1960-02-04

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1961, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Deputy Speaker to the house.
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in tabling the main estimates for the fiscal year 1960-61 I should like to make a very brief statement to the house indicating to hon. members certain significant features.
I am pleased to report that compared with the estimates for 1959-60 tabled to date, a decrease of $164.9 million has been effected in the total of the non-statutory items for 196061 and that the over-all increase has been held to $58.2 million, an increase of approximately 1 per cent. This result continues the trend established last year in bringing about reductions in controllable expenditures. The very careful and detailed review of the estimates made by treasury board this year has permitted this reduction to be achieved without any decrease in essential public services.
These estimates provide for sustaining, and in some cases enlarging, the expenditures relating directly to national development such as atomic energy, exploration and scientific research, and transportation and communications. Other controllable costs have been sharply restrained.
I move, seconded by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill):
That the message of His Excellency, together with the estimates presented this day, be referred to the committee of supply.


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


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some concern at this point because, the minister having made a statement in connection with his proposals in the estimates for the coming year, I assume that on that basis, and having regard to certain procedures that have been established, an opportunity will then be given to representatives of the other parties to make some comment. On the other hand, on
the point of order which prompts me to rise at the moment, I believe the motion itself is not debatable.
I must point out to the house that last year the Minister of Finance greatly offended those in this party because he made a very lengthy statement at this stage in the proceedings, and the most offensive part of it was that he introduced the statement with the words that he was following the example of his predecessors in doing such and such.
Now, he did indicate that a statement such as he gave had not been given at least for some five years in the house. I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that on the previous occasions when a statement of this kind was made, it was given by one of his predecessors not with any attempt or design to have any political tub-thumping or self-praise, but on the contrary simply to point out to the house -I assume, having regard to the procedure, with the consent of the house-that the estimates as tabled did have some novel features in the style of the contents. The predecessor of the present Minister of Finance was quite terse in making any references to actual comparisons of expenditures, with those of previous years.
One has a great deal of hesitancy about speaking to the Minister of Finance in the light of what he had to say last week concerning the rights of opposition members to make remarks. One, of course, was reminded of that statement by one of the French kings, "L'etat, c'est moi".


Some hon. Members:: Point of order?


William Moore Benidickson: My point of order is this. I feel that if the minister, on occasions of this kind, feels obliged to make a statement, then you should rule that those on this side of the house representing the two opposition parties should similarly have an opportunity to make a statement.
The motion that is involved in this particular procedure is, under our rules, section 32 (2), not debatable. The minister was reprimanded last week for being unduly loquacious in connection with filing ordinary documents in the house. I refer to the tariff board report. If we are to have a new procedure that involves debate I think it should be given consideration by Your Honour; because, as all members of the house know, two or three hours prior to the opening of a session of this kind detailed information regarding

Tabling of Main Estimates this voluminous book of expenditures is provided to the press. They are given a press release in a form that suits the Minister of Finance.
Last year the minister chose to present a controversial statement, and in presenting one this year he pats himself on the back with respect to his book of estimates. I ask a ruling from Your Honour.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: In
view of the fact that the minister made a statement I presume we are in order in making a short statement in reply.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the point of order only.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That makes me take a second look. I might say, on behalf of this happy band, that we hope these estimates do not overlook any essential expenditure in view of current unemployment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he is not discussing the point of order. The point of order raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) is the fact that the Minister of Finance should not have made a statement. That is the only point upon which I should like to hear the hon. member.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Following the argument put forward by the member for Kenora-Rainy River, I simply say this to the point of order. We have nothing further to say. We think the minister should have done as suggested, so as to give us an opportunity to look this mangy gift horse in the mouth to see whether its teeth are sound.


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: On
this point of order, I feel that the minister was permitted to make a statement which he concluded by making a motion. I feel that motion must be held in abeyance until the opposition parties have had a chance to reply to the statement of the minister. I would appeal to you to rule in that manner.


An hon. Member:: The motion is not
debatable.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Except by the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps I might say a word upon the point of order on which, if I may say so with respect, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is quite mistaken. This brief statement I made today, by way of simply comparing the estimates tabled with those of the previous year, has an abundance of precedents. May I mention four precedents, Mr. Speaker? The first was established by my predecessor, Mr. Abbott, on February 24, 1950. You will find it at pages 197, 198 and 199 of Hansard of that

year. If you will take the trouble to examine the record there, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the statement made by Mr. Abbott on that occasion embraces two and a half pages of Hansard.


Mr. Pearson:: On the form of the estimates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was followed by the motion I have made today, that the estimates be referred to the committee of supply, and the opposition did not rise and make a protest on a point of order. There was brief comment and a question, and the then prime minister replied to the question. That was what followed on that occasion.
Then in the following year, 1951, Mr. Abbott again made a statement. He introduced the estimates on March 12, 1951. You will find the passage containing his statement at page 1155 of Hansard. There he again drew comparisons with the estimates of the previous year at much greater length than I have done today. His statement on this occasion occupies about three quarters of one column of Hansard. But in it there is one interesting passage to which I would direct attention in view of the reference made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River to the fact that the estimates were given to the press in a closed meeting from which no one was released until the opening of the house this afternoon. May I just refer to that passage. It is in the middle of the statement made by Mr. Abbott, and is as follows:
Instead I am following the practice that my predecessors and I have followed in past years of issuing a detailed statement to the press at the time the estimates are presented to the house.
He then went on to say that copies of the press statement would be available to members of the house at his office if they wished to have the full statement that was issued to the press.
Then the third of these precedents, Mr. Speaker, is to be found-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I interrupt the minister and ask him whether in this particular year the leaders of the opposition parties made comments following the comment by the then minister of finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In 1951, the date to which I just referred, there was no comment or discussion of any kind. Hansard indicates that the motion was agreed to immediately following the statement of Mr. Abbott.


William Moore Benidickson: Because the statement was not political.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not quite sure what the hon. gentleman means by "political". If he includes comparisons with

the estimates of the previous year as being political, then I am afraid he will have to pass the same judgment on this passage in the statement made by Mr. Abbott in 1951. Mr. Abbott stated:
As regards the figures themselves, the grand total of the estimates is, of course, much larger than this past year, because expenditures on defence and defence production have increased from about $770 million in this current year to $1,664 million in the new year-an increase of $894 million. The estimates for all other departments amount in total to approximately $1,923 million, compared with $1,958 million for the current year, including those supplementaries already appropriated. Thus we show a reduction for departments other than defence of $35 million, notwithstanding substantially higher levels of costs.
There was no comment from the opposition, and that was natural and proper. The opposition in those days were a little bit better acquainted with the rules of the house than are the opposition today.
The third precedent is to be found on February 5, 1954, in Hansard at page 1809. On this occasion Mr. Abbott again made a statement which occupies nearly a full page of Hansard, in the course of which he engaged in a detailed comparison of the estimates he was then tabling with those of the previous year, including the supplementaries which had been tabled up to that date. He introduced the same motion, that the estimates be referred to the committee of supply, and Hansard records simply "Motion agreed to". There was no statement from the opposition and no point of order was raised, as indeed there could not properly be.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the other precedent is one which I am sure hon. members opposite will not view with quite the same measure of approval, because it was a year ago when, following the example set by my illustrious predecessor, Mr. Abbott, on three occasions, I brought in the estimates on February 5, 1959, and made a statement extending over a page and three quarters. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that that is substantially shorter than the statement which was made by Mr. Abbott in 1950. Then the motion was agreed to, and after it was agreed to the Leader of the Opposition rose and proposed to make a detailed comment on the estimates.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, the motion of course is noit debatable. There will be days and days and days throughout this session when these estimates will be under review, and the fullest opportunity extended to all hon. members to make whatever comments they wish on these estimates, either in detail or in aggregate. So this pretence, Mr. Speaker, of being denied an opportunity to comment on a statement made by the Minister of Finance in tabling the estimates is very hollow.
Tabling of Main Estimates


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, may I reply briefly to the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance. I have read carefully all the precedents he has indicated and they do not in any way conflict with the original statement I made as to what caused previous ministers of finance to make any statements at all in connection with motions of this kind. As one can see, on the previous occasions the matter was so non-controversial that nobody in the opposition felt obliged to say a word in connection with it.
The point is that on both occasions, in 1951 and 1954, the form of the estimates themselves was substantially changed. In 1954 the estimates were being changed pursuant to a recommendation of a committee of this house, the public accounts committee, and the minister chose that opportunity to explain to the house that he had acceded to the recommendations of the parliamentary committee in this respect. The point I was making-


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask if the
hon. member will not agree that the minister on that occasion, Mr. Abbott, also went on to compare the estimates he was tabling with those of the previous year?


William Moore Benidickson: I said that in my original statement, Mr. Speaker. My words were that he did so in the tersest possible form. I contrast that with the precedent of last year which I deplore and to which I object, a precedent that is developing under the leadership of the Minister of Finance, a precedent that he himself has referred to, when he has this kind of political-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask the hon.
member if he would specify the points in the statement of the minister to which he objects.


William Moore Benidickson: Of last year, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Not of last year; the statement he made today.


William Moore Benidickson: It is a question whether or not, on the introduction of a motion that is not debatable, without justification such as I indicated was the justification in the past precedents where there was a change in the form of the estimates, a statement should be made by the minister.


Mr. Hees:: Would the hon. member permit a question?
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposifion): On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to ask the Minister of Finance whether he extended the same consideration, indeed courtesy, to the leaders of the opposition parties that he

Tabling of Main Estimates extended to the press in making available to them in advance copies of his estimates and his statement?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I followed the practice of my predecessors. I checked on it very carefully.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh, no, you did not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Copies were given to the press and, in accordance with the practice, were not given to hon. gentlemen opposite until tabled in the house. I did, of course, communicate with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River this morning, as financial critic for the opposition, to inform him that I would be tabling the estimates this afternoon and that the brief statement I proposed to make would not exceed two paragraphs.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: On
the point of order, might I put it this way; how ridiculous can we get in this house? I do not doubt that points can be raised, but what are they about? They are about what has happened in the past. What is happening now? The fact is that the estimates are tabled. We shall have a chance to discuss all these estimates, so why waste the time of this house?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: I want to say on this point of order that we shall be doing a damned sight better job representing the people of Canada if we get away from these attacks and crossfire and what has happened in the past, and get down to business.
All our discussion up to now means nothing at all, absolutely nothing except perhaps for a few headlines. I say let the Minister of Finance and the opposition and everyone else forget these little technicalities. They don't mean a damn in hell. Let us get down to the job and pass this motion, and then we will deal with the estimates-and I mean, deal with the estimates-when they come before us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At the risk of taking an unpopular stand I should like to say one word on the point of order and it is this. Technicalities are what make it possible for parliament to work, and without a proper respect for the rules parliament will not work.
My hon. friend the member for Kenora-Rainy River has shown that on three occasions there was a special reason for taking an exceptional line, and I submit that the Minister of Finance has attempted to justify his action by taking three exceptions-not out of the immediate past, because there were none in

that period-but out of the period when Mr. Abbott was minister of finance, and I think he was minister of finance for longer than anyone else with perhaps one exception.


An hon. Member:: You are wasting time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, of course, talking is wasting time. Ask your leader whether talking in parliament was wasting time when he was over here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think we might take the question as being now sufficiently aired. I would have thought that the comment made by the minister was very brief indeed, and that it would have been possible for the opposition parties to have commented at the same length. Therefore, if the house agrees, I shall put the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel) moved:
That the first report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house under standing order No. 65 presented yesterday be approved.
Motion agreed to.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Churchill):
That the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to it by the house; and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


Harold Edward Winch: I would like to ask, if I may-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is not debatable. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Harold Edward Winch: I want to know whether this will also apply to all other committees of the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since the motion is not debatable I shall put the question. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Harris Hees: That the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines be empowered to consider the toll collections operation on the Jacques Cartier bridge, Montreal, Quebec.


