahead of most other democratic countries, in terms of steps we have taken to raise the opportunities for women in our work force.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, since this is the first day after the Christmas recess, and since the government indicated to us before we left the two pieces of legislation we will be dealing with-and I presume the order stands- could the government indicate to us when we will be dealing with the employment tax credit legislation and the pipeline legislation? Perhaps the hon. government House leader might take this opportunity to set out for us his priorities for the remainder of the legislative session, and the order of bills as they will be called.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware that we are proceeding with the extension of the Bank Act today, followed by the amendments to the Anti-Inflation Board Act. Then I hope we can deal quickly with the employment tax credit legislation, which will be introduced today in the form of a ways and means motion. Certainly these are among the items which will be called immediately this week. I hope to bring in the pipeline legislation at an early date. That will be given priority as well. In addition to these four items of legislation, I will wait until Thursday to project any further.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the pipeline legislation, I believe there was a request made in this House of the government House leader to consider the establishment of a special committee of this House, rather than a standing committee, to deal with the pipeline legislation when it leaves this House after second reading, if and when it is introduced. I wonder if the government House leader has come to any conclusion with respect to this request. If he has not, will he do so and inform us as soon as possible as to his intention to consider the establishment of a special committee of the House to deal with the pipeline legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question as to whether we ought to establish a special committee to deal with this piece of legislation is still under consideration. No decision not to proceed in that direction has been taken. It is still an open question. It will have to be resolved when we move to second reading of the bill in order that the committee to which the bill be sent can be indicated in the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the government House leader makes his statement on Thursday with respect to House business, will he give the House a list of the legislative measures which the government intends to introduce at this session that have not yet appeared on the order paper?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will consider that. Also I should like hon. members of the opposition to consider the possibility of some general agreement on the time that should be taken on each of these items which I have mentioned already and those I will indicate later.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the same point of order and with reference to the pipeline bill, can the government House leader tell us, when that bill is introduced, whether it will contain a legislative reference to the guarantee that approximately 98 per cent of the steel used in the pipeline will be produced in Canada? That was the promise made on September 9.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on the question of the so-called promise, I have talked often about the proportion of industrial benefits to accrue to Canada. It is my recollection that I have not yet mentioned any figure, except the figure which was put forward in the application by the pipeline company, namely, its view that 90 per cent of all materials and
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act services can be acquired in Canada. Certainly that is an objective we will strive to maintain.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the same point of order, in view of the importance of the pipeline legislation and the fact that the ratification legislation passed through Congress several months ago, is there any particular reason for the delay in bringing forth the legislation in this House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is really no delay in bringing forward the legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hon. members opposite have not given the government very much encouragement to bring forward additional items of legislation in view of the fact that we spent approximately 20 legislative days on one item of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), I should like to table a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act. These are amendments to provide the tax changes required for the proposed employment tax credit program. My colleague plans to introduce the legislation for the program and to provide the amendments to the Income Tax Act for first reading tomorrow.


ANTI-INFLATION ACT TABLING OF BOARD'S REPORTS
Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act, I wish to table in both official languages copies of 14 reports which were sent to the minister by the Anti-Inflation Board.
Order Paper Questions


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-414, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Prince Edward-Hastings).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the riding proposed as Prince Edward is almost three quarters in Hastings county. At the request of a significant number of leading citizens from both counties, I ask that the name be changed to reflect both historic counties and the close and friendly relationship which has existed over the years between them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Chair would have to make some sort of procedural reservation on the face of it, in view of the fact that already there is a constituency called Prince Edward-Hastings. It is very unlikely that we could have two constituencies with the same name. In any case, I presume the hon. member has leave to introduce the bill, subject to some sort of discussion of an amendment, and also subject to the reservation of the Chair on procedural grounds.


[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. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as 1 have to answer more than 100 questions today, I ask leave of the House to table the list of the numbers corresponding to those questions.


Mr. Speaker:: According to the ordinary practice of the House, the list which has been provided to the Chair is provided to representatives of each party, as I am sure was done. It is a rather lengthy list of questions which have been answered. The parliamentary secretary has suggested that this list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read and that the questions be deemed to have been answered in the usual way. Is that agreed?


Mr. Paproski:: It is agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.
[Editor's Note: The numbers of the questions mentioned above are as follows:] 46, 100, 109, 114, 123, 146, 165, 172, 176, 192, 201, 233, 247, 274, 278, 281, 283, 287, 292, 309, 325, 327, 333, 342, 343, 344, 351, 371 to 375 inch, 378, 402,

January 23, 1978
407, 422, 443, 446, 448, 452, 456, 465, 470, 471, 473, 483, 493, 494, 501, 511, 513, 518, 524, 528 to 531 inch, 539 to 544 inch, 549, 551, 552, 555, 676 (corrected), 680, 688, 699, 706, 730, 748, 753, 756, 769, 771, 776, 784, 791, 801, 802, 803, 808 to 812 inch, 817, 819, 820, 826, 835, 883, 893, 897, 906, 921, 931, 968 to 972 inch, 1,004 to 1,008 inch, and 1,037.


Mr. Cossitt: What is the total of all expenses paid by the Department of Supply and Services or any other branch of the government, directly or indirectly, for Mrs. A. Lang during the time she has been a member of the staff of the honourable
Member for Saskatoon-Humboldt while he has been a member of the Cabinet?


Otto Emil Lang: In her capacity as special assistant no expenses have been paid for her except in the supply of office materials etc. which are not attributed separately to staff members.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Minister of Agriculture in September 1977 refer to dairy farmers as "greedy" and, if so (a) was he stating government policy (b) where (c) on what date (d) for what reason?
2.	Is the Minister aware as to whether or not most dairy farmers work seven days a week, in excess of eight hours per day and did they advise the Minister that their only desire was to make a decent living?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. No-The
Minister of Agriculture has not said that all dairy farmers are "greedy". He has said on a number of occasions that a minority of fluid milk producers are greedy for not wanting to share the burden of surplus and over-production with industrial milk producers. The expansion of some fluid milk operations at the expense of industrial milk producers does not display a Christian attitude. In his discussions with dairy farmers at their meetings, government policy as well as the minister's personal views have been explained very carefully to those present.
2.	Yes-As a practising farmer, the minister is well aware of the hours of work required for all farmers, not just dairy farmers and that their motivation is the same as other people. Farmers are very capable of making their views known to the minister and their exchange of views with the minister keeps him up-to-date at all times.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the government's investment capital stock in the Canadian National Railways?
2.	Are any government loans to CNR outstanding and, if so, what is the total amount?

January 23, 1978


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1.	$1,509,851,035 of preferred stock at March 31, 1977. (Reference, Public Accounts 1977, Volume I, 10-8, A-15).
2.	Yes. $1,412,746,082 at March 31, 1977. (Reference, Public Accounts 1977, Volume I, 10.8, A-14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20).


Mr. Herbert: Has the agreement been concluded between the government and the Quebec provincial government concerning the date of mailing of family allowance cheques and, if so, what are the details?
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): No agreement has been concluded, nor is any agreement contemplated with the province of Quebec, concerning the date of mailing family allowance cheques.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past Five years, how many public servants (a) were hired (b) were retired (c) were discharged or dismissed (d) have left the public service for other reasons?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
1972	1973	1974	1975	1976(a) Hired	38,568	38,979	46,567	36,251	30,201(b) Retired	*	5,281	5,576	5,074	5,192(c) Discharged or dismissed	*	1,217	1,506	1,343	1,279(d) Left for other reasons	*	26,741	32,262	25,393	25,260
* Details not available from 1972 annual report
Discharged or dismissed includes: breach of discipline or misconduct; incompetence or incapacity; rejection during probation; abandonment of position. Left for other reasons includes: end of specified period of appointment; laid off; revocation of appointment; death.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Who are the members of the Board of Directors of the Canada Council?
2.	Is the Council directorship representative of the various regions and cultures of Canada?
3.	For what reason was Mrs. Chaput-Rolland appointed to the Canada Council?
4.	Will Mrs. Chaput-Rolland's appointment give the Council a separatist bias?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. and 2. The
members of the board of directors of Canada Council and their respective addresses are as follows: Miss Nini Baird, Coordinator, Outreach Programs Vancouver School of Art 249 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1X2; Mr. Michel
Order Paper Questions
Belanger, President, Banque Provinciale du Canada, 221 West, St-Jacques St. Montreal, Quebec H2Y 1M7; Dr. D. Owen Carrigan, President, Saint Mary's University, Robie Street, Halifax, N.S. B3H 3C3; Mrs. Solange Chaput-Rolland, 3328 Troie Avenue, Apt. 306, Montreal, Quebec H3V 1B1; Mr. Colin M. Jackson, 137 Tache Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba R2H 1Z4; Dr. Douglas T. Kenny, President, University of British Columbia, 2075 Westbrook Place, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5; Mrs. Eva Kushner, Department of French literature, University McGill, 3460, McTavish, P.O. Box 6070 Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G1; Mrs. Gertrude M. Laing (Chairman), 1223-38th Avenue South West, Calgary, Alberta T2T 2J3; Mr. Mavor Moore, Theatre Department, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Downsview, Ontario; Mr. Roland Parenteau, ficole nationale d'administration publique, 979 de Bourgogne Avenue, Ste-Foy, Quebec, G1W 2L4; Mr. Paul B. Park, Althouse College of Education, 1137 Western Road, London, Ontario N6G 1G7; Mr. John C. Parkin, 147 Front Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5J 1E9; Mr. Christopher Pratt, Box 87-Mount Carmel, St. Mary's Bay, Nfld. A0B 2M0; Mr. Robert Rivard, 196 Montcalm Street, Boucherville, Quebec J4B 2G3; Professor T. H. B. (Thomas) Symons, Trent University, 267 Stewart Street, Peterborough, Ontario K9J 3M8; Dr. Norman Ward, Department of Economics & Political Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 0W0; Mrs. Dorthy Corrigan, P.O. Box 1976 Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Mrs. Guita Falardeau, (till November 13, 1977), 875 Pierre Maufay Street, Ste-Foy, Quebec G1V 2M9; Mr. John W. Grace, (till December 8, 1977), Ottawa Journal, 365 Laurier West Ottawa, Ontario KIP 5K2:
2.	The degree to which the board members are representative of the various regions of Canada may be determined from the above list.
3.	Mrs. Solange Chaput-Rolland has had extensive experience as the author of several books and articles, and is a well known journalist and media personality in Quebec. Her dedication and interest to the arts, the political process and human rights are also well known.
4.	No.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Will there be an infusion of funds into crime prevention for better trained, deployed and equipped policemen and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) for what purposes?
2.	Were funds or man-years made available to the RCMP as a result of the introduction of the peace and security legislation and, if so, what were they?
3.	Have additional RCMP positions been allotted to do the administrative work on the new gun law proposals and, if so, how many?


Francis Fox: 1. Funds have been made available under the Peace and Security program to strengthen existing capabilities in crime prevention. In collaboration with provincial and municipal authorities and an advisory board, which includes representatives from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the RCMP, emphasis is being placed on providing police with practical, innovative,
2096

January 23, 1978
Order Paper Questions
community-oriented preventive programs which address local needs. Although many of these programs, such as Operation Identification, Neighbourhood Watch and Block Parents depend upon active voluntary community support, some, such as team policing, involve changes in the deployment of a city's force and may involve additional training as well as equipment. While funds were not specifically provided for better trained police officers, there is some concern to ensure that policing in general, and police recruit and in-service training in particular, come to reflect a more even balance between law enforcement and preventive policing. To this end, it is felt that some orientation in family crisis intervention and similar programs should, where appropriate, be made available to police forces and training establishments, (a) $1,108,000 for 1976/ 77. (b) For developing, disseminating and implementing model prescriptive policing packages.
2.	No specific resources were made available to the RCMP as a result of the introduction of the Peace and Security legislation but while man-year growth in the government as a whole was kept below 1 per cent during 1976-77, the RCMP increased by 4.4 per cent. Of the net increase in man-years authorized for departments and agencies whose man-years are subject to Treasury Board control, 14.7 per cent were allotted to the RCMP. Financial resources granted to the RCMP were also allowed to exceed the average increase for all government departments and agencies, for the same year. These increases were in recognition of the priority the government attached to innovative measures in crime control (Peace and Security).
3.	No man-years have as yet been allotted to the RCMP by Treasury Board. It is anticipated however, that seven man-years will be provided for the fiscal year 1977/78.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Agricultural Stabilization Board and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Eugene Whelan: In so far as
the Agricultural Stabilization Board is concerned, the answer is: 1. None.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Atlantic Development Council and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. As of October 20, 1977, none.
[Mr. Fot.I
2. (a) $11,933.75 in 1975-76, (b) $33,500.80 in 1976-77. Only one of the council's contractors was a retired public servant and the amount paid to him was $3,059.27. This payment was made in 1976-77.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Canadian Government Office of Tourism and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. The number of persons under contract during the period April 1, 1977 to present, total 45. As far as we can determine, of these 45 persons, none are retired public servants.
2. The total amounts paid to those under contract are as follows: April 1, 1975 to March 31, 1976 $38,335; April 1, 1976 to March 31, 1977 $70,630.50; during the period April 1, 1976 to March 31, 1977, a total amount of $3,000 was paid to one retired public servant.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Canadian Saltfish Corporation and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: 1. None.
2. (a) Nil. (b) $26,000 (not to a retired public servant.)


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the National Film Board and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. As of November 14, 1977, there were 674 active contracts at the board, of which only one is held by a retired public servant.
2. (a) The total amount paid to those under contract for the fiscal year 1975-1976 was $4,985,575. In 1975* there were three retired persons under contract, and they received a total of $13,622. (b) The total amount paid to those under contract for the fiscal year 1976-1977 was $5,345,882. In 1976* there were six retired persons under contract, and they received a total of $17,766.
* The fiscal year runs from April 1 to March 31.
January 23, 1978


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Department of Veterans Affairs obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Department in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: 1. The Canada Labour Relations Board during the fiscal year 1975/76 has obtained part-time employees from private employment agencies as follows:	1975-76	1976-77
	Number of	Number of
Province	Cases (Employees)	Cases (Employees)British Columbia	5	7Manitoba	-	1Ontario	13	1Quebec	2	5Nova Scotia	-	1


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: For the Department of Veterans Affairs, the War Veterans Allowance Board and the Pension Review Board:
		1975-76	1976-77
1. (a)	(i)	-	-(ii)	2	-(iii)	-	-(iv)	32	6(v)	30	56(vi)	6	8(vii)	-	-(viii)	7	-(ix)	-	-(X) (b) Not applicable.	2. No,	from main estimates. 1975-76	1976-773. (a)	(ii)	$5.50	-(iv)	$8.00	$7.87(v)	$6.01	$6.31(vi)	$5.83	$6.09(b)	(viii) Unknown.	$6.00	(Q	(i) (ii)	$ 1,158.97	(ii) (ii)(iv)	$75,195.13	(iv)(v)	$27,482.18	(v)(vi)	$ 1,988.66	(vi)(Vlll)	$ 4,041.00	(viii)


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Canada Labour Relations Board obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Canada Labour Relations Board in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?
2. Such employees are paid from Main Estimates.
1975/76	Average Hourly Rate	Average Hourly Rate	Total AmountProvince	Paid to Agency	Paid to Employees	PaidBritish	Columbia	$5.50	Unknown	$ 744Ontario	5.80	"	22,083Quebec	5.55	"	3,2901976/77	Average Hourly Rate	Average Hourly Rate	Total AmountProvince	Paid to Agency	Paid to Employees	PaidBritish	Columbia	$5.90	Unknown	$ 1,547Manitoba	6.95	"	389Quebec	7.20	"	3,843Nova Scotia	5,95	"	30


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Canadian Council on Rural Development obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Canadian Council on Rural Development in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Canadian Council on Rural Development is as follows:
1.	(a) yes-Ontario (9). (b) no.
2.	No, these employees were paid from the main estimates.
3.	(a) Ontario-$6.45 per hour, (b) Information on the terms of employment between agencies and their employees is not available, (c) (i) 1975-76-$8,292.45; (ii) 1976-77- $8,996.79.
2098

January 23, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Canadian Government Expositions Centre obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Canadian Government Expositions Centre in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. (a) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) Not applicable, (v) 21. (b) Not applicable.
2.	Expositions Revolving Fund.
3.	(a) (i) $5.89; (ii) $6.66. (b) Not known; (c) (i) $32,726.58; (ii) $64,122.37.* * 1
* The Canadian Government Expositions Centre has been part of the Department of Supply and Services since April 1, 1976. This amount was therefore included in the DSS answer to question No. 1,526 tabled August 5, 1977.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Canadian Government Office of Tourism obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Canadian Government Office of Tourism in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: 1. The Canadian Government Office of Tourism has obtained part-time help from private employment agencies in Ontario only. There were 58 employees engaged in 1975 and 69 employees engaged in 1976.
2.	The salaries for this part-time help are paid from the C.G.O.T. main appropriation.
3.	This applies to Ontario only, (a) The average hourly rate paid to employment agencies in 1975-$5.68; the average hourly rate paid to employment agencies in 1976-$6.11. (b) The average hourly rate paid to employees is not available, (c) The C.G.O.T. spent $15,930 on employment agency help in FY 1975/76 and $19,736 in FY 1976/77.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Canadian Penitentiary Service obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Canadian Penitentiary Service in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Francis Fox: I. Canadian Penitentiary Service and National Parole Service.
(a) Yes
	1975-76	1976-77
(0	58	56(ii)	8	4(iii)	11	Nil(iv)	Nil	Nil(v)	78	21(vi)	1	2(vii)	2	1(viii)	Nil	2(ix)	Nil	Nil(x)	Nil	Nil
(b) No.
2.	No. Funding for payment is included in the main estimates.
3.
(a)	1975-76	1976-77	'Mi(i)	$6.28	$8.67	(ii)	4.75	6.56	(iii)	5.00	Nil	(iv)	Nil	Nil	(v)	6.02	6 31	(vi)	5.15	5.49	(vii)	4.90	8.00	(viii)	Nil	5.35	'**>:' [DOT] [DOT](ix)	Nil	Nil	(x)	Nil	Nil	
(b) The Canadian Penitentiary Service and the National Parole Service is not informed of the rate paid by the employment agencies to their employees as this is a private matter between the agency (employer) and their employees.
(c)	(i)	1975-76:	$171,507.70
(ii) 1976-77:	125,226.02


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Canadian Transport Commission obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Canadian Transport Commission in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Otto Emil Lang: 1.
75-76	76-77
(a) Ontario	88	35Quebec	7	4All other provinces	Nil
(b) Nil
2.	Main estimates.
3.
	75-76	76-77
Ontario	6.09	6.63Quebec	4.95	5.87All other provinces	Nil(b)	Information not known.(c)	(i) $182,055 (ii) $ 49,710


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Federal Business Development Bank obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Federal Business Development Bank in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: 1, 2 and 3. It has not been the practice nor is it considered appropriate to answer questions which relate to the direction and management of the Federal Business Development Bank. By its act of incorporation, the responsibility for the direction and management of the business of the bank rests with the board of directors.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the National Film Board obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the National Film Board in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. Nil.
2. and 3. Not applicable.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the National Harbours Board obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the National Harbours Board in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Otto Emil Lang: 1.
(i)	British Columbia	(a) Part-time Employees 36	(b) Full-time Employees(ii)	Alberta	-	-(iii)	Saskatchewan	-	-(iv)	Manitoba	-	-(v)	Ontario	32	-(vi)	Quebec	12	-(vii)	New Brunswick	1	-(viii)	Nova Scotia	-	-(ix)	Prince Edward Island	-	-(*)	Newfoundland	-	-2.	From internally-generated funds.3.	(a) By province, the average hourly rate paid to employment agencies was as follows:(i)	British Columbia	1975 $5.85	1976 $6.30(ii)	Alberta	-	-(iii)	Saskatchewan	-	-(iv)	Manitoba	-	-(v)	Ontario	6.00	6.55(vi)	Quebec	4.90	6.04(vii)	New Brunswick	4.90	5.20(viii)	Nova Scotia	-	-(ix)	Prince Edward Island	-	-(x)	Newfoundland	-	-
(b) Not known, (c) By province, total amount paid by National Harbours Board:
(0	British Columbia	1975 $ 5,608	1976 $13,832(ii)	Alberta	-	-(iii)	Saskatchewan	-	-(iv)	Manitoba	-	-(v)	Ontario	11,774	6,082(vi)	Quebec	8,229	4,877(vii)	New Brunswick	598	1,900(viii)	Nova Scotia	-	-(ix)	Prince Edward Island	-	-(x)	Newfoundland	-	-
Order Paper Questions ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Royal Canadian Mint obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Royal Canadian Mint in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. (a) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) Nil; (v) 1975-1; 1976-1; (vi) 1975-1. (b) Not applicable.
2. Main estimates.
3. (a) (i) $4.40 Ontario; $5.50 Quebec; (ii) $5.50. (b) Not known, (c) (i) $617. (ii) $2,712.


Mr. Symes: From October 1972 to date, what amount of Financial assistance was given to the Constituency of Sault Ste. Marie through federal programmes administered by CMHC and any other agency which reports to CMHC or the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs?


André Ouellet: The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs and the National Capital Commission have no information on this matter.
Note; Data compiled by CMHC on National Housing Act activity are compiled on the basis of municipalities, counties and territorial districts in Ontario and not on federal electoral constituencies.
NHA ACTIVITY, SAULT STE. MARIE URBAN AGGLOMERATION11), 1972-August, 1977<2>
NHA ACTIVITY Housing*3*
Private Mortgage Market
Approved Lenders CMHC-Owner and Rental CMHC-Assisted Home Owner
Social Housing-Loans
Co-operatives
Low Rental (entrepreneur)
Non-Profit
Public Housing
Student Housing
Community Revitalization Loans
Residential Rehabilitation Neighbourhood Improvement Urban Renewal
Grants
Urban Renewal Schemes Urban Renewal Implementation Neighbourhood Improvement
Infrastructure
Loans
Land for Housing New Communities Water and Sewage Projects
Grants
Water and Sewerage (non-NHA) High Cost and Planning Municipal Incentive
Other (Grants)
Development Start-Up Funds Urban Renewal Studies
Loans
3,155
3,150
Sec. 6	2,842
Sec. 58/59	13
Sec. 34.15	295 5
Sec. 34.18		
Sec. 15	1
Sec. 15.1	3
Sec. 43		
Sec. 47	1 281
Sec. 34.1	281
Sec. 27.5		
Sec. 25	-
Sec. 23		
Sec. 24		
Sec. 27.2	6
Sec. 42	3
Sec. 45.2		
Sec. 51	3
Sec. 52.1		
Sec. 52.2 & 52.3		
Sec. 56.2	2
Sec. 37	_
Sec. 37.1	2
Sec. 37		
Units	Hostel Beds	$0003,674	434	99,6583,524	270	95,7333,216	270	87,87913	-	248295	-	7,606150	164	3,92533	755133	14	2,530- 16	-	- 146'150	786281	983281	-	983-	-	2,627-	1,0171,6102,635-	-	1,957-	-	679148	-	148148	148-	-	10-	10
City of Sault Ste. Marie, Rankin Location and Garden River Indian Reserves. (2) Data for 1972-1975 are net, data for 1976-1977 are gross.
*3) New and existing housing.
(4) Cancellation of a project initially approved in an earlier year.
(Mr. Lang.]
January 23, 1978


Mr. Rynard: Are there any departments situated in the Town of Midland, Ontario and, if so (a) which ones (b) in what locations (c) what is the total square feet of office space occupied by each (d) what is the rent per square foot for office space?


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: (a)	(b)	(c)	<d)
		Square	Rental Rate
Department	Location	frontage	per square feetPost Office	525 Dominion Ave.	4,304	N/A-Crown OwnedDepartment of Employment and Immigration	525 Dominion Ave.	2,649	N/A-Crown OwnedCustoms and Excise	525 Dominion Ave.	1,075	N/A-Crown OwnedCanada Pension Plan	525 Dominion Ave.	253 (storage only) N/A-Crown Owned	Canada Employment and	Immigration Commission	522 Elizabeth Street 1,225	S6.30 (Leased)


Mr. Rynard: Are there any departments situated in the City of Orillia, Ontario and, if so (a) which ones (b) in what locations (c) what is the total square feet of office space occupied by each (d) what is the rent per square foot for office space?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: 
Mr. McCain: 1.	What amount did CBC pay the private producers of the Art's Cuba programme shown on Montreal television, October 19, 1977?
2.	Was the programme shown by other CBC stations and, if so, was it shown simultaneously and, if not, on what date and at what time was it shown and by which stations?
3.	Is the programme to be shown at a future date and, if so, what is the name of the station and the time it is to be shown?
4.	What is the name of the (a) producing company (b) producer?
5.	How many programmes were bought from the producing company and, in each case, at what cost?
Order Paper Questions


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. It has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration as the cost of individual programs or its business arrangements with private companies. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.
2 "Arts Cuba" was shown on the full CBC English television network on October 19, 1977, at 2130 local time across the country (2200 Newfoundland).
3.	As of the date of reply, no decision has been made with regard to future telecasts.
4.	(a) Octopus Films Inc. (b) Vivienne Leebosh.
5.	By both networks, two, including "Arts Cuba". With regard to the cost, see the answer to part 1 above.


Mr. Mclsaac: 1.	Under the Canada-Saskatchewan Interim Subsidiary Agreement on the Saskatchewan Northlands, what amounts of federal monies were allocated under the Transportation Sector for highway (a) No. 2(b) No. 155 (c) No. 106?
2.	What specific sections of the highways were involved in the grants and what improvements were made?
3.	What share of the total cost of the projects does the federal contribution represent?


Donald Paul Wood: 1. From March 31, 1974 to March 31, 1977: (a) $5,369,928; (b) $4,396,036; (c) $1,726,150.
2.	(a) No. 2 Montreal Lake vicinity to 20 miles south of La Ronge was paved and a bridge constructed over the Montreal River, (b) No. 155 Junction No. 55 at Green Lake to Beauval, rebuilding, stabilization and oiling. Bridges were constructed over the Cowan, Beaver and Waterhen Rivers, (c) No. 106 Creighton toward the junction of highway No. 135 was rebuilt, stabilized and oiled.
3.	The federal contribution amounts to 60 per cent of the total cost, contributed equally by the Ministry of Transport and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.


Mr. Mclsaac: 1.	Under the Special ARDA Agreement entered into between the government and the Province of Saskatchewan, has any federal funding been provided to any local community authority located in Northern Saskatchewan and, if so, which local community authority and in what amount?
2.	On what dates were the monies granted and under what terms and conditions?


Donald Paul Wood: 1. Yes; Beauval Local Com-

January 23, 1978
Order Paper Questions
munity Authority-Commitment made under the commercial undertaking clauses of agreement. No provincial cost sharing. Federal commitment $7,500. Buffalo Narrows Local Community Authority-Commitment made under the area employment training clauses of agreement. Equal federal-provincial cost sharing. Federal commitment $23,500. La Loche Local Community Authority-Commitment made under the remote rural community clauses of agreement. Equal federal-provincial cost sharing. Federal commitment $10,500. La Loche Local Community Authority-Commitment made under the remote rural community clauses of agreement. Equal federal-provincial cost sharing. Federal commitment $215,625. Sandy Bay Local Community Authority-Commitment made under the area employment training clauses of agreement. Equal federal-provincial cost sharing. Federal commitment $7,000. Sandy Bay Local Community Authority-Commitment made under the area employment training clauses of agreement. Equal federal-provincial cost sharing. Federal commitment $23,000.
2. Beauval Local Community Authority-May 1, 1975; Buffalo Narrows Local Community Authority-December 8, 1976; La Loche Local Community Authority-April 20, 1976; La Loche Local Community Authority-May 18, 1977; Sandy Bay Local Community Authority-March 10, 1977; Sandy Bay Local Community Authority-April 6, 1977. All commitments were made under the terms and conditions set out in the Canada-Saskatchewan Special ARDA Agreement.


Mr. Mclsaac: 1.	Under the Special ARDA Programme entered into under agreement between the government and the Province of Saskatchewan, how many individuals or specific enterprises located in Buffalo Narrows were assisted by federal grants?
2.	What were the amounts of each grant and the general nature of the enterprise assisted?
3.	How many of the projects are operating successfully at the present time?
4.	What share of the total initial cost of the enterprises does the federal contribution represent?


Donald Paul Wood: 1. Eight.
2.
Individual or Enterprise	Amount	General NatureEinar Pedersen	S21,076	Establishment of a service station.Kenneth Pederson	33,250	Establishment of a construction facility.Norman Tinker	23,076	Establishment and expansion of a cafe and pool room.Dorothy Petit	36,000	Establishment of a general store.Buffalo Narrows Local Community Authority	23,500	Establishment of a child care centre.Serights Esso Service	6,484	Expansion of a service station.Individual or Enterprise	Amount	General NatureThorvald Pedersen	25,335	Establishment of a small motor repair facility.John and Mary Hanson	3,952	Establishment of a laundromat.3. One of the facilities is presently	under construction. The
remainder continue in operation.
4.
Individual or Enterprise	Share of Total Initial Cost
Einar Pederson	50 per cent of capital assets 50 per cent of abnormal operating cost
Kenneth Pederson	50 per cent of capital assets 50 per cent of working capital
Norman Tinker	35 per cent of capital assets 50 per cent of abnormal operating cost
Dorothy Petit	50 per cent of capital assets
Buffalo Narrows Local Community Authority	50 per cent of capital costs
Serights Esso Service	35 per cent of capital assets
Thorvald Pedersen	100 per cent of preoperating costs 50 per cent of capital assets 50 per cent of working capital
John and Mary Hanson	25 per cent of capital assets


Mr. Mclsaac: 1.	Under the Canada-Saskatchewan Interim Subsidiary Agreement on the Saskatchewan Northlands, what amounts of federal monies were (a) allotted (b) expended to date on the (i) La Loche (ii) Pine House (iii) Patuanak (iv) Buffalo Narrows (v) Camsell Portage (vi) Cumberland House (vii) Tle-a-la-Crosse (viii) Stony Rapids (ix) Wollaston Post Airstrip?
2.	What share of the total cost of the projects does the federal contribution represent?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. As of March 31, 1977:
		(a) Allotted	(b) Expended
(i)	La Loche	31,788	31,788(ii)	Pinehouse	107,580	105,551(iii)	Patuanak	140,976	118,168(iv)	Buffalo Narrows	5,011	5,011(v)	Camsell Portage	37,380	31,135(vi)	Cumberland House	559	559(vii)	fle-&-la Crosse	203,245	203,245(viii)	Stony Rapids	82,800	61,821(ix)	Wollaston Post	30,000	25,212Total	639,339	582,490
2. The federal contribution represents 60 per cent of the total cost of projects contributed equally by the Ministry of Transport and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
(Mr. Wood.]


Mr. Mclsaac: 1.	Under the Canada-Saskatchewan Interim Subsidiary Agreement on the Saskatchewan Northlands, what was the amount of federal funds allocated to the construction of the (a) Stony Rapids-Black Lake access road (b) Descham-bault access road (c) Dillon-Michel Village access road (d) Stanley Mission access road (e) Pelican Narrows-Sandy Bay access road (0 Besnard Lake- Pine House access road?
2.	What share of the total cost of the projects does the federal contribution represent?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. From April 1, 1974 to March 31, 1977; (a) Stony Rapids-Black Lake Access Road, $432,132; (b) Deschambault Access Road, $52,980; (c) Dillon-Michel Village Access Road, $92,400'; (d) Stanley Mission Access Road, $721,998; (e) Pelican Narrows-Sandy Bay Access Road, $125,400; (f) Besnard Lake- Pinehouse Access Road, $1,361,336.
1 budgeted 1977/78.
2. The federal contribution represents 60 per cent of the total costs contributed equally by the Ministry of Transport and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. None.
2. (a) None; (b) None.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Indian Claims Commission and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. Nil.
2. (a) 1974-75-$58,362.79; one retired public servant- $66.00; (b) 1975-76-$55,231.46; one retired public servant- $630.00.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Pacific Pilotage Authority and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?
Order Paper Questions


Otto Emil Lang: 1. One. He is a retired public servant.
2. (a) $3,024.72; (b) $3,675. Of the above amounts $2,700 was paid to a retired public servant in 1976.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the National Capital Commission proceeding with the construction of the interior of 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa and, if so (a) on what date did construction start (b) who is the contractor and what is the amount being expended?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) on what date (b) what are the names of the tenderers and the amounts in each case?
3.	Has or is the government proceeding with leasing such premises to By York Development Ltd. and, if so, what are the terms of the lease, including dates, annual rental, renewal or any other options?
4.	Is By York Development Ltd. still in the process of suing the National Capital Commission for $4,310,000 damages and (a) if so (i) on what date will the case be heard (ii) what is the total of all monies expended or budgeted by the government to defend the suit (b) if not, on what date was the suit withdrawn?
5.	Is the government carrying out a counter suit and (a) if so, what amount has been expended or budgeted for this purpose (b) if not, was the counter suit withdrawn and, if so, on what date?
6.	Did By York Development Ltd. purchase wine with public money at a cost of $49,137.46 and, if so, did the government recover this money and (a) if so, on what date and under what terms (b) if not, for what reason?
7.	Did the government receive any money from By York Development Ltd. or any other source for the $49,456.15 of antiques purchased in England for the restaurant at 10-12-18 York Street and (a) if so, on what date and in what amount (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1. No. There is no construction now underway. All that remains to be undertaken is to carry out the plans and specifications for the built-in interior fitments.
2.	Not applicable. The work mentioned in Paragraph 1 hereof is being held in abeyance pending negotiations with a potential tenant.
3.	The National Capital Commission has not, nor is it proceeding, to lease the premises of 10-12-18 York Street to By York Development Ltd.
4.	Yes. (a) (i) Not known, (ii) $15 to file Appearance, Defence and Counterclaim. Department of Justice representatives are handling the lawsuit in the ordinary course of their responsibilities and no separate budget has been established, (b) Not applicable.
5.	Yes. (a) $15 to file Appearance, Defence and Counterclaim. Department of Justice representatives are handling the lawsuit in the ordinary course of their responsibilities and no separate budget has been established, (b) Not applicable.
6.	No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Certain wines were purchased by the National Capital Commission and it will be an obligation of a potential lessee to acquire these wines.
7.	No. (a) Not applicable, (b) The National Capital Commission invested in certain artifacts which will be incorporated in the final planning of the interior decor of 10-12-18 York Street.
2104

January 23, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Leggatt: In each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of New Westminster by the Department of the Solicitor General and those agencies that report to it?


Francis Fox: Fiscal year	Canadian Corrections	Royal Canadian
	Service	Mounted Police
1970-71	$2,983,023	$ 413,6201971-72	$3,401,006	$ 590,3271972-73	$4,004,236	$ 319,5221973-74	$4,924,446	$ 734,2881974-75	$6,161,907	$1,149,6661975-76	$7,466,647	$1,527,8561976-77	$9,243,744	$1,747,622Ministry Secretariat Parole Board Canada	Nil


Mr. Leggatt: In each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of New Westminster by the Department of the Secretary of State and those agencies that report to it?


John (Moody) Roberts: In so far as the
Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: Records are not kept in such a way as to permit the ready provision of accurate information on grants by electoral districts without inordinate time and expense.
In so far as the Public Service Commission is concerned: The Public Service Commission does not maintain details of expenditure by constituency and is therefore unable to provide the information requested.
In so far as the National Film Board is concerned: Nil.
In so far as the Public Archives are concerned: Nil. In so far as the National Library is concerned: Nil.