Mr. Chevrier:: I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to allow this motion to stand until tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion stands.
Motion stands.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short announcement. As hon. members are aware, I have been in correspondence with the premiers of the several provinces concerning initial plans for the observance of Canada's centennial in 1967. As a result of those communications, representatives of the provinces will meet with some of my colleagues and myself on Monday, February 8 in connection with preliminary plans for the celebrations in question.
It is hoped that at this meeting there will be a wide range of ideas and views presented on ways and means in which this important milestone in the national history of Canada can be best observed.
Following this meeting the government hopes that working arrangements and groups can be formed to carry on the initial plans.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members will have welcomed the announcement of the Prime Minister that preparatory steps are to be taken in collaboration with the provinces to bring about an appropriate celebration for our 100th birthday. This will be a great year in Canada's history, and we are all anxious that it shall be celebrated fittingly. It is not too soon to begin the preparations now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, we also have the same point of view on this important matter as the Leader of the Opposition, and welcome these steps toward celebrating our 100th anniversary. In addition, I might say on behalf of the members of this group that we trust when we celebrate our 100th anniversary we will have a Canada in which all Canadians will enjoy the full benefits of our production.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-43, to amend the 79951-0-46
Proposal Legislation
British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952, with respect to representation in the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Erik Nielsen: The purpose of this bill is simply to provide representation in the Senate of Canada for the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REPRESENTATION ACT


Erik Nielsen: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-44, to amend the Representation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Erik Nielsen: The purpose of this bill is to provide representation for Canadians in the Franklin and the Keewatin districts of the Northwest Territories, representation which all other Canadians already enjoy.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BILL OF RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will he comment on the statement of the attorney general of Quebec in the legislative assembly that the Prime Minister's proposed bill of rights would have inadmissible results for which the Quebec government would never stand?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no observations to make on the reported statement, except to say that it has been made manifestly clear over and over again that any bill of rights passed by this parliament would be in respect of those matters which come exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament.


Mr. Hellyer:: In other words it will be completely ineffective.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the genial Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is
714	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry consideration being given to the request of the Canadian Legion for the government to take action to restore the disability pensioner to at least the same comparable position he held in 1920?


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The government has received representations from the Canadian Legion, as well as from other veterans organizations, requesting a review of the Pension Act. I do not understand just what the hon. member means by his statement "to take action to restore the disability pensioner to at least the same comparable position he held in 1920". There have been many changes in the act since 1920, and many benefits have been added since that time.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, the government is always pleased to take under consideration representations made by veterans organizations for the improvement of veterans legislation.



THE ROYAL FAMILY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State. A board of school trustees in our area is exploring the (possibility of naming a new school building in honour of the new royal baby. My question is, is it necessary for public bodies or individuals to obtain permission before using the names of members of the royal family for buildings or other structures? If so, would the minister care to comment on the necessity for such permission?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question I must say that it is necessary to file a detailed request through the Department of the Secretary of State. As far as the other part of the question is concerned, I must say that the request seems a little premature. I would inform my hon. friend that Her Majesty the Queen has asked in the past that, until her children are considerably older, their names should not be associated with public institutions.



PUBLIC SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF queen's PRINTER
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can


he tell us why there has been such an extraordinarily long delay in the appointment of the queen's printer?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the records are examined it will be found that on occasion there have been delays made necessary by circumstances or otherwise.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the Prime Minister think it is necessary in the public interest to keep this post vacant for this long period?



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the literature received by members the day before yesterday on the subject of refugees, is any consideration being given to amending the regulations so as to put an end to the discrimination against coloured people?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I
do not know of any discrimination against coloured people.


Erhart Regier: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister explain to the house why the Canadian decision to participate in the project known as world refugee year is limited to refugees in Europe?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the intention of this whole plan is to clear the camps of Europe; and Canada, as the hon. member knows, is taking her part by bringing tubercular refugees to this country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs state that the intention of refugee year is merely to clear the camps of Europe?


Howard Charles Green: Well, it is hoped that eventually the whole refugee problem will be settled, but at least this is a very worth-while start and Canada has taken her part in the project.


Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cariier):: May I ask a
further supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house whether there is a statutory or other definition of "refugee", or can he define the word "refugee" for the house?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that his question cannot be in order because in fact he is asking for an opinion from the minister. At least the question sounded like that to me.


Leon David Crestohl: We are using the word "refugee", and may I point out that I am asking the minister whether or not there is a statutory definition of the word "refugee".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is exactly it. The hon. member can refer to the statutes, and he can ask for an opinion from a legal adviser.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask a supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration what categories of persons are admissable as refugees?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Those who are selected by the United Nations high commissioner for refugees.


Erhart Regier: I should like to ask another supplementary question directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to inform us when we may expect the establishment of a scrutiny committee, such as he announced on January 27; and will this committee be permitted to investigate alleged discrimination because of colour in Canadian immigration regulations?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the first question is the only one I can answer at this time. When we arrive at that point in the proceedings and I am able to bring about agreement with the members of the opposition as to the establishment of this committee then, if it is agreeable to the house, the committee will be set up. As to what it will look into and its powers, I think what the hon. gentleman has in mind has not been the usual practice followed by the United Kingdom scrutiny committee.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received any representations to move the Regina experimental farm, and is any consideration at all being given by the government to abandoning the project?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Regina experimental farm is located	on leased land.
79951-0-46J
Inquiries of the Ministry Representations have been received to release to the owner the portion of this leased land on which the headquarters of the experimental farm are located. The matter is still in the exploratory stage. No firm decision has been taken yet with respect to the relocation of the project, but there is no intention of closing out the farm or abandoning the project.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister confirm or deny the accuracy of a statement reported to have been made by Premier Roblin of Manitoba that the plans to locate the proposed nuclear research centre in Manitoba will not be altered?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have not seen the report, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Beli):: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received from the Sudbury district chamber of commerce a telegram as to the possibility of further study of the project with a view to the establishment of this nuclear research centre in northern Ontario? If so, will he state to the house that the government is prepared to study the possibility of changing the site of the nuclear research centre?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we have
received various communications concerning the nuclear research centre which is to be established at Whiteshell in Manitoba. Questions have been asked in the house previously on this very matter, which I have answered. The Leader of the Opposition has asked questions concerning this matter. Full consideration was given to the establishment of this nuclear research plant, and the decision was reached that it would be at Whiteshell.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is that a final decision, not subject to reconsideration?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, Mr. Speaker, many decisions have been reconsidered. If the hon. member has suitable grounds for suggesting reconsideration it might be taken under advisement, but at the moment I have not heard from him to that effect.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister has heard from me many times to that effect, as he will see if he will just look at his files.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Armand Dumas: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister tell the house whether he agrees with a report in the Northern Miner of today that the minister's recommendation to establish a nuclear research centre at Whiteshell, Manitoba, is considered a plum for Manitoba?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the establishment of a new nuclear research centre is a plum for all of Canada. It will contribute to the progress we are making in nuclear research.


Armand Dumas: I have one other question. Does the minister consider it would also be a plum for Elliot Lake, which is in an extremely difficult situation at the present time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It would be helpful to Uranium City as well, and perhaps to the Bancroft area.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. What progress has been made in regard to the new post office at Kitchener, and the site for the new post office at Waterloo?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, a site for the new post office at Kitchener has been selected at the southeast corner of Charles street and Gaukel street. Negotiations are proceeding at the present time. In connection with Waterloo, in our planning program we have included an item for new construction at Waterloo to increase post office accommodation, and the project has been tentatively listed to start in the fiscal year 1961-62.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
a supplementary question. Can the Minister of Public Works tell the house whether or not he has received a request from the town of Belle River in the riding of Essex East for the construction of a new post office building in that very fine community?


David James Walker: I will be glad to accept this very important and vital question as notice.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Min-

ister of National Revenue. Can the minister inform the house if he will file or have members supplied with copies of the audience research report recently reported to have been presented by Mrs. Aitkens to the C.B.C. board of governors?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I shall refer that question to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a reply.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister make inquiries at the same time with respect to whether such a report was requested or received by the C.B.C. board of governors, and so inform the house?


George Clyde Nowlan: I shall refer this request to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a reply.


Harold Edward Winch: The minister has said, Mr. Speaker, that he will refer this to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Will the minister give an answer in the House of Commons to this question? I think I am within my rights. He said he would refer it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind the hon. member that he cannot force the minister to give an answer.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not, sir; I am asking if he will give an answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister decides not to answer, the hon. member cannot insist.



SUGGESTED MOVEMENT TO LAKEHEAD BY PIPE LINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I should like to direct a question to the minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the house whether any proposals have been made to the government concerning the possible movement of grain from the west to the lake-head by pipe line?


George Harris Hees: I am not aware of any such request, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCES ON 50-50 PROPOSAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether, as he said on Tuesday he would try to do, it will be possible for him today to make the correspondence with the

governments of the prairie provinces available in order to facilitate consideration of the estimates tomorrow?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible for me to do that. As the hon. member is well aware, correspondence of this sort has to be referred to the provinces from which it has come for their concurrence in its being filed. I have not secured that concurrence to date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister heard that there is a telegraph service in this country?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the hon. member forgotten that he disapproved of the use of the telegraph service for communicating with the provinces?



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexis Pierre Caron: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. About two weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that Premier Barrette announced his readiness to participate in building a new bridge which is so needed between Ottawa and Hull, if he would make an announcement on the matter. Is the Prime Minister ready to inform the house on this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: No, sir.


Alexis Pierre Caron: May I ask a supplementary question. If the Prime Minister is not ready to say that the new bridge can be completed in time for the celebration of the 100th anniversary of confederation, would he take advantage of next Monday to discuss the matter with the premiers of Quebec and Ontario?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not believe the premiers of Quebec and Ontario will be here. The suggestion of the hon. member is not a new one. It has been made by a number of members, one of the Ottawa members and I think the hon. member for Carleton, on an earlier occasion. I am sure it is one of those matters that would merit the fullest consideration.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Would the minister coninquiries of the Ministry sider ordering an investigation by the combines branch into what appears to be use of the government's proposed deficiency payment plan for eggs by the marketing agencies in the prairie provinces to maintain an unusually low price to the producer?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention. In reply I would say that the combines branch is ready at all times to commence an inquiry into any matter upon which there is good reason to believe a breach of the legislation has been or is about to be committed. If the hon. member has specific information in that regard I can assure him that it would be very much appreciated if he would bring it to the attention of the director under the Combines Investigation Act so it could be considered.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Now that the Prime Minister has had an opportunity of travelling along, if not on, the Richelieu river from Sorel to the United States border, can he say whether a study of the economic and technical feasibility of the Richelieu waterway is under way or is being contemplated by the government?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there has been a continuing study, apparently for quite a number of years, of this question. Indeed, an examination of the records would indicate that when the last government was in power there was an investigation, and that is still continuing.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Can the Prime Minister say whether or not he has received any invitation or representation from the state of New York or from Washington concerning a combined study of this project?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to answer that question with complete certainty. However, speaking subject to the usual uncertainties of memory, I may say I have no recollection of such a representation from the state of New York.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
a supplementary question to that of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. Will the Prime Minister give consideration to the suggestion made by the member, the mayor of Sorel, and others in the area, for the establishment of a board of engineers to consider the feasibility of this project, its cost, and also its economic advantages?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Representations were
made by the mayor, and naturally this is a matter that deserves most serious consideration.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: I have now had an opportunity of looking at the new book of estimates, and I think the Minister of Finance would agree that when one calculates-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Moore Benidickson: I have to establish a basis for my question, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister of Finance will agree that when one calculates the amount to be voted, the amount authorized by statute, the amount under the old age security fund, it totals $6,330 million. Will the minister indicate whether or not he has some anxiety because that is $1,111 million more than when similar proposals were put forward at this stage by the last Liberal finance minister?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the purpose of that question was to elicit information, it is an extraordinary one indeed.


William Moore Benidickson: About your anxiety, yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, the principal anxiety I have in relation to hon. members opposite is that they should learn something about the rules of the house soon.


Erhart Regier: May I ask a supplementary question to the one asked by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. In view of the 13 per cent increase in the estimates for the minister's own department, would he give consideration to referring those estimates to either the banking and commerce committee or the estimates committee, so we may ascertain why we have to pay $176 million more this year for the minister's own department?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. gentleman will take the trouble of reading beyond page 1, and turn over to the pages that give the items for the Department of Finance, he will find the whole story set forth there.


Erhart Regier: Would the minister agree to refer these estimates so the members of the House of Commons may ascertain whether or not these high interest rates are necessary?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is repeating the same question, and should be satisfied -with the answer he obtained.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgei (Levis):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the minister in a position to say that the province of Quebec following the recent exchange of correspondence between the premier of that province and the minister is now ready to accept contributions to assist in the construction of roads leading to resources?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I have no information to give the house on this subject at the present time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I do so because of Canada's interest in world peace. In view of recurring reports of disturbances on the Israeli-Arabic border-I use "Arabic" in all its connotations-can the minister bring the house up to date on what action Canada is taking, through his office, in trying to have matters brought to a peaceful conclusion?


Howard Charles Green: There is, Mr. Speaker, on the northern border between Israel and Syria, a United Nations truce supervisory organization which has been active. They have requested each side to get out of the demilitarized zone. I understand the commander of that organization is now in the district checking to see whether or not this has actually been done. In the meantime both the United Arab Republic and Israel have filed a memorandum with the United Nations, but neither has asked for a meeting of the security council.
With regard to the Israeli-United Arab Republic border to the south, there have been no further developments. Apparently the rumour that a division of United Arab Republic troops had moved in near the border is not correct. We have received no reports of any serious developments on that southern border.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a supplementary question. In view of these developments, which I am certain are of concern to all of us and to all democratic countries, may I ask whether


[Stage Direction]
any consideration is being given by the minister's department to the possibility or the necessity of recommending to the United Nations that the emergency force be extended beyond the Gaza strip and be a U.N. emergency force on all borders where there is trouble?
Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker; no decision of that kind has been taken. The United Nations emergency force was set up under the authority of all the member states in the United Nations, and it is fulfilling its function at the present time on the southern border. The truce supervisory organization is doing the same thing on the northern border. For the time being at least there is no need to take the further step suggested by the hon. member.


Harold Edward Winch: Perhaps I misunderstood the minister, and I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the United Nations emergency force has proved so successful on the Gaza strip, and in view of the fact that we are now probably facing a serious situation elsewhere, will consideration be given to the expansion of that principle and policy on other borders?


Howard Charles Green: Of course, as the hon. member knows, Canada's policy has been to have one of the battalions of our regular army in Canada earmarked for service under the United Nations should the government decide that the need has arisen to take such action. That is the part Canada is playing in this regard at the present time.


Harold Edward Winch: One battalion?


Howard Charles Green: We think that is the practical course to follow, and the secretary general of the United Nations is of the same opinion.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to direct a further question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, though it might perhaps be directed to the Minister of National Defence. The question is raised in view of the disturbances on the Israeli-Arab republic border. Are the Canadian members of the United Nations emergency force armed or unarmed?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: The force carries light arms which are sufficient for them to be able to protect themselves but not sufficient for taking part in any major engagement.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National
Inquiries of the Ministry Defence. Does the minister consider that national defence is an essential public service?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, that is a question to which the answer is so obvious that it does not call for a reply.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What is the answer?


George Randolph Pearkes: It is an inane question, and it does not require any answer.
(Translation):



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Romuald Bourque (Ouiremont-St. Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In a recent issue, a Montreal weekly, under the heading "Plaints and Complaints", published the following item:
It is unthinkable that the telephone operator at the Department of Transport's office in Dorval does not speak French. If anyone happens to request the slightest bit of information in our language, he is instantly told: "I am sorry, I can't understand you".
Can the minister tell us if he is aware of this situation?


George Harris Hees: Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to take this question as a notice, and I shall answer it later.
(Text):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: Yesterday the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) sent me an envelope and asked as to the requirement for having postage affixed thereto because it was addressed to the Department of National Revenue, taxation division, box 456, Ottawa.
In reply I would say that the envelope in question follows upon the introduction in 1959 of the plan whereby taxpayers in Ontario filing T-l short income tax returns would do so at one agency, where the returns are processed by electronic computers. The envelope is addressed to the post office box number of a field agency known in the Department of National Revenue as the Ottawa service agency, and is not connected with departmental headquarters in any way. The field agency is in the same category as a district

Criminal Code
taxation office, mail to which must bear the appropriate postage, and is not postage free as is official correspondence addressed to the minister or to his officers at departmental headquarters in Ottawa.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of newspaper reports to the effect that the Canadian government plans to acquire complete control of sections of the pipe line system located in northwestern Canada, and in view of the general interest in the statement by federal officials that the reason cannot be disclosed immediately, is the minister in a position to give the house any information that will satisfy the curiosity of members and the general public?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder whether the hon. member could contain his curiosity until tomorrow, when an item in the estimates will be up for consideration.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-5, to amend the Criminal Code (trading stamps).
He said: Mr. Speaker, trading stamps have ofttimes been referred to as lotteries; and it was through the lottery system that luck arranged for this particular bill be drawn first out of the hat and thus provide an opportunity for a full day's debate on this particular subject matter. While I welcome my good fortune at having this bill being pulled first out of the hat in this type of lottery, nevertheless I disagree with the process used.
There is a wide ranging effect on the economy of the nation through the use of trading stamps and other similar promotional gimmicks, and I hope the debate which ensues today will be able to cover the pros and cons of the trading stamp question and other related types of promotional activities. I understand that in the gallery today are representatives of the Canadian Association of Consumers, who are most interested in this specific problem, and 1 hope the debate will also be of interest to them.
The design of the bill, without referring to its details, is that generally speaking it seeks

to amend section 322 of the Criminal Code which defines trading stamps and also provides certain loopholes through which trading stamps may be introduced and used in Canada. The purpose of the bill before the house at the moment is to plug those loopholes and make it illegal to use trading stamps anywhere in the nation.
This section, although not in its present form, was initially introduced in 1905. At that time the stamp promoters were attempting, through the use of trading stamps, to establish small scale monopolies in certain retail fields by confining the use of the stamps to particular stores. Also certain stamp companies in 1905 were nothing more than what we loosely refer to as fly by night outfits. That is to say, they would invade a certain area and embarked upon a sales campaign of stamps to individual stores; then they would fly the coop, as it were, so that when the consumer came to redeem his stamps there would be no merchandise for which to exchange them.
The history of the development of business enterprise and its activities over the years shows that there are certain trends which private enterprise takes. One of these trends is toward a monopoly or control of the markets for its particular product. Another is an ordinary trend toward bigness itself, whether it be in one field of production, such as aluminum, or whether it be in the many fields of production such as those covered by the Argus corporation. Then there are trends toward price fixing and restriction of production in order to maintain unnecessarily high prices. There are predatory price cutting practices designed to drive other competitors out of business, and there are deceitful and dishonest promotional and advertising schemes.
Trading stamps fall into this category, being a promotional gimmick. That is, in effect, part of a dishonest form of advertising. It also tends to assist in the movement toward a monopoly situation or oligopoly or control of the market within fewer and fewer hands. While the bill relates specifically to trading stamps and receipts which may be redeemed for particular merchandise, this is only a part of the over-all picture of what I consider to be dishonest forms or gimmicks in the advertising field.
Some argument is raised that the government or parliament has no right to interfere in, regulate, or control the operation of private enterprise; that is to say, private enterprise should have the opportunity, without interference or restriction, of doing whatever it pleases. But a review will show that every time parliament, upon the initiative of government through its prerogative in introducing

certain types of bills, has considered these interferences with or invasions of the activities of free enterprise, it has been prompted by governments which are partial to the free enterprise system itself; and the private enterprisers themselves have, by their activities, practically demanded governmental or parliamentary interference, regulation or control of some of those activities.
This interference with and regulation of certain activities of the private enterprise system over the years is necessary in order to protect the consumer against irresponsible or unethical business practices. We accept today as necessary parliamentary or government regulation against those practices in order to protect the consumer. The damaging effects that trading stamps can have upon our economy and the business world certainly call for such regulation.
The major damaging effect of trading stamps is that they accentuate this trend toward control of a market within fewer and fewer hands. The royal commission on price spreads recently gave us some indication how that trend has been developing in the grocery field. In fact, if I may, I should like to refer to one or two figures from the commission's report to show how this has been developing. For instance, in 1951 the percentage of the grocery trade which chain stores had was 37.2 per cent, and in 1958 it had practically doubled and was 64 per cent. This compares with the independent grocer whose percentage decreased from 62.8 per cent in 1951 to only 36 per cent in 1958, and should indicate the trend toward control over the market, in the grocery field especially, with it falling into fewer and fewer hands all the time while the activities of the independent grocer or businessman are declining. This trend will be helped, and is being helped at the moment, by the use of trading stamps. In this regard it represents not very much more than another nail in the coffin of the small business entrepreneur in this nation.
The argument is made that even though the small businessman may be prohibited from participating in trading stamp schemes himself, he can compete with these concerns which are using trading stamps in the matter of price; that if the small businessman wants to compete and does not want to or cannot use these stamps, then his answer is to compete in the field of price reduction in order to attract people to his particular store. This, of course, is rather an erroneous approach, because it relates to different systems or arrangements or concepts of what appeals to the consumer.
Criminal Code
Stamps in themselves have an appeal to the unknown-to me, at least-psychological desire on the part of the consumer to participate in saving things, or to play some sort of game and see how long it takes to fill up a book. It may be some desire to satisfy that inculcated attitude that we have of getting something for nothing by thinking that by saving stamps from a particular store you are able to get other merchandise, such as a floor polisher or something like that, free of charge. Price as a competitive factor cannot bear comparison or compete with the psychological appeal that trading stamps and other promotional gimmicks have. It is trying to relate two different concepts of what constitutes competition, and they do not fit together. In this field, the promise of something for nothing, even a brief look at the advertising material used to sell these stamp deals, the books issued by the stamp companies, shows an obsession with the idea that the consumer is getting something for nothing; that father is getting a free buggy, or that it is not costing anything to get a new bike, and so on.
Mr. Pallet!:	Sounds like socialist philosophy.


Frank Howard: We all know we do not get
something for nothing for ourselves. These things are being paid for by somebody, and that somebody is the consumer.


Mr. Deschaielels:: If I may be permitted
to ask a question, would the hon. member state in the course of his speech whether in his opinion these trading stamps have the effect of increasing the price of food? If so, would he kindly indicate this?


Frank Howard: Yes. As far as I know there has been one survey conducted. That was made by the United States department of agriculture a few years ago, and covered the period from November, 1953 to March, 1957. This survey was conducted in 21 of the states of the United States, and it compared the price increases in stores using stamps with those in stores which did not use stamps. While I am not in possession of the complete report I have a newspaper reference to it which indicates that in those stores using stamps the price increase was .6 per cent greater on an average than in stores which did not use them. I have further reference to make to the question of the effect of trading stamps on prices, but perhaps the hon. member will permit me to follow the outline of my remarks first of all, and I will return to that question later.
There is no doubt, as I was saying, that we do not get anything free today. The consumer pays for the stamps or for the