Mr. Leggatt: In each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of New Westminster by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and those agencies that report to it?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: Nil. For the
Atlantic Development Council is as follows: Not applicable. For the Canadian Council on Rural Development is as follows: Nil. For the Cape Breton Development Corporation is as follows: Not applicable.


Mr. Leggatt: In each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of New Westminster by the Department of National Defence and those agencies that report to it?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Data for Fiscal years 1970/71 to 1972/73 is not readily available and would require a great deal of research, for which the department does not have the necessary resources. However, data for fiscal years 1973/74 to 1976/77 is listed below:
	($000)
1973/74-	$249.8
1974/75-	279.5
1975/76-	355.3
1976/77-	389.4


Mr. Leggatt: In each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of New Westminster by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and those agencies that report to it?


Hon. Janies Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The Department's financial records are not maintained in a manner that would provide this information by constituency.


Mr. Leggatt: In each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of New Westminster by the Department of Finance and those agencies that report to it?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 
Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the name of each person serving on the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Council and, in each case (a) on what basis were they selected (b) what is their term of office (c) what is their remuneration (d) what are their responsibilities?
2.	Is the government considering appointing a representative from the elementary or secondary educational sectors to serve on the Council and, if not, for what reason?


Hon.   Monique@: In so far as the Minister of National Health and Welfare is concerned: 1. (a) The members of the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Committee were selected to be representative of employees, employers, self-employed persons and the public, (b) The members of the Advisory Committee as of November 10, 1977, and the expiry date of their present terms are: Robert Baldwin, Ottawa, Ontario, January, 1980; J. T. Birkenshaw, Toronto, Ontario, January, 1980; C. Myrna Bowman, Winnipeg, Manitoba, January, 1980; Merlyn Clark, Charlottetown, P.E.I., January, 1980; Adeline I. Derby, Vancouver, B.C., January, 1980; H. Larry Doane, Halifax, Nova Scotia, December, 1978; M. Monica Donoghue, Blackville, New Brunswick, December, 1978; Robert C. Dowsett, Don Mills, Ontario, January, 1980; Georgia Goodspeed, Saskatoon, Sask., January, 1979; Carmin Graveline, Montreal, Quebec, January, 1980; Mavis Marteinson, Calgary, Alberta, January, 1979; Donald Ohs, Kamloops, B.C., January, 1980; Audrey Orr, Toronto, Ontario, January, 1980; Jack L. Pickett, Edmonton, Alberta, January, 1980; R. W. Porter, London, Ontario, January, 1979. Each member is appointed by the Governor in Council for a term not exceeding five years, (c) Each member of the Advisory Committee is entitled to be paid such allowance for each day he attends any meeting of the Committee as may be fixed by the Governor in Council (at present the Chairman receives $ 150 per day and the members each receive $100 per day), and is entitled to be paid reasonable travelling and living expenses while absent from his ordinary place of residence in the course of his duties as a member of the Committee, (d) It is the duty of the Advisory Committee to review from time to time, as it deems appropriate or advisable, the operation of the Canada Pension Plan, the state of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund and the adequacy of coverage and benefits under the Canada Pension Plan and to report to the Minister of National Health and Welfare the results of such review. Each year the Committee prepares a report to the Minister on its activities during the preceding year.
2.	The public school sector is currently represented on the Advisory Committee by Miss M. Monica Donoghue, a retired school teacher. Miss Donoghue taught for over forty years in public schools in New Brunswick and Teacher's College, Fredericton, New Brunswick.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the policy of the National Film Board with respect to the use of audio/visual tapes, films and scripts in elementary and secondary schools?
2.	(a) What services or programmes are available through the National Film Board to elementary and secondary school teachers (b) by province, what was the cost for such services in each of the past five years?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. It is the policy of the National Film Board to promote and assist in the development of audio-visual services to Canadian schools and teachers and to support their operations and growth with its own productions and resources, rather than to substitute for the education system in providing such services. The production and resources of the National Film Board reach elementary and secondary schools in Canada in many ways: (1) All productions distributed by the National Film Board are made available in 16mm format on a free loan basis to elementary and secondary schools, usually through the established audio-visual service of the school or the schools system. The same productions are also available for purchase from the National Film Board offices across the country. Such purchases can often be made at varying discounted rates on quantity orders and/or within a film library development programme. (2) Where such capabilities exist, departments of education or provincial telecommunication authorities can purchase from the National Film Board the rights to broadcast within the educational television system or closed-circuit school TV system, to transfer from film to tape and to reproduce quantity of tapes of all productions cleared for such distribution. In addition, the National Film Board now sells all such productions on tape format. (3) Other audio-visual products, such as 8mm films, filmstrips, slides presentation, transparencies, multi-media kits, are available for purchase by schools from three (3) distributors in the country. (4) It is not the policy of the National Film Board to provide scripts of its productions although in a few instances such scripts have been made available free of charge for film studies.
2. There is no service provided by the National Film Board specifically designed for teachers in the elementary and secondary schools. This is considered to be the responsibility of the departments and boards of education. However, like any other Canadian, the elementary and secondary school teachers have access to the free loan service from the National Film Board 27 film libraries across the country. The following table shows what percentage of all transactions recorded in all film libraries were for elementary and secondary schools during the period of 1972-73 to 1976-77 and the estimated cost of providing that service per province. The services of the National Film Board staff members in its local and regional offices are also made available on request and within the limits of resources and capabilities in time and place to share with
80027-64'A

Order Paper Questions
teachers or audio-visual specialists their experience in the fields of film library organization and management, film information and programming, films and media studies and also concerning the use of audio-visual aids in the learning process. There are no reliable data to account for the cost of such personnel services per province in each of the past five years. In addition to above-mentioned service, the National Film Board, during the fiscal year 1976-77, in collaboration with the a/v Committee of the Council of Ministers of Education, developed its "Education Support Programme" designed to bring about a closer and more concerted collaboration with educational authorities in Canada concerning audio-visual aids and their effective use by teachers and students in the learning process. This programme was funded in the amount of $300,000 to cover all levels of education in all of Canada.
1972/1973	1973/1974	1974/1975	1975/1976	1976/1977British Columbia (including Yukon)	$ 76,590	$ 92,000	$ 97,885	$ 90,846	$ 95,520Alberta (including N.W.T.)	93,398	97,419	105,628	100,291	109,389Saskatchewan	45,046	48,866	45,161	41,859	45,441Manitoba	47,653	54,627	55,449	41,553	45,534Ontario	122,130	118,664	123,532	120,384	140,041Quebec	151,398	149,687	151,942	152,896	192,993New Brunswick	29,134	34,481	31,198	28,872	33,145Nova Scotia	47,736	51,505	41,845	47,758	59,384Prince Edward Island	-	-	-	-	-Newfoundland / Labrador	21,848	23,803	22,884	29,731	33,831Total	$634,933	$671,052	$675,524	$654,190	$755,278
*The film service to elementary and secondary schools in P.E.I. is provided by the Department of Education which purchases most of the films they need. The NFB office acts as a back-up service to the Department of Education.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	(a) What is the procedure followed in the hiring by the government of Canadian teachers to teach at Canadian Armed Forces bases overseas (b) how many are employed (c) what is the salary scale (d) what is the amount of foreign service allowance awarded (e) what provisions are made for (i) travel expenses (ii) medical insurance coverage?
2.	Under what provisions are members of the Canadian Armed Forces given the vote while serving overseas and do these provisions apply to teachers at the bases?
3.	Under what provisions are members of the Forces exempted from paying tax on foreign service allowance awarded and do the provisions apply to teachers at the bases?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Department of National Defence, the Chief Electoral Office and Revenue Canada as follows:
1.	(a) Teachers for overseas DND dependants schools are obtained from their employing school boards in Canada under a two-year loan-of-service agreement. Interested applicants apply to their employing board for such an assignment. The board reviews all applications received and forwards suitable nominations to the Department of National Defence. The National

Defence Headquarters Teachers Selection Committee makes the final selection, (b) 296 (including direction, administrative and teaching staffs), (c) The employing board continues to pay the salary authorized under their salary agreement whilst the teacher is assigned overseas. The department reimburses the board for monthly salary payments made, (d) Foreign service allowance for teachers is calculated in the same manner as for members of the Canadian Forces and the amount may fluctuate according to the cost of living or post indices established by Statistics Canada. Other factors that have an influence are salary entitlements, length of service overseas and whether the teacher is accompanied by dependants. The minimum and maximum allowances now vary between approximately $300 to $700 per month, (e) (i) Teachers are entitled to travelling allowances as though proceeding on duty as a member of the Canadian Forces, (ii) Teachers are covered for adequate hospital-medical insurance under provincial health insurance plans, where extended outside Canada, or under the Canadian Teachers Association in Europe (CTAE) Group Plan, a health care plan sponsored by the Canadian Premier Life Insurance Company.
2.	The provisions of the recently amended Special Voting Rules (Schedule II to the Canada Elections Act) include provisions for the taking of the votes, at a general election, of Canadian Forces electors, including teachers and administrative support staff at Canadian Forces schools outside Canada, and their eligible dependants residing with them.
3.	Members of the Canadian Forces (as well as employees of all Canadian departments) are deemed residents of Canada pursuant to paragraph 250(1 )(b) of the Income Tax Act. Any foreign service allowance received by such members is specifically exempted from tax under subparagraph 6(l)(b)(iii) of the Act. School teachers are subject to tax under subsection 115(2) of the act and there is no similar provision exempting teachers from paying tax on foreign service allowance. However, in order to rectify this anomalous situation a remission order, titled "Department of National Defence Overseas School Staff Income Tax Remission Order 1976", permits a teacher to elect to be taxed as though he was a member of the Canadian Forces. Therefore, if a teacher makes the election there will be a remission of federal income tax which was paid on the foreign service allowance. It is expected that most provinces will also approve a remission of provincial taxes in respect of foreign service allowances although this matter has not yet been finalized.


Mr. Yewchuk: Has the Department of National Health and Welfare investigated the potential danger to smokers and non-smokers of the protein RUTIN, which is present in both tobacco leaves and cigarette smoke and, if so, in what manner?


Hon.   Monique@: The Department of National Health and Welfare has not investigated the potential danger to smokers and non-smokers of RUTIN. Rutin is a natural product found in buckwheat, citrus fruits and vegetables, as well as in tobacco.
January 23, 1978


Mr. Nystrom: Is Torutein, manufactured by Amoco Foods Company in the United States, a torula yeast grown on pure alcohol and do advertisements for the product claim that it replaces milk solids, improves meat flavour and binds fats and water, replaces dried egg yolks, imparts a smooth mouthfeel and enhances sour cream flavour and, if so (a) what tests have been done by the Health Protection Branch, Food and Drug Administration or the Company to indicate that this product is safe for human consumption (b) what tests have been done to indicate that Torutein, which is used to replace milk solids and egg yolks, provides the same nourishment (c) under what regulations is the product being sold in Canada and are there any regulations which would limit its use in food products?


Monique Bégin: Torutein, manufactured by Amoco Foods, is a Torula yeast (Candida utilis) which is grown on food grade ethyl alcohol, using a continuous aseptic fermentation process. The yeast is grown as a pure culture under controlled conditions designed to give uniform products. The yeast is continuously harvested, concentrated by centrifugation, pasteurized, spray dried, and bagged using sanitary processes as normally found in the dry milk industry. The advertisements for Torutein do claim that its use improves meat flavour; binds fats and water; imparts a smooth mouthfeel; enhances sour cream flavour in dressings, sauces and dips; and partially replaces non-fat dry milk and eggs, for functional and organoleptic purposes, in certain unstandardized baking formulas, (a) Amoco Foods Company had done chemical, microbiological, nutritional and toxicological studies on Torutein, and the results of these studies indicate that the product per se is safe for human consumption, (b) Data provided by the manufacturer indicate that the nutritional quality of TTorutein differs from that of dried egg yolk and milk solids. It is higher in protein although of a lower nutritional quality and contains higher levels of B vitamins except vitamin B12 and folic acid. Its total mineral content is comparable to that of milk solids but it contains negligible amounts of calcium and more magnesium and iron, (c) Torula yeast has been used as a Food ingredient for a considerable period of time. Although there are no regulations controlling the sale of the product per se, its sale as a food or food ingredient is subject to the general provisions of the Food and Drugs Act relating to safety and lack of deception. Torutein may be used as an ingredient in unstandardized foods. While there are no legal limitations on its level of use in these foods, its upper use level is self-limiting at around 3 per cent due to undesirable colour, texture and yeasty taste. Most staple foods are subject to standards of composition in the Food and Drug Regulations which specify the ingredients which may be used in those foods. The Health Protection Branch policy has been to consider Torutein used in condimental proportions to be "seasoning", and therefore its use has been permitted in those standardized foods for which provision is made for "seasoning". The addition of Torutein in condimental proportions to standardized foods should not replace any nutritive ingredient. If Torutein were used in higher than condimental proportions as a replacement for nutritious ingredients, a different set of circumstances would exist. It is the policy of the Department of National Health
Order Paper Questions
and Welfare to ensure that substitution of ingredients does not decrease the nutritional quality of the diet. For example, regulations were recently promulgated requiring that any protein sources added to meat and poultry products to extend the protein or used to simulate meat or poultry products contain protein and vitamins and mineral nutrients in amounts equivalent to those found in meat. Torutein used in more than condimental proportions in meat or poultry products would be subject to these regulations. The development of such regulations is an ongoing process in response to the development of new foods.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	For the fiscal year 1977-78, what is the advertising budget of the Unemployment Insurance Commission?
2.	For the same year, how much will be spent on advertising that (a) will explain changes (b) does not explain changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act resulting from the passage of Bill C-27, An Act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof of the Second Session of the 30th Parliament?
3.	(a) What was the total cost of producing the TV commercials "Tightrope" and "Boxer" (b) what funds will be spent to broadcast the commercials (c) do "Tightrope" and "Boxer" make specific reference to the changes in UIC regulations and, if not, what justification is there for the spending of funds on the commercials?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. In calendar year 1977, the advertising budget for Unemployment Insurance was $2,000,000.
2.	(a) $1,690,804; (b) $309,196.
3.	(a) "Tightrope": $16,400; "Boxer"; $19,800. (b) "Tightrope": $84,779.27; "Boxer": $126,456.12. (c) No. "Tightrope" stresses the commission must render proper service, while controlling fraud and abuse. "Boxer" explains claimants' obligations to conduct an active job search while on UI claim.


Mr. Neil: January 23, 1978
Order Paper Questions AIR CANADA PERSONNEL

Question No. 511-Mr. Howie:
From November I, 1976 to November 1, 1977, how many persons were added to the personnel of Air Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: between November 1, 1976 and November 1, 1977, the total number of employees decreased by 536.


Mr. Howie: What was the total value of Canada's export trade for the fiscal year 1976-77 and, how much (a) was with (i) the USA (ii) European Common Market countries (b) involved manufactured goods sold to (i) the USA (ii) European Common Market countries?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Statistics Canada reports the following: the total value for the fiscal year 1976-77 of Canada's export trade was $39,631,500,000, of which (a) (i) $26,963,600,000 was with the USA and (ii) $4,668,600,000 was with the European Economic Market countries; and (b) involving manufactured goods sold to (i) the USA in the amount of $11,419,900,000 and (ii) The European Economic Market countries in the amount of $585,400,000.


Mr. Howie: Has the Ministry of State for Science and Technology or the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources or any commissions or councils funded by them, authorized any research into the use of hydrogen as an energy fuel since January 1, 1975 and, if so (a) who was authorized to conduct the research (b) how much money has been budgeted or allotted for each research project?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned: (a) The Ministry of State for Science and Technology authorized "The Biomass Energy Institute Inc." to investigate the use of hydrogen as an energy fuel, (b) $26,427.72.
In so far as the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned: Yes, for 1977-78 EMR has funded research, (a) The Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) of EMR and the Defence Research Establishment Ottawa (DREO) of DND have been authorized to conduct research, (b) Allotments: CANMET: $250,000 including: $20,000, Production of hydrogen from pitch. $55,000, Optimum production of hydrogen for oil sands hydrocracking. $175,000, Materials sciences R&D for hydrogen production, transport and utilization. DREO: $150,000, Developing the use of hydrogen in the energy systems.
[Mr. Oueilet.j


Mr. Howie: Has the Ministry of State for Science and Technology or any councils funded by it or the Department of Fisheries and the Environment, authorized any studies since January 1, 1976 on function of algae in maintaining the earth's oxygen supply?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology and the Department of Fisheries and the Environment as follows: No.


Mr. Howie: What percentage of the total Canadian market for manufacturers was served by imports in (a) 1970 (b) 1973 (c) 1976?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Statistics Canada reports that: the percentage of total Canadian market for manufacturers served by imports was: 1970, 26.2 per cent; 1973, 29.2 per cent; 1976, 29.8 per cent.


Mr. Howie: Approximately what percentage of the Canadian market for computer and office equipment was served by imports in (a) 1970 (b) 1973 (c) 1976?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Statistics Canada reports that: the percentage of the Canadian market for computer and office equipment served by imports was approximately: (a) 84.1 per cent in 1970; (b) 85.9 per cent in 1973; (c) 87.8 per cent in 1976.


Mr. Howie: What percentage of the Canadian market for agricultural machinery was served by imports in (a) 1969 (b) 1972 (c) 1976?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Statistics Canada reports that: the percentage of the Canadian market for agricultural machinery served by imports was: 1969, 76.2 per cent; 1972, 83.0 per cent; 1976, 82.6 per cent.


Mr. Howie: Approximately what percentage of the Canadian market for consumer electronics products was served by imports in (a) 1970 (b) 1973 (c) 1976?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Statistics Canada reports

ft

January 23, 1978

the following: the percentage of the Canadian market for consumer electronics products served by imports was approximately: 1970, 33.1 per cent; 1973, 42.2 per cent; 1976, 59.1 per cent.


Mr. Howie: 1.	In the year (a) 1970 (b) 1974 (c) 1976, what percentage of Canada's export trade was represented by finished manufacturers?
2.	What was the figure with automobiles and parts excluded?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Statistics Canada reports the following: 1. The percentage of Canada's export trade represented by finished manufacturers was for the following specified years: 1970, 36.5 per cent; 1974, 31.2 per cent; 1976, 35.5 per cent.
2. The figures excluding automobiles and parts were: 1970, 19.0 per cent; 1974, 15.8 per cent; 1976, 16.9 per cent.


Mr. Howie: Which countries were Canada's major export markets for manufactured goods in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 and, in terms of millions of dollars, what volume of exports were sold to each?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: 
Mr. Howie: Will the Post Office Department be extending postal services in the Fredericton, New Brunswick area such as mailing counters or sub-post offices?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: The Post Office Department will be extending postal services in the Fredericton, New Brunswick area with the opening of Postal Station B,
Order Paper Questions
35 Hughes Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, E3A 2W0, which is presently under construction and a sub post office at Good Neighbor Drugmart, King's Place, Corner York and Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick. In both instances tentative dates for opening have not been set.


Mr. Howie: Will the Post Office Department be extending door-to-door mail delivery service by letter carrier in the area of (a) Nashwaaksis (b) Carleton ward (Devon) (c) Marysville (d) Barkers Point, Fredericton, New Brunswick and, if so, on what date will such extensions be instituted?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: (a) Yes, but only to new calls located within the existing letter carrier delivery boundaries. We are precluded from extending door-to-door letter carrier delivery to calls outside existing boundaries of service. This is in line with the federal policy of restraint, (b) Same as item (a) above, (c) Same as item (a) above, (d) Same as item (a) above.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Will the Post Office Department undertake door-to-door mail delivery service to the Silverwood section of Fredericton, New Brunswick and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?
2.	What facilities are presently used to provide mail delivery service to this area and what is the cost of such facilities?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. No. In line with federal policy of restraint, limitations have been placed on our department, one of which is the deferment for an indefinite period of door-to-door service outside existing letter carrier boundaries.
2. Served by a suburban service at a cost of $ 5,011 per annum.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Will the Post Office Department undertake door-to-door mail delivery service to the Southwood Park section of Fredericton, New Brunswick and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?
2.	What facilities are presently used to provide mail delivery service to this area and what is the cost of such facilities?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. No. In line with federal policy of restraint, limitations have been placed on our department, one of which is the deferment for an indefinite period of extensions of door-to-door service outside existing letter carrier boundaries.
2. The 90 customers outside door-to-door delivery boundaries are receiving group mail box service at a cost of approximately $3,200 per annum.

January 23, 1978
Order Paper Questions CANADA CENTRE FOR REMOTE SENSING


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is there a division within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources known as the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing and, if so, what work does the division carry out and does it produce map images of various areas from satellite transmissions?
2.	Were copies of such maps available from the Department at a price of $4.00 each during last year and did it take approximately ten days for an order to be filled?
3.	Was the sale of such items turned over to a private company known as ISIS of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan and, if so (a) for what reason (b) was the price raised to $10.00 and, if so, for what reason (c) are orders placed with ISIS in Prince Albert still Filled by the Department and postmarked from Ottawa, despite the fact that such items bear a Prince Albert address and, if so, for what reason?
4.	Are cheques in payment of such items made to the private company and, if so, for what reason is this being done if the government is still involved in any way and what return does the government receive under the present fee of $10.00 as compared to the previous fee of $4.00?


Mr. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. Yes. The Canada Centre for Remote Sensing acquires and disseminates remotely sensed data of Canada, taken from aircraft and earth observation satellites, to a large number of private and government users throughout Canada. This is a largely subsidized operation with a gradually increasing rate of cost recovery. The branch also conducts research into computerized image analysis and into new sensor applications. Yes, CCRS does produce map images of various areas from satellite transmissions.
2.	Yes, copies of colour map images were available from the department last year at a subsidized price of $4. It took approximately eight weeks for a first colour order of a particular image to be filled after receipt of the satellite transmission. Repeat orders were filled in approximately ten days.
3.	Yes. (a) This decision was in keeping with the government's "Make or Buy" policy whereby some 'in-house' activities are being transferred to private industry in order o assist private industry and to reduce the number of government employees. It was also in keeping with the government's policy of decentralizing government activities outside of Ottawa, (b) Yes, the price was raised to $10 this year to cover overhead and marketing costs of ISIS and to provide for a contribution to the NASA station charges, newly instituted in 1977. This $10 price is similar to that charged by U.S. distributors, (c) Yes, a few orders placed with ISIS in Prince Albert are still filled by the department and postmarked from Ottawa. The transfer to ISIS is still in a transition phase. Under the terms of the EMR contract with ISIS, ISIS was given six months to fully take over the ordering and distribution function for the LANDSAT products. In the meantime, orders are filled by EMR staff and the name and address of ISIS appears on the order.
4.	Yes, cheques in payment are made to the private company. The government in this case is the manufacturer and the private company is the marketing and distributing agent. ISIS'

selling prices for a series of colour products range from $10 to $30. On total sales of $10,323 from May to October, 1977, the government received $7,505.


Mr. Howie: Have any studies been undertaken by the Department of Finance or the Department of National Revenue which indicate the approximate revenue loss from permitting income tax deductions of municipal property taxes on residences?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as the Department of Finance is concerned: The Department of Finance has analysed this proposal. The revenue loss would depend on the structure of the measure and what sort of limitations were applied. It could well be over $500 million.
In so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned: No.


Mr. Howie: Have any studies been undertaken by the Department of Finance or the Department of National Revenue which indicate the approximate revenue loss from permitting income tax deductions of interest payable on mortgages on residences?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as the Department of Finance is concerned: The Department of Finance has analysed this proposal. The revenue loss would depend on the structure of the measure and what sort of limits were applied. It could be as high as $1.5 billion per year.
In so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned: No.


Mr, Howie: Was money allocated to the Department of National Defence under the current federal labour intensive programme and, if so (a) in what amount (b) what amount will be spent at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown and on what projects will persons be employed?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes. (a) $52,652,000; (b) $2,316,000. The sum will be spent on small projects for which personnel will be employed in the administrative support and general labour categories.
STEINBACH AND BEAUSfijOUR POST OFFICES-REVENUES 
Question No. 676-Mr. Epp: (Corrected)
1.	What is the amount of revenue taken in annually by the (a) Steinbach (b) Beausejour Post Office?
2.	What is the annual profit and/or deficit of the (a) Steinbach (b) Beausejour Post Office?
January 23, 1978


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. The amount of revenue taken in for the fiscal year 1976/77 is as follows: (a) Steinbach: $230,771; (b) Beausejour: $77,293.
2. (a) and (b) Profit and/or deficit is not determined by individual post office but rather for the entire postal service program.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, how many persons have benefitted from on-the-job training under the manpower training programmes in Fredericton, New Brunswick?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The Training-on-the-Job Program and the Training-inIndustry Program were combined in June 1974 to form the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program. Training under this program may be given on the job, in a classroom or special training area, or as a combination of the two. Since January 1, 1977, 598 trainees have received training under the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program in Fredericton, New Brunswick. This figure includes the various types of training listed above.


Mr. Howie: 1.	On March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, how many corporations owed income tax to the Crown in excess of $25,000?
2.	On March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, how many individuals owed income tax to the Crown in excess of $10,000?
3.	Since March 31, 1975, in how many cases and representing what amounts, have taxes owed to the Crown been written off as uncollectable from (a) corporations (b) individuals?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of National Revenue):: 1- (a)	856	(b) 1093	(c) 11652. (a)	4058	(b) 5449	(c)61013. (a)	Fiscal Year	Number of Accounts	Amounts1974/75	1593	$ 5,607,8821975/76	1874	$ 8,072,7391976/77	1856	$10,339,951(b)	1974/75	4540	$ 5,100,8041975/76	4014	$ 3,648,1301976/77	3197	$ 4,334,324


Mr. Howie: On November 1 (a) 1971 (b) 1973 (c) 1975 (d) 1977, how many (i) civilian permanent (ii) civilian temporary (iii) military personnel were employed at CFB Gagetown?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a), (b), (c) and (d). See table below.
Order Paper Questions
November 1,71	November 1, 73	November 1, 75	November 1, 77Civilian Permanent	567	584	661	625Civilian Temporary	153	210	139	314Military ([DOT]Note 1)	3,400 (December 31, 71)	3,300 (September 30, 73)	2,806 (September 30, 75)	3,096 (October 31,77)
Note 1: Exact data was not available for each 1 November, therefore the data for the dates closest to 1 November have been given.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Did the government assist New Brunswick with a spruce budworm spraying operation in 1977 and, if so (a) in what amount (b) what area was sprayed?
2.	Has an analysis of the spraying operation been made and was it generally considered effective?


Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Environment)):: 1. No.
2. Yes. Analysis, carried out jointly by the Maritime Forestry Research Centre, Forest Protection Limited and the New Brunswick department of natural resources showed that generally good results were obtained. Increases in the size and intensity of infestations occurred mainly in non-sprayed areas.


Mr. Howie: 1.	What is the total operating budget for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's radio station CBZ-CBD in Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the 1977-78 fiscal year?
2.	What amount was designated for (a) television work and maintaining of the television studio (b) the hiring of freelance broadcasters and writers?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. and 2. It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration as the budgets of individual stations and amounts designated for specific projects. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1976, what amount was spent for entertainment by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:

January 23, 1978
Order Paper Questions
Foreign
Total Service Other $ $ $
Fiscal year 1976/77-Department	1,923,614.	1,432,574.	491,040.-FIRA	387.	-	387.April-October, 1977-Department	408,545.	328,944.*	79,601.-FIRA	110.	-	110.
Information from posts abroad, only includes expenditures to July 31, 1977 inclusive.


Mr. Howie: What amount was paid as a subsidy to air carriers operating in the Atlantic Provinces in the fiscal year ended (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977?


Otto Emil Lang: The Canadian Transport Commission reports as follows: Subsidy paid to air carriers operating in the Atlantic provinces amounted to: (a) $1,553,000; (b) 2,122,265; (c) 1,700,000.


Mr. Howie: 
Mr. Alexander: 1.	From what specific section or subsection of the Financial Administration Act was the mandate of the Planning Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat derived?
2.	What were the initial terms of reference of the Planning Branch?
3.	Was the Planning Branch supposed to concern itself with reviewing existing policies and programmes or with analysing proposed policies and programmes?
4.	Of the 733 man-years allocated to the Treasury Board for planning and evaluation activities since the 1970-71 estimates, how many man-years have been devoted to ensuring that money is spent with due regard to economy and efficiency?
5.	How many man-years have been devoted to ensuring that programmes are effective and that the desired results and benefits of the programme are being achieved?
6.	What projects have been undertaken by the Planning Branch since 1970-71 in fulfilling its mandate?
7.	Which of these projects have been concerned with ensuring that programmes are effective and that the desired results and benefits of the programmes are being achieved?
8.	Did the Planning Branch undertake studies which led to the decision to disband Information Canada, the Company of Young Canadians or the Local Initiatives Programme?
9.	Has the mandate of the Planning Branch been changed recently?
10.	Why was the Organization Division and the Task Force on Decentralization shifted from the Planning Branch to the Programme Branch?
11.	Why were the Effectiveness Evaluation Division and the Performance Measurement Policy Division elevated to branch status?

12.	Does the Planning Branch presently concern itself with the review of existing policies and programmes or the analysis of proposed policies or programmes?
13.	Does the Efficiency Evaluation Branch presently concern itself with the review of existing policies and programmes or the analysis of proposed policies or programmes?
14.	Are any of the planning and evaluation studies undertaken by the Efficiency Evaluation Branch used in the budgeting process?
15.	Are any of the planning and evaluation studies undertaken by the Planning Branch used in the budgeting process?
16.	Are any of the planning and evaluation studies undertaken by the Efficiency Evaluation Branch done in cooperation with the Auditor General?
17.	Are any of the planning and evaluation studies undertaken by the Planning Branch done in cooperation with the Auditor General?
18.	What will be the relationship between the proposed Comptroller General and the Planning Branch?
19.	What will be the relationship between the proposed Comptroller General and the Efficiency Evaluation Branch?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. The mandate of the planning branch of the Treasury Board Secretariat was derived from section 5(1) (c) and 5(1) (d) of the Financial Administration Act.
2.	The initial terms of reference of the planning branch were to initiate and undertake studies of the effectiveness of selected government programmes and the efficiency of selected administrative units and, as techniques and methods of evaluation are developed, to transmit them to departments.
3.	The planning branch was not restricted to studying proposed or existing policies and programmes. It could both review existing policies and programmes and analyse proposed policies and programmes.
4.	Twenty-five man-years were budgeted each year since the 1970-71 estimates for the study of economy and efficiency by the performance measurement policy division.
5.	Forty-eight man-years were budgeted each year for the effectiveness evaluation division to ensure that programmes are effective and that the desired results and benefits of the programmes are being achieved.
6.	The information requested refers to internal departmental projects of a confidential nature and cannot be released.
7.	The information requested refers to internal departmental projects of a confidential nature and cannot be released.
8.	The planning branch did not undertake studies which led to the decision to disband Information Canada, the Company of Young Canadians or the Local Initiatives Programme.
9.	Yes, the mandate of the planning branch has recently been changed.
10.	The organization division and the task force on decentralization shifted from the planning branch to the programme branch to rationalize the resource reallocation process.
11.	The organizational status of the performance measurement policy division has not been changed. It is a division within a new branch called the efficiency evaluation branch. In addition to being responsible for the board's performance measurement policy work, the new branch is responsible for
January 23, 1978

policies governing procedures for evaluation of programmes by departments.
12.	The planning branch currently concerns itself with both the review of existing policies and programmes and the analysis of proposed policies and programmes.
13.	The role of the efficiency evaluation branch is to develop and ensure the application of policies, procedures and practices to evaluate and report upon the efficiency and effectiveness of government programmes. The branch is therefore concerned with ensuring that there are appropriate policies and procedures concerning performance measurement and programme evaluation. The branch does not review or analyze existing and proposed policies and programmes.
14.	As noted in the response to question 13, the efficiency evaluation branch does not conduct planning and evaluation studies of programmes. However, the two policies for which it is responsible, performance measurement and program evaluation procedures, do relate to the budgeting process. One of the requirements of the performance measurement policy is that measures of the performance of programs be supplied by departments, where feasible, in support of their annual resource allocation requests. The policy governing evaluation of programmes by departments provides for the Treasury Board to participate in such evaluations, where this would be of use in arriving at resource allocation decisions. There is a constant liaison between the efficiency evaluation branch and the programme branch in this work.
15.	Yes, the programme branch use planning branch studies in the budgeting process.
16.	A close liaison has been established between the Study of Procedures in Cost Effectiveness (SPICE) team of the Officer of the Auditor General and the efficiency evaluation branch. This liaison is to assist SPICE in carrying out its study. A joint review of the "procedures" used for measuring the performance of the income security programme of the Department of National Health and Welfare was carried out by SPICE and efficiency evaluation branch staffs. There are also frequent exchanges of information of techniques for carrying out these reviews of procedures.
17.	No, there are no planning and evaluation studies undertaken by the planning branch in cooperation with the Auditor General.
18.	As with the rest of the Treasury Board secretariat, all planning branch material will be available to the Comptroller General.
19.	The President of Treasury Board plans to transfer the efficiency evaluation branch to the Comptroller General following passage of the legislation establishing the Comptroller General.
Order Paper Questions QUEEN'S SILVER JUBILEE MEDALS


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did representatives of the First Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, London, Ontario, act as an Honour Guard to Queen Elizabeth II at any point during her visit to Canada and, if so (a) in what locations (b) on what dates?
2.	Did the Commanding Officer of the Battalion advise members of the Honour Guard that they would receive the Queen's Silver Jubilee Medal to commemorate the occasion and, if so, have they received the medal and, if not (a) for what reason (b) will the government take steps to rectify the situation?
3.	Were approximately 652 medals awarded to National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, and does this figure include those promised to the Royal Canadian Regiment in London?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
Yes. (a) National War Memorial, (b) October 15, 1977.
2.	No. (a) and (b) Not applicable.
3.	Seven thousand Queen's Silver Jubilee Medals were allocated for distribution to the regular and reserve components of the Canadian Armed Forces. Included in the distribution are some members of the first Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment in London.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	(a) For the fiscal year 1976-77, how much did the printing of stamps cost the Post Office Department (b) which company printed the stamps (c) were tenders called and, if so, which companies tendered?
2.	For the same period, what was the revenue to the government from the sale of stamps?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. (a) Cost of printing of stamps in 1976-77 was $3,133,448.52 and cost of printing of other stamped postage supplies was $475,711.32 (See No. 2). (b) Postage stamps were printed by Canadian Bank Note Company Limited, British American Bank Note Company Limited and Ashton-Potter Limited. Other stamped postage supplies were printed by DRG International Envelope Limited and Ashton-Potter Limited, (c) Tenders were called for the printing of stamps, and Canadian Bank Note Company Limited, British American Bank Note Company Limited and Ashton-Potter Limited all tendered. Tenders were called for the printing of other stamped postage supplies, and DRG International Envelope Limited and Ashton-Potter Limited both tendered.
2. Revenues derived from postage stamps are not segregated from revenues derived from other stamped postage supplies. The combined revenue for 1976-77 was $207,582,886.63.


Mr. Herbert: Have any studies been made as to whether there has been a reduction in labour mobility attributable to the unemployment insurance programme?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We are not aware of any studies that identify and measure the impact of the current Unemployment Insurance Programme on labour mobility. There are, however, two major studies that use the pre-1971 UI data base to analyse the

January 23, 1978
Order Paper Questions
problem of migration in Canada. These studies are "Migration, Income, and Employment: Canada, 1965-68" by T. J. Courchene, published by the C.D. Howe Research Institute, and "The Economic Causes and Effects of Migration: Canada, 1965-71" by E. K. Grant and J. Vanderkamp, published by the Economic Council of Canada.


Mr. McKinnon: Is the Department of National Defence buying pneumatic mattresses from Uniroyal Ltd. of Kitchener, Ontario, for the sum of $418,031 and, if so (a) how many does the contract cover (b) which units will be issued with the mattresses?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes. (a) 6,500. (b) Regular and militia units of the field force and Canadian Forces Training Establishments.


Mr. Beaudoin: In 1977, were grants under the Canada Works Programme allotted to the Constituency of Richmond and, if so, in what amounts?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes, $1,404,000.


Mr. Beaudoin: From 1970 to date, did the Industrial Development Bank, now the Federal Business Development Bank, grant loans in the Constituency of Richmond and, if so (a) what was the (i) total (ii) average amount (b) what were the interest rates (c) what was the rate of loss?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: The I.D.B., now F.B.D.B., does not compile statistics concerning loans by constituency.


Mr. Beaudoin: For each Fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent by the Treasury Board and its agencies in the Constituency of Richmond?


Robert Knight Andras: In so far as the Treasury Board secretariat is concerned: Nil.


Mr. Howie: As of November 30, 1977, how many applications were received for Financial assistance under the enterprise development programme of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce from the Province of New Brunswick?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: As of November 30, 1977, six applications were received for financial assistance under
[Mr. Cullen.l
the Enterprise Development Program from the Province of New Brunswick.


Mr. Howie: How many grants under the enterprise development programme of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce were made to Firms in New Brunswick and what was the total dollar value?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: There have been two grants made to firms in New Brunswick under the Enterprise Development Program with a total dollar value of $55,132.00.
How many regional boards were established by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce under the enterprise development programme and, in each case, where is it located?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Regional boards were established in each of the ten provinces under the Enterprise Development Program as follows: Toronto, Ontario; Montreal, Quebec; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Vancouver, British Columbia; Edmonton, Alberta; Regina, Saskatchewan; Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Fredericton, New Brunswick; St. John's, Newfoundland.
1.	Who are the members of the regional board administering the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce's enterprise development programme at Fredericton, New Brunswick?
2.	What is the remuneration paid for the position of chairman and member?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: 1. Mr. John S. Donaldson is Chairman of the New Brunswick Region Enterprise Development Board. The Vice-Chairman of the board is Mr. Alyre H. Cormier. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Regional Economic Expansion and the Federal Business Development Bank are also represented on the board.
2. The remuneration paid to both the chairman and the vice-chairman of the board is $200 per day for each day that they are engaged in the business of the board. The public sector members receive no remuneration.
As of November 30, 1977, how many applications were received for Financial assistance under the enterprise development programme of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: As of November 30, 1977, 270 applications were received for financial assistance under the Enterprise Development Program.


Mr. Howie: Question No. 811-Mr. Howie:

Question No. 812-Mr. Howie:
January 23, 1978


Mr. Howie: How many and what type of ships are on active service with the Canadian Armed Forces?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Helicopter destroyers-12; destroyers-8; replenishment vessels 3; submarines-3; coastal patrol escorts-4.


Mr. Howie: How many employees of the government are performing their duties with the North American Space Agency in either Texas or Florida?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Departments of Communications, National Defence, National Research Council, and the Ministry of State for Science and Technology as follows: None.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1976, was Canada awarded research and development contracts by the North American Space Agency in the United States?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Departments of Communications, National Defence, National Research Council, and the Ministry of State for Science and Technology as follows: No.


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1975, what organizations or persons in Fredericton, New Brunswick received grants under the Official Languages Minority Groups Programme and, in each case, in what amount?


John (Moody) Roberts: The department has awarded the following grants under the Official Languages Minority Groups Program:
Fiscal Year	Amount
Cercle franpais de	1975-76	$14,992Fredericton Inc.	1976-77	$15,3281977-78	$ 4,895
(as at December 8, 1977)


Mr. Marshall: What is a breakdown of all the details of Votes 60A and 65A, Parks Canada in the Supplementary Estimates (A), 1977-78, amounting to $1,470,000 for the expansion of the Student Summer Employment and Activities Programme, and the reconstruction of Highway 430 in Gros Morne, Newfoundland?
Order Paper Questions


James Hugh Faulkner: In Vote 60A, $470,000 is being requested through Supplementary Estimates (A) for the expansion of the Student Summer Employment and Activities Programme. This second allotment is broken down as follows: Summer Student Employment (Direct hiring): $330,000; Park Awareness (Contractual agreements): $140,000; Total: $470,000. In Vote 65A, $1,000,000 is being requested through Supplementary Estimates (A) to accelerate reconstruction of Highway 430 within the boundaries of Gros Morne National Park.


Mr. Marshall: Were any applications received for financial assistance under the Fresh Fruit Vegetable Storage Construction Financial Assistance Programme from the Province of Newfoundland?


Eugene Whelan: Yes. There were two applications received.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Are the majority, if not all, of the main artillery depots within the Province of Quebec?
2.	Are the majority, if not all, of the ammunition depots within the Province of Quebec?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
No.
2. No.


Mr. McKenzie: For each year 1975 and 1976, what was the total number of persons under contract to the Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing of Beef and Veal and how many were retired public servants?


Yvon Pinard: 1974-75, nil. 1975-76, 14 (one retired public servant).


Mr. Howie: As of November 1, 1977, how many PMQ units were in existence at CFB Gagetown?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 2,203.

January 23, 1978
Order Paper Questions PHARMACEUTICAL CHEMICALS INDUSTRY


Mr. Herbert: Does the government intend to encourage a basic fine chemicals and pharmaceutical chemicals industry in Canada and, if so, what action is contemplated?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Yes, the Government wishes to encourage a basic fine chemicals and pharmaceutical chemicals industry in Canada. At the present time, a broad study of the health care products industry, including the fine chemicals and pharmaceuticals sectors, is under way within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and is being carried out with important inputs from the industry. The purpose of this study is to identify the opportunities and constraints facing Canadian companies in this industry, with the objective of developing a policy or industrial strategy aimed at encouraging increased manufacture of fine chemicals and pharmaceuticals in Canada.
STEINBACH AND BEAUSfiJOUR POST OFFICES


Mr. Epp: What is the annual cost of operating the (a) Steinbach (b) Beausejour Post Office?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: (a) The 1976-77 operating costs for Steinbach were $165,287. This included salaries and allowances, mail transportation and materials and supplies but does not include the government's share of contributions to employee benefit plans or the value of accommodation provided by the Department of Public Works, (b) Beausejour is a Semi-Staff office and individual cost statements are not maintained for these types of offices but rather are reported collectively by area or district.


Mr. Howie: Has any consideration been given by the Department of Veterans Affairs to acquiring more beds to supplement those presently used for disabled veterans in the Victoria Health Centre in Fredericton, New Brunswick?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: No. Having regard for the demand on the 200 priority beds available to veterans in New Brunswick, 57 beds were acquired at the Victoria Health Centre in Fredericton. This number has proved adequate.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The Department of Veterans Affairs has the authority which permits any entitled veteran to receive treatment in any hospital of his choice and to see any doctor he wishes for his pensioned condition. The department's authority for the provision of chronic and nursing home care for other than pensioned conditions is limited to departmental facilities or to the priority beds established in contract hospitals. The provision of nursing home beds for veterans in north east New Brunswick is currently under discussion with provincial authorities.


Mr. Howie: How many war veterans from New Brunswick are presently waiting for a decision to determine (a) eligibility (b) increase in their disability pension?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The records maintained by the Canadian Pension Commission are not kept in such a manner as to identify applicants for pension eligibility or pension increases by their province of residence.


Mr. Howie: How many war veterans from New Brunswick have been waiting for more than six months for a decision to determine their entitlement to a disability pension?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The records maintained by the Canadian Pension Commission are not kept in such a manner as to identify requests for entitlement to disability pension by the province of residence of the applicant.


Mr. Howie: How many war veterans from New Brunswick have been waiting for more than six months for a decision to determine their right to an increase in their disability pension?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The records maintained by the Canadian Pension Commission are not kept in such a manner as to identify requests for pension increases by the province of residence of the applicant.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,004-Mr. Howie:
Mr. Howie: Docs the government intend to acquire beds in nursing homes in New Brunswick for the domiciliary care of veterans so they can remain in or near their home communities in New Brunswick and, if so, how many beds will be available and on what date?

On December 1 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 how many (i) supervisory (ii) administrative personnel were employed by the Post Office Department at Fredericton, New Brunswick?
January 23, 1978


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Supervisory Administrative
December 1, 1975	U	^December 1, 1976	U	"December 1, 1977	12	3


Mr. Howie: On December 1 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 how many (i) permanent (ii) casual letter carriers were employed by the Post Office Department at Fredericton, New Brunswick?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKenzie: To the knowledge of the government, is NORIN Corporation of North Miami, Florida planning to buy Maple Leaf Mills Limited of Canada and, if so, what is the amount being discussed?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: The Agency is aware that Norin Corporation of Miami Florida held, through its subsidiary Norin Canada Holdings Inc., about 73 per cent of the outstanding common shares of Maple Leaf Mills Limited of Canada before it made an offer in November, 1977 to buy the remaining outstanding shares at a price of $ 18 a share.
	Permanent	Casual
December 1, 1975	39	nilDecember 1, 1976	40	nilDecember 1, 1977	40	2POST OFFICE-PERMANENT AND CASUAL POSTAL CLERKS-	FREDERICTON, N.B.	
Question No. 1,006-	-Mr. Howie:	
On December 1 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 how		many (i) permanent (ii)
casual postal clerks were	employed by the Post Office Department at Frederic-	
ton. New Brunswick?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Permanent	Casual
December 1, 1975	54	nilDecember 1, 1976	57	nilDecember 1, 1977	58	1


Mr. Howie: On December 1 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 how many (i) casual (ii) part-time persons were employed at the Post Office Department at Fredericton, New Brunswick?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Part-time	Casual
December 1, 1975	16	nilDecember 1, 1976	19	nilDecember 1, 1977	15	3


Mr. Howie: On December 1 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 how many permanent employees were employed by the Post Office Department at Fredericton, New Brunswick?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: December 1, 1975, 118; December 1, 1976, 123; December 1, 1977, 124.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if starred questions Nos. 122, 356 and 807 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many public servants work in each office of the Department of Agriculture in Quebec?
2.	For each such office, what is its location and geographical area of responsibility?
Return tabled.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For each year 1971 to 1976, how many foreign academics were given landed immigrant status and, in each year, to which province did they move?
2.	What was the academic discipline of each?
Return tabled.


Mrs. Holt: 1.	Did the Canada Council make grants, directly or indirectly, to Mr. Bertrand Lachance and to Mr. Bill Bissett and, if so (a) how many (b) in what amounts (c) on what dates and over what period of time?
2.	(a) What criteria were applied when approval was given to such grants (b) was any of the money applied to travel outside of Canada and, if so (i) in what amounts (ii) for what destinations (iii) for what reasons?
3.	How many literary works by either gentlemen have benefitted from Canada Council grants and (a) what are (i) their titles (ii) their themes (b) how many copies have been sold (i) in Canada, by province (ii) outside of Canada, by

January 23, 1978
Bank Act
country (c) how many copies have been distributed (i) free of charge (ii) at reduced prices?
4.	Have any such copies been distributed gratis to or purchased by elementary schools, secondary schools, universities, public libraries and, if so, which ones were (a) presented free (b) purchased and, in each case, what is the (i) name, location of the institution (ii) number of books, by title, distributed gratis or purchased.
5.	By title, how many copies of each were (a) sold (b) otherwise distributed?
6.	By title, what was the total cost of production of such works?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-16, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that in March of this year the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), introduced a bill to amend sections 6 of the Bank Act and Quebec Savings Banks Act to permit the banks incorporated under those acts to continue to carry on business until March 31, 1978, nine months beyond the date specified. The short bill before us today will further extend the banks' powers to do business until March 31, 1979.
The reasons given in March for the delay in the decennial revision were the following. First, the extent of consultations encouraged by the white paper. Second, the extent and complexity of the task of converting the principles of white paper into legislation and particularly, where appropriate, making the Bank Act consistent with the principles and provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act and, third, the extent of the pressure of other priorities on the small group of legislative drafters in the Department of Justice.
The consultative process based on the white paper has largely ended but the other two reasons have continued to be a source of delay. However, I am now able to report that the preparation of the legislation is nearing completion and the bill will soon be ready for introduction. This bill will result in an extensively remodelled Bank Act, important amendments to
[Mrs. Holt.)
the Quebec Savings Bank Act, amendments to the Bank of Canada Act and the Bills of Exchange Act, and will establish the statutory framework for the creation of the Canadian payments association. It is my minister's intention to introduce this legislation as soon as possible in this session.
The package of legislation I have just described will, of necessity, be long and complex, reflecting, with some changes, the proposals of the white paper on banking legislation. To ensure that parliament will be able to debate the issues unimpeded by a time constraint, and to resolve any uncertainty about the life of the existing act, we are proposing that parliament should proceed immediately with the bill to extend further the powers of the banks to do business.
The bill is quite straightforward, extending the banking powers to March 31, 1979, and reintroducing the wording of sections 6 of both acts as it was prior to the amendment earlier this year. That wording provides flexibility and acts as a safeguard in the event that parliament is not sitting at the end of March, 1979, and has not by then passed the general revision legislation or a further extension bill.
As indicated, we will bring forth the comprehensive banking legislation as soon as possible, and we look forward to full and useful committee consideration and debate.
We assure hon. members that the objectives remain those set out in the government's white paper, that is, to provide for a fair and responsive evolution of Canada's payments system, recognizing the growing importance of near-banks in the financial transactions of the nation; to provide more reasonable rules for the entry of new institutions into banking, or the conversion of existing institutions into banks; to deal with the question of foreign-owned banking institutions in Canada; to deal in detail with the business and corporate powers of the banks.
In all of these areas the goal is to encourage more competition in Canadian banking, while keeping control of our banking and financial system in Canadian hands.
We are confident that these goals are supported by all sides in this House. The extension bill will guarantee us the opportunity to give the new, comprehensive legislation which is to follow the full debate and scrutiny it deserves.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to show any disrespect for the parliamentary secretary, he is a pleasant enough chap, but I think that we on this side of the House feel that the government is now showing its traditional incompetence and laissez faire attitude in dealing with this legislation. We are now in the opening day of the resumed session, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien)-who privately had indicated to me his great desire to get through this bill and told me he hoped he would be able to table for first reading the government's proposals to amend the Bank Act by the Christmas adjournment or, if not, shortly thereafter-chooses-and the choice is his because he makes his out of city appointments as he sees fit-not to be here today. All I can say is that the debate is going to be longer
January 23, 1978

than shorter because I do not think we should handle parliament that way.
With all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, I know he was handed a high smelling basket on this occasion and it is not his fault, but, frankly, I had hoped, when I discussed this first with the Minister of Finance, that he would agree to one speech from each representative of the parties, if need be, and that we should then go into committee of the whole House to amend the motion. I still hope we can amend the motion so that this one paragraph bill does not go to committee and through all the weighty business of the legislative process that flows from that, and that we can dispose of the bill in a matter of an hour and a half in the House. That is what should be done with a bill of this kind, but the circumstances have changed, and my caucus colleagues have convinced me that we should act otherwise.
The revisions of the Bank Act, such as they are today, do not have the same high profile that the 1976-77 revisions had. At that time there was a statutory ceiling on interest rates, there were user charges and minimum balances, and there was the question of foreign ownership. In other words, the Bank Act was strictly out of kilter with business conditions. At that time people were feeling pretty excited about the Bank Act. At the present time there is not that high profile in the general community with regard to banks. Despite this lower profile in the mind of the public there is a very great and urgent need in the business community-and there has been for a long time- for a more up-to-date system of financial institutions. The structure has to be changed.
I remember back in 1972 or 1973 telling the former minister of finance, Mr. Turner, that he should set up a royal commission on banking and financial requirements in Canada, bearing in mind the great increase in the importance of banks. This had been a question in the sixties. The 1966-67 revision was a second go around following the Porter commission report. The government had come up with an atrocious bill. The Porter commission was based on statistics of the late 1950s and early 1960's and on operations based on the 1954 revision.
There has been a fantastic change in business operations and requirements for financing in Canada. It is almost as though we have moved an age in light years. However, the government did not see fit to set up an inquiry and, frankly our Bank Act is totally out of date with our requirements, to the detriment of economic activity in this country. I do not care whether it is for a small operator or a large multinational corporation; our Bank Act is totally out of date. Chartered banks are into all kinds of activities, but they would like to be into many more in a different form.
What I find more disconcerting than anything else are the activities which are beyond the control of the Minister of Finance and the review of the Inspector General of Banks. Let us consider the operations of the so-called satchel, or suitcase, bankers. They represent foreign business interests. They are able to drop into hotel rooms for a week or two weeks in
Bank Act
Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or anywhere else, and carry on their operations. They are able to sign up substantial sums of Canadian savings, Finance, make bridge loans, provide intermediate financing or engage in supplementary lines of credit. They can do a number of things. They are not every-day banking operations which cash cheques, open savings accounts, sell travellers cheques and provide traditional over-the-counter banking services. These services are provided by chartered banks, but we also see them provided at credit unions and caisses populaires. There are national and provincial trust companies which also carry on the business of banking, and that to me is the key.
Under the British North America Act the Government of Canada is assigned exclusive jurisdiction over money and banking. I suggest that this is one item in the constitution which is distinguished by its breach 24 hours a day. There are credit unions, caisses populaires and trust companies which carry on the business of banking without any supervision whatever and with total disregard for the monetary policies set down by the Minister of Finance in the discharge of his legal responsibilities. He has no control over them. Our economy is going along on a lopsided pace because of that. If there are rules and guidelines for those who engage in the business of banking, I think they should be complied with.
I said ten or 15 years ago that there is no jurisdiction residing in a provincial government over the conduct of the business of banking, or what is called the quasi business of banking, simply because institutions conducting these operations are incorporated under some form of provincial legislation. One might as well say that because provincial governments have the conduct of the policies and operations of provincial trust companies because they are incorporated under charters issued under the corporation laws of the provinces, in the same way those provincial governments could say to companies carrying on the business of flying by charter or by schedule that "we will lay down the rules with regard to the air operations of your company, the conditions for issuing licences for aircraft and licences for your personnel, et cetera" simply because those companies are incorporated under provincial corporation laws. To me you cannot have it both ways.
I know that one of the problems with the delay in this legislation has to do with the first of the proposals contained in the white paper dealing with a Canadian payments system whereby provincial governments and credit unions are not agreeing to pay the freight to belong to a Canadian payments system. They want all the benefits without assuming any of the obligations. If they want to engage in the business of banking, they should assume the obligations, but the procedure adopted by the government of the day through the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp), who was then minister of finance, and under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act of the 1960's, was to seek the consent or approval of the provinces to set up such a system. The door was opened wide and, of course, there is very much co-operation and so forth.

January 23, 1978
Bank Act
When the shoe is on the other foot and the government moves into an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, it often takes little time for some of the provinces to say, "Keep your cotton picking hands off and stay out." I wish they would sometimes observe that in reverse.
The Bank Act expired on June 30, 1977. It was extended by Bill C-39 passed by this House last April, which is to expire on March 31 next. A rather complicated formula was included in the bill. I would have preferred an extension to July 1, bearing in mind what appeared to be some reluctance on the part of the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) to do anything about the white paper as far as the standing committee was concerned, but the compromise was made for March 31, 1978. The effective date now, therefore, is March 31, 1979, and if parliament is not sitting at that time a formula date is to be decided by this House and the other place.
At the conclusion of this debate I will ask the parliamentary secretary to level with this House. I know that one of the considerations is the report of the commission on corporate concentration. When the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) was minister of finance he was always being asked when that was coming forward. Why talk about issuing a white paper when, if the report on corporate concentration is to be worth the paper it is written on, it will make some observations about directorates of the major financial institutions of this country? I do not prejudge that report one way or the other. It may have some very worth-while recommendations to make, but since the administration of our chartered banks and trust companies is of such material import it does not seem to have been worth publishing the white paper of August, 1976. Is it to be thrown in the waste basket because subsequent recommendations are more valid? I have never been able to follow this government's thinking, Mr. Speaker.
This procrastination goes all the way back to the former minister of finance, Mr. Turner. It may have been that his hands were tied by the fact that this government was in a minority position between 1972 and 1974 and was unwilling even to crack a smile for fear it might be thought to be prejudiced. After 1974, when there was a growing unease between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the then minister of finance which culminated in a banging door- "Comme on dit en claquant les portes" resignation by the minister and the appointment of the hon. member for Rosedale as minister of finance, we were into the swim of wage and price controls.
During all of this time the other place was able to consider the contents of the white paper and received representations from interested parties which were of limited value. I am going to suggest that when and if the bill incorporating the amendments to the new Bank Act come in, hon. members of the other place will have to go through the whole process again because conditions will have changed.
Knowing some of the background, it seems to me that the white paper was not referred to the Standing Committee on

Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs because of the unwillingness of the then minister of finance and the government House leader to have a lengthy debate. The opposition was asked to agree to a quick referral of the white paper and then, if the government brought in the bill, to agree that the second reading would be pro forma and the contents of the bill superimposed on the white paper. I never heard of such a mish-mash in my life, Mr. Speaker, and I would have no part of it.
This points out the total inadequacy and the lunatic system of committees that we have in this House whereby legislation and estimates are referred to standing committees. At times the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs may have half a dozen bills lined up, as well as the estimates for many departments and agencies. It is by far the busiest committee on average.
It is my view that, in the consideration of estimates, parliament's job is the examination and provision of supply as soon as the blue book on estimates comes down. This year that may occur next week or in the early part of February, but the guillotine falls on May 31. No legislation should go through any committee under this system. A change has been offered to the House but people are frightened of change. There is no way a white paper or Bank Act should be prevented from being referred to a committee on banking-a committee which would die after it accomplished its work. As things stand, the government will not get second reading of the bill and consideration by the committee before May 31.
Let us examine the sequence, Mr. Speaker. There will be a debate on Second reading and at that time members on both sides of the House will be heard in extenso because banking is so important. It is twelve years since banking was discussed in depth in this House so we can expect an extended debate. Then there will be public hearings.
It takes a matter of six weeks at least between the reception of a report and the commencement of public hearings. Notices have to be published across the country inviting representations and, depending upon the public reaction, it may be that the hearings will take longer than anticipated. The committee then makes a report which may have some extensive changes. The government has to take time to consider those recommendations and either at committee stage, or the report stage, bring in a whole series of amendments which will occasion debate; and on it goes.
It is a long process, but the act is one of the most important ones we have on the statute books. Mr. Speaker, I cannot foresee that even in an off election year that there should be a shortened process. Certainly it would be shorter if one had special legislative committees rather than just standing committees to consider estimates and legislation each vying for the necessary time. Some day there will be a revolution in some of the thinking around here with regard to our committee structure, and we will have a vehicle that will be far more effective. I am looking at the government chief whip. He knows whereof
January 23, 1978

I speak; he has seen the framework and I think he understood my purpose, but he was scared by it. He thought he had too many committees to get too many people for. He is wasting away to a shadow, literally in trying to man the committees as they now stand. We are very glad to see the congenial whip back functioning in full bore in his duties now.
Why should there be changes in the Bank Act? First of all incorporation. In the last couple of years we have had that unedifying process of trying to incorporate the Continental Bank via a private member's bill. If there ever was a more disgraceful procedure, costly, uncertain, undignified, unworthy of this House, it was the performance with regard to the Continental Bank. There are certainly proper guidelines laid down by administrative requirements with the control by the governor in council of issuing the permit to commence business after the Inspector General of Banks is satisfied that all the minimum requirements are met. There is absolutely no reason why banks should not be incorporated in the corporate affairs branch.
Then we come to the Canadian payments system. Frankly the credit unions and the trust companies in their desire to participate in the payments system strike me as people wanting to ride a bus and not wanting to pay. They want a free ride. There is no way in my book that that should happen.
And, as I mentioned earlier there are the activities of the foreign banks in Canada. I am not going to say that foreign banks are bad per se. They themselves must think it is a joke right now in the way they can operate without any supervision whatsoever; except if they establish an incorporated subsidiary and carry on from a well posted place. There are foreign controlled banks; there are foreign banks. There is a distinction.
One of the strengths of the Canadian chartered banks system is the extent to which the major Canadian banks are able to operate abroad and, to the extent that they have done so, the strength they possess in certain markets, New York for example. Now, as sure as big apples come from little apples, if the Canadian government in a moment of irresponsibility decided to clamp down and subject foreign banks to impossible conditions, the quick result would be that foreign jurisdictions, the government of the United States, or the legislature of the state involved, or any European country, or any other country in which Canadian banks operate, would retaliate, and not necessarily on a tit-for-tat basis.
There is no way that there can be a sort of punitive control imposed on foreign banks. We invite the competition, but you know right now it isn't competition. Everything is loaded against Canadian banks dealing with some foreign competitors who have no standards to meet, no expenses to meet and who can come in and offer a major line of credit at a quarter per cent or half a per cent less.
I heard of one case today where a large Canadian corporation was offered a line of credit of $60 million. They owed about maybe $200 million, that is potentially in the line of
Bank Act
credit extended to them. They were offered a line of credit of $60 million at something less than prime. Why all it took was a flying visit from a representative to call in on the board of directors a few phones calls, and maybe a lunch or two. Of course they can shave off maybe a quarter per cent, or even three eighths of a per cent. But, on $60 million, that means a lot. Fortunately the Canadian bank told its customer that if they wanted to take that line of credit that they could call up the competitor and, ask them to take on the other loan too. Nothing, of course, was heard about the whole blessed operation. But that is the sort of competition, totally unfair and irresponsible and beyond the supervision of the Inspector General of Banks.
I would like to see well defined definitions and guidelines for the conduct of merchant banking in Canada. Goodness knows how many merchant bankers there are from the United States, from Britain, France, and Germany who participate in Canada. Why shouldn't Canadians representing Canadian financial interests participate in the direction and in the administration of Canadian business that they could finance? They cannot do it now; it is impossible.
We want a modern, up-to-date financial system, not one that copes only with the conditions that apply today but with conditions ten years in the future and lays the framework for the next 25 years. That is what we need, not something that looks back at the model "T". You do not build a modern car by looking at a 1945 model. Unfortunately, that is what is being done with the Bank Act. We have to do a lot of rethinking with regard to this.
There is going to be a report by the commission on corporate concentration. I will be very interested in that document. It may show some ways of doing away with difficulties in the structures of banks at present. There are not enough directors representing ordinary shareholders.
I wish to mention a few other matters with regard to banks. I would like to see a reduction in the value and quantity of the qualifying shares of directors. It should not be necessary that you be a director of Power Corporation, Massey Ferguson, Sun Life or any other major company in order of qualify for a bank directorship. They should sort of democratize.
Qualifying shares of some banks today cost as high as $50,000 or $60,000. If the bank wants you as a director and you have empty pockets, they will lend you the $50,000 or $60,000 to buy the qualifying shares. That is wrong. Such a director will be beholden to the administration of the bank. There is a very great danger that that individual will be beholden to the administration and really be a tame director. That is not necessary and should not be there.
There are many other changes we would like to see. I will not go into them in detail. They call for getting on with the changes to the Bank Act. The parliamentary secretary said "at some time in the future", "as soon as possible". That leaves us in a very unsatisfactory position. It is not because parliamen-

January 23, 1978
Bank Act
tary business is being upset or that it is going to come on in an election year. I am almost prepared to bet some of our good currency that, depending upon the date of the election, it could be that we will be back before this House asking for a further extension. I do not see any activity on the bill prior to June. If the election is not in June but in October or November, then along comes the introduction of the Bank Act and first reading. Second reading will take some time.
I have already shown what the waltz steps are with regard to the public hearings. Therefore, March 31, 1979, will be long past history before the bill is passed and time is given to the banks to get into position. There will have to be a further extension. As one says, that is a hell of a way to run the store.
This goes right back to the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Turner. He missed the boat in 1973 by either failing to persuade the administration or not coming to the decision to have a royal commission, on the style of the Porter commission, laying out in clear terms the requirements of the Canadian financial system for the next generation, seeing what dramatic change there has been in the past 20 years. If that had been done, we would not be talking about this bill today. We would have a new Bank Act in position.
As a final point, the Inspector General of Banks should not play such a passive role. His is a role of merely receiving reports and seeing that certain things qualify under the guidelines and regulations. It is not an initiative on his part to examine as far as I would like. We had the operations of one of the banks that was carrying on here for a while. The public was saved from any disaster by reason of the fact that the other banks arranged that one of them would purchase the business. That is not good enough. The Inspector General of Banks must have more investigative powers than that.
I foresee a much wider role for the Inspector General in that an awful lot more institutions would have to qualify under the Bank Act. If they are carrying on the business of banking, they will have to pay their dues. There is no such thing as a free ride. If people want to carry on the business of banking, let them or their organization comply with the regulations that are designed, not necessarily to protect the competition but to protect the public. It is on that basis that I and my colleagues are very critical of the government with regard to the timing and casual approach to it. Therefore it is conceivable that later this day we will express our displeasure in another way.


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the government's decision to postpone again revision of the Bank Act is a sure sign to the Canadian people of the inefficient way the country is being administered by this cabinet and this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
The government has experienced for the past five years, not to mention the past ten years this Prime Minister has been in power, a tremendous growth in the civil service. Here, in the national capital region, there has been a dramatic increase in highly paid civil servants in the Prime Minister's office, the Finance Department, and in the Bank of Canada.

Despite the fact that the Bank Act was supposed to be revised in 1977, the government is now requesting another delay. It will be 1979 before we get around to the so-called decennial revision that was supposed to be done in 1977.
Inflation and unemployment in this country, coupled with the flip-flop by the Prime Minister on wage and price controls, long ago convinced many Canadians that, despite the problem of national unity, this government does not know where it is going with the economy.
The uncertainty and the drift which are apparent at the present time, and which have been building for some time in the business sector of the economy, are being added to by such things as the inability of the government to revise the Bank Act on schedule.
The Bryce Commission on Corporate Ownership is, I understand, almost completely ignoring the extent of financial concentration which finds expression in the chartered banks. As parliamentarians we should be concerned about the expression used by Allan Fotheringham in the January 23 issue of Macleans to the effect that Canada "is controlled not by politicians but by a system of interlocking directorships, with the banks as the lynch-pin." This statement seems scarcely exaggerated in the light of recent economic events. We have seen, for instance, Inco shifting certain of its operations to Guatemala and Indonesia at the cost of thousands of Canadian jobs; we have learned of other multi-national corporations deciding to move parts of their operations to countries abroad with a corresponding loss of employment here. Unfortunately, such actions are not discouraged by a government which, far from protesting, supports the corporations lavishly by offering them all kinds of fiscal loopholes and tax breaks, including tax deferrals.
The present over-concentrated and semi-monopolistic banking system is a further factor in encouraging corporate policies of a kind which have been criticized so severely in this House in recent months.
Like so many other big businesses in this country, the banks did not relish the basic premise of the Carter commission that "a buck is a buck from whatever source it comes," though they do not hesitate to act on this premise when dealing with the large non-financial corporations.
Dr. John Porter in his book "The Vertical Mosaic" written,
I think it was, in 1966, showed how 907 men in Canada shared 81 per cent of the directorships of the dominant corporations as well as 58 per cent of the bank directorships and a similar proportion of the directorships of the life insurance companies, Mr. Fotheringham, in the article to which I have referred, points out that today the extent of this concentration has become even more pronounced; no more than 300 men centred on the boards of the banks, hold more than 3,000 directorships of corporations with total assets of $700 billion. I may say I am not sure as to the correctness of that latter figure. My information is that nine of the 12 chartered banks in Canada had total assets amounting to $247.4 billion in 1977, up by 21

per cent from the year earlier, with each of the five leading banks increasing its assets-$17.9 billion in the case of the Toronto-Dominion and $23.1 billion in the case of the Bank of Nova Scotia. However, it seems to me Mr. Fotheringham is perfectly accurate in his other statistics.
I suggest the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) should inform himself on what the Norwegian government has done recently to democratize the banking system in that country because its measures serve as a good example, one which we might well follow instead of allowing the economy to be increasingly controlled by the banks and by the large corporations.
At a time when the whole world is seriously concerned about the operations of the OPEC oil cartel and with the possibility of the existence of a uranium cartel-indeed the Prime Minister has suggested that such a cartel might be used effectively in the nickel industry-it is not surprising that the decennial revision of the Bank Act is being continually postponed by a government which does not wish to interfere too greatly with the cozy cartel of Canadian bankers who, in co-operation with the Bank of Canada, have a monopoly on producing money.
The Prime Minister has referred to the bankers publicly as "the worst bitchers of all in the Canadian economy" and has expressed himself as being ashamed of the profits the banks have been making-some $232 million in 1977. Such being the case one might expect that the right hon. gentleman would want to do something about these "bitchers" with the big profits. But such is not the case. What we, as representatives of the people, get, is a request from him and from the government to postpone revision of the Bank Act further.
Let us briefly review bank profits for the year ended October 31, 1977. First, the Figures for total revenue. The Royal Bank showed a percentage increase of 12.3, the Bank of Commerce an increase of 11 per cent, the Bank of Montreal an increase of 11.1 per cent, the Bank of Nova Scotia an increase of 13.3 per cent, and the Toronto-Dominion Bank an increase of 10.8 per cent. This, Mr. Speaker, is at a time when the non-financial corporate sector is on its proverbial you-know-what and when the government is spending $1.5 billion trying to get the rest of the private sector moving.
Let us turn, now, to after-tax profits. Between 1976 and 1977 the Royal Bank saw an increase from $157.4 million to $168.8 million. Profits of the Bank of Commerce rose from $145 million to $150 million-I am rounding these figures out, now. In respect of the Bank of Montreal, they went from $95 million to $122 million; for the Bank of Nova Scotia they went from $116 million to $131 million, and for the Toronto-Dominion Bank they went from $92 million to $100 million. That represents the increase in net earnings of these shares for these large corporations.
One of the reasons the government is not anxious to revise the system and get greater control is the fact that the net earnings per share of the Royal Bank went from $4.30 to $4.61 between 1976 and 1977; in relation to the Bank of Commerce
Bank Act
they went from $4.19 to $4.32; for the Bank of Montreal they increased from $2.71 to $3.18; for the Bank of Nova Scotia they went from $2.83 to $3.19, and for the Toronto-Dominion Bank they increased from $2.43 to $2.63. That represents pretty darn good profit in light of the remainder of the economy, and shows again the coddling that has gone on and the special protection of power that has been given to these five large banks, along with the central bank, to control the money supply in a semi-monopolistic if not entirely monopolistic system.
Of course we were not surprised to hear from the representatives of these large corporations, that is, the Canadian Bankers' Association, that the white paper produced by the government followed closely the recommendations of that association. Nor were we surprised to see the stock market shares of the five chartered banks with the largest assets rise to the biggest gain in over two years.
There are really only 12 banks in Canada, and among these, the five I mentioned, since they control 90 per cent of all banking assets, are in effect, if not in a theoretical monopoly position, in a semi-monopolistic position, and in respect of many functions are in a monopolistic position because of their role in the open market operations of the Central Bank of Canada in increasing or decreasing the money supply of this nation.
These banks have historically managed to keep unions at arm's length, even though they control 60 per cent of all consumer lending in this country, by being allowed by the government here in Ottawa to have these so-called banker s hours.
These large banks have ostensibly favoured women for their staff positions such as tellers, etc., where they constitute some 70 per cent of the labour force in the banking industry, but they make sure that only 2 per cent of them ever get management positions. However, the chairman and chief executive officer of the Royal Bank of Canada, Mr. Earle MacLaughlin, had the gall to say they could not find competent women in Canada in the field of economy to sit on the boards of directors. Apparently there are too many Senators looking for the jobs. This is so even though up until 1970 there was only one male head of a Canadian bank who had ever been to a university. In spite of this he suggests that women are not competent to sit on the boards of directors and get a little share of the patronage that is being dished out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Andrew Hogan: Of course these banks do not need to worry about such controls being placed on them because the Senate banking committee is dominated by Liberal appointed Senate members, many of whom are often in the same interlocking directorship system the banks' boards have used to dominate so much of the country and the policies of our federal government.
This cosy little arrangement with the Senate banking committee and the domination of the five big banks under the

January 23, 1978
Bank Act
protection of the federal government verify to a large extent Marx's insight concerning nineteenth century capitalism when he said that the government is but the management committee of the bourgeoisie. This still has a lot of relevance when you read "banks and multinational corporations" instead of "bourgeoisie." I would suggest to you in all seriousness that this insight by Marx is of great relevance to us in the middle of the 19th century-in 1978 here in Canada.
In the Globe and Mail of December 23, 1977, datelined Victoria, British Columbia, the British Columbia consumer and corporate affairs minister Mr. Rafe Mair accused the chartered banks, especially the big five, in some cases of using threats, deceit, outright blackmail and other inconceivable practices in connection with consumer lending. He suggested that the laws which have been violated include the Personal Information Act, the Conditional Sales Act and the Debt Collection Act, among others.