Criminal Code
merchandise given in exchange for the stamps, in one way or another. Whether an increase takes place as a result of the use of stamps is difficult to determine. The United States department of agriculture survey to which I made reference a few moments ago indicates a figure arrived at on an average and in the face of general food price increases at a retail level. There is a thorough examination of this question in the report of the royal commission on price spreads, and it is almost impossible to determine what actual price increase is the direct result of using stamps.
One of the arguments used by those who have instituted stamp programs in their stores is that because they are an advertising and promotional gimmick, they immediately result in an increased volume of sales for the particular store using them, and that as a result of this increased volume of sales the store is able to absorb the cost of the stamp plan. This cost, I understand, runs in the neighbourhood of 2 per cent of the sales volume. If the volume of sales increases the cost of the stamp plan can be recovered.
But how is this increase to be procured? It can come only at the expense of the store's competitors. These competitors, then, in order to compete on the same psychological basis are themselves forced to introduce a stamp system. Thus, over a period of time the more extensively stamp plans are introduced the greater is the trend to revert to the volume of sales each store enjoyed before the introduction of stamp schemes. And once this condition is reached, if the volume of sales does decline, or if it remains, relative to other stores, what it was before, there is no other way possible than to arrange an increase in price to cover the cost of the stamp plan.
As to the stamp plans which have been introduced in the Ottawa valley, for example, all the companies which have introduced them invariably say they did so because they were forced to by a competitor, or because they were afraid that one of their competitors was about to introduce them first and they wanted to get the jump on him. I believe there is no doubt that even those major stores which are today using stamp plans would like to be free of this cancerous growth and merry-go-round. This is indicated by their own comments on this method of trading.
The royal commission on price spreads to which I made reference a while ago-I do not intend to read extracts from it because it is available to any hon. member who is interested-dealt thoroughly with the use of promotional gimmicks such as trading stamps,

and condemned them. It came conclusively to the opinion that this type of trading was detrimental to the consumer. There is no substitute for price reduction or price competition, no matter to what extent these promotional gimmicks are gilded; they are no substitute for lower prices to the consumer, which is the type of competition in which the consumer is interested.
There are certain forces in Canada at the moment which are engaged in promoting the use of trading stamps. These public relations activities are designed to show that stamps are good things and that we should use them, and that the federal government should not take any action to eliminate or condemn them. Sperry and Hutchinson which, I understand, is the largest stamp plan company in the United States, recently came to Canada and set up a public relations office in Toronto. I am sure all hon. members here have received material from Sperry and Hutchinson which answers a number of questions from Sperry and Hutchinson's point of view as to why stamps are a good thing and why they should be accepted by Canadians.
But the activities of this particular company and some of the people associated with it should make one wonder just what sort of public relations game they are engaged in. I would make reference here to Maclean's magazine of January 2, 1960, page 39. I hope this is a factual reference, because if it is not I am at fault in calling attention to it. I shall read the whole paragraph so it is in its proper context, even though some of it may not be really relevant to the point with which I am dealing. It says:
The CAC (Canadian Association of Consumers) is opposed, ironically, by Byrne Hope Sanders who once helped set up (for the wartime prices and trade board) a now-defunct network of women that was similar in purpose to the CAC. Now a Toronto research and marketing executive, she has launched a pro-stamp campaign on behalf of Sperry and Hutchinson, oldest (since 1896) and largest stamp company of them all-
And so on.
The reference I wish to make here is that Miss Sanders is engaged with Sperry and Hutchinson in a public relations job selling the stamp idea to Canadians. I understand that Miss Sanders is connected with another organization called the Canadian institute of public opinion, the Gallup poll of Canada. The Canadian institute of public opinion conducted a poll recently and in one of their releases dated Saturday, December 5, 1959 we find this with respect to stamps:
To find out the Impact of stamps in its varying degrees across the country-

They asked some questions. The Canadian institute of public opinion, I understand, normally desires to get unconditioned public opinion. It normally desires to phrase its questions so that they are not leading questions and are not designed to get a specific answer; but in its attempt to find out the impact of stamps in varying degrees they asked two very simple questions, which do not show the impact of stamps in any degree, never mind the varying degree. One question reads as follows:
Do you happen to know whether such stamps are given by any stores in this community?
I am sure this question does not elicit too much indication of the impact of stamps. The second question reads:
Is anyone in your family saving these stamps?
The answers are given; certain percentages are given, and I will not bother making reference to them. They relate to Quebec, Ontario and the west. The unfortunate thing, as I said, for the Gallup poll is that if this is being used to serve private ends, such as it might well be because of the connection of the same person with the Canadian institute of public opinion and with Sperry and Hutchinson, a public relations office, then the Gallup poll is going to fall into great disrepute in this country. We certainly hope that such questions as are mentioned in this Gallup poll are not going to be used later on and then have it said, we asked questions and public opinion favours trading stamps, or something of that nature. This is the type of conclusion one could easily come to because of the loaded questions that are in this release and because of the connection this one person has both with the so-called Gallup poll agency and the public relations concern of Sperry and Hutchinson.


Mr. Chown:: Would the hon. gentleman have any objection to putting those figures on Hansard? I think they would be of interest to us.


Frank Howard: Not at all. I thought it might clutter up the record if I read them. I do not know whether my hon. friend would like me to read from them or if he would like to have this press release inserted in Hansard in its entirety?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Does the house wish to give unanimous consent to have this press release placed in Hansard? It would be in order if the house agrees.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Criminal Code
[Editor's note: The press release referred to is as follows:]
Public Opinion News Service



CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC OPINION GALLUP POLL OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
For Release-after 9 a.m. on Saturday December 5th, 1959
Gallup Poll of Canada
About six in ten homes now have stamp-savers By Canadian Institute of Public Opinion In Quebec it's eight in ten; in Ontario five in ten.
What impact have trading stamps made throughout the communities of Canada in terms of availability? Back of all the argument that's going on, how many households are collecting them?
To get the first properly organized national measurement on this contentious issue, the Gallup poll sampled a national cross-section across the country to report on what was actually happening in regard to consumers and retail stamp programs.
In Canada as a whole, stamps are now available in 65 per cent of the communities. They are collected in 59 per cent of the households, averaging the country as a whole.
This national average varies greatly with the regions. In Quebec province where stamps have been in use for many years, they are available in 94 per cent of the communities. Across the province 80 per cent of Quebec homes are collecting stamps.
Ontario has known stamp plans for several years in some areas, such as the Ottawa valley, but they were only introduced in a big way in August of this year. Today they are available in 90 per cent of the communities in Ontario, and saved in 50 per cent of the households.
In the west, where stamps have just been introduced, and have recently been banned in Alberta, stamps are available in only 14 per cent of the communities. They are collected in 14 per cent of the homes.
To find out impact of stamps in its varying degrees across the country, interviewers for the Gallup poll asked this question:
"As you may know some stores give stamps to customers when they buy: These are saved, pasted in books and exchanged for products illustrated in catalogues. Do you happen to know whether such stamps are given by any stores in this community?
Yes	No Don't Know
% % %
Canada	
65	25	10Maritimes	
30	46	24Quebec	
94	2	4Ontario	
90	7	3The West	
14	65	21
Interviewers put a second question to those men and women who said that stamps were available in their community.
"Is anyone in your family saving these stamps?" Columns below compare Quebec, Ontario and the west, with the national average. Number of interviews in the Maritimes in those communities where
stamps are	available is	too small for sound	reporting.	Yes	No	Don't Know%	%	Canada 	
59	41	*Quebec 	
80	19	1Ontario 	
50	50	*The West ...	
19	81	** Less than	1 per cent.	Stamps are	available to	a greater	degree in the
nation's cities, than they are in rural areas. Among
[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code
the largest cities, 66 per cent of the households are saving stamps. In rural areas 55 per cent of farm homes are collecting them.
World Copyright Reserved
Frank Howard: At this stage perhaps I might make reference to the figures themselves so that hon. members can jot them down if they wish. In reply to the question:
Do you happen to know whether such stamps are given by any stores in this community?
The replies indicated that 65 per cent said yes; 25, no; and 10 per cent said they did not know. This applied to all Canada. In the maritimes, 30 per cent replied yes; 46 per cent replied no; and 24 per cent, don't know. In Quebec 94 per cent said yes; 2 per cent, no; and 4 per cent, don't know. In Ontario, 90 per cent said yes; 7 per cent, no; and 3 per cent, don't know. In the west- I assume that means everything from the Ontario-Manitoba border west; we always consider British Columbia to be the west- 14 per cent said yes; 65 per cent said no; and 21 per cent, don't know.
The answers to the question:
Is anyone in your family saving these stamps?
-indicate that in all of Canada 59 per cent said yes; 41 per cent, no. Those who said "don't know" were something less than one per cent. In Quebec, 80 per cent said yes; 19 per cent said no and 1 per cent, don't know. In Ontario, 50 per cent yes and 50 per cent said no. In the west, 19 per cent said yes and 81 per cent said no.
There was reference also to the fact that if parliament were to act as I am suggesting it should act on this bill it would represent an invasion of or a detraction from our freedom of choice. I suggest that when it comes to stamp plans there is relatively little choice. Many consumers are forced by circumstances as to where they live or how close they live to certain stores to deal with stores where stamps are available. Merely because they are available is another reason why choice is denied. I know it is said that this fits into the psychological pattern-I do not know what it is-to save things or to save stamps; that once a consumer embarks upon the saving of stamps his or her eye is then glued primarily to the catalogue and to primarily how long it will take him or her to accumulate enough stamps from a particular store- whether they be pink, blue, green or any other colour-to fill a book or 20 books that the customer needs to get a particular piece of merchandise. People will buy goods from particular stores because those stores have stamps of a particular colour and they need that particular stamp in order to get something they desire. Thus, freedom of choice,
[The Acting Speaker.]
of course, is watered down quite a bit when we take those facts into consideration.
I understand the attitude of the Minister of Justice is that this is a question that is within provincial jurisdiction and that the federal government should have nothing to do with it. It is unfortunate that the government is a bit lacking in courage if it adopts this attitude of passing the buck. If it is the government's attitude that this is a question that is primarily the responsibility of the provincial governments and that the provincial governments should take action such as Alberta has done to wipe out trading stamps completely, then the government should move to clear out this section from the Criminal Code. It should remove it completely from the statute books and make it entirely and purely a provincial matter. If the government did that we would know where we stood. If it is going to say it is a matter of provincial responsibility and yet retain on the statute books the present sections of the Criminal Code dealing with trading stamps then it is nothing more than buck passing and a lack of courage on the part of the government to face up to the facts.
I should like to wind up my remarks by saying that I look with anticipation upon what I hope will be a full ranging debate on this particular subject matter. I hope, sir, that you will be as lenient with other members who participate in the debate as you have been with me because I feel I have ranged a bit beyond the principle of the bill itself. I think you will appreciate, and I am sure hon. members will appreciate, that it may be necessary in this particular field to go beyond the actual principle of the bill and allow a fuller debate than would normally be the case at this particular stage of discussing a bill.
I wish to say that trading stamps and other similar promotion gimmicks, as I said earlier, are deceitful, dishonest and injurious to the consumer. They cannot be compared with price competition and price reduction because price reduction and price competition are the only types of competition that are beneficial to the consumers.
This is the most important issue that we have had occasion to concern ourselves with for some years. I say that not because I was fortunate enough to have the bill brought up at this stage so that it would be discussed but because I believe the principle behind the question itself is that important.
I have left much unsaid. It is not possible to make all the comments I should like to make because of the limited time at my disposal. I am sure also that other hon. members

will want to participate in the debate and will deal with additional aspects of this proposal. I have tried to confine my remarks to what I think are the basic principles involved in trading stamps and not to deal with what may be considered to be side issues. I think this bill is just as important as the one which the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) has on the order paper concerning capital punishment. I know that this bill is important in a different field and in a different way but I think it is important enough to warrant a vote by members of the house. I hope we will have a full and free debate and that the debate will end in time for us to have an opportunity to express by vote whether or not we are in favour of the bill. As I say, I think it is just as important in a different way as the proposal of the hon. member for York-Scarborough regarding capital punishment because trading stamps are a sort of economic punishment inflicted on defenceless consumers.


Mr. Hales:: May I ask the hon. member a question before he sits down? He referred to a survey by the United States department of agriculture indicating the price index change in stores that use stamps compared with stores that do not use stamps. Did I hear him correctly that the increase was 6 per cent?


Frank Howard: I am sorry if the hon. member got that impression. It was .6, six tenths of one per cent.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I have a question along the same line. I realized that the figure was .6 per cent but I did not know what the source of the statistic was or what types of stores were covered. Were they chain stores or did it include independent merchants?


Frank Howard: I tried to indicate that I had not had a chance to see the report itself. I cannot answer these questions because I do not know but the type of store would have a bearing on the statistical information given in the report. If I may cover the ground again, I mentioned earlier that the introduction of stamps initially by one store to the exclusion of others apparently results in an increase in volume and in such a case the increase in volume will be sufficient to cover the cost of the stamps and therefore there is no increase in prices. Sales go up anywhere from 15 per cent to 40 per cent so there is no increase in the price of goods to cover the cost of the stamp plan. But when other stores enter into the field their sales volumes eventually tend to revert to the level it was prior to the introduction of the plan. When they are all using stamps there is no other way to cover the cost of the plan than by an increase in the
Criminal Code
prices of their goods. One would have to study the report of the United States department of agriculture thoroughly to see how many stores there were in one city, how many were chain stores and so on. I am sorry I have not had a chance to study the report although I wrote and asked for it.