An hon. Member:: Good NDP legislation.


Andrew Hogan: All progressive legislation in this country comes from the NDP.
Mr. Roland Frasee, president of the Royal Bank of Canada and also president of the Bankers' Association, said in a letter to Mr. Mair, as quoted in the Globe and Mail, "that provincial legislation, even of general application, is inapplicable to banks".
Mr. Mair argues that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)(Mrs. Campagnolo) will find out what the people think about unemployment in her own riding, which I understand is now reaching some 35 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mrs. Campagnolo:: Tell me how many women are heading the church and I will be quiet.


Andrew Hogan: As I was saying, Mr. Mair argued that consumer credit falls in the area of general civil, commercial or property rights areas of concern, and that under the British North America Act this falls to the province. However, the Consumer and Corporate Affairs Department of the federal government has had nothing to do as far as we can find out in writing the proposed revisions to the Bank Act. As I implied earlier, that was left to the efficiency experts of the Department of Finance and of the Bank of Canada who, in spite of their numbers and expertise, ask for 12 years to do a job that was supposed to be done in ten.
The toadyism of the civil servants in these two departments to the five large chartered banks was seen in the proposal in the white paper to bring the so-called near banks, that is, the trust companies, credit unions and caisses populates, under some form of federal control which would involve these institutions being required to have some form of reserve requirements with the Bank of Canada.

The credit union movement has opposed the white paper for this reason and the provincial governments have generally supported them. The caisses populates in Quebec have opposed the reserve requirements for similar reasons and have been supported by the province of Quebec, which has raised something along the lines of the B.C. suggestion, namely, that there is a problem here involving federal intrusion in a provincial field.
The leader of our party pointed out in a recent address to the small businessmen of the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses that we in the New Democratic Party think that bank loans are too difficult to arrange for small businesses. The Small Businesses Loans Act, which was designed to alleviate part of this problem, has become almost totally ineffective, particularly as we in the Atlantic region have seen. The act guarantees a loan made by a bank or other lending institution to a small business as long as the lender is willing to take a rate of interest lower than market rates. Can you imagine the large banks doing that? However, the upper limit is $75,000, which is not much except for the smallest of operations. Moreover, potential lenders are not required to lend any money under the act. They are not required to do so, and this is absolutely shocking. The decision as to whether the money should be loaned out under the provisions of this act, either at market rates, or at all, is entirely up to the lender.
It is not surprising that not much money is lent out under this act, since it can be lent out at higher market rates through the financial sector and especially the banking system. In that connection the Federal Business Development Bank, a federal agency, similarly has been of little help to small business, something which can be documented easily in the Atlantic region. Most small business spokesmen believe it has not been any more congenial to businessmen attempting to start a new business than have the traditional private sector lenders. I wonder why.
In conclusion, the prime reason given in the white paper, or the prime motive behind the change in the act was to increase competition. That was the same reason given in 1967 for taking the ceiling off the 6 per cent that existed. Real competition has not increased since that time. Mr. Fotheringham has indicated that we have had an increase in concentration. We are aware of that. Every now and then there is a price war among banks, which is immediately called off because they are monopolistic in nature. Already that has been suggested by the study of the Economic Council of Canada. Banks have too much market power in the financial sector.
I should like to refer to a provincial brief and indicate that we agree with the provinces of Canada wherein it is stated:
We have serious reservations about some of the federal proposals and their possible effect on competition. In particular, the range of bank services is to be expanded substantially while the near banks will face new restrictions. The Canadian Banks, according to the Economic Council of Canada, already possess an inordinate degree of market power.
I believe I have clearly indicated that in my speech today.
January 23, 1978

It continues:
In addition much of the competition that the banks presently face is from the smaller regional institutions as well as a broad range of specialized financial intermediaries.
These financial intermediaries have been peripheral to the main function of banks.
The brief continues:
Therefore, the white paper's proposals to promote competition could actually reduce the alternatives available in the near banks without affecting the degree of concentration in the banking sector.
The failure of the government last year and again this year to come through with a revision of the Bank Act is due primarily to the increase in public service employees, the expertise in the Bank of Canada, the increase which has occurred in the Department of Finance, and the growth of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which was to have some control over all corporations! That was explained when it was set up, and now we are aware of the fact that it was not involved in the compiling of the white paper. This is not as clear and obvious to the public as the unemployment figures and the cost of living increases, but it indicates the inefficiency of this cabinet and previous cabinets.
Of course the Prime Minister changes his cabinet ministers around so much that they do not get to know their jobs. That is part of the problem. Some cabinet ministers will admit that privately. Obviously the Prime Minister had good intentions about bilingualism and the unity of this country, but he knows absolutely nothing about governing a cabinet that will bring good management to the Canadian economy for the benefit of all. Now he claims he wants to stimulate the private sector, but the revisions to the Bank Act are evidence of gross mismanagement by this government in the last four to five years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make with respect to the particular bill before the House today. I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is present now in this Chamber. It will be interesting to hear his remarks in defence of this legislation. Of course, his parliamentary secretary made a few brief remarks when introducing the legislation.
This is not one of the happier moments for the government. For the second time in the life of this parliament it is asking for an extension of the Bank Act. This particular bill sums up the complete lack of economic good sense and management which puts the government in the ridiculous situation of asking for an extension of legislation which is now well beyond ten years out of date. Already this has been stated by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan).
Important changes have taken place in the economic life of this country. The government has recognized particular pressures which were mentioned in its white paper of a year and a half ago. But the government has failed to have any effective
Bank Act
discussion or examination of that white paper by a committee of this House.
As was referred to earlier this afternoon, I recall some of the negotiations that were ongoing with respect to a good and searching examination of the government's proposals in regard to the Bank Act. A number of members had certain regional concerns and certain expectations concerning specific amendments which might be proposed. We were extremely hopeful that a number of the issues raised in the Bank Act would be addressed by the appropriate standing committee in an examination of the white paper. That did not occur because the then minister of finance, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), indicated that it would be more appropriate to wait for the bill itself since the government was anxious to move expeditiously on with this legislation.
The government wanted an opportunity to examine the specific contents of the bill in the appropriate standing committee and perhaps to hear from important and key witnesses across the country. In the last year and a half we have been faced with the situation of having neither. We have received the government's statement or its white paper. Members of the other place have had some chance to examine that document and hear witnesses; but it is obvious that by the time we arrive at a point where the actual contents or the measures proposed can be examined in the other place, it will be so hopelessly out of date that the exercise will have to be renewed again.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member aware that the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs offered to refer this white paper to the committee for study? Also, is he aware that there was unanimity, except for one Conservative member who objected? That member wanted to have a long debate in the House before the white paper was put before the committee. I think the hon. member is not aware of the facts. The Liberal party, the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit party were agreeable to that procedure, but it was vetoed by a Conservative member.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has a very selective memory. I do not recall any decision being made by a member of my party to have extended debate. Certainly there was no position taken either publicly or privately. These are purported facts which the minister is attempting to smuggle in by way of a question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is a fact.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It is a fact in the mind of the Minister of Finance, but I do not know whether it is a fact in the mind of anyone else.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: A fact is a fact.


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to inject any partisan note, but I was the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. This question was raised in the House of Commons, and I rose on that occasion. Later in private discussions with the hon. House leader of the Conservative party, it was finally agreed that a mistake in communications had occurred. He indicated that there was no

January 23, 1978
Bank Act
agreement on the part of the Conservative party to take that stance. The fact is that their representative on the committee would not make an agreement to deal with the matter without debate at the referral stage. That is a very simple fact which is well documented, both in the committee and the House of Commons.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It is interesting to see how defensive both these ministers are. Certainly the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik) is a persuasive fellow, as we have been reading recently in the local papers. But I do not think either of these defences hold a whole bunch of water because the government, in my view, was never blocked at any time either in the move for its white paper to go to standing committee or in the presentation of draft legislation which could have been examined by the committee. Both the interventions by both hon. members are simply smokescreens to try to protect what is left of their reputation, which is certainly very little at this point in time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: We are faced with this government realizing the kind of major economic problems that we have in this country, and, having nothing better to say after having produced a white paper on banking roughly a year and a half ago, saying at this juncture that what we need now is at least another year's delay, if not more, before we can present any form of amendment to the ten year revision of the Bank Act. If this is the best defence of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism with respect to the situation of their government in terms of dealing with this important legislation, then clearly they have very little to say indeed.
The reason I am speaking in this debate is not that I am an expert on banking, as most hon. members would know, but that I believe that this legislation is central to the wellbeing and economic management activities of this country. The very principle that we have revisions on a regular basis-which is not too often because we do not get them any more often than once every ten years-is an important principle but perhaps one which is not of serious concern to this government. Apparently its members are either being distracted or they are in such poor shape in terms of dealing with these central questions that they have not reached any final decision with respect to the measures that are being advanced in the white paper. Apparently the problems having to do with the growth of near banking activities, or the implications of increased banking activity from foreign sources, or the whole practice of banking in various economic situations across the country, are not of such pressing concern either to the Minister of Finance or to his colleagues that they are prepared at this time to present amendments to the House for discussion. I find it a rather incredible position and in fact I am not at all surprised that the Minister of Finance, for reasons best known to himself, could not be here to speak this afternoon in introducing this bill. I felt somewhat sorry for his poor parliamentary secretary-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: My excellent associate.
)Mr. Cafik.l


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: He might be excellent but he was left with the most difficult and embarrassing job of presenting, in as few words as he could muster, the defence for this particular exercise. If anything, on the opening day of the second part of this session this symbolizes a complete abdication of responsibility. I cannot think of anything that indicates that more clearly than the legislation that is before us this afternoon.
Here we are with some of the most serious economic problems that this country has faced for many years, as a recent commentator has said, since the depression, and the government has finally recognized the matter is serious. Certainly the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has learned this lesson as he criss-crossed the country last fall because, while he might not have gone out to meet the ten premiers in the ten provincial capitals with the purpose of discussing economic matters, he came back with that clear message, so much so that when he stood up in December to make an announcement of what he discovered in his fact finding mission, he said he discovered the economic situation in this country was so serious that the first thing that had to be done was to hold a number of preliminary meetings in different sectors to try to solve some of the underlying economic problems that have faced this country for a considerable period of time, roughly paralleling the length of time during which the present government has been in office, and that the major step in this examination will be the holding of a federal-provincial conference on economic questions next month.
With that kind of learning experience for the Prime Minister, and presumably for other ministers including the Mnister of Finance, I find that the government is in a most incredible kind of situation where it is forced on the first day of the resumed session to ask for a further delay in the revision to the Bank Act, without even having the ability, or indeed the good grace, to say, "Look, we are this close to realizing some major decisions with respect to the amendments and very shortly we will be able to table some form of draft legislation and we expect to be able to tell members of the House and the Canadian public what we would like to have happen with respect to the revision of the Bank Act, and we will forward these to the appropriate committee".
It seems to me that it is a clearcut case of mismanagement and of an inability to come to grips with some of the essential questions that face the country at present. While for many of the general public the revision of the Bank Act may seem a rather abstract or erudite exercise, certainly those who are concerned with the efficient and fair working of the Canadian economy believe the question of its updating or clarification, or of helping the banks of this country to work more effectively, is not an inconsiderable and unimportant task. As a matter of fact I believe that the government at one point did think that it was important, otherwise it would not have put forward the white paper in August of 1976.
I am particularly concerned for one or two basic reasons, and one is obviously related to the situation in the Atlantic provinces because of the present functioning of the major
January 23, 1978

chartered banks and the impact of that functioning on regions of economic and social disparity. I had raised this before in the House and I will not pursue it at length this afternoon, but if you examine the situation with respect to banking activities in the Atlantic provinces you will realize that, with roughly 9.5 per cent of the Canadian population, it is not unreasonable to expect that the banks in terms of their lending activity would parallel their basic responsibility in that area in roughly the same percentage fashion.
When I examine the most recent statistics that I have available I find the percentage of Canadian loans to the Atlantic region in 1975 under the Small Businesses Loans Act is as follows: the Bank of Montreal made loans totalling roughly 8 per cent, the Bank of Nova Scotia, 13.8 per cent, the Royal Bank, 7.8 per cent, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, 0.5 per cent, the Canadian Imperial Bank, 8.3 per cent, and all the other chartered banks, roughly 8.9 per cent. I think it is obvious that the performance level of the chartered banks- with the exception of the Bank of Nova Scotia which, even though the major portion of its banking decisions are made in Ontario, maintains a semblance of a head office in Nova Scotia and has a traditional sense of obligation to the Atlantic region-is not satisfactory.
The other aspect that has concerned me, and I had hoped we would have some discussion of it long before this, was the whole situation with respect to the disclosures of major loans, particularly foreign loans, by Canadian banks. This is a question that is being raised increasingly and repeatedly, first of all by a number of non-governmental organizations, including the major churches of this country and others concerned with the question of economic development and human rights, and it is now also being raised by the government itself. Certainly in the policy that was revealed in December by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) concerning South Africa there was a very clear indication that it might have some basic relationship to Canadian corporate activity in the Republic of South Africa.
The problem for all Canadians at present is that it is not possible to know what banks engage in economic activities in South Africa and the extent to which that activity may in effect be supporting the present regime. I find it interesting that in the United States one bank in particular has given some leadership in this situation, and I am referring here to the Bank of America Corporation. If the Minister of Finance has not seen it, he might want to look at the recent speech by the president, Mr. A. W. Clausen, in which he indicated they were seriously addressing the possibility of voluntary disclosure. Indeed, last year he announced the implementation of a decision to appoint five members of his executive group to a task force charged with developing a model disclosure code for the Bank of America and its affiliates and subsidiaries. He said that he gave them a time frame, some ground rules, and a complete set of things to look for.
Bank Act
I believe that these two matters alone-the question of disclosure with respect to the foreign activity of banks, and concern about the regional performance of banking activity in this country-plus the matters already mentioned this afternoon warrant the earliest possible consideration.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond referred to the attitude of banks concerning women directors. While the hon. member correctly stated the matter in terms of changing a very discriminatory anomaly in Canadian banking practice, hon. members might be interested in recalling that I have a specific bill on this question presently on the order paper which could easily have been incorporated into Bank Act amendments, had such been presented here this afternoon.
I am not going to address the House any further this afternoon. I think I have made my point very clearly. I think it is unacceptable and shocking that the government, at this late date and with so many pressing matters calling for a revision of the Bank Act, should merely ask for a further delay instead of accepting the responsibility which is clearly that of the government, at least until an election.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak just briefly about the request of the government for a further extension of the Bank Act. Previous speakers have highlighted the disgraceful performance of the government in this delay. It appears that anything having to do with financial or economic problems is delayed and stalled. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is very proud to say that when he was president of the treasury board he was called "Mr. No". In his present portfolio I believe we could call him "Mr. Stall" or "Mr. Delay". I think "Mr. Stall Stall" would be an excellent name for the minister we have today.
I want to speak briefly on behalf of credit unions and caisses populaires which are very concerned about this delay. During this delay more and more foreign banks are setting up shop in Canada and carrying on the business of banking, in all but name, entirely free of government regulation and control. This is unfair competition.
I have received much correspondence from co-operative credit unions in Manitoba. There are 4,000 credit unions across the country with a membership of 7.5 million. We are talking about many people, and they are very concerned about this delay.
I would like to quote from a brief I received from the Co-operative Credit Society of Manitoba Limited as follows:
Especially of concern to our members is the matter of proposed credit union inclusion in reserving with the Bank of Canada. We feel, and feel quite strongly, that proposals in the white paper in this regard are based upon the long-since antiquated idea that the chartered banks are the only financial institutions of significance in Canada. Also we feel that based upon this outmoded idea, the proposal regarding reserves with the Bank of Canada by all other financial institutions, which is based upon traditional chartered bank operations, is unrealistic.
This will make competition, the stronghold of any democracy, increasingly difficult for literally every other financial institution in the nation. Certainly it would be particularly harmful to the smaller members within our credit union system.
2128

January 23, 1978
Bank Act
So again, we feel obliged to draw your attention to the inequity of those specific proposals of the white paper which would impose these reserve requirements on the part of all members of the Canadian payments system. We hold these to be totally inconsistent with the principles of free enterprise. Another more equitable alternative can surely be found. But as indicated in earlier submissions the credit union system is not seeking legislation especially beneficial to its members alone at the expense of other institutions of a financial nature. We want only that which is fair to all.
So we can expect complete co-operation from credit unions. They have certainly been very patient; they have been waiting since 1976 for the Bank Act to be brought forward and for changes which would affect them. They presented an excellent brief to members of parliament back in October, 1976, and I would just like to quote one or two of their major concerns. One of them comes under the heading of "Membership and Structures" and reads as follows:
Credit unions offering "chequing" services wish to have access to the Canadian Payments Association-
Here is another delay. They are waiting for access to this association.
-through the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society Limited. We recognize and accept that, as members of the association, credit unions will be required to bear a portion of their physical operating costs. Their contribution to these costs should be calculated on the basis of volume of items processed.
We believe that participating members should have equitable representation in the management of the association. The management structure that is established should ensure that no single category of financial institution can exercise effective control.
That strikes me as a reasonable request. It is unfortunate that this issue is just going to be left in abeyance for another year. Another credit union and Caisse Populaire concern comes under the heading "Assurance for other clearing system participants" and reads as follows:
In support of its proposals for reserve requirements, the white paper states that these requirements provide "some assurance to participants in the clearing system that cheques which they have cleared, and which are drawn on other member institutions, will be paid". We would like to point out that the same assurance can also be supplied, on a day-to-day basis, by maintaining an adequate settlement account and making appropriate arrangements for Bank of Canada credit. In this respect, we are prepared to lodge Government of Canada securities with the Bank of Canada (to support loans from, or purchase-and-resale agreements with, the Bank of Canada) in an amount that will adequately cover reasonable fluctuations in day-to-day clearings.
For longer-run considerations of financial stability, there is a variety of safeguards that is more than adequate to provide other clearing-system participants with the assurance they require. These safeguards include:
-Provincial liquidity requirements, regulation, and inspection -Federal liquidity requirements, regulation, and inspection under the Cooperative Credit Associations Act -Provincial stabilization funds
-Voluntary interprovincial liquidity assurance programs -Access to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation by the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society Limited and the provincial centrals certified under the Co-operative Credit Associations Act
-Access to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation by provincial stabilization funds
It also might be pointed out that credit union "cheques" are currently honoured with confidence by other institutions in the financial system.
I have been a member of a credit union for many years, and I have always felt very safe in my dealings with it. In many cases credit unions provide better service at less cost than

many of our other banking institutions, so we should be co-operating with credit unions in every way we can. Unfortunately, the credit unions will just have to wait. We hope the government will reconsider and bring the Bank Act in at an earlier date. In the meantime, however, seven and one-half million members of credit unions will have to wait for "Mr. Stall" and his bank act.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I shall try not to cover too much of the same ground as I think most members have contributed quite eloquently to the major point, which is that the attempt to delay the institution of changes to the Bank Act is typical of the government's approach to governing the country. In fact what we see is that there is no sense of industrial strategy and no real concern about changing the economy of Canada. If the government were serious about creating employment in Canada and about changing the way we go about our economic business, the place to start would be with the financial institutions of Canada. There is no will on the government side to do so, however.
I noted recently that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) indicated that he does not intend to run in the next federal election. I must say I regret that as I think he has made significant contributions to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I think members of all parties would wish to congratulate him on some 16 years of service to the people of Canada and the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am sure one of the great frustrations he experienced was not in his present portfolio, but rather in a previous one when he attempted to bring in a Competition Act that had some teeth and some meaning. I think he would agree with this. In fact we have not had the will in Canada to bring forward legislation to change our economic structure in any way. Even the tampering-and I think it was positive tampering-that he attempted in his previous portfolio could have had some very positive effect on economic conditions today. That is why I say that in Canada we have failed to propose an industrial strategy for the country. We have been going from day-to-day with band-aids trying to stop sores that are no longer just oozing blood but are pouring blood. The economic body of this country is dying because of neglect.
One just has to look at the present structure of banking in Canada. We have six major banks. The United States has 15,000 banks, separate chartered institutions actively lending money with some sense of competition-not enough competition but with some sense of competition. There is no competition whatsoever in banking in Canada. About 300 people sit on all the boards of the major banks and they hold some 3,000 directorships in the major corporations of Canada. They have arranged, for example, that in major shopping centres an
January 23, 1978

exclusion clause will apply so that only a particular bank can do business in that area.
Just ask any small businessman about getting a loan. In any small town in the United States, if you want to open a business the first people to visit you will be representatives of the banks in that town asking if you need help. The process is reversed in this country. We put great stone fronts on the banks and people are scared to go in and see the manager. In spite of the "red car convertible loans" and such things, Canadian banking today is still conservative. It contributes nothing to the growth of the economy and, in fact, is compounding our very serious unemployment problem.
It does this government no credit that it has failed to introduce banking legislation to break the monopoly and either to expand the number of banks in competition for loans or get rid of the whole lot in a public way. We cannot have both; we must have one or the other. At the moment we are getting the absolute worst of both worlds in Canada.
British Columbia has special problems. I will go back a few years to the time of the NDP government there. It brought forward some very sensible legislation surrounding the whole question of debt recovery. That legislation remains on the books without amendment by the present administration. It took them a long time but they seem to have realized the wisdom of most of the legislation that they said was so bad during the last provincial election.
One piece of legislation dealt with a vital and importnat issue-it is the "seize or sue" legislation which provides that you do not get two kicks at a debtor. For instance, if you want to seize his car, you can do so, sell it, and thus satisfy the debt. But you are not allowed to seize the car and then sue for the deficiency. That adds insult to injury. The interest rate on the original debt is high enough to cover the risk of loss. The legislation also provided that the goods could not be seized if only one-third of the debt remained; in that case, you had to go after the debt itself.
That is pretty sensible legislation and the present administration in British Columbia has accepted it. Surprisingly, the banks of British Columbia do not accept it and have consistently refused to comply with the law. The courts of British Columbia have told the banks that they are wrong and that the province has jurisdiction in this area. In effect, it has told them that if they are going to lend money on a car or take a chattel mortgage, they must comply with the law of the province.
Here is the catch, Mr. Speaker-the forms to be signed by the borrower have not been changed and the banks insist that there is no law requiring a change. In the forms there is a provision that says that if the borrower does not pay, the bank can seize the car and also sue for the deficiency. In spite of the provincial law, therefore, when you go to see the manager he can simply show you the form and have you sign a note for what you still owe. The banks are thus unjustly enriched, but worse, they are arrogant about not complying with the law of the province to protect debtors. They worry about their corporate image and about being seen as nice guys, but I think it is
Income Tax Act
time they were stripped of that image. I think credit should be given to the minister of consumer and corporate affairs in British Columbia for doing a good job in that area.
There is a solution to this particular conundrum, Mr. Speaker. This government could include in banking legislation a provision that bank forms must be approved by the registrar in consultation with the provincial authority. As with most things, however, the government continues to show neglect.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker;: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington)-Transport-Date when harbour patrol boat will be provided for Vancouver; the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-The Canadian Economy-Reason for continuing high level of inflation-Date when level will reach four per cent; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt)-Labour conditions-Lockout of British Columbia telephone employees-Government action.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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.
I am informed there is a disposition to proceed with motion No. 9 appearing in the name of the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis). Is there unanimous consent to stand motions Nos. 2, 4 and 5?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
80027-6 SVi

January 23, 1978
Income Tax Act INCOME TAX ACT


MEASURE TO EXEMPT INTEREST ON MUNICIPAL BONDS
John Raymond Ellis: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act to exempt the interest of municipal bonds from income tax.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is appearing in my name for the second time, and the reason for unanimous consent to proceed with it this afternoon is that I did allow it to stand a couple of times in favour of other members who had more pressing matters.
It is unfortunate that private members' hour does not really allow for debate because many of the comments made last time this was introduced, on May 24, 1977, could have been better answered then rather than now. However, as you know, time does not permit. As a consequence I am now bringing this motion forward and I intend to press the motion again and again if necessary until I have some form of support for it.
I am going to deal with the comments that were made when the matter was brought up last year and I intend to add some new arguments. When the matter was brought up last time, the New Democratic Party made an intervention in the afternoon and they actually made mention of three points. First of all they suggested my motion would benefit only the rich. I know that the New Democratic Party have a thing about people being wealthy; however, I think this is nonsense. I started out in municipal life as a councillor for Sidney over 21 years ago and in those days we sold our municipal debentures over the counter to farmers in the area, and they certainly were not wealthy. The New Democratic Party also pointed out that the motion would distort the tax system. The tax system, Mr. Speaker, is so badly distorted as we have seen by the bill this afternoon, the bills in this session so far, and the bills we expect to have, that my suggestion could only serve to clarify it rather than destroy it. Lastly the NDP suggested this would create a tax haven, as in the United States, because the debentures would qualify for deductions. Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am trying to do, provide a tax haven. In the suggestions which I will make later, I will be able to deal with it in more detail.
The Liberal party intervened also last May 24 and they brought up a number of points which I thought were very interesting. Their first point was that the government had no business changing laws to finance municipal governments. The Department of Urban Affairs was set up to do that exactly, to intervene and meddle in urban affairs. In fact, the municipalities are creatures of the provinces. We know that, their activities are governed by the provinces. But there is nothing to say that when the federal government is given an opportunity at no cost to itself to reduce the tax burden on municipalities and their people, that it should not do just that.
The Liberal party mentioned at that time that it was up to the provincial governments to give city governments more taxing powers. This is the very reason that I wish we could have debated the matter at that point. Frankly my dander was

up at that point, and my anger at the nonsensical way in which the arguments were presented would have made for a good debate. It is absolute, utter nonsense to think that the municipal governments could have more taxing powers of their own. They are taking from the people in the municipalities now the maximum amount of money through the realty taxes and there is no way more money could be expected from the taxpayers in that particular way. The provincial governments are powerless to change that situation given the restraints they have to face.
The Liberal members suggested at that time that the proposal which I made would have an unfair impact because high income municipalities and individuals would benefit more than low income municipalities. If that is not identical to the socialist doctrine put forward by the NDP I do not know what is. We expect that socialist doctrine from our friends to the left, but coming from across the way, it seems to me, shows the true nature of the Liberal party rather than a concerted effort to deal with the proposal put before them.
I was delighted to see that the Social Credit party at that point in time supported my motion. It is interesting to know that there are in the House of Commons at least two parties that have a free enterprise format in their policy. It is the only other party in the House obviously that is not a socialist party.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, I want to deal briefly with the fact that the voice of the municipalities in the province of Ontario, The Municipal World magazine, gave some space to my suggestion and they supported it. In doing so they asked for comments from the Minister of Urban Affairs, which I thought was a very good idea. The Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) did not then participate, as obviously he is not going to this afternoon because he is not in the chamber. However, the Minister of Urban Affairs did put forward some gobbledygook which was written in a bureaucratic type of language which I am confident the minister himself did not write. His argument, written up in the magazine, was that it would not necessarily offer benefits to the cities. Of course, it would offer benefits to the cities. That is the whole purpose of my motion.
The mail which I received from the various cities in Ontario, and at least one from outside Ontario, indicated that the aldermen in those cities thought that it would benefit them. The minister mentioned that because municipalities rely on foreign borrowing the effectiveness of the measure would be limited. Once again, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point I am trying to make. Because municipalities rely on foreign borrowing, this measure is needed. It is necessary. It would reduce the foreign borrowing of the municipalities and allow them to borrow in Canada with all the benefits going to Canadians.
Once you get through the few pages of double talk in the reply by the minister his final point was that it was unlikely it would enhance the Canadian balance of payments, position "in the short run". Of course it wouldn't enhance the balance of payments position in the short run. That is exactly the point I have been trying to make. In the short run there would be very little difference. But surely to goodness this government can

look for once beyond the short run. It could look beyond tomorrow. It could look a few years ahead and make some provision for municipalities and their problems as they continue to grow, so that ten years from now they will be in much better position. The debentures sold with ten, 15 or 20 year coupons will have to be honoured. Those that are being sold today will have to be honoured in ten, 15 or 20 years. It would take that long before this measure could really benefit the municipalities.
I am not going to take the full 20 minutes allotted to me. I want to deal with some points that I may not have fully covered the last time. It may add to my argument.
First, and most important, this is a means of assistance to the municipalities which will not require another costly self-perpetuating bureaucracy. The policy of this party has been clearly enunciated by our leader and others. We do not want to increase the bureaucracy. We have suggested that the controls be removed in a way which would reduce rather than increase the size of the civil service. The proposal I have put forward does not in any way add to the bureaucracy.
Second, unlike the comments by my friends to the left and their colleagues opposite, the small investor would receive a twofold benefit. First, his municipal taxes would be lowered. That was the main thrust of what I said when I presented the motion for the first time last year. The municipal taxes of all taxpayers in the cities, towns, villages and townships in Canada would be lowered. Second, in addition to the benefit of reduced taxes in the municipality, the income would not be subject to income tax. As I said, he would receive a twofold benefit.
More important, the municipalities would be able to finance their public debt from their own citizens. As I indicated a while ago, I started out in political life 21 years ago in Sidney. There we sold our debentures over the counter. If the municipal debentures are sufficiently attractive, there is no reason why they cannot be sold in that way.
I have a tremendous amount of faith in Canadian investors. I know that right now they have very little confidence in the economy of this country. Large amounts of money have been invested in the United States and other countries. I am quite happy to have this referred to as a tax haven. I am confident that given this relief from income tax on municipal debentures, the money will remain in Canada. They could be financed within the communities where the debentures are to be sold.
That would have a corollary benefit, that of adding to the relationship between the citizens and City Hall. They would get to know what is going on in their community much better than they do now. They would feel they are participating. It would make them better citizens and would lead to a better relationship.
I have a very strong feeling it would result in a diminishing of demand for funds in the foreign market. Last time I made the point that some $875 million went out of Canada in payments. Those dollars had to be borrowed in the first place.
Income Tax Act
The resultant diminution of borrowing on foreign markets might well bring down the interest rate even one quarter or one half point. Corporations that borrow abroad, as they necessarily do would be able to borrow at a lower interst rate. The decrease in inflationary pressure would benefit all sources rather than hinder them.
One of the main purposes of the proposed changes in the Income Tax Act would be to enable shareholders and small private companies to receive built up surpluses on a tax free or low tax basis. It would allow them to bring built up tax surpluses into circulation, helping to offset the depressed conditions in which we now find ourselves. This is one more way those tax surpluses could be put into circulation in Canada, making it attractive for people in the cities to invest in their own communities.
As I said before, a good deal of money goes outside Canada into tax havens. A competent professional service is required to enable them to do that. That cost is wasted. Making legal a tax haven for Canadians here at home without the attendant t high professional costs would meet the needs of all Canadians and lower interest costs attendant on proposed capital expenditures.
I have gone on longer than I intended. I want to bring out again the two major points of my original proposal. Reliance on foreign markets would be reduced and we would attract investors from Canada. My research indicates that the additional debt surplus would increase. In fact it has increased in recent years.
I was hopeful that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lumley) would take part in the debate this afternoon. He is a highly respected former municipal politician. He is well aware of the truth of what I am saying. He knows this measure would benefit the municipalities. Now that he has a good deal of clout in the Finance Department, I had hoped he might rise in his place and support this motion. However, we will have to wait and see what happens. I am not particularly hopeful. In the past the government has not been very receptive to suggestions that are sensible and which will help the ordinary individual.
I will leave it at this point, with the caution that if this motion is talked out this afternoon I will bring it back again and again until I get it through.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this motion to permit a tax free treatment of income earned on municipal bonds is one of the oldest chestnuts in the field of taxation. It is not because it has any merit. I do not think it has any merit, for two reasons.
First, because they do it in the United States, the assumption is made that anything that is done in the United States must be better than anything that is done in Canada. Therefore, the idea keeps getting put forward for that reason. Second, it is put forward, and the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) knows this as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lumley), because the need of

January 23, 1978
Income Tax Act
municipalities for funds is extreme. Their responsibilities far exceed the revenue base they have been given by the provincial governments which set them up. I argue that the need alone is no justification for making an amendment; as the hon. member himself indicated in his conclusion, it would be quite a tax rip-off. It would be a tax haven which he proceeded to justify. I do not think it can be justified. I will come to that in a moment.
Before I get to the substance, I want to reply to the two cheap shots the hon. member lowered himself to take during his remarks. In carefully listening to him, I noted only two cheap shots. The first crack was that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) was absent from the House right now. He suggested that indicated a lack of concern for municipalities. If the minister were to be in this House every time the subject of cities is raised, he would have no time for the administration of his department or for meetings with the many delegations across the country that want to meet with him. I hope the hon. member for Hastings was joking when he suggested the Minister of State for Urban Affairs ought to be here to listen to this old chestnut being kicked around again. I would much prefer to have the minister spend this hour doing the administrative side of his job, there being such a heavy demand upon his time.
The second cheap shot the hon. member for Hastings took was that directed toward the Liberal party.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: He said that because we opposed a measure which so obviously favoured the rich, we were therefore socialists. The hon. member was drawing a far-fetched conclusion; there is a great deal of difference between being a socialist and simply wanting a fair tax system, which is the kind of system this party favours. It is simply a question of resisting the introduction into the system of benefits which would do far more for the rich than they would do for municipalities. That is the substantial point and it is one which the hon. member should recognize.
In the United States, where this rip-off has existed for many years, the savings to the rich in the form of income tax concessions have far exceeded the benefit of the lower interest rate which the municipalities are able to achieve by being in a position to offer tax-free bonds to those who buy them. A study recently carried out in the United States for President Carter showed that the loss in taxes to the federal treasury through this income tax privilege was far greater than the saving to the municipalities through lower interest payments. In other words, the municipalities and the whole system in the United States would be better served if municipal bonds were taxable, and if the federal government took the portion of tax which it collected on the interest accruing from municipal bonds and paid it over to the municipalities there would be far more money paid to the municipalities than is now the case through a measure which, in the end, is a tax haven, as the hon.

member himself concedes. The fact that it is done in the United States is not, in my opinion, sufficient to recommend the proposal-


An hon. Member:: You have always been anti-American!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This is the first time anyone who knows me has made such a charge against me. In fact, I am very pro-American and very close to the Americans. Nevertheless, I do not think we should copy their mistakes.
I suggest that in addition to it being a rip-off which benefits the rich more than it benefits the municipalities, the proposal of the hon. member for Hastings has the additional disadvantage of operating against free enterprise. I am sure the hon. member's constituents will be sorry to hear he is advocating tax proposals whose adoption would be damaging to free enterprise.
The hon. member, as we know, has been a municipal councillor and he is in a position to understand the need for easier access to capital. I suggest he has a responsibility to look beyond the needs of the municipalities, to stand back and consider the effect of the proposal he is making upon the economy as a whole. After all, his proposal is a far-reaching one and would involve hundreds of millions in lost revenue to the federal treasury, so he ought not to think of it as being simply an easy way by which the municipalities would get extra money. The changes suggested are such as to affect the balance between municipally conducted enterprises and those which operate in the free market.
I should like to quote, if I may, from the report of the Carter Commission on Taxation in which the commissioners rejected out of hand any proposal such as we are considering here. As recorded at page 125 of the fourth volume, the commissioners made this observation:
Where government undertakes activities which compete with those of private business, the exemption of government instrumentalities from tax to which their privately-owned competitors are subject provides the former with an advantage to which the latter may quite reasonably object. There are many examples of government-owned corporations which compete with privately-owned companies-
Municipalities presently contract out a great many of the activities for which the funds are provided by municipal taxpayers, for example, snow-shovelling, gardening, the cleaning of public buildings and, almost certainly, the construction of buildings which municipalities require. It is evident to me that if the tax benefit proposed were to be available to the municipalities, the balance would change and it would be cheaper for the taxpayers of a municipality through their councils to set up their own contracting companies, buy their own trucks and so on, and take on these jobs themselves because they could secure access to money at lower rates than the private sector.
It is true the municipal taxpayers would benefit-but only as municipal taxpayers. The country as a whole would be poorer because, as I have indicated, the benefit contemplated is one which would cost more than it would save. We would find municipalities putting up buildings and renting them to business, as is the case in the United States today; businessmen there putting up a building have to pay taxes at normal rates,
January 23, 1978

but municipalities can do it themselves a lot cheaper. If you go to the United States looking for a place to open a business, the first thing you find out is that municipalities are prepared to use this tax loophole for the benefit of individual companies. This is not the case in Canada because we have a fairer tax system.
I submit that in the broader perspective there is no advantage to the country in the type of proposal the hon. member recommends. Not only would it be of undue benefit to the rich but it would operate against the interest of free enterprise. I understand that a great many members on this side wish to speak on this proposal and I therefore am not willing to take up more time. But I believe I have demonstrated that we are certainly not socialists and that this is not a measure such as would warrant the attendance of a minister for an hour this afternoon.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to get back to the business of the House of Commons on its first day of the new session, although I am rather saddened by the fact that we are once again debating the somewhat ill-conceived and premature motion of the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis). My colleague, the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), has given an adequate position against the motion as outlined by the hon. member for Hastings. I should like to deal with some other ramifications of the motion should it ever be implemented by the government of Canada.
The exemption from income tax of the interest on municipal bonds has been proposed by the hon. member as a means of assisting local governments. The United States provides such an exemption, as my colleague has outlined. It provides this exemption from taxation of interest earned on both state and local bonds. With the exemption, investors would be willing to buy local bonds with rates lower than the rates on corporate or other government bonds. In this way the new tax advantages would be translated into reduced financing costs for the municipalities. The cost of the measure to the government is the forgone income tax revenue on local bond interest, and the benefit to the municipalities is the decreased interest rates.
I find this a very interesting proposal coming from a member of the Conservative party at this time of economic restraint. It appears from positions that have been made public by members of the Conservative party in the last few months that they are going to ride the big, over-spending government hobby-horse into the next election. However, along comes the hon. member for Hastings who proposes that the federal government should then forgo tax revenues in order to implement the kind of motion he has before us.


Walter David Baker: We would just like to have what you spill.


David Michael Collenette: While the measure would undoubtedly have some success in achieving this result, there are significant defects which make the proposal undesirable for adoption in
Income Tax Act
Canada. It is interesting to note that the interest exemption for state and local bonds in the United States has been widely criticized both within and outside the government. In fact, there have been numerous attempts by the administration to withdraw this exemption and replace it with a direct subsidy or some other form of financial aid which does not have the serious inequities and costly inefficiencies of the current interest exemption.
I know my colleague, the hon. member for Middlesex-Lon-don-Lambton (Mr. Condon), wishes to deal with a number of aspects of the motion. I should like to talk about the problems inherent in the proposal in respect of distribution of benefits by region. This proposed interest exemption is likely to have the opposite effect on local financing from the one it is intended to have, because this measure will benefit larger metropolitan centres more than smaller rural communities.
In making that statement I am fully cognizant of the problems faced by large municipalities since I am a member of parliament from metropolitan Toronto, and that metropolitan area has severe financial problems, whether they be in providing welfare, other social services and community services, or, in particular, transportation. I want to talk about transportation a little later on.
I am taking this position because I feel the hon. member has not really grasped the significance of implementing the motion or the impact this will have on large metropolitan areas to the detriment of smaller municipalities. I know by the constituency he represents that there are many, many small areas which I am sure would not want him to be misled into thinking this would benefit them when in fact it would benefit the large metropolitan areas.
Furthermore, it will help municipalities in the higher income provinces much more than the towns in lower income provinces. Surely this is a perverse effect, and such an outcome is not in the best interest of Canadian municipalities at large.
Municipalities and other local governments come under provincial jurisdiction. The role of the provincial and local levels of government varies greatly from province to province. Because of these regional differences there are substantial variations in the financial arrangements between these two levels of government. For example, there are wide variations in the provision and funding of health care. Provincial governments bear the major responsibility for health services, although municipalities may be delegated a considerable degree of authority. All ten provinces have exclusive responsibility for provincial health insurance, although financing is through premiums in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, and through general revenues in the remaining six provinces. For other health services, municipalities play varying roles. For example, in Newfoundland the municipalities make no financial contribution to hospitals or public health services. In other provinces, for example New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, there are municipal hospitals with municipalities paying at least part of the capital cost of construction.

January 23, 1978
Income Tax Act
Differences exist among provinces as to the proportion of local funding for such services as education and also with regard to structure of local revenues. In Prince Edward Island, for example, the operational costs of education are competely financed by provincial grants to local school boards. Funds borrowed by school boards for the construction of schools are also guaranteed by the government in that province. By contrast, in Ontario local property taxes raise nearly half the total expenditures on education, with the balance financed by grants from the Ontario government.
On the revenue side, for example, the proportion of the funds raised through property taxation, debenture issues and other fees and taxes varies across the provinces. Such variations are reflected very clearly in the outstanding per capita municipal debt by province. I will not go into that, however, because I would be prolonging the debate.
When I spoke on this matter, I guess it was last year when the hon. member first brought it forward, I mentioned I felt it was premature because in the province of Ontario a government commission had been created and had reported. That was the Blair Commission headed by a former mayor of one of the municipalities which make up my constituency of York East in Toronto. That commission made certain recommendations to restructure municipal finances which are being studied by the Ontario government. The provincial treasurer says it bears further study, but he cannot accept some of the ramifications which would occur from an implementation of the Report of the Blair Commission. So the kind of proposal the hon. member is making really does not take into account work that is already being done in the province of Ontario in respect of municipal financing.
Therefore, I would like to make the point that we have to look at this proposal in the context of over-all Fiscal and constitutional reform. Last election we as a Liberal party made a number of promises in respect of aid to transportation. One of the arguments against that aid was that it was not within federal jurisdiction to interfere in assistance to municipalities, and perhaps it should be done in other ways, such as by making more revenues available to the provinces which in turn would make more revenues available to the municipalities. Perhaps that is, indeed, the solution. Perhaps we will have to say, as we have in respect of health care: Here are additional tax points; the provinces must raise the money and accept responsibility for giving money to the municipalities.
There is another side to that point, one I have been mentioning in speeches in my constituency at public gatherings, and it is that I believe the country is becoming too decentralized; that we are giving up too much fiscal and taxation power to the provinces. What is going to happen is that the rich provinces like Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia, in any further decentralized country, are going to become stronger; the poorer provinces, especially those in eastern Canada, are the ones which will suffer the most through decentralization or a diminution of powers. In any event, that follows from the arguments I have been making. I believe the motion proposed by the hon. member must be seen in the context of over-all

constitutional and fiscal reforms. We should not be dealing with it on a piecemeal basis, and for this reason I cannot support the motion.
One other aspect of the motion that bothers me is that it would encourage municipalities even more to raise funds without real recourse to a consideration of the problems that increased municipal expenditures might incur. Over the last few years everyone has been attacking the Government of Canada for not having tight reins on its purse, but provincial governments, municipal governments and provincial utilities have been some of the greatest masters of taxpayers' money.
During the last few years, provincial governments, municipal governments and provincial utilities such as Ontario and Quebec Hydro have gone outside the country in an attempt to raise money. Those utilities raised money in New York. In fact the premier of Ontario has been to Zurich, Geneva and other places in an attempt to raise money for provincial expenditures. The foreign borrowing which has been done by individual municipalities, utilities and provinces has distorted Canada's financial picture as well as the value of the dollar. Over the last few years the Canadian dollar was valued too high. Now we are experiencing a general correction in the value of the Canadian dollar. One of the principal causes for its overevaluation was the enormous provincial, municipal and utilities overseas borrowings.
I have been informed that the government of Canada does not owe a nickel outside of this country, that all of its public debt is raised through pension funds, through Canada savings bonds, and it is floated within the country. Therefore, the government knows what money is likely to be raised on the Canadian market. It does not go abroad to borrow money as the municipalities and provinces do.
Perhaps the hon. member should propose a constitutional amendment or an act of this House whereby the borrowings of municipalities, provincial governments and utilities should be subject to some over-all national financial plan or program.


John Raymond Ellis: Another socialistic move.


David Michael Collenette: Hon. members opposite suggest always that there is socialism in pronouncements which are made by anyone who is trying to be progressive. Perhaps that is one of the main problems which the Conservative party has faced over the years. The Conservative party has blinkers; it cannot see over the horizon. Many years ago they adopted the term "Progressive", but in recent years the party has been far from that. If they get on their campaign horses and travel across the country repeating the same lines to Canadians in the next election, as was the case with their partner in Manitoba, I think they are in for a rude shock. Perhaps the voters of Manitoba have just grievances against the New Democratic party, but they should have gone to the Liberal party which was offering a progressive, free enterprise, non-socialistic alternative. That province is recognizing that it will have a tremen-
January 23, 1978

dous price to pay for the hard line, narrow-minded view of the Tory party there.


Walter David Baker: There is little to distinguish you from Schreyer.


David Michael Collenette: Hon. members opposite continue to hurl insults. It distresses me that we have reached this level of debate, hurling partisan remarks across the floor at each other.
I hate to be a part of that, but I feel compelled to respond. The hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon), as a former mayor of a distinguished municipality in the province of Ontario, is eager to take part in this debate.
In conclusion, the motion is premature and ill-conceived. It will only further encourage wild spending by municipalities and wild spending by the provinces without recourse to revenues and without recourse to the true financial picture in the country. I find it very, very odd that one of the members of the Conservative party is talking with restraint on the one hand, and then is talking about a motion with severe financial ramifications for the country on the other hand.


Mr. J. Larry Condon (Middlesex-London-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) on bringing to the attention of Canadians the fallacies of this bill, as well as the conduct of some members in this House when a position is being presented for or against a certain subject. It is amazing that a member of parliament would stand up in these hallowed halls and request the government through a private member's motion to create tax havens. Many Canadians are fighting tax havens, and now at this particular time in our economy he would like to have them put out as protectionism against another group in our society. Tax havens are for people who can afford them. Ordinary people do not have the advantage of a chartered accountant or a big business. Some people do not have the opportunity or the income to find tax havens. The hon. member has forgotten about those people, which is very sad.
As a consequence of lower interest rates, local governments would be encouraged to increase their long term debts. We have heard what happened in the province of Ontario and what the provincial government has done to the municipalities. For eight or ten years the provincial government encouraged people to spend, indicating that it would cover the spending for 80 per cent. Over the last ten or 15 years, this Conservative government has forced municipalities to spend in order to receive tax grants. Now the day of reckoning has arrived. The Conservative government did not have the foresight five or six years down the road to see what was happening. Now it is telling the municipal councils and school boards to cut down. After they have fished out the carrot, they have pulled it in. The provincial government is telling the municipalities that it made a mistake in its long-term financing but will not take any blame for it and it tells the municipalities to tighten up.
In the Strathroy and Middlesex area, the provincial government is giving a 4.8 per cent increase in funds to the education system. Perhaps that is fine and it is within the guidelines, but
Income Tax Act
where was the provincial government when those 4,000-pupil schools were being built and millions of dollars in architectural fees were being paid out? Now the poor taxpayer has to pay for that. He is always the goat, especially in Ontario with its Conservative provincial government.
As was indicated by my colleague, this is a distortion in the financial decision-making process of local governments. The proposed interest exemption creates another serious bias in the capital market for privately issued bonds. If local governments increase their long term debt, either there must be an increase in over-all public-plus-private debt or else there must be a decrease in private debt. It is likely that municipalities will bid away at least some funds from the private sector, even if there is an increase in over-all debt as well. I wonder if this is what we want.
At the present time the backbone of this country is the small businessman. That has been the case for many years. As we have seen, small businesses have done very well in this country over the last 15 or 20 years. Why is that? It is because they are realistic enough to look down the road four or five years. Also, this government has helped and encouraged small businessmen in Canada to invest in the future.
I will not go too far on this, but I brought this to the attention of small businessmen in the Stratford-Middlesex-London-Lambton area. No government is perfect and every government can be criticized. My only criticism of this government with regard to small business is, as I have said on many occasions, that small businessmen are not getting a square deal out of banks. I think there are problems here and, as was mentioned by my friend, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), some time ago, banks do not look at small business as a potential for growing and developing, the potential for a bank to make more money out of business, which is the name of the game-free enterprise. At a time when the federal government is placing great importance on the economic contribution of the private sector, a move in the opposite direction is obviously undesirable, as I just mentioned.
Moreover, it is likely that the smaller corporations would be hurt most by this measure, and we do not want that with the economy in a questionable state at present and with the government doing as much as it can to revitalize Canadian industry and business. The people we want to take care of first are the small businessmen who need extra capital advance. That extra one or two men in a small plant are the backbone of our country.
Some people will say that big business is the only way to go, as my friend, the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis), has said. He wants to get into big business and to give opportunities to people who have tax havens and advantages. I disagree with that. I am critical of this government so far as banking for small business is concerned.
The income tax exemption would be of no use to tax-exempt institutions, such as pension funds, and unattractive to inves-
2136

January 23, 1978
Income Tax Act
tors with low marginal tax rates, such as pensioners with low incomes. Where will the money come from for the people who should be given this opportunity? This government has proven time and time again that when they consider the interests of the people, they consider people in all segments of society, not only special tax-exempt classes. The proposed exemption thus also creates a distortion in the type of investor to which municipal bonds are attractive.
The proposed exemption creates a bias in the decision-making process of investors. The tax-exempt status of municipal bonds would be most attractive to investors, both corporate and individual, with the highest marginal tax rates, and not attractive at all to tax-exempt or low tax investors. That, after all, is what this country was built on. This government looks at all the people, not only at certain people to whom it gives special benefits. I do not believe that we should set apart different classes, something which we on this side have not done in the past.
Now I should like to say a few words about subsidies to high income taxpayers. Investors with high marginal tax rates would be willing to buy tax-exempt local bonds as compared to regular bonds so long as their after tax position was no worse with the tax-exempt bonds. If all the tax-exempt securities were purchased by individual taxpayers with the highest combined federal and provincial rates in excess of 60 per cent, then in theory the interest rate required to attract these purchasers would only need to be slightly less than 40 per cent of rates on other comparable bonds.
In this circumstance, the full benefit of the subsidy would be reaped by municipal governments in the form of reduced financing costs. This would occur because the investors would be in about the same after tax position whether they purchased regular, taxable bonds or tax-exempt bonds. The benefit to investors in the form of the tax exemption would be only enough to offset the tax that would have been due on a taxable bond. For the various levels of government, the reduced interest payments by municipal governments would be equal to the revenue lost by the federal and provincial governments. This is the mechanism of tax-free municipal bonds, in theory.
What we are saying on this to the people is: "Yes, this is a great idea, you won't have any problems. It is beautiful for you, the individual, but in the long run the federal and municipal governments will pick up the tab". If we are going to give something to someone, let us give to him and leave it with him, not take it back with the other hand.
In practice, however, municipalities are unlikely to experience a reduction in interest rates of anywhere near the 40 per cent implied by the top marginal tax rates. Approximately half of municipal debentures are currently held by pension funds, foreign investors, other municipalities and other provinces, none of which is taxable. If the interest rates on municipal debentures were to fall significantly, these institutions would no longer find it desirable to hold the debt. As they left the market it would be impossible to sell all the debt to individual taxpayers in the highest marginal tax bracket, and certainly they would not accept it. They would say: "It is good now, but
[Mr. Condon.l
what about the future? You will take it all back from me anyway, so that does not make sense". If you give something to people, make sure they have it in their pockets; do not take it away with the other hand. As a result, significant portions would need to be sold to lower income individuals with lower tax rates and to corporations with combined federal and provincial rates of 46 per cent to 51 per cent. Who in God's name in a low tax bracket can afford to put out money for this? They do not do so anyway so they cannot have any benefit from it. The ones who should be receiving the break are not getting it; and the ones who should not be receiving it are receiving it. So the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
I can tell you that that is not the Liberal philosophy. This government's philosophy is that we should share. We have done this in the past and we will do it again.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Just like the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc). He shares.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: Did I hear something? No, I did not. As I was saying, as a result, significant portions would need to be sold to lower income individuals with lower tax rates and to corporations with combined federal and provincial rates of 46 per cent to 51 per cent. Both to attract purchasers from these groups and to prevent all the non-taxable investors from discontinuing their investments in municipals, the interest rates could not fall by nearly the full amount which would maximize the benefit to municipalities.
As was mentioned here previously by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), there was an accusation that we were being anti-American. As he said, we are living side by side with the Americans, and I do not think the feeling on this side is anti-American. We are trying to work together, but we do not have to adopt all their ideas. Many American citizens are now coming to Canada for advice. One example is Senator Edward Kennedy who came here to investigate our health system. I hope that both Canada and the United States can learn from each other. I do not think we are anti-anything. I think we are pro-Canadian.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member but the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 p.m.

January 23, 1978


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-16, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: At five o'clock the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) had the floor, and he has 31 minutes left.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your warning hon. members as to how much time I have, but I must say that one is tempted to try to use that time, and I do not think that should be the response of a responsible member of parliament.
At five o'clock I was dealing with the capacity of banks to support small business in Canada. The record of banking institutions supporting and encouraging the growth of small business in Canada is one of the poorest in the western world. We pointed out this afternoon that there are 15,000 separately chartered banks in the United States. In Canada there are 12; probably only six of them are effective in terms of size. A non-aggressive and non-imaginative banking system like ours, which does not go out and seek to help entrepreneurs get small Canadian businesses underway, makes a major contribution to the economic malaise in which we now find ourselves.
I can give an example of this. A small entrepreneur who wants to set up a small hamburger stand will get short shrift from any of the major banks in Canada unless he has a fantastic amount of collateral or guarantees or unless he puts his house, his car and everything he has on the line. However, if instead of going the independent route he decides to associate himself with the McDonald's hamburger chain, the money will start flowing out of the conventional lending institutions of Canada, particularly banks, like you wouldn't believe. The result is that people like McDonald's-and I do not particularly have anything against them as they probably make a very good hamburger-


An hon. Member:: "They do it all for you".


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I will tell you who they do not do it for-the small competitive Canadian businessman who does not have the same opportunity to do that kind of massive advertising and use their techniques of merchandising. Their product is market tested in the most successful market in the world, the United States, before it is offered in this country. We had better understand that the small businessman in Canada must have the same kind of help from our financial institutions as they get. He is not getting it at the present time. Anyone who
Bank Act
has McDonald's backing can go to any bank in Canada and find that the response is "Away you go if you are associated with the clowns".
They had a wonderful promotion technique in the lower mainland of British Columbia. They invited all the politicians to take a day at a McDonald's hamburger stand and sell hamburgers, with all the profits to go to a worth-while charity. It was worth-while too, as I believe it was for crippled children or some such organization. I told them I would not go. I said that if they wanted to contribute to charity they should go right ahead without sucking in all the political people in the community to promote their hamburgers. I said I would sell hamburgers if the profits were to go to the small businessmen that McDonald's have driven to the wall in my community.
We have to look carefully at the way the lending institutions in Canada are driving small independent businesses to the wall. This all comes back to the way we organize and control the financial institutions in Canada. Unless we start to do something for the entrepreneurs of Canada we will not be able to buy a Canadian hamburger. It will be breakfast at "Denny's" and supper at "McDonald's." There will be franchises from one end of the country to the other and I do not want to see that. I want Canadian independence and I want a uniqueness in our services. All we are getting at the moment is that market tested formula from southern California and New York state. It is impossible for Canadian entrepreneurs to compete without the kind of training, the kind of leadership and the kind of financial assistance from our institutions that they have been crying for and have not been receiving from this government and particularly from the banks of Canada.
We all like to stand in this House and say we are in favour of small business, but little has been done to help small business. Some very specific areas could be tackled. The government could have taken these steps instead of trying to delay changes to the Bank Act for another year, had it had the courage to grasp the nettle. One of the problems with this government is that perhaps the minister would have been kicked out for doing that, as the former minister was; then we would have to start again from square one with a new minister.
I have always heard about the banking lobby, Mr. Speaker. As a member of parliament I have been lobbied from mining, from forestry and from fishing interests, but I have never had a banking lobby in my office. I could not figure out why until I realized that there are so many people in the place next door who hold directorships in banks that there is no point in their coming to an ordinary member of parliament. The conflict of interest in the place next door as it relates to the appointment of members of the Senate to directorships on the boards of the major banks of Canada. And the question of whether that has influenced the legislation presented to this House, should be looked at very carefully.
We had a tough year in 1977. Labour was held down. They attempted to hold wage increases at six per cent, and they are not too much higher than that with inflation at 9.5 per cent. But what happened to the banks in that terrible year? The dear old Royal Bank, the largest, managed to increase its
80027-66V2

January 23, 1978
Bank Act
revenue from $2.44 billion to $2.74 billion, a 12.3 per cent increase in profit in one year. That is well ahead of any wage settlement I saw and well ahead of the majority of profit-taking in other sectors of the Canadian economy.
Banks in this country are given very special privileges. The revenues of the Bank of Nova Scotia increased from $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion last year, or 13.3 per cent. And so it goes with all the banks. They look more out of the economy last year than they deserved. What is the government doing about it? It is delaying changes to the Bank Act.
If there is one thing we should be doing in this House it is to change the way we regulate banking in Canada. Unless we can make the banking system competitive we should think about having a public banking system. It must be one or the other. We cannot continue with what we have now, which is the worst of both worlds in terms of funding and financing the business of this country and creating employment. It is the small businessman who provides most of the employment. His is a labour-intensive business; he needs help. He is not into the area of massive technology and of attempting to eliminate his workers because of the capitalization in his industry. If we are ever to have increased employment it will be in the servicing sector and the small business sector. This is the area we should be encouraging if we are to reduce unemployment.
We get no answers whatsoever from this government when we ask about bringing forward banking legislation which would regulate competition and would require banks to offer small loans and increase the amount of those small loans. Even under the Small Businesses Loans Act you are limited to $75,000. Anyone who has had experience with small business knows that you cannot do much with $75,000, yet loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act are still limited to $75,000-if you can get money under it. In most cases the money is simply not available. There is no legislative requirement on a bank to lend money under its low interest provisions. That is where we should have begun in terms of legislation to help small business and in terms of regulating and controlling banks in order to provide for loans of higher amounts at low interest for small business. I want to see the situation where when a businessman comes to a town there are four banks competing to finance him. The way it is now, you almost have to break down the bank manager's door to get in to say hello! And then he is so fat and sassy that he could not care less, because he is making money by lending to conventional large borrowers or playing games with the American franchise houses all across Canada. The banks of this country had better get interested or they will find changes that will be untenable to them from an operational point of view. They have not performed the service of creating employment in this country, and their record of massive profits in the last two years and little help to small business is a prime example of their neglect in this area.
This government should move toward providing special training for entrepreneurs. I should like to see this done in a private way. We face heavy competition from American entrepreneurs partly because of their larger markets, partly because of the larger variety available to them, and partly because of
the greater number of people available to market test products. We have the problem of isolated pockets of population. There is the lower mainland and the Toronto-Montreal complex, but generally it is very difficult to market test a product in Canada compared to the United States, which has such huge market testing areas as New York city with ten million people. We have not given enough consideration to the question of solving this problem but one way would be through a special training program for Canadian entrepreneurs. This program could be offered through the universities or technical schools. We cannot create more employment without giving our small entrepreneurs some help.
West Germany, Japan and many other countries in the western world have set up trading companies. Their purpose is to make contact with overseas businessmen, arrange contracts and then to allow local small business to fill those contracts.
Our own Export Development Corporation, which should be active in this area, unfortunately continues to favour major colossal business over small business. The result is again that the larger businesses, which tend to be foreign owned and foreign controlled, receive by far the most help from the EDC.
In terms of government spending, what we need to do is to allocate a guaranteed portion of that spending to small business so we can allow those entrepreneurs to grow and get into competition with those at the larger business level. This has been done successfully in the United States. They have decentralized their purchasing into areas of need, but again they have decreed that those products should be produced by small business.
We must consider removing the sales tax which is extremely regressive, not only from the point of view of the purchaser but also from the point of view of the small businessman. He cannot continue having to tack this on to his product and expect to have success. Because he is the last genuinely competitive part of our economy, we are handicapping him more and more.
I do not believe for a moment that the various sectors of this economy are in any way competitive with each other. I believe, as most people do, that prices are administered, but they are not at that lower level. Ask the small clothier what kind of competition there is between him and The Bay, Woodward's or Eaton's. They can buy their products at massive discount prices. The small entrepreneur is stuck with buying them at a higher price and he has to give superlative service in order to compete with mass merchandising techniques.
We need, of course, low and middle income tax cuts. We need the employment tax credit that has come up and been suggested in this House many times. But what we need most of all, and this is really where I began these remarks, is an industrial strategy. An essential and vital part of that strategy is change in the financial institutions of Canada to make them competitive, change to make them effective and to put money where it is socially desirable. In Canada today, if you are not talking about creating public employment, the small,

January 23, 1978

independently owned Canadian business is where loans should go. That is not happening. We have not had an industrial strategy. The failure of this government to process banking changes now rather than the old delay, delay, delay gives the Canadian people, certainly my constitutuents, no reason whatsoever to have any confidence that this government understands anything about improving the economy and solving the massive unemployment that we face.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, this government has always prided itself on bringing forward progressive legislation. This is the supreme example of their progressive legislation-progressing the bill forward one year because they do not have the legislation ready.
I remember just a few weeks ago when we were debating the income tax bill the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) sat here and harangued the opposition time and again because we were slowing down debate, because we were slowing down legislation when there was so much the government wanted to do. We were impeding all that progress which they had in mind. That was in the middle of December.
One would think with that kind of comment coming from the Minister of Finance that they had a series of bills ready to go and that as soon as we were past that income tax bill there would be another measure ready to work on. Here is a bill that is overdue a year or more. It is not only overdue in terms of the government calendar-because the white paper came out approximately twelve months ago-but it is overdue as well in terms of the needs of the country. Yet the government is sitting on its hands. I suppose the reason might be that some of the members of the banking committee of the other place, which the member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) has talked about, have been running scared of the attitudes toward this legislation and they want it stopped for as long as possible. At any rate, they are not ready to progress as they ought to be. I can imagine that a week or two from now we are going to hear howls from the various ministers saying that we are slowing down legislation.
I know the banks in Canada have enjoyed a reputation for being strong financial institutions. I think they have prided themselves on the fact that during the great depression in the 1930s there was not one bank in Canada that went belly-up. That provides security for the money lenders in Canada. I remember also that while the banks remained very secure during the 1930s, the farmers did not, and the small businessmen did not. There were all kinds of foreclosures all across Saskatchewan where we were living at that time. There were people just walking away from their farms, leaving them and allowing the banks to inherit them. An uncle of mine who had a good farm in central Saskatchewan with excellent farm buildings and a fairly new house sold his whole farming operation for $1 in 1939 and let someone else take over the mortgage. The banks did fairly well in the 1930s and did not feel too much pain.
Whilst we do need that kind of security and stability in our country, we also need some competition in the money market. I took my university undergraduate and graduate training in
Bank Act
the United States, and spending seven years in the United States allowed me to look a little bit at the way the lending institutions operate in that country. In the 1930s we in Canada looked with pride at our record compared to the number of bank failures in the United States. You could drive down some of the streets in Chicago and see some of the old bank buildings that were used as banks previously and then folded in 1933 because Mr. Roosevelt closed them. Their security was not very good. In the 1930s they corrected that; they provided insurance for their depositors. What we need is a system similar to the kind they have in the United States.
I spoke to an attorney in Washington, D.C. this afternoon. He specializes in banking and he told me that in the United States there are 14,000 banks; 6,000 national banks, which would be similar to our banks here in Canada, and 8,000 state banks. The national banks have approximately 60 per cent of the assets in the United States, and the state banks have the other 40 per cent, in addition to the savings and loans associations that are scattered all across the United States. If you go to any bank in any city in any state, you find there is some competition.
One of my constituents is building a small chain of retail outlets. They are not very grandiose. They serve the public very well. He is an aggressive salesman. He is trying to establish a new business. He is providing entrepreneurial leadership to some people who want to invest. He is providing employment that was not there before.
When this constituent wants to open a new store, even though he has a record of success he has to go to the bank and prove to that banker that he does not need the money before he has enough security to open another branch. He has to prove that he does not need the money before he can get it.
He decided to open another branch in the city of Bellingham. As soon as he walked across the border, he had two or three banks begging him for the business. I say to myself, what is going on? Here is a fellow, unknown in the state of Washington, who the banks want to serve. They are competing for the opportunity to serve him. However, in British Columbia they look the other way. They thumb their nose at him.
Something is wrong with our system when our Canadian institutions do not want to help Canadian entrepreneurs, when the same Canadian entrepreneurs can go to the United States and get money at just about any lending institution they walk into. Not only that, they can get the money at about 50 per cent less cost than here in Canada. In Canada they must pay 12 per cent or 13 per cent for their line of credit while there they can pick it up at 8 per cent. No wonder business is leaving Canada and going to the United States.
If one of this government's sins has been control of the money supply by printing too much of it, the other one has been allowing the institutions to be so tight-fisted in their policies that they have controlled the money supply in that

January 23, 1978
Bank Act
way. They have not allowed an equal distribution across the country of opportunity in entrepreneurial business.
Looking again at the system in the United States, you can go into a city bank or a state bank and you know that that private institution is indigenous to that particular area. You can rest assured that the president, chairman and directors of the board of that bank are from that community. They all live there and have their roots there. They want business to succeed in that community. They approach the businessman from an entirely different perspective from the banker here in Canada.
A lot of local bank managers would love to do something for the local businessman, but their hands are tied. The local bank manager has a limit of $50,000 he can lend the businessman. If the required loan is more than that, he must get approval from the district office. If the amount is too large, it goes from the district office to the head office. Where is the head office located? It happens to be in Toronto. They really care about White Rock, Langley or Cloverdale, don't they? Where are they? They could not care less about the prosperity of that particular community they are supposed to be serving.
A bank manager lives in a community. He has his roots there. He would love to do something for a businessman but he cannot because his head office stops him. In addition, often the manager is rotated from one place to another. By the time he barely gets his roots into one community, he is transferred to another branch in another community. He may never get his roots down the way he would like.
This government, with great temerity, is recognizing that the economic base is shifting from what has traditionally been central Canada and is moving westward. The other day the mayor of Winnipeg said that the financial base was moving to Winnipeg. That is the geographic centre of Canada. Certainly the economic base is gravitating toward Alberta and British Columbia. Maybe it is time we had some revisions to the Bank Act that allowed regional interests to express themselves in the financial community.
About ten years ago the then premier of British Columbia, W. A. C. Bennett, came forward with a budget and made a speech in the legislature of British Columbia. He proposed a Bank of British Columbia. I still remember the guffaws and shouts of horror across Canada that the premier of British Columbia would have the temerity to suggest that we ought to have a Bank of British Columbia. It was as though that was some kind of financial heresy. What is wrong with having a Bank of British Columbia that is uniquely British Columbian, that sees as its responsibility the growth of British Columbia, that is sensitive to the needs of that community, that draws on the resources of the people in that community and draws all its personnel from the community to man that bank? What is wrong with that?
It still strikes me with some kind of surprise the chagrin he had to face from the financial community across Canada for even suggesting there ought to be a local bank in British Columbia. By the time that idea got combed through the
[Mr. Friesen.J
financial brains of central Canada, it was thoroughly diluted. However, that is the direction we will have to go.
We must come to grips with the need for regional expression of the financial needs of the people in a banking organization, and the investment of the funds of that banking organization to meet the needs of that community. We can no longer afford the days when a farmer, who is a small businessman, walks into a bank and borrows money for the intervening months until his crop comes in, leaving that bank thinking that the bank manager has done him a favour, while he pays 13 per cent interest on the note. The bank is operating a service for these people.
If we want to stimulate our economy and stimulate small business in our country, we must look upon the small businessman as a friend, not as a potential liability. With 60 per cent of the work force in this country employed in small business, we have to realize that these people are the backbone of our country and that they have to be served.
This government's idea of progressive legislation is to postpone for one year legislation we ought to be dealing with today. That is its idea of progressiveness. I say shame for being so slow in keeping its legislative program going that we cannot even deal with issues that ought to be dealt with today to make sure that we have a healthy and thriving economy. It is time we got this legislation moving, so that the people across Canada who are most affected by this restrictive legislation can get the service they deserve and we can get the people of this country working in the way they want to be working.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this measure to extend the Bank Act; the request for extended time in which to consider the revision of the Bank Act is an indication of the government's lack of ability and its failure to deal successfully with the economic situation. We are obviously facing an unsettling and uncertain period economically, and while not all the problems are domestic in origin, a great many of them have certainly been caused by the ineptitude of hon. gentlemen opposite and by the failure of the administration to deal with the financial woes of the country.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is rarely in the House these days. He goes about the country like an optimistic choirboy telling people how the country is going to grow. But how can it grow when our principal trading partners, the United States, Western Europe and Japan, are all reporting a low level of activity and show little possibility of doing better in the coming year? Surely the minister's statements must be taken with a considerable measure of salt. The outlook for the United States continues to be far from cheerful, only a low level of economic activity being predicted.
Revision of the Bank Act is long overdue. Parliament has to deal with the problems presented by the so-called near-banks, and a situation in which Canadian banks feel they are handicapped when competing with foreign-based banks because of the way in which the regulations presently operate. Then there
January 23, 1978

are a number of internal banking issues; for example, what should be done about the rapid increase in the financial muscle of the credit unions. The success of the unions is to be applauded, but it makes sense that the regulations and restrictions affecting financial institutions should be of a reasonable nature and applied with reasonable fairness to all.
While the government delays legislation to revise the Bank Act, Canadian banks are going ahead with participation in leasing and factoring, which means managing companies for a fee. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and the Banque Provinciale du Canada have established wholly-owned leasing subsidiaries, and the Royal Bank of Canada has close to 100 per cent interest in an established leasing company. In banking circles it was felt the revised act would allow the banks to become direct participants in leasing and factoring. It would seem Ottawa has already given tacit approval to the banks to engage in these activities.
This is not a good situation. It might well be an advantage to the economy that banks should become involved in leasing and factoring, but as the law presently stands they may not engage in such activities though they may invest in a portion of the equity of such companies. If the government intends to allow leasing and factoring on the part of the banks, the whole question should be discussed in this chamber as soon as possible. If the banks have received some sort of assurance from the government that their activities in connection with leasing and factoring will be legitimized within a few years, we should know about it. A tacit understanding that legislation will eventually be changed to suit the needs of the banks seems to be both unwise and undemocratic. If parliament is to exercise any influence upon what is to happen, it is time the legislation was brought forward.
That the government has already acquiesced in the situation appears to be substantiated by the fact that the Inspector-General, Mr. William Kennett, has already given permission for several banks to assume 100 per cent ownership of leasing and factoring establishment. If the new Bank Act does not permit leasing or factoring there will certainly be major financial changes forthcoming. All the banks are watching to see whether complete ownership of a leasing company allows better penetration of the market. In fact, there does not really seem to be much difference between leasing and factoring; this aspect of the situation will not be clarified for some time to come.
No discussion of the Bank Act would be complete without some general reference to the financial institutions of our country. The recent controversy as to whether Sun Life should move its head office out of Montreal has directed public attention upon our financial institutions. The Sun Life affair, against the background of other unsettling events in this country and abroad, has brought into question the strength and reliability of many of our financial institutions. We should not lose sight of the fact that Sun Life is the seventh largest corporation in Canada.
The question which has attracted such attention is whether or not a corporation has the right to move its offices and its
Bank Act
place of work in accordance with the best interests of its shareholders-the mutual policyholders, in the case of Sun Life. Western Canadians certainly applaud a move of the head offices of many of our institutions out of Montreal because ever since the days of the Northwest Fur Trading Company the west has been at a disadvantage; so many financial and industrial corporations were based in Montreal.
One need only look at the performance of CNR and Air Canada to realize how poorly institutions with head offices in Montreal serve western Canada even though they may be serving eastern Canada adequately. But when it comes to private corporations the government should at least refrain from coercing them to remain in an environment where they cannot do the best for their shareholders. It is often said that corporations should be aware of what is in the national interest. In the case of Sun Life specifically, the projected move should not be made, on the ground that it would not be good for national unity. But this begs the question. Sun Life is a mutual company and its policyholders are also the shareholders. A policyholder in western Canada should surely have the right to make his voice heard if he feels the company would operate better in some other part of the country than at its present headquarters; and the directors surely have the right to move the company in accordance with the desire of its policyholders.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that head offices are not moved easily. Knowing the directors of Sun Life, one realizes they would probably be most reluctant, personally to leave a city in which the company has been domiciled for a century or more. Incidentally, the suggestion has been made that Readers' Digest, which the government tried hard to move out of the country, may also move out of the Montreal area.
The language issue is a practical one. Statistics show that some 80 per cent of the financial operations of Montreal-based companies are carried on with English-speaking Canada or the United States. To conduct such a large portion of business in the other official language would undoubtedly put Sun Life at a serious disadvantage. For instance, it would make little sense to have a Sun Life policy written in Manitoba brought to Montreal and translated into French so that company employees could deal with it and then attempt to recommunicate with the Manitoba policyholder in their official language.
The attempt by the government to lean on Sun Life lends no strength, in the long run, to the movement for unity. It amounts to an attempt to force the company to do business under a set of conditions which it may find innappropriate; it might not be able to cope with such an environment and in the long run the policyholders are the losers. Should the savings of policyholders throughout the rest of Canada be poorly handled because of a government decree?
Some have suggested that Sun Life should be nationalized. I would remind hon. members that a mutual company, widely owned by many individuals, is very close to a co-operative. I cannot help thinking that many policyholders in the company will become uneasy about their savings as, indeed many Canadian investors are now starting to worry.