Mr. H. F. Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, since the subject of trading stamps has engaged public attention I have been deluged, as I am sure every other member of the house has, with material, letters and advice, both for and against. A considerable amount of the material in favour of stamps has been furnished members by the Sperry and Hutchinson Corporation which I presume is a Canadian subsidiary of Sperry and Hutchinson Incorporated in the United States.
Nothing that I have read has shaken my conviction that trading stamps are another hand in the till of the retail merchant and another hand in the pockets of the consumers. Having said that as clearly and unequivocally as I can, the question remains, why should we try to prevent trading stamps if the public wants them? The answer to that is clear. Nobody wants to prevent the public getting what the public in fact wants provided, as far as our jurisdiction in this matter is concerned, that the criminal law is not contravened.
We are not called upon today to discuss the whole issue of trading stamps, whether they are good or bad or whether or not they are a help to the consumer and the retailer. What we are concerned with only is whether, using the bill before us as our terms of reference, all forms of discounts to consumers by means of what are commonly called trading stamps are of such a serious nature that they constitute a crime against the nation.
In this connection I should like to refer briefly by way of introduction to some of the material that has been submitted. I am well aware of the good work that has been done by the Canadian Association of Consumers in bringing to public attention the chief factors which are disturbing them in connection with trading stamps. The president of that association, Miss Isabel Atkinson, is well and favourably known in my own constituency. Another group which has been opposed to trading stamps is the retail merchants, both their national and provincial organizations.
I would say that the public has a right to be informed of the evils of trading stamps and of their uneconomic and costly use of time and money. They are uneconomic for the retailer because in addition to the staff of the store having to provide the service of

Criminal Code
displaying, storing and distributing the goods that the customer wants the staff also has to handle the trading stamps and this adds to the cost of doing business. It adds to the cost of the goods the consumer buys. I do not think it is possible to deny that.
I have heard the view expressed that the use of trading stamps reduces the cost of goods to the consumer because it increases the volume of goods handled by a particular store. I suppose it is possible for a cost accountant to -calculate whether or not trading stamps used by a particular store increase its volume to such an extent that its costs of operation go down and therefore it is in a position to reduce the cost -of its goods or to increase the benefits to its customers by way of trading stamps. However, the surveys I have seen, and which have been referred to by the hon. member which has just spoken, cannot in my opinion be held to demonstrate whether or not trading stamps on a national basis can be said to reduce costs to the consumer.
There are so many factors arising in each business which has been studied which contribute to the increase or decrease in costs, that I do not think it is possible on a nationwide scale to arrive at any conclusion from that method. We do know that if all stores used trading stamps the result would be an increase in cost to the consumer because this would inevitably increase the cost of doing business. The use of trading stamps, as I pointed out, involves the use of the retailer's time; it involves the use of a staff to carry out the distribution of these stamps; it involves printing extra material to be passed to the consumer, all of which has to be paid for by the consumer.
However, I believe we must direct our attention more closely to the bill that is before us. I want to do that, Mr. Speaker, and in that regard we have to consider what the field of jurisdiction of this government is. A press release issued by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) on November 3, 1959, contains this statement:
I do not for a moment minimize the objections that may be made to the economic effects of trading stamps. But in so far as their use relates only to the terms and conditions attached by a retailer to the sale of a particular article or articles of merchandise, there is nothing to bring such use within the criminal jurisdiction of the dominion parliament. From this point of view the only authorities who can control, regulate or abolish trading stamps as such are the provincial legislatures, acting under their exclusive jurisdiction over the laws relating to such matters as contract and the sale of goods.
The hon. member for Skeena said that this was merely passing the buck. He said that the government could clear up this

matter by removing the references to trading stamps from the Criminal Code and merely stating that this was a provincial matter. With the very greatest deference to the opinions of the hon. member for Skeena, I would say that our constitution cannot be disposed of in that way. It is not up to this government to say that this matter is no longer a matter of federal jurisdiction but is a matter of provincial jurisdiction or vice versa. Under our constitution, there are certain powers that are allocated to the federal government, and certain things to the provincial government; then again, certain matters are under the jurisdiction of both governments. The federal government is not empowered to pass this legislation and have that legislation enforced by the courts. We cannot simply do away with the constitution by saying this is not a matter for the federal government, or clear the field so that the provinces may work on it.
There is a federal responsibility in this field which has been recognized since the origin of trading stamp legislation in this country. That is legislation in the criminal field. In the earliest days, when this practice first became prevalent in this country, we find these words spoken by Mr. Kemp as reported in Hansard, 1905, volume V, column 9432. He attributed the necessity for passing this legislation to this -state of affairs:
Certainly some remedy should be applied to this abuse. These trading stamp companies, small and insignificant as they are, are permitted to do what no other kind of financial corporation can do. They are permitted to circulate money. This trading stamp resembles a postage stamp. They are sold at $5 for a hundred dollars face value. The merchant hands them out to his customer and they get into circulation that way.
Later on, he said:
The people who have been deceived into taking these stamps are generally poor people, and it takes them a long time to collect $100. Where the tremendous profit of the trading stamp companies comes in is due to the fact that the stamps are never redeemed. Then

when people present the stamps at the store, they will be told that the store is out of goods but some are expected in a few days, and in the end the trading stamp agents get away without paying anything.
This was a statement by one of the members at the time this legislation was originally enacted. It demonstrates the concern of the legislators at that time over the criminal activities of these trading stamp companies, and the fact that these activities should be removed. The legislation was, therefore, put on the statute books. Other matters were discussed at that time and most views, but not all, were in line with Mr. Kemp's views. Those discussions would indicate that it was

certainly the criminal activities with which the legislators were concerned. They were concerned with fraud and so on.
Mr. R. L. Borden, as he was before he was knighted had this to say, speaking to the legislators at that time:
Unless we are to proceed along a line of legislation that has not hitherto been proposed, it goes too far. But if we are to proceed along that line of legislation, it does not go far enough. To show that it does not go far enough, I have only to point out that under this law trading stamps may still be distributed and redeemed, if the person distributing is also the person who redeems, and if he redeems them at his own place of business. This still leaves untouched the element of lottery which was referred to in the argument of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)-and I am bound to say that that argument seemed to me to carry a good deal of weight.
It was, therefore, the opinion of both Mr. Borden and Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier that one of the main abuses about which they were talking was lotteries in the way they were carried out at that time. The trading stamp companies may have been conducting a lottery because the persons who procured these trading stamps would be left holding the bag by the premium companies. This is the situation to which the hon. member for Skeena referred and which led to the introduction of the section in the Criminal Code to curtail the distribution of trading stamps and that section is certainly one that commends itself to this house.
The bill in question here at the present time, however, in my view takes this matter right out of the criminal law and brings it squarely under the jurisdiction of the provinces because it relates to property and civil rights. In order to show that it does so, Mr. Speaker, I have merely to bring to your attention some of the defects or some of the arguments against trading stamps which show that undeniably this is a matter that is concerned with the regulation of trade.
This matter was investigated in England. The board of trade had a committee on gift coupons and trading stamps which reported in July, 1933. In the course of the report they summarized the arguments against trading stamps. If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to quote some of the arguments they summarized as follows:
That the customer of a stamp-trading shop is misled by the inducements held out into believing that he is getting something for nothing, whereas in fact he may be paying very heavily for his purchase-*
That many trading stamp companies offer poor value in the gifts which they themselves provide-
That the retailer is frequently unable to escape from the trading stamp system even though he may wish to do so-
That trading stamp companies are essentially parasitic, providing no useful service to the community in return for the profit which they make.
Criviinal Code
There is the further one which, of course, does come squarely under the federal legislation and which is covered by the present legislation. It is as follows:
That the system offers special temptations to fraud by ephemeral trading stamp companies.
Of course our legislation is specifically designed to get at people of this sort. The Indiana university school of business conducted a research into this matter and in their summary of conclusions, at page 118 of their report which was published in 1956, they outline some of the weaknesses of the trading stamp system which appear to be inherent and which I will set forth in order again to demonstrate that the weaknesses, apart from those that are already covered by the code, are matters of provincial jurisdiction. Here are the weaknesses as set forth in this report:
(1) the necessity of safeguarding stamps, (2) the reduction of market potential by premiums awarded to customers, (3) the inflexibility of a promotional program in which the cost varies directly with sales, and (4) the inability of operators to emphasize merchandise values, store services, and facilities.
The report goes on to state as follows:
In addition, other possible disadvantages of the trading stamp program for a specific retailer in the light of his store situation may include: (1) the prohibitive cost of stamps, (2) the necessity of increasing prices to offset cost, (3) the difficulty of discontinuing the stamps, (4) the possibility that benefits will be neutralized by a competitor's stamp plan-*
In other words, they all get them.
(5) the possibility that store operations may be hampered, and (6) the likelihood that advertising will have to be increased to promote the stamp, should strong stamp competition develop.
As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, those are matters of regulation of trade, a subject which is not under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. I should point out that the retail merchants are strongly opposed to trading stamps for three very good reasons. The first, of course, is that trading stamps which are defined by the code as stamps now are illegal and, second, that it adds to the cost of goods to the consumers or prevents reduction in prices which would otherwise occur. In the third place, trading stamp schemes are promoted by companies which are not in the business of providing goods for the retail market. It is therefore an encroachment on retail business by these companies that adds nothing to the service rendered or the quality of the goods supplied by retailers. I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that in recommendations of the British board of trade, they had this to say in their conclusions:
-it appears to us to be better for the retailers in any area to combine together to issue joint

Criminal Code
trading stamps, thus maintaining their independence, from outside competitive pressure, than to adhere to a scheme organized by a trading stamp company.
I do not really think that suits the Canadian situation at all. It is an observation made for action by a parliament which has complete control over all the affairs carried on in the British nation. We here are charged only with enacting legislation which is designed to come within the scope of our legislative competence at Ottawa.
May I for a moment now refer to what I consider to be one of the most serious aspects of these trading stamps as far as retailers are concerned, namely the fact that trading stamps represent an attempt by persons who have nothing to do with the retail trade to muscle in on the retailers' market. Those who issue trading stamps in contravention of the provisions of the Criminal Code, as I have said before, are engaged in crime. They demand a tribute from retailers and customers, promising in return to the retailer an illusory increase in sales and to his customer a premium which in value bears little relation to the toll exacted.
For reasons that I have mentioned in opposition to trading stamps in general I am glad that this bill has come before the house. It gives an opportunity for hon. members to express their views on the value or otherwise of trading stamps. But I think we must not be led into the position of passing legislation which would not be enforced by the courts because it is beyond our legislative jurisdiction. That is why I think it is necessary for us on this occasion to look more closely at the bill itself than has been done by the hon. member who introduced it. I have only these comments at this stage to make with regard to it.
The proposed amended definition restores the phrase "besides trading stamps commonly so-called", and it is not one to which I would take objection; but the deletion of the parts of the Criminal Code suggested in this bill would have two very serious effects, and they must be considered. In the first place, it would go beyond the legislative competence of this house; second, the bill the hon. member has introduced recites that "trading stamps includes... any form of cash receipt. .. given to the purchaser of goods by the vendor thereof... to represent a discount on the price". The amendment that the hon. member has proposed I think might well have the effect of preventing co-operatives from giving proper discounts to their own members, and that would have a most serious and disastrous effect upon the whole co-operative movement.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to have drawn to the attention of this house some of the disadvantages in the use of trading stamps, but I do urge hon. members to consider the points I have made with regard to the legislative power of this house to enact the bill which is before it.
(Translation):


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) made some very interesting remarks this afternoon when introducing this bill and, like other hon. members in this house, I very much appreciated his comments.
I also listened with much attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones), who, if I understood him correctly, does not so much defend the trading stamps or the kind of promotion mentioned in the bill, as he disagrees with the hon. member for Skeena as to the means which might be applied in getting rid of this means of publicity.
Mr. Speaker, as far as I am personally concerned, I have always been opposed to that kind of publicity, to advertising involving the distribution of gifts in packages, or the distribution of trading stamps like those mentioned today. I have always been opposed to that type of publicity in all its forms. I refrained until today from public comments on this matter, or from dealing with it here in the house, because I wanted to study it thoroughly and satisfy myself that the position I would take in this house would be first and foremost to the advantage of the Canadian consumer, of the retail merchant and more particularly of the small retailer.
I wanted to satisfy myself, Mr. Speaker, that the benefits to the consumer from a legislation like the one introduced this afternoon would outweigh the disadvantage of a certain measure of government interference in private enterprise.
In the light of the present act, which was put into force in 1905 and amended when the Criminal Code was amended in 1953 and 1954, I studied the various briefs that were recently submitted by retail associations, by the Canadian consumers association, and also by the promoters of gift or trading stamps, as they are generally called. When I studied those records and those briefs, Mr. Speaker, I was astonished to find that the Retail Merchants Association as well as the various consumer associations of Canada were opposed to the distribution of trading stamps throughout Canada.