Bank Act
The failure of the government to deal with the Bank Act shows the low priority the government puts on our financial stability. It is suggested that the Sun Life confrontation with the Parti Quebecois in Quebec city has probably halted any early accessibility to markets there. Financial experts predict that Quebec may face additional problems in raising money in the European dollar markets. The New York market has already put premium prices on bonds from that province, and many traditional investors are staying clear of Quebec bonds.
The problem not only reflects on Montreal, it also reflects on the whole of this country, and it is certainly time this government faced up to these problems.One of the ways in which the government could help is to bring forward the amendments to the Bank Act so there can be a thorough discussion of the problems facing this country, and particularly its financial institutions.


Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, let me inform the minister from Outremont that I am going to speak about women.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Something you don't know anything about, Mr. Lalonde.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, how that brings the other side to life. When I first came to parliament one of the first question I asked was when the Bank Act was to be reviewed. With my experience in the business community one area to which I felt I could perhaps bring some fresh light in parliament was in the area of the banking system of this country.
There are three areas in which I should like to see changes. The first is in the attitude, that has been very eloquently spoken about tonight, toward the small and owner-managed businesses in this country, where there needs to be a fresh and new approach. If 90 per cent of our small businesses employ less than 50 per cent of those employed, just think of what could happen if there was a fresh and enthusiastic response from the banking community toward those companies.
I should like also to speak of two other aspects of this situation, the first being the banking community's discrimination against women. The other, which disturbs me as well, is the fact that the banks in this country operate in very tall office blocks or glass houses far from the real world. For example, even our Department of Finance has to live in a rarified atmosphere 30 storeys up. We have this incredible glass house across the way. There is also that almost obscene situation in Toronto where all our banking establishments are bent on seeing which can build the tallest glass house.
What this country needs is a new attitude in the banking community. It does not need to go up. What the banking community needs to do is to spread out across this country and realize there are changes required and a vitality to be stimulat-

ed. The preoccupation of the banking community to build banking towers is just a disgrace.
This Bank Act review could do a great deal toward bringing a new economic era to this country if we had the time to talk about it. What sectors and what regions need to be provided for and promoted? Just think of what effects the provision of capital could have on the socioeconomic life of Canadians. How is money to be handled in the future by the banks as business transactions and as savings? There should be a fresh approach toward savings in this country and how our banks should operate in a post-industrialized society. We could have had such a fresh and good time in this parliament had we been able to examine these things.
One lesson I learned, and about which I tell school children when I speak to them about parliament, is the lesson I learned while sitting in that back bench last year. In that small corner in which I sat there were people from the mountains of British Columbia, from the tobacco farms of Ontario, from the ranching country of Saskatchewan; and next to me sat my two NDP colleagues, one from Vancouver and the other from Nickel Belt. What I learned sitting in that corner-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You must have learned a lot.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Yes, I did learn a lot and I am very grateful. What I did learn was that in this House of Commons we speak for and understand all the constituencies in this country. Instead of the Bank Act being talked about in those ivory towers 30 storeys up, it should be brought here where people who know what is going on in this country might have some input.
Let me speak especially about the banking world and what is happening in that regard to women. We might have had meaningful discussions about discrimination in the financial community toward women. There is a great need to re-examine this whole area. In the past ten years many important changes have taken place in Canada, and this may have been one of the great social revolutions so far as women are concerned.
There are significantly more women seeking credit today, and this reflects the fact that more and more women are employed outside the home. We have taken initial steps to protect women against discrimination in the credit field, but the guidelines are voluntary and the credit situation is still unfair. Women's rights to equal access to credit have been denied through misconceptions regarding women's creditworthiness.
In the past when banks were rapidly expanding their share of the personal credit market some personal loans officers were, to use the banks' terms, a little over-cautious in granting credit. That is an understatement. Until 1968 the National Housing Act specified that when a financial institution was calculating how large a mortgage a family could handle it could only include 50 per cent of the wife's income in the total family income. These regulations were changed to remove the implication that the husband was the chief breadwinner, making it possible for the financial institutions to include any or all of the spouse's income in calculating a loan.
January 23, 1978

In 1971 additional changes stipulated that an applicant for an NHA mortgage could not be discriminated against on the basis of sex or marital status. It is fine to introduce guidelines and regulations, but we cannot ignore the fact that a vastly improved credit situation is still hiding great inequalities. Married women with incomes of their own are still being asked to provide information about their husbands' income on credit applications. It is still true that a newly separated, divorced or widowed woman does not enjoy equal opportunity for credit. In many cases such a woman will find that she has no credit identity separate from her husband's.
The two great bastions of discrimination against women are still senior sections of the federal government and the financial community. The minister from Outremont says he has been doing a great deal about this, but the 1976 statistics show that 70 per cent of all women in the federal service make less than $10,000 a year, while only 20 per cent of men earn less than $10,000 per year. Only 1 per cent of senior management jobs are held by women. I shudder to think what the statistics are in respect of the financial community, but those are the government's own statistics.
If women are to play a more important role in the business community, breakthroughs must come in two key areas, opportunities and access to capital. The same banks which are making strides in promoting women to positions of authority are refusing other women business loans. In my experience a woman president of a company was told that, had she been a man, her loan would have been twice as great. Many bank managers still adopt a negative attitude toward women borrowers. When asked for a business loan, the bank manager said: "Why does a nice little girl like you want to go into business?" That is another story which indicates that a bit of change is needed in the financial community.
An MBA student graduated from university last summer. He was employed in a local bank. He was told to make certain he opened a bank account in a neighbouring bank, because the bank did not want other women working in the bank to know what he was receiving. He has since left that bank.
The requirement that a husband sign a contract made by his wife for credit or a loan, and the issuance of credit cards only to a husband, are two practices which women find unsatisfactory and humiliating. Such policies presume that a married woman will have no income of her own. With the number of women now in the working force, this is no longer a valid assumption.
What share have women in high level decision-making in our corporations? Almost none. Women hold less than 1 per cent of the top corporate positions. The shortage of women is most marked in the fields of finance, mining and utilities. In the early 1970s the chartered banks had one woman director and no female corporate officer. In finance, trust, loans and insurance companies there were four women directors out of
Bank Act
697 and one female corporate officer out of 73. I think that is a great shame. Our women are qualified and well educated but they are not being afforded an opportunity to serve this nation. One would think that the federal government, after the great year of the women, would have seen to it that there were changes in our Crown corporations.
Recently I picked up the annual report of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and to my utter horror discovered there was not one woman director in that institution. I hope I have rectified the situation by submitting within 24 hours a list of capable women able to sit on the board of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet).


An hon. Member:: But were they Liberals?


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: I was very careful to make certain that half the list contained names of women who were Liberal.
I notice the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde) is not listening to what I am saying. The odds against a nonCanadian getting on a Canadian board of directors are six to one. The odds against a woman getting on a Canadian board of directors are 104 to one, in spite of the fact that 35 per cent of company shares usually are owned by women. It was Stephen Leacock who said: "When I go into a bank I get rattled." It might well not have been Leacock who said that but most Canadian women who seek credit in our banks. Of course, it was a wise woman who said it is a terribly difficult task being a woman, since it consists of dealing principally with men.
I am sorry we did not have an opportunity to bring before committee the many, many briefs from women who believe they should participate in the financial concerns of this country.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) saw fit to interject some remarks in this debate this afternoon, although he was not here when the bill was introduced. When the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) was speaking, the minister started belabouring him about certain facts. This was refreshing because we have not seen the minister for some time. One of the last times the minister appeared in Hansard was on December 7, 1977, when he was asked the following question by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark):
Will the minister tell the House when he will be in a position to bring to parliament a specific proposal to embody that employment tax credit, when will it be before the House, and will we have it this month, as the Prime Minister promised?
As reported at page 1634 of Hansard, the minister replied as follows:
I will be able to come to the House with a statement seven days after Bill C-l 1 is passed.
Bill C-ll was passed on December 13, 1977. Seven days later would have been December 20, 1977. We have not heard his statement as yet. I will be patient. After all, we have waited 11 years in order to have another look at the Bank Act.

January 23, 1978
Bank Act
I suppose we can wait another day or so for the statement which the Minister of Finance promised in December.
This act was last in front of the House 11 years ago when it was revised. The revision provided that it be reviewed in ten years. One would think the government would consider ten years' notice to be sufficient, but it was unable to get ready a bill in that time. The government required another year, and today it has indicated that it needs yet another year. It is simply a measure of the incompetence of the minister and his staff when they cannot prepare a bill to review the Bank Act after approximately 11 years' notice.
I should like to spend a moment talking about the peculiarity of our banking system. I support the reference of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) to the Bank of British Columbia, and the help it has been to the business community having a bank with local interest. I was involved with a problem in my constituency when the Ogden Point pier burned down last August. We set up a committee of public servants, politicians and interested citizens in order to figure out a manner in which to reconstruct the docks, and particularly the warehouse on the docks, so that the business of loading and unloading pulp and paper could resume.
One innovation in the last ten years has been the quasi-bank supported by the federal government. I am referring to the Federal Business Development Bank and the Export Development Bank. These are not banks covered by the Bank Act, but they pass themselves off as banks in any event. The subject of our discussions at that time was how we could finance the reconstruction of the warehouse and the docks in Victoria. The cost was to be approximately $1.5 million. The federal government was unable to promise any help whatsoever, but a representative of the British Columbia Development Bank, when he was asked if he would back a loan to enable construction to go ahead, said he would.
I should like to refer to what has been happening in Cana-dair with respect to the LearStar aircraft program by referring to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal, dated February 16, 1977. In part it reads as follows:
On December 2 of last year-
That would be December 2, 1976.
-Hugh Poulin, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce Minister Jean Chretien, stated that Canadair estimates it will have to borrow up to $128 million in 1979 for the LearStar program.
Of this amount, he said, $128 million is to be provided by a consortium of two Canadian banks, and Ottawa will guarantee $50 million of the loan while Quebec will guarantee a further $20 million, the balance to be secured by a pledge of Canadair's assets.
The balance would be something in the neighbourhood of $58 million. The assets of Canadair are owned 100 per cent by the government. They were bought for $30 million. Another $8 million was dedicated when Canadair and the federal government got caught in the wrong in a suit laid against them by Northrop aircraft for the mishandling of its contract with them. The government saw fit to divert this $8 million to Canadair and claimed to be increasing its equity in a firm which was already owned 100 per cent by the government.

Surely the federal government is the only government in the world which owns 122 per cent of a firm. However, they will pledge these Canadair assets to cover the money that the banks are not going to cover.
This was the story of the Canadian banks: Two Canadian banks were supposed to form a consortium to provide that money. It was a rather familiar tale with this company because, hon. members will recall, there was supposed to be a Canadian consortium to find money for the LRPA contract. Now we find quite a different story in the January 6, 1978 issue of the Globe and Mail which stated:
The federal government has approved a proposal by Canadair Limited in Montreal, which is wholly owned by the government to raise $70 million (U.S.) in five year promissory notes in international capital markets for use in financing the development and production of the CL600 Challenger executive jet in Canada.
The international financing is to be arranged by Merrill Lynch International and Co., an affiliate of Royal Securities Ltd., of Toronto ...
At the same time, industry, trade and commerce minister Jack Horner has agreed to several undertakings related to the $70 million financing by Merill Lynch, including an agreement that if cost overruns occur in connection with the Challenger program, he will seek parliamentary authority for whatever additional funds are needed to permit Canadair to meet such unforeseen expenditures.
I suspect those unforeseen expenditures will arise as certainly as the sun will rise tomorrow. The Globe and Mail article goes on:
The government also agreed, as long as any of the $70 million in promissory notes is still outstanding, not to sell or transfer its ownership in Canadair or change its shares in such a way that the government's voting rights associated with its Canadair shares are reduced to less than 66.6 per cent or that the government no longer elects all of the members of Canadair's board of directors.
Let me point out two things. To date the directors on the Canadair board elected by the government are all senior civil servants, the majority of whom come from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Ottawa owns 100 per cent of the common and preferred shares in Canadair and they have guaranteed not to sell them. That is very strange when you consider the original reasons for their purchase of Canadair, which was to put Canadair together with the de Havilland company in Toronto to form a viable aerospace industry which would be attractive for some private company to buy. Now there is no longer any talk of putting together a viable package and selling the industry. They are saying now that they promise not to sell and that they remain committed to cover any overrun cost which might occur in the production and sale of LearStar jets.
I find that the banks of Canada are put in this position on a fairly regular basis by this government, which is the sole organization left in this country that can raise and control large amounts of capital. It is no wonder that banks are confused, and with the management this government provides, it is no wonder that banks are very hesitant to commit their own funds, particularly Canadian banks which know this government better than American banks do, although American banks have locked them into a pretty tough contract in order to provide another $70 million for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to get his favourite plane flying.
January 23, 1978

I have nothing further to add, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that the government is too incompetent to bring in this bank bill of which they have had 11 years' notice. I trust the next government will be more competent. I want to point out that I think the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) is in a very poor position to predict what will happen at the end of five years to these promissory notes which they are selling in the United States, backed by the government. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce says he wishes to be remembered as a great friend of business, but he has about as much chance of being remembered as a friend of business as Benedict Arnold had of being remembered as the conqueror of Ticonderoga.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill because I think it is important. It indicates one of the weaknesses of this government in relation to the Bank Act, a weakness that has existed for a number of years. When the Bank Act was originally passed, we were to have a revision of the act every ten years. This has been delayed over a period of years now until one of these days we will miss the ten year period and a decade will have gone by with no revision. Although the government is now asking in this bill for the revision to be held over and for parliament to free the government of the responsibility to make changes that are required by law, we are actually talking about changes that should have taken place in 1970, and this is 1978. So we have had considerable slippage in following the provisions of the act for some time. I think one of the reasons for this is that the government is too busy worrying about a number of other problems.
It was interesting to note that the financial institutions are very influential, not only here but in other countries. I was particularly interested in some of the remarks that were made about the changes contemplated by Sun Life in its proposed move from Montreal because of certain conditions for which this government has been responsible for the last two or three years. Perhaps that is why the white paper with which we were presented has never been proceeded with.
It is interesting to note that there are a number of banks in this country which, as hon. members have said, are protected in such a way that they are guaranteed their savings, so that for many years no bank has gone bankrupt in this country. This is in contrast with the hundreds of thousands of banks operating in the United States which collapsed during the depression years. One of the reasons that Canadian banks are not in difficulty is the interrelationship between the Government of Canada and its banking institutions which allows the government to decide what the savings should be, what the margins of the banks should be and what banks may be developed. That control seems to me to have worked very well in protecting the banks but it has not always worked so well in protecting the public.
Much of our trouble in this country stems from the fact that while Canadians have much money in savings, in most instances they are reluctant to put that money into the development of our country, and particularly into the social
Bank Act
capital of our nation. When a municipality wants to raise money, it calls on the suitcase bankers to lend much of it. Suitcase bankers are not necessarily bad bankers. As was pointed out recently by one of my colleagues, very seldom is there a foreclosure or a mistake made by a U.S. suitcase banker who comes to this country, makes large loans and returns home, without having run any establishment in this country. We have been very particular in our relations with them. When a different government is formed, it does not matter in what province, a trip is always made to New York- although it does not always happen as fast as has been the case in the past year-to find out whether or not Wall Street will back the debentures or the requirements of the province. The state of the nation has had something to do with their ability to maintain or establish credit ratings which are so important to these suitcase bankers.
It behooves us to study banking in this country. Hon. members are aware that a finance company once came before parliament asking for permission to establish a bank under rules and regulations totally different from those in the present Bank Act. That request was made because the Bank Act was being held up, and it has been held up for approximately three years. Parliament had to consider that application and some changes in the Bank Act which were asked for by that finance company. The government promised that finance company that Bank Act legislation would pass two years ago. The government also promised it would pass last year. Through the efforts of some members of the other place, some of us were convinced that because the Bank Act legislation was going to meet the requirements of the co-operative movement, finance companies, trust companies and others who had gone part way into the banking structure, the requested legislation should be passed, and we now have another bank operating under conditions which are different from those under which other chartered banks operate. This new bank is allowed to exist pursuant to legislation which is anticipated but which has not been passed and may not be passed for a number of years. That bank now operates and has advantages which in my opinion are not available to other banks.
Small community development projects today are at the mercy of ordinary banks. We set up the Federal Business Development Bank, the old industrial development bank. It is supposed to be a bank of last resort, but people find that instead of making the concessions they have to make to the FBDB they might as well make them to ordinary banks.
There are some changes which should be made. We should be discussing the role of trust companies and co-operatives through their credit union and caisse populaire structure. We should be talking about the role of these institutions and whether it should be mandatory, as I presume is the case in the province of Quebec today, that regional consideration be given, and whether the same rules should necessarily apply in natural resource development areas as in the housing industry and in certain small businesses. Perhaps different rules should apply for exploration in the Arctic. There may be a strong argument

January 23, 1978
Bank Act
that we need to revise the Bank Act to take into consideration the diverse needs of communities.
It has always seemed odd-and this point has been dealt with many times by my colleagues in the Social Credit party-that Canada is not a leader in the field of lending institutions. We are certainly not, however, in the unenviable position of the United States where banks are asked to lend large sums of money to the international community, particularly developing countries. Ten years ago it was felt that if money was lent to those countries, those countries would develop their own resources and eventually become markets. In fact, that has not happened, and thus the International Monetary Fund finds itself in a very serious position. Although money was lent, the IMF has been unable to collect much of what is owing by the third world. Therefore the banking industry, particularly in the United States, is in great difficulty.
I am sure some Canadian banks are also suffering as a result of this, but they have not made loans of that kind to municipalities in Canada which desperately need capital to develop such things as educational systems or to provide sewers and water and other services. These are long-term projects, and they would be secure investments as long as the country remains secure.
Banks could have handled the financing of these kinds of projects. Interest rates could have been much lower; volumes would have been large. The first thing the newly elected premier of the province of Quebec did was go to Wall Street to see what terms he could obtain for borrowing for long-term development. That was also done by the premier of Saskatchewan. This would not be surprising if banking institutions in Canada were weak, but we have more savings per capita than any other country in the world. I was very amused to learn not long ago that we have $282 billion in insurance savings. If we have that amount lying around, we should not really need to go to another country to borrow money. Our banking structure should be such that through the Bank of Canada we could direct banks toward the type of lending in which they should be involved.
In revising the Bank Act we should consider two other matters which are closely connected. One of these has caused the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to announce his retirement at the end of this parliament; that is, our competition legislation. That legislation is obviously a financial instrument, and it should be overhauled in such a way that a much more people-oriented direction could be taken so that not only companies but the public as well could be protected. Companies are certainly already well protected. If a company is bothered by competition, it can buy out that competition. The public must also be protected by our competition legislation, and money must be made available so that there can be competition.
My colleague spoke about the free enterprise system. He referred to the little corner hot dog stand and McDonald's sitting side by side. We say that this is a country of unlimited free enterprise where the little person can compete with

McDonald's. However, that is not the case at the bank, and if it is not the case at the bank, there really is no competition at all. There is no competition at the wholesalers, and if a small operation cannot get started with a loan bearing rates and conditions comparable to that enjoyed by McDonald's, that is not competition either.
A great deal of abuse has taken place with regard to bankruptcy, and this abuse has been suffered not so much by banks and financial institutions as by the public. Is there a constituency held by any hon. member in this House which has not experienced the bankruptcy of dozens of little companies? Secured creditors get their money when bankruptcies occur. Workers and suppliers of services and goods do not get any money. The only ones who get any money are financial institutions, and they do pretty well. Surely we must take these factors into consideration when dealing with the Bank Act. If we do not there will be a great deal of distrust resulting from the disparity that exists between large and small borrowers. Although the banks are quite happy to have small borrowers deposit their money, they are not so happy when they apply for loans.
The banking institutions have now entered the field of short term credit. I think there are few people who have not been offered some type of short term credit that will eventually end up in an Econocard or some such thing issued by a bank. I suggest there will be no such thing as money changing hands. The bank will get a note of your credits and deposits and will deal with withdrawals and other services by computer.
Few people who use banks today are unaware of the changes that have taken place in the banking community. I recently spoke to two bank managers from a community other than my own. It was interesting to hear them speak of a new problem: apparently the banks are being unionized. One mentioned that an employee had been made chief accountant, which was a new title. He did not get any more money, just the title. Mr. Speaker, what they are trying to do is put as many people as they can into management by giving them a title so that they will not be able to join a union. People in the banking world have no particular faith in their institutions and are well aware of how poorly many people are being treated.
I think it is high time we reviewed the Bank Act. Legislation should not be introduced the day before an election-which will probably take place in 1979-so that we will just get around at the last moment to putting in a ten-year change as a concession in order to get some thing done. Changing the Bank Act should involve all constituents of the banking community-trust companies, loan companies, the co-operative movement, caisses populaires and credit unions. Perhaps we should look at this question before we expand the activities of banks. I have always found banks to be identical, whether the Banque Canadienne Nationale or the Royal Bank.
If you approach several banks with a proposition you will likely get the same answer from them all; one will not take a chance any more than the other. If you approach a credit
January 23, 1978

union it will probably consider your character, your past record, whether you get along with your spouse and some other questions that indicate whether you are likely to remain in the community. Then they will probably make you a loan. There is no competition in banking. We must consider whether we have too many banks already or whether we should promote all the near banks to the status of regular banks. We created a bank for the IAC and allowed special considerations to their directors which were not available to any other bank.
We should approach the other place to do a serious study with whatever independence they retain. The chairman of the banking committee in the other place, Senator Hayden, probably holds many directorships in banking institutions. My hon. friend says not. The last time I looked he had five or six directorships and is connected with many other financial institutions. That may not be a bad thing, of course, because it may give him an insight into the institutions that the rest of us do not have. I would find it a very difficult problem, however, if he were to exercise the jurisdiction he gets from his directorships when making decisions in the other place. He made them in the case of IAC and I suggest he may make them for other banking institutions. This is a problem we should look at before the provinces decide to set up their own banks or before cities like Toronto decide to set up banks to serve their own needs. This would only further fragment the banking community and its ability to raise large sums of money for the development of some of the important interests of the nation.
The government should stop worrying about Quebec and get on with running the country. I think it is a cop-out to put this Bank Act off for another year. If there is no election then they will put it off for a further year. There are very serious problems in the banking institutions of this country. They have the ability to extend credit where it sometimes should not be extended, and they have the ability to withhold credit in the areas of housing and community development where it should not be withheld.
I think it is a very serious matter to put off the decennial review of the Bank Act. Instead of reviewing it in 1970, we are postponing it until 1978. We may well lose ten years through this remission we are granting now.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to miss this opportunity during consideration of Bill C-16 to express once more my views about the Canadian monetary system which, in my opinion, ought to be modified. It should be amended so as to meet the needs of the population instead of being the master of the economic and financial situation in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I think we have often stated our position on that matter, that monetization of the nation's credit should be done through an institution exclusively owned by the state. I would not want someone to believe that I hold a grudge against bankers.
Certainly not; I respect them as human beings and I want them to do their job in our country, but I would like the
Bank Act
legislation under which they operate to be amended. The last time the Bank Act was revised, the Canadian parliament gave them more power. The interest ceiling was removed. They were given access to mortgage loans. While many industries are having great difficulty in surviving and saving their business because of competition from foreign products or on the international market, our banking institutions are making a lot of money because the legislation gives them special protection.
They never made as much profit as during the last few years when we have been plagued by serious inflation and high unemployment, which, far from decreasing, is going up according to the statistics, and it grieves us to repeat this. I would much prefer to be able to say this evening that the employment situation is improving in my constituency, that there are fewer unemployed, that more industries are being developed and can offer employment to the young people who graduate from our colleges, our CEGEPs, our universities and trade schools. I would much prefer to be able to say this, but because of somewhat peculiar circumstances, 1978 may be even worse than 1977. At the end of the year, if we look at the statements of chartered banks, we shall see once again that their profits have increased and that they have made more money while the other economic sectors are having an extremely difficult time.
Mr. Speaker, are we to believe that the government and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) are not aware of this? Is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) not aware of this? They are aware of this situation, but they are the lackeys of the financial powers, and the Prime Minister himself stated in 1977 that bankers were the worst complainers in Canada. It is because he is aware of the situation that he said this. He said that under his administration, the banks had made more profits than any other economic sector in Canada and that he was ashamed of this situation. Our right hon. Prime Minister said this. This was published in a magazine. All Canadians can read about that and I am sure that when the Prime Minister made that statement he knew what he was saying because he was acquainted with the facts.
Mr. Speaker, surely it does not rest with a single man to give up that authority or that constraint. It rests with Parliament and parliamentarians to help the government and the Minister of Finance to present legislation aimed at removing some powers from chartered banks and at amending section 72 of the Bank Act. I had hoped that during this session the government would introduce legislation to review entirely the Bank Act, but I realize that such is not the government intention. Bill C-16 is quite short since it is only two pages long.
In fact, there is only one clause, but a very important one, which further extends for months the supremacy of chartered banks on the minting of the nation's credit. I was discussing that matter with a former bank manager just before I came to the House and we were deploring the fact that such a section should give so much power to those financial institutions and that the Bank of Canada which is the bank of Canadians should have so little power compared with chartered banks.

January 23, 1978
Bank Act
We agreed that money is an instrument of exchange and measure of assets and that such an instrument should be totally under the authority of the government through the Bank of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, when it is suggested that Canada's money supply is created by the Bank of Canada, people are not being told the truth because of Canada's money supply which stands at about $100 billion the government of Canada through the Bank of Canada only created about 10 per cent of that. So who created the other 90 per cent of that money supply? Where does that money come from? Where does that money supply come from, if not through the creation of bank deposits made by chartered banks to their clients? And when their clients pay back the loans that were made to them through the creation of deposits, money is being destroyed. That is not the way it should be, Mr. Speaker. In this country that it not the way it should be if we really want to use our monetary system for the benefit of the people as a whole, the benefit of government and, as the hon. member who spoke before me suggested, provincial, municipal and school governments so those governments will be able to achieve objectives within their jurisdictions, provide people with services at decent costs, not being forced to pay back $5 for every $1.
That is the case now in this country, and I urge hon. members to consider the situation very seriously; I think I have spoken about this in the House then I quoted a very particular case when the federal government through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation made a loan-it made several but I am quoting a very particular case-to the Quebec Housing Corporation to build 30 housing units. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation after obtaining the necessary money from the government, money that it obtained from chartered banks, lent $537,863 to the province of Quebec. Mr. Bourassa, an economist premier, was not economical; he was a professional economist and, good boy that he was, he signed an agreement with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation promising to reimburse $57,000 yearly, for 50 years, that is $5 for each $1 borrowed.
Now, far be it from me to want to shock anyone in this House but, in the province of Quebec we are living under another government, another premier. Are things any different? Again, Mr. Speaker, big finance is running the show, dictating its will to the new government of Quebec, deciding what it must and must not do. In other words, the financiers control the credit of the nation, they order the governments around, what we call democratic governments. That is financial dictatorship in parliamentary democracy and the nation is its laughingstock. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation whatsoever to say that I shall vote against Bill C-16 because I did not really expect that we could deal in depth and completely with the Bank Act, to really improve it and assign the monetary system its real role while allowing chartered banks to serve the private sector and serve it well.

I am not criticizing the accounting system of the banks because it is excellent. They have remarkable officers and they know how to take advantage of a law which serves them well. I would like this act to be amended in such a way that we can be proud to say that in Canada we have an exemplary monetary system, a monetary system which serves the private sector well but which does not dominate the public sector that should be ruled by the representatives of the people.
If we are elected for something, let us prove it, reject Bill C-16 and require the government to get on as soon as possible with the study of legislation with a view to revising the Bank Act and at that time we will debate in an objective manner and bring forward the necessary amendments to this bill so that the Bank of Canada may truly become the bank of Canadians and that it may lend to the chartered banks the necessary credits in proportion to their needs to further the development of our country. This would bring order to our financial system; two separate sectors: the public sector would be financed by the institution of all Canadians and the private sector would be financed by private financial institutions. If we do not come to such a solution, I am convinced that within five, ten or 20 years Canada's debt which has doubled within the past eight years, the gross national debt which amounted to $43 billion in 1968 and which has risen to $86 billion in 1976 will not diminish in the coming years but rather increase. The servicing of the debt will also increase.
The government will either have to again borrow billions of dollars or increase its levies on Canadian taxpayers in order to pay the interest to those who control the minting of the credit in our country. At that time, we will realize that we are facing a tremendous national debt. According to accounting experts we are now indebting ourselves to the tune of $16,000 a minute. In the present budget, it is costing us more than $15 million a day just in interest on the Canadian public debt, and that excludes municipal or provincial debts.
Is that a good system? Let us keep it if it is any good. But then let us stop complaining and I am convinced that if we keep it, our private enterprise system, our capitalist system which should be the best in the world because it should be more likely to represent the aspirations of free men is going to crumble very quickly, because we have asked too much of it. If we refuse to bring about reforms, to correct our system which is increasingly degenerating, one of these days we will wake up to the realization that it is impossible to make this private enterprise system survive and we will then enter an era of dictatorship that nobody wanted in the first place but that we will be compelled to suffer because we will not have had the courage to take up to our responsibilities while it was still time.
This is why very briefly I wish to state again very clearly my position. I still think, like our party, that we should revamp our monetary system and make changes to it. Yet only parliament has authority on that matter and cabinet members, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) under the direction of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have the authority, according to our procedure, to present such a legislation. We
January 23, 1978

can talk about it and make representations but the final decision will be made by the members of cabinet. Then, if cabinet members bring the legislation that will correct the situation 1 shall be the first to say that owing to them, to the cabinet, to those men who had the guts to confront big finance, to put some order in, if we have good results, 1 shall recognize that owing to them we have at last a monetary system serving the Canadian people.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow afternoon pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 11.56 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

January 23, 1978


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
(Printed pursuant to order made Monday, December 5, 1977)

[Stage Direction]
IN THE MATTER OF an application for Judicial Review, pursuant to The Judicial Review Procedure Act, 1971, S.O. 1971, Chap. 48;
AND IN THE MATTER OF the Atomic Energy Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, Chap. A-19;
AND IN THE MATTER OF Regulations Respecting the Security of Uranium Information, S.O.R. 76-644;
BETWEEN:
JOE CLARK, SINCLAIR STEVENS, BILL KEMPLING, WALTER BAKER, JIM GILLIES and RON HUNTINGTON
Applicants
-and-
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent
EVANS, C.J.H.C.:-
This application is brought by Joe Clark and five other members of the federal Progressive Conservative party pursuant to s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, 1971, S.O. 1971, c. 48, for judicial review of the Uranium Information Security Regulations, SOR/76-644, promulgated pursuant to s. 9 of the Atomic Energy Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. A-19. Counsel for the applicants and the respondent submitted that this was a matter of some urgency and, consequently, I agreed to hear them on the merits and granted leave to proceed.
In the Notice of Motion, the applicants seek the following order:
1.	A declaration that the Uranium Information Security Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "The Regulations") do not prohibit the applicants from releasing any note, documents or material or communicating the contents thereof to their solicitors and counsel for the purpose of seeking legal advice and facilitating the conduct of any legal proceedings.
2.	A declaration that The Regulations do not prohibit the solicitors and counsel for the applicants to release or disclose any such documents in furtherance of the conduct or prosecution of any legal proceedings.
3.	A declaration that The Regulations do not prohibit the applicants or any member of the House of Commons from releasing or disclosing any such documents in the course and in furtherance of Parliamentary debate.
4.	A declaration that if the said Regulations do prohibit the release or disclosure referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 or 3 above, the said Regulations are ultra vires the Governor General in Council and therefore of no force and effect because:
i)	The Regulations contravene The Canadian Bill of Rights, 8-9 Eliz. II, Chap. 44 as amended, in that they abrogate, abridge or infringe freedom of speech and the applicants' right to security of person and enjoyment of property and their right not to be deprived thereof, except by due process of law;
ii)	The Regulations deprive the applicants of their right to counsel.
iii)	The Regulations abrogate, abridge and infringe the privileges, immunities and power of the applicants and other members of the Official Opposition as members of the House of Commons.
5.	A declaration that The Regulations are invalid because they are not authorized by the Atomic Energy Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, Chap. A-19.
6.	A declaration that The Regulations are invalid because they were not validly promulgated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Control Act.
7.	A declaration that The Regulations are invalid or are not yet in force by reason of the non-compliance with s. 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, 8-9 Eliz. II, Chap. 44, as amended.
At the hearing, counsel for the applicants stated that he did not propose to make submissions respecting grounds 6 or 7 and the application for a declaration based on grounds 6 or 7 is therefore denied.
At the outset a motion was brought on behalf of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association for leave to intervene amicus curiae. Despite the submissions of counsel for the Association, I denied the application on the grounds that the issues raised were fully covered in the facta filed by counsel and that submissions by the intervenor relative to the same issues would serve no useful purpose. Moreover, I did not consider it either necessary or proper to widen the issues which the parties proposed to present to the Court. Counsel for the intervenor conceded that there is no right of intervention and that the grant of such indulgence is within the discretion of the Court. Under the circumstances, I was not satisfied that this was an appropriate case for the intervention amicus curiae and exercised my discretion accordingly. Before proceeding to deal
January 23, 1978
[Stage Direction]
with the issues presented by the parties, however, I feel compelled to deal with the question of interventions amici curiae.
In the Supreme Court of Canada, provision is made in the Rules for interventions. Rule 60 states that:
(1)	Any person interested in an appeal between other parties may, by leave of the Court or a Judge, intervene therein upon such terms and conditions and with such rights and privileges as the Court or Judge may determine.
(2)	The costs of such intervention shall be paid by such party or parties as the Supreme Court shall order.
The intervention is by leave and is within the discretion of the Court. In Dr. Henry Morgentaler v. Her Majesty the Queen and A.G. Canada, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 616, the Court granted leave to six associations and heard submissions from each. The Court apparently was of the view that the submissions of each intervenor would serve a useful role in determining the controversial issues presented to the Court. (See also The Nova Scotia Board of Censors and A.G. Nova Scotia v. McNeil, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265.)
In England, intervention amicus curiae is granted primarily to government agents such as the Attorney-General or the Official Solicitor (see, for example, Morelle v. Wakeling, [1955] 2 Q.B. 379; for a discussion, see Alan Levy, "The Amicus Curiae", Chitty's Law Journal, March, 1972, pp. 94-95). J. M. L. Evans, Official Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England, in a Communication dated November 26, 1969, had this to say about the role of amicus curiae-.
It is ... a comparatively rare procedure and is usually invoked where it is considered by the Court that an important point of law is involved which the Court wishes fully argued and which is unlikely to be dealt with by the parties before it. I think it is practically unknown in my experience for any such procedure to be initiated by a bystander as indicated in these old works. (Levy, p. 95) (Emphasis added)
Where both sides are represented by able counsel and the issues are squarely put to the Court, interventions amicus curiae are not appropriate.
In Re Drummond Wren, [1945] 4 D.L.R. 674, Mackay, J. permitted intervention by the Canadian Jewish Congress. In that case, the applicant, who was the owner, sought to set aside a restrictive covenant which provided that the land was "not to be sold to Jews, or to persons of objectionable nationality". There was no respondent.
In Rex rel rose v. Marshall (1962), 48 M.P.R. 64 (Nfld. Dist.Ct.), Kent, D.C.J., dealt with the issue of whether certain publications were obscene. The distributors did not contest the seizure of the publications and did not make submissions at the show cause hearing. However, one of the publications was "Playboy" and counsel for Hugh M. Heffner, the publisher, sought to intervene as amicus curiae in order to argue that "Playboy" was not obscene. At pp. 66-67, Kent, D.C.J., stated:
At this time I did not see that Mr. Barry, appearing simply for and on behalf of Playboy and under that name on the record, had a right to be heard. However, in the particular circumstances of this case and the fact that I felt the hearing of all persons who might in any capacity properly be permitted to be heard before the Court, would be of assistance to the Court, particularly where there was no voice before the Court on behalf of the publications seized, I therefore told Mr. Barry that I would not permit him to be heard as representing a party to the action nor place him on the record as representing a party to the summons, but as a matter of indulgence I would hear him simply as "amicus Curiae". (Emphasis added) The distributors did not make any submission on the issue of obscenity and the trial judge considered that counsel for Playboy could assist the Court in determining that legal issue.
In Re Chateau-Gai Wines Ltd. and Attorney-General of Canada (1970), 14 D.L.R. (3d) 411, Jackett, P. dealt with an application in the Exchequer Court involving the Canada-France Trade Agreement Act, 1933. At pp. 412-3, Jackett, P. States that:
Before turning to a recital of such events, however, I should mention that, while the registrant, being a sovereign power, is not a party to this application, the Court did cause the proceedings to be brought to the attention of the Deputy Attorney-General of Canada with the suggestion that, as a matter of courtesy, they might be brought to the attention of the Government of the French Republic and that, while such action was taken more than two years before the commencement of the hearing of this application, neither the Government of the French Republic nor the Attorney-General of Canada had, prior thereto, intervened in the matter. However, counsel instructed by the Attorney-General of Canada did appear during the first part of the hearing as amici curiae and were very helpful to the Court on the issues upon which they undertook to assist the Court. Subsequently, after an adjournment, the Attorney-General of Canada was granted leave to appear as a party, and, as such a party, has opposed the application. (Emphasis added)
Given the circumstances in that case, the Attorney-General had a clear interest in seeking to uphold the provisions of the Agreement.
Subject to statutory or court-made rules, it is my view that interventions amici curiae should be restricted to those cases in which the Court is clearly in need of assistance because there is a failure to present the issues (as, for example, where one side of the argument has not been presented to the Court). Where the intervention would only serve to widen this lis between the parties or introduce a new cause of action, the intervention should not be allowed.
While it may have been preferable to have dealt with the application for intervention following the argument of counsel for the applicants, I concluded, in the present case, that the experience and competence of counsel for the applicants guar-
[Stage Direction]
January 23, 1978
anteed a complete canvas of the legal issues involved and that intervention was therefore not appropriate.
Although the issue of jurisdiction was not raised in either Statement, I put it to counsel that it may well be that the matter should have been brought in the Federal Court pursuant to s. 17 or s. 18 of the Federal Court Act, 1970-71-72 (Can), c. 1 (now R.S.C. 1970, c. 10 (2d Supp.) Counsel then made submissions on the question of jurisdiction and I reserved decision. However, I proceeded to hear counsel on the merits in order to facilitate the hearing of this matter and with the hope of preventing a multiplicity of proceedings.
Given the nature of this application, there are a number of considerations relating to jurisdiction. In the first place, the applicants challenge the validity of the Regulations. This challenge involves a consideration of the nature and extent of the powers of the Board under s. 9 of the Atomic Energy Control Act. Therefore, I must consider the effect of s. 18 of the Federal Court Act. Moreover, the applicants seek review of the approval of the Governor in Council. This involves a consideration of s. 17 of the Act. Finally, the applicants seek an interpretation of the application of the Regulations. This also involves a consideration of the ambit of s. 17.
Section 17(1) of the Federal Court Act provides:
The Trial Division has original jurisdiction in all cases where relief is claimed against the Crown and, except where otherwise provided, the Trial Division has exclusive original jurisdiction in all such cases. (Emphasis added) Section 2(m) reads:
'relief includes every species of relief whether by way of damages, payment of money, injunction, declaration, restitution ... or otherwise. (Emphasis added)
"Crown" is defined in s. 2 and meaning "Her Majesty in right of Canada". Counsel for the applicants strenuously argued that the application for a declaration was not "relief... claimed against the Crown". This argument has two aspects. The first is that Parliament, the Cabinet and the Atomic Energy Control Board do not come within the meaning of the word "Crown". The second aspect is that s. 17(1) is designed solely for tort and contract actions and similar proceedings.
The issue of jurisdiction is discussed by Donnelly, J., in Denison Mines Ltd. v. A.G. Canada, [1973] 1 O.R. 797, in which he dealt with an application for a declaration that the Atomic Energy Control Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 11 (now R.S.C. 1970, c. A-19) was ultra vires the Parliament of Canada. The issue of the Federal Court Act was raised and Donnelly, J., concluded at p. 802:
"It asks for a declaration that the Atomic Energy Control Act is ultra vires the Parliament of Canada. This is a matter directly affecting the Crown and its right to control atomic energy. Whether such an action could be heard in this Court before the passing of the Federal Court Act need not be decided as s. 17(1) of that Act gives the Trial Division of the Federal Court exclusive jurisdiction in all cases where relief is claimed against the
Crown including relief by way of declaration." (Emphasis added)
Donnelly, J., goes on to state at p. 804:
"Section 17(1) of the Federal Court Act when read with s. 2(m) is adequate to clothe the Trial Division of the Federal Court with exclusive jurisdiction where a declaration is sought in a matter that affects the Crown as is done here and to exclude this Court from entertaining this case." (Emphasis added)
When s. 17 and the definitions of "relief' and "Crown" in s. 2 and read together, they appear to oust the jurisdiction of this Court where an applicant directly challenges the validity of a federal statute by means of an application for a declaration. The approach taken in Denison Mines would also appear to be relevant to any attack on federal regulations and to any application for a declaration interpreting such regulations.
The decision in Denison Mines is criticized by Dale Gibson, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, in a note entitled "Constitutional Law-Power of Provincial Courts to Determine Constitutionality of Federal Legislation" in 54 C.B.R. 372-380. At p. 373, he states that:
Apart altogether from the constitutional implications, which will be discussed later, this decision is mistaken for several reasons. Section 17(1) applies only to cases where relief is claimed against the Crown, and the only claim involved in the Denison case was against the Attorney General of Canada. The mere fact that the outcome of the litigation might affect the Crown does not mean that relief is claimed against the Crown. Even if the court were right on that point it is difficult to see how Crown rights were involved in the case. The legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada were certainly involved, but it is one of the most fundamental principles of constitutional law that Parliament and the Crown are distinct legal entities. The former is a legislative body and the latter is an executive body. Reference to the Crown in section 17(1) of the Federal Court Act cannot reasonably be construed to mean Parliament; section 2(f) of the Act removes any possible doubt about that by defining Crown to mean Her Majesty in right of Canada. Finally, even if there were an ambiguity which permitted more than one meaning to be assigned to the term Crown, the ambiguity should have been resolved in favour of jurisdiction by the High Court, since, in the words of Maxwell (Interpretation of Statutes (12th ed, 1969), p. 153):
A strong leaning exists against construing a statute so as to oust or restrict the jurisdiction of the superior court... a statute should not be construed as taking away the jurisdiction of the courts in the absence of clear and unambiguous language to that effect.
The main thrust of Professor Gibson's criticism is that he apparently feels that the term "Crown" does not include Parliament. Implicitly, Professor Gibson is restricting s. 17 to civil actions against the Crown involving tort or contract liability. (This is supported by his reference, infra, to McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors (1975), 53 D.L.R. (3d) 259
January 23, 1978
[Stage Direction]
(N.S.C.A.), involving the provincial Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 239, discussed infra).
Despite his conclusion on Denison Mines, Professor Gibson admits, at pp. 373-4:
The Denison approach received some support from the British Columbia Supreme Court in Canex Placer Ltd. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (1975), 56 D.L.R. (3d) 592 (B.C.S.C.); (rev'd on other grounds (1976), 58 D.L.R. (3d) 241 (B.C.C.A.).) That case also involved a claim for a declaration that certain legislation was unconstitutional. Since the statute concerned was provincial, the meaning of the Federal Court Act did not arise. However, the case did deal with the question of whether an action to determine the constitutionality of legislation is a proceeding against the Crown. Verchere, J. held that such an action cannot be brought against the Attorney-General of the province because it is a proceeding against the Crown, and provincial legislation requires that the Queen in the right of the province should be the designated defendant in such proceedings.
Therefore, an action to determine the validity of a statute would be a "proceeding against the Crown". This is entirely consistent with Denison Mines.
Professor Gibson also cites McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, supra, in which the Court held that a "proceeding against the Crown" did not include an application for a declaration that an Act was ultra vires. It should be pointed out, however, that the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 239, is basically designated to deal with tort or contract "proceedings" against the Crown. Section 1(f) of the Act states that:
"proceedings against the Crown" includes a claim by way of set-off or counterclaim raised in proceedings by the Crown, and interpleader proceedings to which the Crown is a party;
Section 3 states that:
3. Subject to this Act, a person who has a claim against the Crown may enforce it as of right by proceedings against the Crown in accordance with this Act in all cases in which:
(a)	the land, goods or money of the subject are the possession of the Crown; or
(b)	the claim arises out of a contract entered into by or on behalf of the Crown; or
(c)	the claim is based upon liability of the Crown in tort to which it is subject by this Act. R.S., c. 225, s. 3.
Thus, "proceedings against the Crown" may not be comparable to "relief... against the Crown". There is nothing in the Federal Court Act to indicate whether s. 17 is limited to tort or contract proceedings. The definition of "relief' in s. 2(m) would appear to go beyond such proceedings and includes "every species of relief'. Unfortunately, Professor Gibson does not take cognizance of these distinctions.
The effect of the decision of Donnelly, J. in Denison Mines on the current application is not entirely clear. In this case, I am concerned with an application for review of the approval by the Cabinet of Regulations 76-644 and the power of the Board under s. 9. I am not convinced that s. 17 of the Federal Court Act was designed to cover this situation. The application before me does not involve an attack on the validity of a statute and Denison Mines is not entirely relevant. As a result, I am reluctant to relinquish any jurisdiction existing in this court. I must assume that the jurisdiction of this court continues in the absence of the clearest words to the contrary.
Given the fact that we are concerned with the powers of a federal Board, it is also necessary to consider s. 18 of the Federal Court Act. Section 18 reads:
The Trial Division has exclusive original jurisdiction:
(a)	to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b)	to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney-General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal (Emphasis added)
The extent of s. 18 is considered in Hamilton v. Hamilton Harbour Commissioners (1972), 27 D.L.R. (3d) 385 (Ont. C.A.). In that case, the Court held that the Supreme Court of Ontario did not have jurisdiction to grant a declaration against the federal Harbour Commission. The Court affirmed that s. 18 ousts the jurisdiction over federal boards. At p. 386, Gale, C.J.O. states that:
It appears to us that the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners clearly come within the plain language of s. 2(g). They are a federal board, commission or other tribunal because they are a body ... 'exercising or purporting to exercise jurisdiction or powers conferred by or under an Act of the Parliament of Canada'. That is so by reason of the provisions of the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners' Act, 1912 (Can.), c. 98, passed in 1912 by the Parliament of Canada, and subsequently amended from time to time. That being so, the above provisions of s. 18 apply, and it is our view that this Court no longer has any jurisdiction in a matter wherein declaratory relief is sought against such 'federal board, commission or other tribunal'.
The Hamilton Harbour Commission Act, S.C. 1951, c. 17 confers two basic powers on the Commissioners:
a)	the power to regulate and control the use of the harbour;
b)	the power to deal with certain real property.
The Harbour Commissions Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. H-l, imposes on a commission the duty and power to regulate and control the use and development of all property within the limits of the commission's harbour jurisdiction (section 9) and authorizes a commission to purchase and lease or sell property in the
[Stage Direction]
January 23, 1978
harbour (section 10). It is clear that the operation of a commission as a land owner raises the question of provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, s. 18 may not be designed to cover such activities. The decision in Hamilton Harbour Commissioners, therefore, may be limited to commission activities relating to the regulation and control of harbour activities. Again, the practical effect is that the extent of the decision in Hamilton Harbour Commissioners is not entirely clear.
Another factor which must be considered in assessing the applicability of s. 18 is that s. 9 of the Atomic Energy Control Act confers the power on the Board subject to the "approval of the Governor in Council". In this respect, the applicants are seeking relief against the Board and the Governor in Council. The decision of one depends on the other and the decisions are not mutually exclusive. The complementary nature of the decision-making process takes the situation out of the ambit of s. 18 of the Federal Court Act.
Counsel for the applicants spent considerable time evaluating the right of the applicants to challenge the Act and the Regulations and to seek a declaration of rights. I am of the view that Thorson v. A.G. Can., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138 and Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, supra, is sufficient authority for the proposition that every citizen has the right to challenge the validity of a Statute or a Regulation. The fact that the applicants go beyond this and ask alternatively for an interpretation of the application of the Regulations does not alter their basic right.
There is one aspect of this application which does concern me. In their alternative submissions, they seek a declaration that a Member of Parliament cannot be prevented from using the information in Parliament. Moreover, they seek a declaration that the Regulations do not abridge the solicitor-client privilege. In this respect, they are seeking "absolution before sinning". In my view, they should advance these two arguments as a defence if they are charged. Practically speaking, they may not be charged, in which case this part of the application is simply an academic exercise.
In Dyson v. Attorney-General, [1911] 1 K.B. 410, Cozens-Hardy, M.R., at p. 417, had this to say about applications for a declaration:
The Court is not bound to make a mere declaratory judgment, and in the exercise of its discretion will have regard to all the circumstances of the case. I can, however, conceive many cases in which a declaratory judgment may be highly convenient, and I am disposed to think, if all other objections are removed, this is a case to which r. 5 might with advantage be applied. But I desire to guard myself against the supposition that I hold that a person who expects to be made defendant, and who prefers to be plaintiff, can, as a matter of right, attain his object by commencing an action to obtain a declaration that his opponent has no good cause of action against him. The Court may well say 'Wait until you are attacked and then raise your defence', and may dismiss the action with costs.
The same approach could be taken in this case. Counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants could not obtain meaningful legal advice due to the refusal of counsel to receive information which might contravene the Regulations. If the applicants are willing to release the information but counsel refuse to receive it, it is counsel not the applicants who are seeking the exoneration of the Court in order to justify their receipt of the information. Once again, I am concerned that these proceedings are inappropriate.
Despite these concerns, I intend to deal with the merits of the application in the hope that it will finalize this matter although I enter the caveat that such applications should be considered most carefully. The role of the Court is not to grant "absolution before sinning" nor to deal with academic issues.
In dealing with the validity of the Regulations, the preamble of the Atomic Energy Control Act must be considered:
WHEREAS it is essential in the national interest to make provisions for the control and supervision of the development, application and use of atomic energy, and to enable Canada to participate effectively in measures of international control of atomic energy which may hereafter be agreed upon; Therefore, His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Only Parliament is entitled to judge what steps must be taken in the "national interest". The Courts are reluctant to interfere with actions deemed to be taken in the "national interest".
Section 9 of the Act grants a wide power to the Board to make Regulations. Counsel for the applicants and respondent argued that the power to pass Regulations 76-644 must be found in s. 9 (d)(e) or (g). Those provisions read:
The Board may with the approval of the Governor in Council make regulations
(d)	regulating the production, import, export transportation, refining, possession, ownership, use or sale of prescribed substances and any other things that in the opinion of the Board may be used for the production, use or application of atomic energy;
(e)	for the purpose of keeping secret information respecting the production, use and application of, and research and investigations with respect to, atomic energy, as in the opinion of the Board, the public interest may require;
(g) generally as the Board may deem necessary for carrying out any of the provisions or purposes of this Act.
At first blush, the power to make regulations is fairly extensive.
Regulations SOR/76-644, entitled Uranium Information Security Regulations are dated September 23, 1976. The preamble reads.
January 23, 1978
[Stage Direction]
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, pursuant to section 9 of the Atomic Energy Control Act, is pleased hereby to approve the annexed Regulations respecting the security of uranium information made by the Atomic Energy Control Board.
Section 2 of the Regulations states:
Security of Information
2. No person who has in his possession or under his control any note, document or other written or printed material in any way related to conversations, discussions or meetings that took place between January 1, 1972 and December 31, 1975 involving that person or any other person or any government, crown corporation, agency or other organization in respect of the production, import, export, transportation, refining, possession, ownership, use or sale of uranium or its derivatives or compounds, shall
(a)	release any such note, document or material, or disclose or communicate the contents thereof to any person, government, crown corporation, agency or other organization unless
(i)	he is required to do so by or under a law of Canada, or
(ii)	he does so with the consent of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources; or
(b)	fail to guard against or take reasonable care to prevent the unauthorized release of any such note, document or material or the disclosure or communication of the contents thereof.
Prima facie, this would cover Members of Parliament and would appear to abridge the solicitor-client relationship.
Mr. Lederman argued that s. 9(d) was not sufficiently broad to cover the nature and extent of s. 2 of Regulations 76-644. I agree with that submission. He also argued that s. 9(e) was not broad enough since it dealt with information "respecting the production, use and application of and research and investigations with respect to, atomic energy" whereas s. 2 of Regulations 76-644 deals with the "production, import, export, transportation, refining, possession, ownership, use or sale of uranium or its derivatives or compounds". I do not find it necessary to decide that issue since I consider that s. 9(g) provides sufficient authority for the promulgation of the Regulations. While Mr. Lederman argued that s. 9(g) is procedural or administrative only, I cannot accept that argument. Section 9(g) grants considerable power to the Board to make regulations as it "may deem necessary for carrying out any of the provisions or purposes of this Act". The purposes set out in the preamble of the Act, include control of domestic atomic energy and the participation in international control. In my view, s. 9(g) must have some substantive basis in order to enable the Board to carry out the purposes and provisions of the Act.
This conclusion is supported by the decision of Robins, J. in Duquesne Light Company et al v. Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, unreported, dated June 29, 1977. In that case, Westinghouse Electric Corporation brought two applications before Robins, J. The first was to enforce letters rogatory issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the second was to enforce letters rogatory issued by the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In dealing with the applications, Regulations 76-644 were raised. It was argued that an Order enforcing the letters rogatory would compel certain Canadian companies to release information respecting atomic energy contrary to Reg. 76-644. Consequently, Robins, J., felt bound to deal with the issue of the validity of the Regulations. Since the determination of the validity of the Regulations is an issue peripheral to the main application, he was correct in assuming jurisdiction to determine the issue.
Robins, J., exhaustively analyzes the validity of Reg. 76-644. At pp. 17-18 of the judgment, he deals with the background of the Regulations:
On September 21, 1976, the Government of Canada approved a regulation under the Atomic Energy Control Act to prevent the removal from Canada of information relating to uranium marketing activities during the period 1972-75. This action the Minister has said was taken 'in the light of the sweeping demand for such information by U.S. subpoenas, which, while served on officers of United States companies, call for the presentation of information in the possession of subsidiary or affiliate companies "wherever located".' The regulations, cited as the Uranium Information Security Regulations, SOR/76-644 (P.C. 1976-2368, September 21, 1976) prohibit the release or production of any document or material relating to these activities and prevent the giving of any oral evidence which would result in the disclosure or communication of the contents of such documents.... Their validity is attacked by Westinghouse in these proceedings. In his press release of September 22, 1976, the Minister concluded:
Given this background, it is not surprising that the Canadian material called for by the U.S. subpoenas contains information in respect of activities approved and supported by the Canadian government. Clearly this must be regarded as an issue of sovereignty. The government has therefore moved to prevent the removal of such documents from Canada.
No evidence has been presented in this application which would indicate that the true purpose of the Regulations is anything other than that set out by the Minister. Counsel for the applicants continually referred to the Regulations as a "cover-up" and argued that since the Regulations were passed in September, 1976, and covered the period of January to December, 1975, there was every indication that the Regulations were a "cover-up" for the alleged illegal cartel. The Government has given the reason for the Regulations and I am bound to accept that in the absence of persuasive, evidence to the contrary. Whether it was necessary to cast such a wide net in order to achieve the stated purpose is a matter for Parliament.
[Stage Direction]
January 23, 1978
Before embarking on an evaluation of the validity of the Regulations, Robins, J., sets out the terms of reference to be applied. At p. 41, he states that:
The question in substance is whether the Security Regulations fall within the scope of the regulation-making power conferred by the Act on the Atomic Energy Control Board. In determining this question the meaning of the Regulations when read in the light of their object and the facts surrounding their making should be ascertained as well as the words conferring the power in the whole context of the authorizing statute. The intent of the statute transcends and governs the intent of the Regulations: Driedger, The Construction of Statutes, at p. 199 et. seq.
Mr. Lederman also quoted from Driedger for the proposition that s. 9(g) was procedural. However, I am convinced that the approach taken by Robins, J., is the correct one and that it is necessary to look to the intent of the Statute in determining the extent of the regulation-making power.
In considering the extent of s. 9, Robins, J., deals specifically with s. 9(e) and s. 9(g). At p. 42, he states that:
... Even if this is so, it is not imperative that the authority for these Regulations be found in s. 9(e) of the Act. The Regulations do not, of course, indicate under which subsection of s. 9 they were made. Sufficient authority may, in my opinion, be found in the general power under s. 9(g) given by Parliament to the Board with the approval of the Governor in Council to make regulations generally as it 'may deem necessary for carrying out any of the provisions or purposes of this Act.'
Robins, J., then goes on to evaluate the scope and purpose of the Act in order to substantiate his conclusion on s. 9(g). At pp. 42-3, he states that:
One of the reasons for the Act according to its preamble is that it is essential in the national interest to control and supervise the development, application and use of atomic energy. The real subject of the legislation is, as McLennan J. expressed it in Pronto Uranium Mines Ltd. v. The Ontario Labour Relations Board et al., [1956] O.R. 862 at p. 869, 'the control of the production and application of atomic energy and that control is exercised from the stage of discovery of ores up to its ultimate use for whatever purpose ... ' In this context regulations 'necessary for carrying out any of the provisions or purposes of this Act' include, in my view, measures respecting intermediate steps such as the import, export, transportation, refining, possession, ownership or sale of atomic energy or substances capable of releasing atomic energy or any information in respect thereto. (Emphasis added)
This approach is consistent with the principle enunciated by Driedger.
Robins, J., then goes on to discuss the discretion granted to the Board. At pp. 43-4, he concludes that:
To effect the control of the production and application of atomic energy Parliament enacted basically a skeletal statute to be supplemented by the conferral on the Board with the approval of the Governor in Council of broad general powers to make regulations establishing not only details of this legislation but its principles. Whether the regulations are 'necessary for carrying out any of the provisions or purposes of this Act' is a matter to be determined by a subjective test of necessity. The regulation-making authority is the sole judge of necessity and the court will not question its decision unless bad faith is established. See R. v. Comptroller General of Patents, Ex Parte Bayer Products Ltd., [1941] 2 K.B. 306 per Scott L.J. at pp. 311-312:
'... the effect of the words 'as appear to him to be necessary or expedient' is to give to His Majesty in Council a complete discretion to decide what regulations are necessary for the purposes named in the sub-section. That being so, it is not open to His Majesty's courts to investigate the question whether or not the making of any particular regulation was in fact necessary or expedient for the specified purposes. The principle on which delegated legislation must rest under our constitution is that legislative discretion which is left in plain language by Parliament is to be final and not subject to control by the courts.'
See also Re Chemical Reference, [1943] S.C.R. I. In my view the Security Regulations are within the purposes of the Act and as such their expediency or necessity cannot be challenged. (Emphasis added)
It is not proper for the Court to re-think the concerns of the Board in deciding whether such Regulations were necessary. Since the "expediency or necessity" are a "subjective" determination, the Court should not substitute its own opinion on the issue.
In the absence of probative evidence of bad faith, the Court is not justified in impugning the motives of the Board. As Robins, J., states at p. 44:
Bad faith going to impugn the Regulations is not apparent in this case either on the face of the Regulations or anywhere else.
As previously stated, there is no evidence before me which would justify a finding of bad faith. The Regulations are valid on their face.
Finally, Robins, J., concludes that:
In short, the Security Regulations can be construed, in my opinion as being in harmony with the purposes of the statute. No conflict exists between the Statute and the Regulations; the Regulations are within the scope of the powers conferred upon the Board and accordingly are intra vires the Atomic Energy Control Act.
Although I am not bound by the decision of Robins, J., it is of considerable persuasive effect and I am in complete agreement with his conclusion.
January 23, 1978
[Stage Direction]
As a result, I find that Regulations 76-644 are intra vires the Atomic Energy Control Board and the Governor in Council.
There is one aspect of the Regulations which causes some concern. Section 2(a) prohibits the release of information concerning uranium but provides for two exceptions. The second exception reads:
2(a)(ii)
... he does so with the consent of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources...
Counsel for the applicants argues that this offends the maxim delegatus non potest delegare. After considering s. 9 of the Act and s. 2 of the Regulations, I have come to the conclusion that s. 2(a)(ii) is ultra vires the Atomic Energy Control Board.
I agree with Mr. Sopinka's submission that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is effectively doing the regulating. Counsel for the respondent argued that this was comparable to a case of agency rather than delegation. However, there are no guidelines provided for the Minister and there is no indication that the Board maintains a principal - agency type of arrangement with the Minister. The real effect of the exemption is to vest the regulation-making power of the Board in the Minister. The Minister could give exemptions to everyone and could effectively nullify the application of the Regulations.
In Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 3d ed., S.A. de Smith considers the principles to be considered in applying the maxim delegatus non potest delegare, at pp. 268-9:
a)	Where an authority vested with discretionary powers affecting private rights empowers one of its committees or subcommittees, members or officers to exercise those powers independently without any supervisory control by the authority itself, the exercise of the powers is likely to be held invalid ... (Madoc Township v. Quinlan (1972), 21 D.L.R. (3d) 136; R. v. Sandler).
b)	The degree of control ... maintained by the delegating authority over the acts of the delegate or sub-delegate may be a material factor in determining the validity of the delegation. In general the control preserved ... must be close enough for the decision to be identifiable as that of the delegating authority ... (Osgood v. Nelson (1872), L.R. 5 H.L. 636; Devlin v. Barnett, [1958] N.Z.L.R. 828 ... Hall v. Manchester Corporation (1915), 84 L.J. Ch. 734, 741 . .. Cohen v. West Ham Corporation, [1933] Ch. 814, 826-827 ... R. v. Board of Assessment, etc. (1965), 49 D.L.R. (2d) 156
c)	It is improper for an authority to delegate wide discretionary powers to another authority over which it is incapable of exercising direct control, unless it is expressly empowered so to delegate ... (Kyle v. Barbor (1888), 58 L.T. 229) ... A Canadian provincial marketing board, exercising delegated authority, could not sub-delegate part of its regulatory powers to an interprovincial authority ... (Prince Edward Island Potato Marketing Board v. Willis (H.B.) Inc., [1952] 2 S.C.R. 391).
On the basis of these principles, I have concluded that s. 2(a)ii) is ultra vires.
Counsel for the respondent referred me to the case of Reference re Chemicals Regulations, [1943] S.C.R. 1. In that case, the Governor-General in Council was empowered to make such regulations as he might by reason of the existence of the war deem necessary or advisable for the defence of Canada. The Court held that this power was wide enough to permit sub-delegation to the Controller of Chemicals.
The point of distinction in the Chemicals Reference case is that the Court was dealing with a war-time situation. In this respect, the Court was willing to apply a much more flexible approach to the powers of the Executive. This is apparent in the words of Duff, C.J., at p. 11:
The duty of the Governor General in Council to safeguard the supreme interests of the state, as contemplated by section 3, may, it seems plain, necessitate for its adequate performance the appointment of subordinate officers endowed with such delegated authority. I find it impossible to suppose that the authors of that enactment did not envisage the likelihood of the Executive finding itself obliged, in discharging its responsibility in relation to the matters enumerated in sub-paragraphs (a) to (0, to make use of such agencies.
From a practical viewpoint, the Court concluded that the Executive could not possibly handle the myriad of tasks delegated to it by the legislation. Therefore, the Court interpreted the regulation-making power as implicitly including a power to sub-delegate part of the regulation-making power to a subordinate body. Duff, C.J., goes on to state at p. 12:
The enactment is, of course, of the highest political nature. It is the attribution to the Executive Government of powers legislative in their character, described in terms implying nothing less than a plenary discretion, for securing the safety of the country in time of war. Subject only to the fundamental conditions explained above ... when Regulations have been passed by the Governor General in Council in professed fulfillment of his statutory duty, I cannot agree that it is competent to any court to canvass the considerations which have, or may have, led him to deem such Regulations necessary or advisable for the transcendent objects set forth.
Duff, C.J., then concludes that the wording "necessary or advisable" is wide enough to permit the sub-delegation to the Controller (p. 12).
The approach of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Chemicals Reference case is dictated by the exigencies of the war-time situation. That is not so in the present case. In the first place, it is not an over-burdened Executive delegating to a subordinate. It is a federal Board delegating to a member of the Cabinet. There is nothing in the Atomic Energy Control Act which justifies the conclusion that the Board is entitled to delegate the powers granted to it by the Act. Finally, the Board is established to carry out the "policing" of the atomic
[Stage Direction]
January 23, 1978
energy field. One can assume that the Board is comprised of people who are experts in the field and are experienced in administrative practice. Consequently, the Board and not a Minister is best suited to handle the powers given to it by Parliament.
This conclusion appears to be consistent with the decision in A.G. Can. v. Brent, [1956] S.C.R. 318. In that case, the Court dealt with a delegation to Special Inquiry Officers under the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 325. Section 61 provided:
The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this Act... Section 20(4) of Order in Council, P.C. 859, [1953] S.O.R. 536, stated:
Subject to the provisions of the Act and to these regulations the admission to Canada of any person is prohibited where in the opinion of a Special Inquiry Officer such person should not be admitted by reason of...
The Section then goes on to list three reasons. In delivering the opinion of the Court, Kerwin, C.J.C., states, at p. 321:
I agree with Mr. Justice Aylesworth, speaking on behalf of the Court of Appeal, that Parliament had in contemplation the enactment of such Regulations relevant to the named subject-matters, or some of them, as in His Excellency in Council's own opinion were advisable and not a wide divergence of rules and opinions, ever-changing according to the individual notions of Immigration Officers and Special Inquiry Officers. There is no power in the Governor General-in-Council to delegate his authority to such officers.
The use of such words as "deem necessary" in s. 9(g) of the Atomic Energy Control Act and "deem necessary or advisable" in s. 3 of the War Measures Act, 1914, does not distinguish the application before me and the Chemicals Reference case from the Brent case. Section 61 of the Immigration Act was sufficiently wide that the conclusion of the Court is particularly relevant to the application before me. The decision in the Chemicals Reference case can be distinguished because of the circumstances then existing.
Notwithstanding my conclusion on the applicability of the Chemicals Reference case to the issue of sub-delegation, the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada in both the Chemicals Reference case and in Brent supports my conclusion that s. 9(g) grants substantive and not merely procedural powers. Indeed, the Chemicals Reference case is cited by Robins, J., in Duquesne at p. 44, to support his conclusion that the Regulations are intra vires the Board.
As a result, I have concluded that s. 2(a)(ii) of Regulations 76-644 is ultra vires the Atomic Energy Control Board. However, this does not invalidate the entire Regulation. The appropriate approach is simply to strike s. 2(a) (ii) out of the Regulations. Therefore, apart from s. 2(a)(ii), the Regulations are intra vires the Atomic Energy Control Board.
In dealing with the issue of Parliamentary privileges, counsel for the respondent submitted that the Courts have no
jurisdiction to determine the nature and extent of such privileges. He argued that Parliament is the source and the sole judge of the privileges of its members. This would create an interesting obstacle for the applicants in the present case. I would point out, however, that I am asked to interpret Regulations 76-644. In doing so, I am asked to determine whether Regulations 76-644 override or abridge existing Parliamentary privileges. In this respect, I do not consider that I am infringing on the jurisdiction of Parliament.
Historically, there has always been some question whether the Courts have jurisdiction to determine the nature and extent of Parliamentary privilege. As the supreme law-giving body, it would seem only natural that Parliament should be the source of authoritative guidelines on the subject. On the other hand, there is something inherently inimical about Members of Parliament determining the nature and extent of their own rights and privileges. The Courts have seized on this to consistently review the nature and extent of Parliamentary privilege.
In Thorpe's case, 1452, Chief Justice Fortescue wrote an opinion favouring the supremacy of Parliament in determining the nature and extent of Parliamentary privilege:
That they ought not to answer to that question, for it hath not been used aforetyme, that the justices should in anywise determine the privilege of this High Court of Parliament; for it is so high and so mighty in its nature, that it may make law, and that this is law it may make no law; and the determination and knowledge of that privilege belongeth to the Lords of Parliament, and not to the justices. (5 Rot. Pari. 240; I Hatsell, pp. 28-34)
This approach has largely been overlooked in other cases.
In May, Parliamentary Practice, 19th ed., the author sets out the arguments on both sides at pp. 200-201:
The House of Commons claims that its admitted right to adjudicate on breaches of privilege implies in theory the right to determine the existence and extent of the privileges themselves. It has never expressly abandoned its claim to treat as a breach of privilege the institution of proceedings for the purpose of bringing its privileges into discussion or decision before any court or tribunal elsewhere then in Parliament. In other words, it claims to be the absolute and exclusive judge of its own privileges, and that its judgments are not examinable by any other court or subject to appeal.
On the other hand, the courts regard the privileges of Parliament as part of the law of the land, of which they are bound to take judicial notice. They consider it their duty to decide any question of privilege arising directly or indirectly in a case which falls within their jurisdiction, and to decide it according to their own interpretation of the law.
This passage is cited by the House of Lords in Re Parliamentary Privilege Act, 1770, [1958] A.C. 331 at pp. 353-4. Unfortunately, the Court does not draw any conclusions and merely reflects that "the old dualism remains unresolved" (p.
January 23, 1978
[Stage Direction]
354). May, on the other hand, comes to the following conclusion, at p. 202:
Since the House of Commons has not for a hundred years refused to submit its privileges to the decision of the courts, it may be said to have given practical recognition to the jurisdiction of the courts over the existence and extent of its privileges. On the other hand, the courts have always, at any rate in the last resort, refused to interfere in the application by the House of any of its recognized privileges.
It is a remarkable fact that the modern solution of the problem was anticipated by Clarendon at the beginning of the struggle between the House of Parliament and the courts. 'We are', he represents the Commons as saying, 'and have always been confessed the only judges of our own privileges: and therefore whatsoever we declare to be our privilege is such: otherwise whoever determines that it is not so makes himself the judge of that whereof the cognizance only belongs to us'. And he solves the 'sophistical riddle' by showing that the proposition is only true if 'rightly understood'. 'I say the proposition rightly understood: they are the only judges of their privileges, that is, upon the breach of those privileges which the law had declared to be their own, and what punishment is to be inflicted upon such breach. But there can be no privilege of which the law doth not take notice, and which is not pleadable by, and at law'.' (History of the Rebellion, Book iv, quoted by Mcllwain, High Court of Parliament, pp. 240-1)
Consequently, the Courts apparently have an implicit jurisdiction to deal with questions of Parliamentary privilege.
Notwithstanding the submission of counsel for the respondent, I have no hesitation in proceeding to evaluate the effect of Regulations 76-644 on the privileges of Members of Parliament. Roman Corp. Ltd. v. Hudson's Bay Oil & Gas Co. Ltd., [1971] 2 O.R. 418 (Houlden, J); [1972] 1 O.R. 444 (C.A.); [1973] S.C.R. 820, (discussed, infra), is sufficient authority for the proposition that the Courts of law in Canada have jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters involving the privileges of Members of Parliament.
The privileges of a Member of Parliament are set out in the Senate and House of Commons Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-8. Section 4 reads:

[Stage Direction]
4. The Senate and the House of Commons respectively, and the members thereof respectively, hold, enjoy and exercise,
(a)	such and the like privileges, immunities and powers as, at the time of the passing of the British North America Act, 1867, were held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and by the members thereof, so far as the
same are consistent with and not repugnant to that Act; and
(b)	such privileges, immunities and powers as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, not exceeding those at the time of the passing of such Act held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and by the members thereof respectively. R.S., c. 249 s. 4 The privileges which currently exist in England developed gradually over many centuries.
The history of Parliamentary privilege in England follows an interesting course. The imprisonment of Strode in 1512 for words spoken in Parliament resulted in what is known as Strode's Act, 4 Hen. 8, c. 8 which not only declared that the proceedings of Stannary Court which had imprisoned and Fined Strode were void but also that all future proceedings against a member of Parliament "for any bill, speaking or declaring of any matter concerning the Parliament", would be void and ineffective. The nature and extent of this terminology has been disputed for many centuries. The demand for freedom of speech was succinctly stated in a petition of Sir Thomas More (Speaker in 1523) that "if any man in the Commons House should speak more largely than of duty he ought to do ... all such offences should be pardoned" (Hall's Chronicle (ed. 1890), p. 653). This petition, however, is not recorded in the Parliament Roll. In 1554, the three claims of freedom from arrest, freedom of speech, and of access, were first made together (C.J. (1547-1628), 37). By the end of the sixteenth century the practice seems to have become regular.
The Commons Protestation of December 18, 1621 was prepared by the English House of Commons and was made known to James I (I Hatsell's Parliamentary Precedents, p. 79). The prostestation reads:
And that in the handling and proceedings of those businesses every Member of the House hath, and or right ought to have Freedom of Speech to propound, treat, reason and bring to conclusion the same:
. .. And that every Member of the said House hath like Freedom from all Impeachment, Imprisonment or Molestation (other than by censure of the House itself) of or concerning any Bill, speaking, reasoning or declaring of any matter or matters touching the Parliament or Parliament business.
This protestation was not in accordance with the king's conception of the liberties of the Commons and Hatsell, supra, reports that the king sent for the Journal Book and "in council with his own hand rent it out", and by a memorial of December 30, 1621, he declared it to be annulled, void and of no effect.
The recognition by law of the privilege of freedom of speech received final statutory confirmation after the Revolution of 1688. By the 9th Article of the Bill of Rights it was declared: "That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament" (I William and Mary, sess.
2160
[Stage Direction]
January 23, 1978
2, c. 2). The aforesaid language makes it clear that a Member is not amenable to the ordinary courts for anything said in debate however criminal its nature. The term "proceedings in Parliament" connotes more than speeches and debates. A general idea of what the term covers may be gathered from looking at the cases and at the principle followed by the British House of Commons.
In Ex Parte Wason (1869), L.R. 4 Q.B. 573, Mr. Wason laid an information relating to a promise by Earl Russell to present a petition to the House of Lords. The information charged that Earl Russell, Lord Chelmsford and the Lord Chief Baron conspired to make statements in the House of Lords in respect of the petition designed to defeat its object. This conspiracy was alleged to have taken place outside the precincts of the House. The court held that the criminal conspiracy was so related to what would ultimately be a proceeding in the House that the act itself was a proceeding in the House.
In R. v. Bunting (1884-5), 7 O.R. 524, the Ontario Queen's Bench held that a conspiracy to change a Government by bribing members of the provincial legislature was not in any way connected with a proceeding in Parliament and therefore the Court had jurisdiction to try the offence. The Court distinguished Ex parte Wason, supra, on the ground that in Wason the whole transaction of defeating the petition could not be complete without a proceeding in the House. In Bunting, however, the offence of bribing, for whatsoever purpose, was said to be complete without any reference to what might or might not happen in the House. O'Connor, C.J., in his dissent, stated the law in general terms:
... I desire it to be understood, however, that I do not hold that a member of Parliament is not amenable to the ordinary courts for anything he may say or do in Parliament. I merely say he is not so amenable for anything he may say or do within the scope of his duties in the course of parliamentary business, for in such matters he is privileged and protected by lex et consuetudo parliamen-ti. (p. 563)
According to Erskine May in his book Parliamentary Practice:
What is done or said by an individual Member becomes entitled to protection when it forms part of a proceeding of the House in its technical sense, i.e., the formal transaction of business with the Speaker in the Chair or in a properly constituted committee. But it does not follow that everything that is said or done within the Chamber during the transaction of business forms part of proceedings in Parliament. Particular words or acts may be entirely unrelated to any business which is in course of transaction, or is in a more general sense before the House as having been ordered to come before it in due course. This is a test which may be useful in deciding how far crimes committed during a sitting may be entitled to privilege, (p. 89)
May observes that the privilege which formerly protected Members against action by the Crown now serves largely as protection against prosecution by individuals or corporate bodies:
Subject to the rules of order in debate ... a Member may state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character, of individuals; and he is protected by his privilege from any action for libel, as well as from any other question or molestation, (p. 78)
P.S. Pachauri in his book The Law of Parliamentary Privileges in the U.K. and in India (1971) after discussing R. v. Bunting, supra, and Ex parte Wason states:
The sum total of the various judicial dicta on the subject is that there must be some reasonable nexus between the acts or words and the business of the House so as to make them part of the proceedings of the House and the place where the words are spoken or acts are done are immaterial, (p. 86)
The principle followed by the British House of Commons in determining what is a proceeding in Parliament has been discussed on several occasions. A general idea of what the term covers is given in the Report of the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Act, H.C. 101, p. V. (1938-39).
It covers both the asking of a question and the giving written notice of such question, and includes everything said or done by a Member in the exercise of his functions as a member in a committee of either House, as well as everything said or done in either House in the transaction of Parliamentary business.
The Committee concluded that disclosures by members in the course of debate or proceedings in Parliament could not be made the subject of proceedings under the Official Secrets Act and a disclosure made by a member to a Minister or to another member directly relating to some act to be done or some proceeding to be had in the House, even though it did not take place in the House, might be held to form part of the business of the House and should be similarly protected. But the Committee also observed that a casual conversation in the House could not be said to be a proceeding in Parliament and disclosure in the course of such conversation could not be protected as it was not in the course of a proceeding in Parliament. On the same ground the Committee also held that a member who discloses such information in a speech in his constituency or anywhere else beyond the precincts of the House would also not be protected by the Parliamentary privilege. (Supra, paras. 9, 10 and 15). The House agreed with the conclusions of this Committee on Nov. 21, 1939 (H.C. Debates, Vol. 353, c. 1083). (For a discussion, see Pachauri, The Law of Parliamentary Privileges in U.K. and India, pp. 87-89.)
The Report of the Committee and the ruling of the House of Commons has obvious implications for the present case. The Official Secrets Act can be compared to Regulations 76-644 in that both require strict confidentiality of specific information.
January 23, 1978
[Stage Direction]
In this respect, the Members of Parliament would be free to use the information in Parliament but could not release it to constituents.
Counsel for the respondent concedes that the information can be used in Parliament but argues that the information cannot be released outside of Parliament in any manner.
Counsel for the applicants argued that the Members are entitled to release the information to the press. They argued that the right to release the information to the press would have no practical value unless the press were covered by a similar privilege. Finally, counsel submitted that the Members have the right to release the information to their constituents. I cannot accede to these latter two arguments. The privilege of the Member is Finite and cannot be stretched indefinitely to cover any person along a chain of communication initiated by the Member. The privilege stops at the press. Once the press have received the information, the onus falls on them to decide whether to publish. They cannot claim immunity from prosecution on the basis of the parliamentary privilege which protects the Member releasing the information. Whether they have a valid defence under the Regulations is another matter. Finally, the Member does not have the right to release the information to any one he chooses outside of Parliament. The concept of "proceedings in Parliament" cannot be extended beyond all logical limits. I am not satisfied that the privilege enables the Member to release the information to his constituents. The concept of "proceedings in Parliament" has not been extended to cover the informing function of a Member. This is consistent with the ruling of the House of Commons in the Official Secrets Act, supra.
In coming to the conclusions set out above I have relied on the authorities discussed above and on the recent decision in Roman Corp. Ltd. et al v. Hudson's Bay Oil A Gas Co. Ltd. et al. The reasons delivered by Houlden, J., in the High Court and Aylesworth, J.A., in the Court of Appeal are of particular relevance to the current matter.
At p. 425 of his reasons, Mr. Justice Houlden quoted from Vol. 28 of Halsbury's Laws of England, 3d ed., at pp. 457-8:
An exact and complete definition of proceedings in Parliament has never been given by the courts of law or by either House. In its narrow sense the expression is used in both Houses to denote the formal transaction of business in the House or in committees. It covers both the asking of a question and the giving written notice of such question, and includes everything said or done by a member in the exercise of his functions as a member in a committee of either House, as well as everything said or done in either House in the transaction of parliamentary business.
In its wider sense proceedings in Parliament has been used to include matters connected with, or ancillary to, the formal transaction of business. A select committee of the Commons, citing and approving a Canadian dictum, stated in its report that it would be unreasonable to conclude that no act is within the scope of a member's
duties in the course of parliamentary business unless it is done in the House or a committee thereof and while the House or committee is sitting.
Houlden, J., then considers the Commons Protestation of 1621 and the Bill of Rights, 1689, at p. 425:
...the wording of the Commons Protestation of 1621, with its very similar wording to art. 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1689, furnishes a good indication of what was meant by the words Proceedings in Parliament as used in the Bill of Rights, 1869, and these words were not limited to matters in Parliament but, as the Protestation states, included speaking, reasoning or declaring of any matter or matters touching the Parliament or Parliament business. Following the statements in the House, the Prime Minister and a Member of the Cabinet sent a telegram to the plaintiff and made a statement to the press. Houlden, J., held that the privilege of a Member extended to statements in a press release where such statements had been previously made in the House.
On appeal, Aylesworth, J.A., in delivering the judgment of the Court, agreed that the telegram dispatched to the appellant Roman by the respondent Trudeau and the press release issued by the respondent Greene were mere extensions of the statements made by the respondents in the House and therefore they were protected by the same absolute privilege as the communications made in the House itself. Aylesworth, J.A., states at p. 450:
That is to say, that these actions were, in essence, 'proceedings in Parliament' within the extended meaning of that hallowed phrase as judicially interpreted and applied. Aylesworth, J.A. went on to say at p. 451:
... I venture also to express the view that the modern judicial concept of the meaning and application of the phrase 'proceedings in Parliament' is broader than had been the case in some instances in the past. If this be so, certainly there would appear to be ample justification for it in the development of the complexities of modern government and in the development and employment in government business of the greatly extended means of communication.
The object of the privilege is, of course, not to further the selfish interests of the Member of Parliament but to protect him from harassment in and out of the House in his legitimate activities in carrying on the business of the House; consideration of the interest of the public in this regard overbears the usual solicitude in our law for the private individual. Viewed in this manner, and that approach, I think, is historically correct, it becomes abundantly clear to me that all of the actions of the respondents complained about, and specifically the sending of the telegram and the issuing of the press release, were no more and no less than the legitimate and lawful discharge by the respondents of their duties in the course of parliamentary proceedings as Ministers of the Crown and Members of the House.
80027-67 'h
[Stage Direction]
January 23, 1978
Aylesworth, J.A., follows Viscount Radcliffe in A.-G. Ceylon v. de Livera, [1963] A.C. 103. Aylesworth, J.A., concluded that both Trudeau and Greene were discharging their "essential functions" in making the statement to the media and in sending the telegram.
In A.-G. Ceylon v. de Livera, Viscount Radcliffe states, at
p. 120:
..., in what circumstances and in what situations is a member of the House exercising his real or essential function as a member? For, given the proper anxiety of the House to confine its own or its members' privileges to the minimum infringement of the liberties of others, it is important to see that those privileges do not cover activities that are not squarely within a member's true function. And further at p. 121:
The most, perhaps, that can be said is that, despite reluctance to treat a member's privilege as going beyond anything that is essential, it is generally recognised that it is impossible to regard his only proper functions as a member as being confined to what he does on the floor of the House itself.
Consequently, it is necessary to determine whether the act complained of is a "real or "essential" function of the Member.
In delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Roman Corp., Martland, J. quotes at length from the judgments of Houlden, J., and Aylesworth, J.A., and adds at
p. 828:
Without dissenting from the views expressed in the Courts below as to the privilege attached to statements made in Parliament, I would prefer to deal with this appeal on the broader issue, on which those Courts have also expressed an opinion.
Following the authorities set out above, I have come to the conclusion that a Member of Parliament may utilize information proscribed by Reg. 76-644 in Parliament and may release that information to the media. However, I hold that the privilege of the Member cannot be extended to protect the media if they choose to release the information to the public. Nor do I consider that the "real" and "essential" functions of a Member include a duty or right to release information to constituents. The cases indicate that the privilege is finite and I would not be justified in extending the privilege to cover information released to constituents.
The applicability of the Regulations to the solicitor-client relationship raises an issue of more general concern. The solicitor-and-client privilege is one that is well recognized and protected by law. A tremendous wealth of judicial pronouncements has evolved over the years dealing with the nature and extent of the privilege. The issue in this case is whether Regulations 76-644 override or abridge that privilege. My reading of the authorities, does not convince me that the Regulations can prevent the applicants from disclosing the
information to their solicitors for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.
Counsel for the applicants seeks to extend the privilege beyond the solicitor-client consultation. They argue that if the privilege is to have any meaning at all, it must be extended to enable the solicitors to initiate legal proceedings on behalf of their clients. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, seeks to restrict the privilege to cases of bona fide consultation. He argues that if the real purpose of the consultation is to circumvent the Regulations and not to obtain advice on the applicant's legal position then the privilege cannot be extended. This argument is analogous to the principle that the privilege does not extend where the consultation involves the commission of a crime. In my opinion, however, it is impossible to predict in advance whether the consultation will be bona fide. Consequently, it must first be determined whether the solicitor-client privilege remains intact notwithstanding the Regulations. If that is so, then the principles relating to the nature and extent of the privilege come into play.
The interplay between statute law and the solicitor-client privilege is considered by Chief Justice Jackett in Re Director of Investigation and Research and Shell Canada Ltd. (1975), 55 D.L.R. (3d) 713 (Fed. C.A.). By virtue of s. 10(1) of the Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, the Director of Investigation and Research was empowered to:
... enter any premises on which the Director believes there may be evidence relevant to the matters being inquired into and may examine anything on the premises and may copy or take away for further examination or copying any book, paper, record or other document that in the opinion of the Director ... may afford such evidence. The issue before the Federal Court of Appeal was whether that Section abridged the solicitor-client privilege. The Court held that it did not.
In delivering the reasons of the Court, Jackett, C.J., makes a number of observations concerning solicitor-client privilege. At p. 722, he states that:
What has to be decided in this case is whether Parliament, by conferring on the Director fact finding powers in the widest possible terms, intended to undermine the solicitor-and-client relationship of confidentiality that made necessary the solicitor-and-client privilege in connection with the giving of evidence in the Courts. In my view, that question must be answered in the negative.
There must always be cases where the Courts, faced with unqualified language used by Parliament to accomplish some important public objective must decide whether it was intended by Parliament, by such language, to make a fundamental change in some law or institution to which no reference is explicitly made (Compare George Wimpey & Co. Ltd., v. B.O.A.C., [1955] A.C. 169 per Lord Reid at p. 191, and R. v. Jeu Jang How (1919), 32 C.C.C. 103, 50 D.L.R. 41, 59 S.C.R. 195, per Duff, J., at pp. 105-6 C.C.C., p. 43 D.L.R., p. 179 S.C.R.) In my view, this is such a case.
January 23, 1978
[Stage Direction]
He then goes on to discuss the nature of the privilege:
In my view, however, this privilege is a mere manifestation of a fundamental principle upon which our judicial system is based, which principle would be breached just as clearly, and with equal injury to our judicial system, by the compulsory form of pre-prosecution discovery envisaged by the Combines Investigation Act as it would be by evidence in Court or by judicial discovery.
In this respect, then, the solicitor-client privilege is prima facie paramount to such legislation. This reasoning is particularly persuasive in the present case.
Chief Justice Jackett also considers the problem of bona fide consultations. At p. 723, he states that:
It must not be forgotten that all that is being discussed in this case are bona fide communications between solicitor and client. Any conspiracy between a solicitor and some other person to commit a crime and any use of a solicitor-and-client relationship to cloak relevant evidence or facts from discovery falls completely outside the principle of confidentiality protected by the law.
The same principle can be applied in the present case. However, bona fides can not be determined in advance and can only be challenged in the light of subsequent events.
In the present case, it is impossible to predict whether the consultations would be bona fide. The mere possibility that they would not does not detract from the prima facie right to the privilege. If subsequent evidence arises demonstrating that the consultations were not bona fide then the privilege is lost. Again, I would point out that the problem in dealing with "absolution before sinning" is that we have no way of knowing what the motive of the applicants actually is or whether any "sin" will be committed. Consequently, I can only offer an academic evaluation of the principles of solicitor-client privilege and can express no opinion on the bona fides in this particular situation.
The decision in Re Director of Investigation and Research and Shell Canada Ltd. is cited with approval by Osier, J., in Re Presswood et al and International Chemalloy Corp. (1975), 11 O.R. (2d) 164. In that case, s. 186(3) of the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 53, provided that company accounts and records were to be produced for examination by an inspector. The company claimed privilege for certain documents. Osier, J., cites the reasons of Jackett, C.J., in Re Director and Shell, at p. 166, and concluded that the company was entitled to maintain the privilege and left to the master the determination whether privilege extended to particular documents.
In the absence of precise and unequivocal language, I am satisfied that Regulations 76-644 do not override or abridge the solicitor-and-client privilege.
The nature and extent of the privilege is somewhat more troublesome. I agree with counsel for the applicants that the Members can initiate legal proceedings. I do not agree, however, that the information can be released to the public simply
because legal proceedings are undertaken. The Court might consider that it was bound to maintain the integrity of the Regulations by sealing all pleadings and material and maintaining such confidentiality during the course of the proceedings. Indeed, there may be an onus on the party initiating the proceedings to apply for an order directing that confidentiality be maintained throughout the proceedings before placing the proscribed information in the hands of the appropriate court officials. Proceedings in camera, while rare, are not unknown in our Courts. In this way, the integrity of the Regulations is maintained while the applicants are free to seek a judicial interpretation whether the Government was involved in an illegal cartel and whether such cartel vitiates the validity of the Regulations.
I am supported in this conclusion by the fact that s. 2(a) does not refer to Court proceedings. The section refers to "any person, government, crown corporation, agency or other organization". The administration of justice cannot be slotted into any of these. In my view the Regulations would have to contain the clearest words to negate the right of a citizen to seek redress in the Courts.
The Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, is in a somewhat different position. Section 2(a) of Regulations 76-644 would clearly cover the Director. Consequently, the applicants would be prohibited from releasing the information to the Director. Since the Atomic Energy Control Act is passed in the "national interest" and the Regulations are deemed to be necessary or advisable by the Board, the inevitable conclusion is that the Regulations must take precedence over the remedies in s. 7 and s. 8 of the Combines Investigation Act. The question remains whether the remedies in s. 7 and s. 8 are totally inapplicable in view of the Regulations.
Section 7(1) states that:
7.(1) Any six persons resident in Canada who are not less than eighteen years of age and who are of the opinion that
(a)	a person has contravened or failed to comply with an order made pursuant to section 29, 29.1 or 30,
(b)	grounds exist for the making of an order by the Commission under Part IV.I, or
(c)	an offence under Part V or section 46.1 has been or is about to be committed,
may apply to the Director for an inquiry into such matter. (1974-75, c. 76, s. 3(1)).
Section 7(2) sets out the material which must be filed in support of such an application:
(2) The application shall be accompanied by a statement in the form of a solemn or statutory declaration showing
(a)	the names and addresses of the applicants, and at their election the name and address of any one of their number, or of any attorney, solicitor or counsel, whom they may, for the purpose of receiving any communication to be made pursuant to this Act, have authorized to represent them:
[Stage Direction]
January 23, 1978
(b)	the nature of
(i)	the alleged contravention or failure to comply,
(ii)	the grounds alleged to exist for the making of an order, or
(iii)	the alleged offence
and the names of the persons believed to be concerned therein and privy thereto; and
(c)	a concise statement of the evidence supporting their opinion. (1974-75, c. 76, s. 3(2)).
Obviously, s. 7(2)(c) creates a problem for the applicants.
In my opinion, the applicants herein are entitled to make such an application and can include as much public information as possible. Section 7(2)(c) does not say that the applicants must prove the offence. It simply states that the applicants must provide evidence to support "their opinion" that the offence was committed. The Director then seeks out the evidence necessary for a prosecution or other action. I recognize that the investigation may be fruitless. The Director may run up against the confidentiality problem created by Regulations 76-744 or by a claim of "Crown Privilege" wherever he goes for information. That possibility is not in issue in this application.
In the result, I have concluded that Regulations 76-644 do not override or abridge the solicitor-client privilege. The situation, however, is governed by the same principles which apply to any other privileged occasion and a consultation or conspiracy concerning the proposed commission of a crime would not be privileged. The privilege does not allow the applicants or the solicitor to release any proscribed information to any other "person, government, crown corporation, agency or other organization". Moreover, the Regulations do not prohibit the institution of court proceedings provided that such proceedings maintain the confidentiality of the information.
Finally, the privilege or the ability to initiate proceedings does not enable the applicants to release proscribed information to the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act, although the applicants are entitled to trigger an investigation under s. 7 and s. 8 without releasing such proscribed information.
Counsel for the applicants also sought to impugn the validity of the Regulations by arguing that they were contrary to s. 1(a) and s. 1(d) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, 8-9 Eliz. II, c. 44. Despite the forceful submissions of counsel, I am not satisfied that the Regulations can be set aside on that basis.
Section 1 (a) reads:
1.	It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
Counsel for the applicants argued that Regulations 76-644 deprive Canadian citizens of very basic rights without "due process of law".
The concept of "due process of law" is considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Curr v. The Queen, [1972] S.C.R. 889, in which the Court considered the validity of s. 223(1) of the Criminal Code dealing with breath samples. It is quite true that the approach taken by the then Chief Justice and Ritchie, J., avoids the issue of the Canadian Bill of Rights altogether, but Laskin, J. deals with the issue at great length. I cannot conclude that what Laskin, J., says is merely obiter since it forms a substantial basis for his reasons.
At p. 892, Laskin, J., starts off with the admonition that:
The Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960 (Can.), c. 44 is invoked in this case to sterilize certain provisions of the Criminal Code, viz., ss. 223 and 224A(3), as enacted by s. 16 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 (Can.), c. 38. That it may have a sterilizing effect upon federal legislation was decided by this Court in Regina v. Dry-bones, [1970] S.C.R. 282. Whether that must be the result here in no way depends upon what was decided in Regina v. Drybones.
Consequently, it is necessary to deal with each case according to its peculiar circumstances and with particular consideration for the legislation involved.
In dealing with the phrase "due process of law" Laskin, J., states, at p. 897:
The phrase "due process of law" has its context in the words of s. 1(a) that precede it. In the present case, the connection stressed was with the right of the individual to . .. security of the person. It is obvious that to read due process of law as meaning simply that there must be some legal authority to qualify or impair security of the person would be to see it as declaratory only. On this view, it should not matter whether the legal authority is found in enacted law or in unenacted or decisional law. Counsel for the applicant does not, of course, stop here. He contended for a qualitative test of legislation to meet the standard of due process of law and urged that the Court find that s. 223 fell below it. This was, however, a bare submission, not reinforced by any proposed yardstick.
What it amounted to was an invitation to this Court to monitor the substantive content of legislation by reference to s. 1(a). The invitation is to take the phrase 'except by due process of law' beyond its antecedents in English legal history, and to view it in terms that have had sanction in the United States in the consideration there of those parts of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the American Constitution that forbid the federal and state authorities respectively to deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
He then concludes, at pp. 899-900:
In so far as s. 223 may be regarded, in the light of s. 223(2), as having specific substantive effect in itself, I am
January 23, 1978
[Stage Direction]
likewise of the opinion that s. 1 (a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights does not make it inoperative. Assuming that 'except by due process of law' provides a means of controlling substantive federal legislation-a point that did not directly arise in Regina v. Drybones-compelling reasons ought to be advanced to justify the Court in this case to employ a statutory (as contrasted with a constitutional) jurisdiction to deny operative effect to a substantive measure duly enacted by a Parliament constitutionally competent to do so, and exercising its powers in accordance with the tenets of responsible government, which underlie the discharge of legislative authority under the British North America Act. Those reasons must relate to objective and manageable standards by which a Court should be guided if scope is to be found in s. 1(a) due process to silence otherwise competent federal legislation. Neither reasons nor underlying standards were offered here. For myself, I am not prepared in this case to surmise what they might be. (Emphasis added)
At pp. 902-3, Laskin, J., reiterates and concludes:
The very large words of s. 1(a), tempered by a phrase ('except by due process of law') whose original English meaning has been overlaid by American constitutional imperatives, signal extreme caution to me when asked to apply them in negation of substantive legislation validly enacted by a Parliament in which the major role is played by elected representatives of the people. Certainly, in the present case, a holding that the enactment of s. 233 has infringed the appellant's right to the security of his person without due process of law must be grounded on more than a substitution of a personal judgment for that of Parliament. There is nothing in the record, by way of evidence or admissible extrinsic material, upon which such a holding could be supported. I am, moreover, of the opinion that it is within the scope of judicial notice to recognize that Parliament has acted in a matter that is of great social concern, that is the human and economic cost of highway accidents arising from drunk driving, in enacting s. 223 and related provisions of the Criminal Code. Even where this Court is asked to pass on the constitutional validity of legislation, it knows that it must resist making the wisdom of impugned legislation the test of its constitutionality. A fortiori is this so where it is measuring legislation by a statutory standard, the result of which may make federal enactments inoperative. (Emphasis added)
This approach is particularly relevant to the current case. If we accept the finding in Pronto that the legislation involves the "national interest" and the finding in Duquesne that we cannot question the decision of the Board on the subjective necessity of the Regulations, we are left with the position that we should not impugn the legislation or the Regulations on the basis of s. 1 (a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. On considering the principles enunciated in Curr, Pronto and Duquesne, I
have concluded that the Bill of Rights does not invalidate the Atomic Energy Control Act or Regulations 76-644.
Moreover, the Regulations are approved by the Governor General-in-Council and we must assume that due consideration has been given to the effect which the Regulations will have. It is not my function to assess the wisdom of the Regulations or whether their scope was excessive. The Regulations have been properly promulgated under the Act and have been passed by "due process of law".
I am also of the opinion that the same approach should be taken to s. 1(d) of the Bill of Rights ("freedom of speech"). It is trite law to say that freedom of speech is not absolute but is freedom governed by law. As Laskin, J., points out in Curr, we must consider the effect of the particular legislation in determining the effect of the Bill of Rights. The Preamble of the Atomic Energy Control Act states that it is passed in the "national interest" and I am not prepared to dispute Parliament's decision in that respect. The Members of Parliament are fully cognizant of the effect that the Act might have and of the considerable power granted to the Board under s. 9. The Board has decided that freedom of speech must be abridged in the national interest. I realize that there is an inherent repugnance in allowing an administrative tribunal to take such drastic steps but I recognize that the Regulations also have the approval of the Governor General-in-Council.
Having considered all these factors, I am of the view that Parliament is the best judge of the measures which should be taken in the public interest. By applying the principles enunciated by Laskin, J., in Curr, I find that the Act and Regulations 76-644 are valid notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Since I have already held that the privileges of the Members continue notwithstanding the Regulations, I need not consider the effect of s. 1(d) on such privileges in relation to Regulations 76-644. Moreover, since I have also concluded that the solicitor-client privilege exists notwithstanding Regulations 76-644, I need not consider the extent of s. 2(c) (right to counsel).
While this matter was reserved, Counsel advised me that the Regulations have been amended. On October 13, 1977, the Cabinet approved Regulations SOR/77-758 which replace SOR/76-644:
Short Title
1.	These Regulations may be cited as the Uranium Information Security Regulations.
Interpretation
2.	In these Regulations, "foreign tribunal" includes any court or grand jury and any person authorized or permitted under foreign law to take or receive evidence whether on behalf of a court or grand jury or otherwise.
Security of Information
3.	No person who has in his possession or under his control any note, document or other written or printed
[Stage Direction]
January 23, 1978
material in any way related to conversations, discussions or meetings that took place between January 1, 1972 and December 31, 1975 involving that person or any other person in relation to the exporting from Canada or marketing for use outside Canada of uranium or its derivatives or compounds shall
(a)	release any such note, document or material or disclose or communicate the contents thereof to any person, foreign government or branch or agency thereof or to any foreign tribunal unless
(i)	he is required to do so by or under a law of Canada, or
(ii)	he does so with the consent of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources; or
(b)	fail to guard against or take reasonable care to prevent the unauthorized release of any such note, document or material or the disclosure or communication of the contents thereof.
Application
4.	Section 3 does not apply to a person unless he has such possession or control by reason of the direct or indirect acquisition by him of the note, document or material because of his being or having been
(a)	engaged in the mining, exporting, refining or selling of uranium or its derivatives or compounds;
(b)	appointed to a public office or by a Minister pursuant to subsection 37(1) of the Public Service Employment Act or employed in the public service; or
(c)	a director, an officer, employee or agent of
(i)	a person engaged as described in paragraph (a),
(ii)	a company incorporated in Canada that is or was a parent, subsidiary or affiliate of or related to another company incorporated in Canada so engaged or to a foreign corporation so engaged; or
(iii)	the Atomic Energy Control Board, Eldorado Nuclear Limited or Uranium Canada, Limited.
It can be seen that Section 4 of the new Regulations has a profound effect on this application. Subsequent to the amendment counsel attended upon me and agreed that I should deliver judgment without regard to the amendment, I have done so.
As a result, an order will go granting a declaration as follows:
1.	That the Uranium Information Security Regulations do not prohibit the applicants from releasing any note, documents or material or communicating the contents thereof to their solicitors and counsel for the purpose of seeking legal advice.
2.	That the Regulations do not prohibit the applicants or any member of the House of Commons from releasing or disclosing any such documents in the course of Parliamentary debate or to the press.
3.	That Subsection 2(a)(ii) of the Regulations is ultra vires the Atomic Energy Control Board and the Governor in Council under S. 9 of the Atomic Energy Control Act.
Apart from this, the application is dismissed. This is not a case for an award of costs. I am grateful to counsel for their assistance in this matter.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, January 24, 1978