I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, to see that in our country only the promoters of trading stamp schemes favoured the system and this type of promotion.
And still, in the briefs submitted to us, I found that they had gone out of their way to try to convince us of the benefits resulting from the distribution of trading stamps. No more than the hon. member for Saskatoon was I convinced by the arguments presented in the brief submitted by the trading stamps information bureau, and published by the Sperry and Hutchinson Company of Canada Limited.
Mr. Speaker, what do the retail merchants, through the Retail Merchants Association, say in the brief presented by the association on January 7 to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker)? The Canadian Retail Merchants Association, under the signature of Miss Isabel Atkinson, stated in its preliminary remarks that, for some years, the Canadian consumers assocation had shown growing concern as a result of the increasing use made by retail merchants of promotional means which add nothing to the value of the merchandise put on sale, and which in no way help Canadian consumers to get better value for their money.
The brief went on to say that, at the annual meeting of that association the delegates representing consumers' associations from almost all provinces of Canada, since they represented sixteen regional associations, had expressed their strong opposition to the distribution of trading stamps across Canada.
And in the brief we find the reasons for which the association is opposed to a continuation of this particular type of sales promotion. Among the main reasons we find that some retailers object to this form of sale on the grounds that trading stamps increase distribution costs.
The second argument was that trading stamps have replaced low sale prices. The brief further says that they divert the consumers' attention from the value and the price of goods, that trading stamps are economic parasites and that their use tends to increase an already expensive publicity which misleads the consumer.
The brief adds that trading stamps deprive the consumer of the service offered by the retail merchant.
Here is what the Retail Merchants Association of Canada is asking, in the conclusion of its brief presented to the Prime Minister.
We ask that during the current parliamentary session, the existing legislation be reenforced so as to effectively prohibit all trading stamp systems in Canada, to rid our economy of this economic parasite.
Criminal Code
Now, what does the Canadian consumers association have to say? The chairman of the Canadian consumers association stated not so long ago, as quoted in Week-End, in January 1960, that "trading stamps are illegal, and that they add to the cost of products without benefiting the consumer."
A few months ago, I had the opportunity to receive from a fellow citizen in Montreal, who lives in the constituency of Dollard, a letter dated June 30, 1959. The letter was from Mr. Ivan Hamel who was drawing my attention to an item published in La Presse for June 23, 1959, under the heading "Readers Forum". The article signed by Paul Robi-taille, Q.C., dealt with the matter of trading stamps. He suggested an efficient way and a correct remedy.
The letter read:
On reading that part of section 322 of the Criminal Code, I am firmly convinced that the Canadian government had already legislated to prohibit and prevent that plague. However, some people resort to devious means of diverting people's mind from the existing legislation.
I believe, sir, that it is up to you to prepare and support all legislation which might bring about an adequate solution like the one suggested by Mr. Robitaille.
The letter referred to an article published by La Presse, under the signature of Mr. Robitaille, a lawyer, who wrote, on this same subject:
It is easily seen that merely by changing or striking out a few words the present practice of trading stamps would be made illegal.
Both the public and associations could therefore demand at once the necessary changes to rid us of those stamps which are unwanted by every body-including the merchants themselves-and which must surely contribute to inflation, because someone has to pay for those premiums: they are not free.
Mr. Speaker, on top of this evidence given by the Retail Merchants Association and by certain consumers, there is the evidence given by the Better Business Bureau which, as early as a few years ago, was asking the province of Alberta to adopt some legislation designed to abolish the use of trading stamps.
It would seem, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that promoters and distributors of trading stamps, in this country, are the only people who favour the system.
Some time ago, we received a document, referred to, a moment ago, by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones); it gives the reasons which seem to favour the maintenance of this system in Canada. That document does not seem to have convinced the hon. member for Saskatoon, nor has it convinced me of the desirability of continuing that practice.
Besides, I shall have the opportunity, later on in my remarks, to answer a few of the statements contained in that document.

Criminal Code
In order to introduce trading stamps in this country, their promoters had to by-pass the law and take advantage of certain loopholes in section 322 of the Criminal Code.
I should like to remind the house that, in May 1956, according to the same article I quoted a moment ago, from Weekend Magazine, an Ottawa businessman, Mr. Bertram Loeb, had a special study made of sections of the Criminal Code concerning the distribution of trading stamps, so as to make sure that he would not be brought into court if he had trading stamps printed and distributed in the stores under his control.
After a study made by Canadian lawyers, he managed to find a loophole which allowed him to go ahead with the distribution of trading stamps. He then formed a company, of which he became president, the Gold Bond Stamps Company of Ottawa. He has been conducting a thriving business ever since.
That is the result of that gap, of that loophole in our Criminal Code, and that is the situation which the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) would like to have corrected in introducing this bill.
If the bill were adopted in its present form, I believe the confusion which now exists, with regard to certain loopholes in the law, would be dispelled.
Some provinces have taken it upon themselves to legislate in this field. In 1937, the province of Alberta, for its part, amended the section concerning the trades and business act.
British Columbia, and more particularly certain municipalities of that province, that is, Vancouver, Victoria and others, objected to merchants using trading stamps, and the practice ceased at once.
In the maritimes, the practice is practically non-existent, but it does flourish in Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland.
In Ontario, Mr. Speaker, just because of those loopholes in the legislation, the provincial government wants to make a test case with regard to the practice.
According to an item published in the Globe and Mail of January 28 last, the Ontario government is planning to make a test case on trading stamps circulating in this province. This is what the article says:
(Text):
The entire concept of trading stamps will be challenged in court for the first time in Canada in an action now being prepared on orders from attorney general Roberts.

(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, if this bill were passed, I think neither the provinces nor the municipalities would have to go to court to find out exactly where they stand in this field. The Canadian parliament has a perfect right to legislate on matters concerning Canada's Criminal Code.
If section 322 of the Criminal Code were amended so as to completely rule out the use of trading stamps in Canada, I think that would settle the matter and would eliminate the present confusion.
You may wonder what the consumer's reaction will be. I think the reaction of housewives, the main users of those stamps, would react in about the same way as this Toronto woman who, on hearing that the federal government was going to introduce a bill prohibiting the use of trading stamps, only replied: "I hope I can fill up my last stamp book before stamps are outlawed". In my view, that is the present position.
Retail merchants, just as the consumers, are very anxious to get rid of this bother, but as the practice is allowed in some provinces, businessmen have to compete, each in his own field, so, as an inducement to customers, they have to use that publicity gimmick. Then the consumer gets caught in a vicious circle, and seemingly prefers to buy from the dealer who gives trading stamps.
Mr. Speaker, my present position on this matter stems primarily from a desire to safeguard the interests of the Canadian consumer. In his remarks, the hon. member for Skeena showed us quite clearly, I think, that prices were slightly higher in stores using trading stamps. If we want the cost of living index in Canada to go down, I think one good way would be to eliminate trading stamps. It would greatly assist in lowering the cost of living in Canada.
While the primary objective is to protect the Canadian consumer, we must also protect the businessman, the small retailer who has to compete with stores that use trading stamps as a means of promotion. If the small retailer uses them, he has to pay for them, and the result may be that he will lose money, that his business will be less profitable, or that he will have to raise his prices. Again in this case, it is the consumer who foots the bill.
The reasons put forward by the promoters of such publicity methods, are, as I said, not sufficient to make us change our mind in the matter.

On page 6 of the brief which has been submitted by one of those promoters, whose name I mentioned a few moments ago, we are given a few reasons for which the distribution of trading stamps throughout the country should be favoured. The first reason advanced is that it is a painless way to save money for the consumer. The trading stamps are compared with deductions made from workers' cheques, to help them buy government bonds. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any possible comparison between trading stamps and the amount our Canadian workers are made to save for the purchase of a victory bond. I also do not believe a Canadian taxpayer can be forced to economize if he does not want to; this is a personal matter and I think it would be antidemocratic to force a Canadian citizen to save if he does not wish to do so.
It has also been said that people who collect trading stamps are looked upon by their friends as good managers. Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me to tell you that this is a misleading statement. It does not hold water.
It has also been maintained that collecting trading stamps or gift certificates satisfies the instincts of people who like collecting stamps or antiques. There again, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this a sound reason. I am unable to imagine the satisfaction it can give to anybody to stick 100, 200 and even 300 stamps, all of the same size and all looking alike. To my mind, this satisfaction can scarcely be compared to that of a stamp collector who has come upon a rare stamp that was lacking in his collection. This stamp will be dear to the philatelist, whereas the trading stamps given out by the various dealers have no sentimental value, no feeling attached to them whatsoever.
Another reason given by the promoters, is that when they have filled their booklet, people feel deeply gratified when they go to the shop to sell it back. Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what sort of satisfaction anybody can feel who having collected enough trading stamps to be able to exchange them cannot even choose the kind of articles he wants, because the choice has to be made from a catalogue and he has to accept whatever he is given in exchange for the trading stamps he has in hand.
And other reasons are being given, emphasizing the pleasure, the thrill people feel, thanks to trading stamps, in getting something for nothing.
Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is bad education for the Canadian people and,
Criminal Code
second, that argument is false, because the consumer who is in possession of trading stamps, has paid for them, since he gave money in advance to get them. In my opinion, it is easy to refute the arguments advanced by trading stamps promoters. But I will not elaborate on this point.
Mr. Speaker, housewives have told me they would rather pay lower prices than get trading stamps, since, with the money thus saved, they would buy what they want, where they want and when they want.
I do not think that it would be a breach of the Canadian constitution as mentioned a moment ago by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones), if that amendment to the Criminal Code were adopted. In fact, since retail merchants are now concerned with all the trouble constantly arising out of trading stamps promotion, due to the fact that promoters took advantage of a loophole in the legislation, it is therefore up to us and to the Canadian government to plug that loophole, and to adopt the bill which is now before us. The law will then be adhered to, and trading stamps will disappear, and nothing more will be heard about them.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we shall hear other members express their opinion on the matter. I agree with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) when he says he hopes there will be enough time left to allow members to express their opinion, tonight, through a vote, in order that this legislation may be adopted.
(Text):


Mr. Georges Valade (SI. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to say a few words in English because it seldom happens that I share the same opinion as my friends from the C.C.F. party and, more particularly, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard); but on this question I feel it is my duty to rise in my place and to acknowledge the perfect definition that appears in this new bill presented this afternoon by the hon. member for Skeena. However, when we read the explanatory note, we find that this bill has one purpose, namely to amend section 322 of the Criminal Code-and I quote:
The proposed amended definition restores the phrase "besides trading stamps commonly so-called", which was deleted in the 1953-54 revision of the code.
If we analyse this proposed change in the law, we find that it has now become necessary on account of the lack of interest, intuition and guidance of the former Liberal

Criminal Code
government which changed the law in 1953 and opened the door to this most disagreeable way of dealing with what are called trading stamps.
I do not want to condemn the members of the Liberal party who have spoken in favour of the abolition of trading stamps; however, I do condemn the former Liberal party, which was in power at that time, for not foreseeing the most amazing effect that this amendment of the law would have on the people of this country. Now that the harm has been done, we of the Conservative party are asked to vote in favour of a bill which I think deserves our most immediate attention and consideration. We are asked, as I said, to vote in favour of a bill which will correct this very deplorable situation.
Although I share the opinion of the hon. member for Skeena with regard to his main purpose of amending the law and having a ban put on trading stamps, I do not share some of his other opinions. For instance, he compared trading stamps to lotteries but I think they are quite different.


Frank Howard: I did not say that.


Georges-J. Valade: I am sorry if I made a mistake.


Frank Howard: I said that some people compare them to lotteries.


Georges-J. Valade: I am sorry that I misunderstood the hon. member. On the other hand, I do share the opinion of the hon. member when he said that trading stamps tended to leave the control of business in fewer and fewer hands. I think that is exactly the purpose of trading stamps as they are used now. They are leading to a monopoly by a few. On this ground alone I think the government should pay attention to this question and the house should be asked to vote in favour of the motion.
However, I cannot agree with the member for Skeena when he said that the Minister of Justice lacked courage and was passing the buck in this matter. I think that the Minister of Justice has fully acknowledged his duty by interpreting the law as it stands, and I think that is also the way the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones) has interpreted the matter. We live in a free country, a democratic country and we are law-abiding people. We have full democracy and consequently the Minister of Justice in rendering his opinion on this matter has fully acknowledged the fact that we live in

a democracy and that no compulsory action can be taken. In view of the legal situation as it now stands, I think the Minister of Justice acted fully in accordance with the law of the country.
I will not give statistics with respect to this matter because I think the question of trading stamps does not need statistics. It needs good sense, and I believe that if we analyse public opinion generally as to this question we will see readily that the public generally want a ban imposed on trading stamps because they are becoming one of the main elements of our commerce and industry in this country.
(Translation):
My remarks will be brief, Mr. Speaker, on this matter of trading stamps. It is not my intention to waste the house's precious time in dealing with this matter, which I think requires most urgent legislative action. However, I realize that in expressing my views on this subject, I speak as a retail merchant myself, and also on behalf of thousands of small contractors or businessmen, in every field of trade, who are threatened with extinction by this system. I also speak on behalf of thousands of consumers who have become victims of this illegal trade practice.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I regard this situation as a threat to the very existence of small businesses across the country. I shall therefore show, for the consideration of parliament, first the way these trading stamps operate; then the producer's point of view; then the retailers' point of view, and finally, the consumer's point of view.
I shall try to set out very briefly the legal aspect of the question with regard to the federal and provincial governments.
Let us examine first how these trading stamps operate, right from the printing shop to the consumer. I think it should be stressed here that as a general rule, trading stamps are sold by promotion agencies to retailers. The retailers pay cash for the stamps and give them to the consumers, on an established percentage basis, in exchange for purchases. At the end of the line, the consumer who has collected a certain minimum number of stamps goes to the promotion agency and trades them for some merchandise.
As an illustration let us take the case of a Mrs. X who, having made a certain number of purchases, has managed to collect 1580 trading stamps. She goes to the promotion

agency and gets a piece of merchandise which retails for $15.80 at market prices. However, another person who has only 600 stamps is able to buy-I use the word "buy" intentionally, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize the monetary aspect of these stamps-merchandise worth $6.
Trading stamps, therefore, have a monetary aspect, which indicates that the use of trading stamps should be subject to the penalties provided in the criminal code against restrictive trade practices.
Moreover, if you look closely at the operation of these stamps, I sincerely believe they are a cause of inflation in Canada, and therefore should be abolished. Having paid for trading stamps the dealer distributes them to his many customers. Many of those customers must surely have lost or ignored those trading stamps. In short, the person mentioned a few moments ago, who obtained an article with a retail value of $15.80, is now the owner of an item for which the public relations firm does not collect $15.80, but $30.00, if not more.
Mr. Speaker, since nothing can be had for nothing; someone is bound to pay the difference between the actual value of the item and the price paid by the consumer. In fact, somebody does pay this premium. Since the producer or operator must necessarily make profits in his business, there is only one person who pays for those trading stamps, and it is the consumer.
The current uneasiness of retailers over the trading stamp system is even felt by the producer. I should like to quote an item appearing in The Rural Co-operator of October 27, 1959, under the heading Farm Business and entitled: "Who makes stamp money?"
(Text):
Trading stamps profit nobody but the companies that issue them and farmers should support demands to have them outlawed in Canada. We all like to think that we can get something for nothing but the trading stamps add to food store costs. When trading stamps add to food store costs they add to consumer food costs without any corresponding increase in returns to the farmer.
Food costs in Canada are not high in comparison to income. But consumers, led on by critics of agriculture, believe that food costs are high. This belief, supplemented by another unfounded belief that farmers are profiting enormously from today's food prices, makes it difficult for farmers to secure reasonable prices for their products.
(Translation):
And a little farther down, the article continues:
Criminal Code
(Text):
The fact that an officer of a large supermarket chain last week called the premiums a consumer discount and stated that a 12 to 15 per cent increase in volume would cover the store's cost of providing premiums doesn't prove that consumers aren't paying for the premiums.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, this article gives a good idea of how producers feel about trading stamps.
As for the retailer, there can be no doubt about his desire to put an end to the practice.
Indeed, the retailers have become the very victims of that system of control by a handful of individuals. Then again, the practice places the small concern or the small retailer at a great disadvantage in relation to chain stores several of which control the printing, distribution and division of trading stamps for which they allow goods to people who have become their customers and find themselves under their definite control.
It is a form of economic coercion which places the small businessmen in the power of the big ones. Furthermore, I think that the practice is contrary to the public interest.
Even the consumer, Mr. Speaker, has become conscious of this undesirable position. I shall confine myself to one excerpt from the memorandum submitted to the Prime Minister, and published on January 7, 1960, in the magazine Canadian Association of Consumers. Page 2 of that report presents objections to that system and I should like, at this point, to read the more important excerpts:
(Text):
Trading Stamps Increase Distribution Costs
We object to these schemes because they increase distribution costs and thus increase the cost of living. They are a non-productive expense which widens the gap between the producer and consumer. Even if the claim were true that the increased cost due to stamps is offset by increased sales this could only be valid for a short period, and in particular instances. It cannot be true in the longer period when competing stores introduce these schemes. Food sales are closely related to population and growth, and no sales promotion schemes can make them rise suddenly in all stores in one shopping district.
In paragraph 2, we read:
Trading Stamp Schemes are Substitutes for Lower Prices
The royal commission on price spreads of food products drew attention to this point and stated in its report:	"In many instances promotional
expenditures are undertaken as an alternative to a reduction in price."
Criminal Code

(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, that opinion expressed by the consumers association fully explains the present situation and emphasizes the inconveniences of the trading stamps system.
The legal aspect of the matter, I shall let my friends, the lawyers go into. However, I should like simply to compare a statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) on November 3, 1959, with the legal opinion given by the Canadian consumers association, on page 1 of the brief submitted to the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. And I quote that part of the answer given by the Minister of Justice:
(Text):
In the first place. If a trading stamp scheme in its nature or operation comes within any of the fields which are proper for inclusion in the criminal law, it would be the responsibility of the dominion parliament to enact any necessary legislation to deal with the situation.
(Translation):
I have therefore shown, Mr. Speaker, the economic drawbacks of this trade practice, and have also tried to show the house the various interest groups involved in this unfortunate situation of trading stamp distribution among the people.
Who, in fact, stands to gain from this system? No one, execept a small group of individuals who are striving to monopolize and control free enterprise and stifle healthy competition. Who, then, should step in? Should it be the federal government or the provincial governments? I am inclined to believe that under the circumstances, and in view of the monetary aspect of trading stamps, the responsibility for intervention rests on the federal government. However, it is for the house to decide on that point, but I think it is imperative that immediate and positive action be taken to put a stop to this practice which is deadly to normal business conditions.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think trading stamps are a menace to the small retailer on the part of monopolizing supermarkets.
Second, the practice represents an illegal or illicit way of attracting customers to a specific store.
Third, the multiplicity of stamps cancels the desired effect while increasing the consumer price, whereas the alternative, i.e. unification, or rather the use of a single kind of stamp would constitute a monopoly.
I therefore ask this parliament immediately to take some positive and appropriate action to stop a practice, which I consider illegal.
[Mr. Valade.l
Before closing my remarks, may I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to allude to the reports mentioned a few moments ago by the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau). On page 4 of the brief prepared by the Sperry and Hutchinson Company of Canada Limited we read the following:
(Text):
Q: If these discount stamps are legal, then who opposes them and why?
A: The principal opposition has come from merchants who do not wish to offer stamps and who are afraid of losing customers. In other words, the controversy over stamps has been largely a battle among merchants, some favouring free competition including the right to use stamps and others who wish to limit such competition.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most untrue statements I have ever read in any memorandum which is supposed to be sensible and which is supposed to come from business-minded people. I believe there are those who oppose stamps. I think the question in people's minds really is, are these stamps in the interests of this nation as a whole. Then, there are those who claim that trading stamps have left small businessmen near bankruptcy. It has been said that sometimes the ladies have been inclined to spend much more than they wanted to spend in these stores because of the advertisements for trading stamps. I think now is the time that this parliament should correct the wrong that was done in the last amendment to the law in 1953. This parliament should pronounce itself at this time by voting for the bill banning trading stamps from Canada.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this debate I should like to assure the house that I will, as usual, be very brief. It has been pointed out by several of the members who spoke previously in this debate that this whole idea of trading stamps is tied up in a very false scheme and that this scheme has been insidiously growing in this country through the idea of something for nothing.
It has been pointed out also by one of the previous speakers that there may be a little difficulty in classifying this practice of using trading stamps as being really criminal. I should like to point out that at least in one or two ways this is indeed a criminal practice. One of the things that this practice does, as has been pointed out by the speakers, is that it has built into our economic society a level of false cost. If we look across the world today and realize, as we must, the economic challenge that we are getting, and going to

be increasingly getting from the countries behind the iron curtain, I think all hon. members must agree that anything that builds a false cost into our economy is indeed very criminal.
There will be some question in people's minds as to whether or not the federal government should interfere with the freedom of choice of the individual. Some people feel the individual should be free to use his own judgment in this matter. I would agree with that if I thought for one moment that the individual was indeed free to use his judgment. But I do not believe that is the case. Unfortunately his judgment is likely to be based on the fact that he has seen only one side of the picture.
Modern advertising, both in this trading stamp field and in many others, has tended, I submit, to brainwash the citizens of this country from the time they are one year old. From the time they are old enough to watch television, to listen to the radio or to read a newspaper they are subjected day in and day out-in fact, almost every hour of the day-to advertising and promotion based on this false premise that you can get something for nothing. When do they ever see the other side of the picture and from whom do they get it? It is certainly not from our so-called free enterprise system because it is not profitable for anybody to do so. They certainly cannot get it from the newspapers, the radio stations or the television stations because unfortunately they have been dragged into the position in which they are dependent for their lifeblood upon this false advertising.
During a trip out west last fall I had occasion to obtain a copy of the Regina Leader-Post. I may say this was just about the time the report had come out from the commission that sat on the price spreads of food in the Canadian economy. An extremely interesting editorial or story-I believe it was an editorial-in the paper of that day stressed the part in this commission's report which said that the public themselves were to blame in that they tolerated this form of promotion which was increasing the cost of the products they bought. What I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that not only did this very newspaper as well as the other newspapers tolerate this system but they in fact promoted it. All you had to do was to turn the page and you would see on the next page a whole page full of advertisements which fell into the particular category which they were pointing out the public was at fault in tolerating. All newspapers and in fact all the mediums at our disposal in this country today to a great extent are obliged to depend upon this false advertising which is shown up so well in this trading stamp racket.
Criminal Code
If we cannot hope for any help in this matter from our newspapers and from our other mediums of supplying information to the public, then where can we hope to get some assistance? I submit that there is only one place from which the Canadian public can hope for any protection or for any assistance and that is from the legislators of this country, the people who make the laws. I would suggest that the best way in which to put a stop to this false premise of something for nothing is to make the practice illegal.
In the debate on the speech from the throne the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) pointed out the need for Canada to have a little bit more complete honesty with regard to world affairs. I would suggest that we carry this idea also into our own economic front at home. I do not think any hon. member will disagree with the statement that this whole trading stamp practice is-to put it kindly-dishonest. Since when, in this country of ours, is dishonesty not criminal?
I would suggest that the law already deals with the principle of trading stamps and that the situation today has come about because a loophole in the law was found. I submit that it is nothing more nor less than a deliberate attempt on the part of the promoters to circumvent the intention of that very law. I would suggest that the best way in which to deal with that situation is for this parliament, which makes the laws of this country, to proceed to plug those loopholes and to put a stop once and for all, if at all possible, to this deliberate evasion of the law.


Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, as one who has spent a considerable number of years in the selling field, both wholesale and retail, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this bill.
I am also pleased to see the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) finally showing an interest in the competitive free enterprise system. His concern for the capitalist system, a system that has built up our industries in Canada until today we are the fifth largest trading nation in the world, and the interest he has shown in this system causes me to hope that there may yet to be a convert among the divided eight in the far corner of the chamber.
In the beginning, I wish to state most emphatically that I am against the use of trading stamps, and any other promotional device used by Canadian retailers which add nothing to the value of the goods offered for sale and which in no way help consumers when making purchases to get the best value for their money. Throughout the years all of

Criminal Code
us have seen these promotions in many forms, but their use is most widespread in retail food merchandising, with premiums inside packages, coupons to be redeemed on a specified product, and lately trading stamps calling for so-called free gifts. The increase in the use of this latter type of promotion has caused considerable controversy across Canada in recent months and I think it is fitting that this matter should be discussed in this chamber.
In my riding there are some chain store operators but there are also a large number of independent merchants who operate their own retail stores and are not affiliated with any chain. When discussing this matter with independent operators I found that their chief objection to trading stamps was the increased cost to their business, which must be added to the items sold, thus increasing their distribution costs and eventually the cost of living. Trading stamps serve as a non-productive expense which further widens the gap between the consumer and the producer. In reply to this argument some will claim that the increases in sales offset the cost of trading stamps; but if this claim were true, it would certainly be for only a short period.
After all, if any store in any village or town introduced a trading stamp program, and by so doing increased its sales, its competitors are not going to stand idly by for any length of time and see their business taken away by this type of program. It would not take them very long to institute a similar program, and therefore any advantage gained by one store having a stamp program of its own would soon be lost.
The original idea of forming food chain stores was to reduce the cost of retail food marketing. However, present trends would indicate a change from this policy of price competition to non-productive and costly sales promotions to attract customers. Another claim made is that trading stamps are free. This is, of course, deceptive and untrue, for the cost of buying trading stamps must be hidden in the price of the merchandise when it is sold.
In the beginning of my remarks I stated I was opposed to the use of trading stamps. However, I cannot vote to amend this act, for like so many bills which are introduced into this house by the C.C.F., I believe it to be a further infringement on our rights as private citizens and on the freedom of all Canadians. These socialists in the far corner have only one theme: There ought to be a law; there ought to be a law for this, there ought to be a law for that. They endeavour whenever possible to make changes in our

laws which would further increase bureaucratic controls and also cause further regimentation in Canada.
I do not believe that shoppers who like to buy stamps with food should be barred by law from doing so. The issuance of stamps by anyone is purely and simply a sales promotion. At the present time the shopper is free to purchase food from stores which give these stamps, or she can shun those stores like the plague. After all, sales promotions are not something new. For years soap companies have been giving coupons with their products; rolled oats have been packed with tumblerware, chinaware and silverware; and I well remember, when a salesman some years ago for one of Canada's large cereal companies, that the plain package was outsold by the premium pack by five to one. It was quite simple to see what the cost of the premium was by making a comparison between the retail price of the premium pack and the plain pack. Nevertheless, the premium package was the one that was selected by the majority of the shoppers. Even in popcorn little trinkets are packed, and I could mention many other promotions.
There are many who point out that the premiums secured with stamps are not free; the public is paying the bill. All of us know that you cannot get something for nothing, and while it is true that the public is paying for trading stamps, it is equally true that these stamps can be redeemed for a variety of valuable premiums. The promotion method may be deceptive, but it certainly cannot be called fraudulent.
There is an old saying that seems to be overlooked in the present controversy, and it is that the customer is always right. Today women do most of the retail buying in Canada, and usually they are careful spenders. Certainly this is the case in my household. Perhaps when shopping where stamps are issued they are paying more for the initial product. However, they are saving money, saving it in the form of coupons or stamps toward the attainment of some object they want, or believe they need. They of course are best able to judge whether there is a value in trading stamps, and I believe that if this parliament were to make laws to prohibit trading stamps it would be a restriction on advertising, a curb on competition, a limit to the benefits accruing from competitive free enterprise, and a further restriction on our individual liberties.
If this amendment were passed there would no doubt be short term rejoicing among independent merchants. But it is a reasonable fear that once the principle of limiting competition by prohibiting sales promotions was

established we could expect under this act or further supplementary legislation still further controls on competition. Certainly when reading the scope of this legislation as presently introduced there is every indication that there is little or no limit to the controls which can be applied. The amendment states, for example, that no trading stamps or any form of cash receipt, receipt, coupon, premium ticket or other device can be given to the purchaser which would represent a discount on the goods purchased.
I believe that implementation of this amendment could work to the detriment of independent merchants. These independents may not give away trading stamps, but in some cases they provide credit services, free delivery services, telephone charge accounts, entertainment in stores, free samples and free parking areas. All of these could be classed as a promotional sales device and give some idea of the regimentation of freedom incorporated in this C.C.F. amendment.
The government is being asked to be the official custodian of the shopper's purse, to direct the thinking of every Canadian, and eliminate the right of Canadians to decide for themselves the retail stores which give them the best value for their money. Like all other sales promotions, I believe that this fad will eventually run its course without the government restricting by legislation the rights of every Canadian of free choice in the market place.


Georges-J. Valade: May I direct a question to the hon. member?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Certainly.


Georges-J. Valade: When the hon. member said that the customer is always right, I was just wondering if you should sell arsenic to anyone who asks for it?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather difficult question. I said there was an old custom which said that the customer is always right. Of course, if he prefers to buy arsenic because he requires it for his diet, I do not see how we can limit the sale of it. He will not require it very long.


Mr. J. A. Macdonald (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make my few remarks on this subject I realize full well, as do other hon. members of the house, that it is a very "hot topic" today. I might say I have considerable interest in it, being presently engaged in the general merchandising business, and also due to the fact that our firm once used these trading stamps. This is a question of very great importance, not only to those engaged in the mercantile business, or any business along that line, but also to the public across Canada.
Criminal Code
I may say that involved in this struggle which is going on today are not only the producers, the consumers and the men who service the goods in between, but also the trading stamp companies which have become a big factor in this warfare. The opposition to trading stamps seems to be stiffening all the time. Our own firm's position was that the stamps did not seem to accomplish anything. We were more or less driven into the field because our main competitor had taken up a trading stamp program, but after several months experience we both decided it was more or less a fraud at the expense of the public and we both got out of the program.
The background and history of trading stamps is as follows: they were started in the United States. I think Sperry and Hutchinson claim they first started them in Jackson, Michigan, in 1896, but there is evidence that they were also started in Milwaukee shortly before 1900. However, it is not the origin but the practice with which we are most concerned. The use of stamps spread rapidly at that time. It was a great fad, and all the confidence men who wanted to make a fast buck got into the act and a great deal of money was made in a short time by some unscrupulous people. The fad spread swiftly across the country around 1900 and things became so bad that in 1905 the parliament of Canada had to pass legislation banning the use of trading stamps. For a time this checked their use until about the year 1956 they began to show up again in Canada-they had come back some three years earlier in the United States. In the meantime, the people had forgotten in the course of a few generations the very unfortunate experience the mercantile trade of Canada had suffered during the first appearance of the stamps.
The present situation is that there is a determined effort being made by the trading stamp companies to flood the country again with their type of in-between merchandizing, and the Canadian consumer is caught at the present time in this more or less feverish competition of the chain stores, and the trading stamp companies are reaping the benefit of this competition.
Lined up against the present trend to trading stamps, are of course, a number of organizations including one of the most important, the Canadian Association of Consumers. This organization has, I think, about 26,000 members and there are another half million in 17 affiliated groups. I should like to read the names of these groups in order that hon. members may realize the type of organizations which are taking part in

Criminal Code
this fight against trading stamps. They are: Canadian dietetic association; Cercles de fermieres; Canadian federation of business and professional women's clubs; Canadian federation of university women; Canadian home economics association; Dominion council of the woman's association, United Church of Canada; Federation nationale St. Jean-Baptiste; Federated women's institutes of Canada; Hadassah organization of Canada; Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire; National council Canadian daughters' League; National council of Jewish women of Canada; The national council of women of Canada; Y.W.C.A. of Canada; the Salvation Army; Ukrainian women's association of Canada; and the Pioneer Women's Organization Inc.
I want to point out that this is a most influential group, very well organized and well informed on the problems of the Canadian consumer today. It is also one which is very interested in seeing that buying habits are protected. Their aim-and I quote-is: "to protect against promotional devices which add nothing to the value of the goods they sell and which in no way help consumers when making purchases to get best value for money."
Another organization which is also a large one and which is opposing this movement is the Retail Merchants Association which is made up of a very large number of independent merchants, from every province in Canada. This organization labels trading stamps "a parasitic innovation in the mercantile blood stream". Its very able president, Mr. David Gilbert of Winnipeg, explains that in endeavouring to get across this lure of something for nothing "they tell you the bargains available on stamps, not bargains available on food."
I might mention also that this stamp program has been opposed by the Canadian Congress of Labour which has through its chairman described the stamp program as "an attempt to levy tribute on the retail trade." I might mention also that two other organizations which have recently come out against trading stamps are numerous C.C.F. groups and the young Progressive Conservative association of Canada.
May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
John Augustine Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, when we rose at six o'clock I had been detailing groups of organizations that were at present 
taking strong objection to and fighting the trading stamp system. During the supper hour I happened to look up a couple of papers and I found several samples of the type of advertising one can expect under this and other similar programs. For example, I have one here with a number of pictures of dollars on it purporting to be coupons worth $5, $10, $25, and so on. Another paper I looked at had a full-page advertisement of one of the supermarket firms, and over one third of the page was taken up with the words, "Free 300 Stamps". It also has the picture of a smiling child alongside. These are just several examples of the kind of advertising that the public is subjected to under the trading stamp system.
Let me give a brief rundown of what the provinces are doing with regard to trading stamps. Last November the government of Alberta passed an order in council banning trading stamps in that province. In Manitoba the legality of trading stamps is before the court of appeal of that province at the present time. In Saskatchewan prosecutions have temporarily rid the province of trading stamps. Many cities are doing the same thing. Recently, the Vancouver city council adopted a policy of refusing business licences to those dealing in trading stamps. In the Gazette of February 1, 1960 there appeared an article headed:
Stamps mean higher costs, slow service.
The article reads:
The Quebec farmers association, in a statement issued Saturday, termed premium stamps "a malevolent form of promotion, harmful to both producers and consumers.
As a promotion gimmick, they serve only to draw customers away from one store to another. When all stores have stamps their net effect is higher cost, slower customer service and a larger part of price mark-up for stamp boosters", the statement added.
The inevitable effect of premium stamps, the association claims, is to increase costs.
"Stamps provide a form of competition between stores which is subtle and less likely to lead to real competition than price reductions."
Many other groups and societies have registered their strong objections to this reprehensible form of merchandizing. Mr. Speaker, the old saying is, "where there is smoke, there is fire". I submit that there is ample evidence that a large body of independently-minded citizens object strongly to this form of merchandising. The reasons have been partially covered by previous speakers, but I should like to go over a few of them.
Back of this whole movement is the pressure applied by the trading stamp companies themselves and, of course, this is backed by the motive of profit. A good proof of this is stated right in this publication called "The

Case for Discount Stamps in Canada" from "the information bureau on discount stamps" by the Sperry and Hutchinson Company of Canada Limited, 600 University Avenue, Toronto. It states on page 12:
Discount stamps are not a panacea for poor merchandising practices. But, documented case histories have shown that, everything else being equal, the retailer who operates a sound plan and promotes it properly is going to enjoy increased volume-and most important-increased profits.
This establishes very clearly that the main purpose of trading stamps is to increase profits. It is a very frank statement and, in order to attain those increased profits, some companies are ready to engage in all kinds of questionable tactics. This booklet also admits that trading stamps must increase sales by 12 per cent to cover costs. I quote from page 11, where the following question was asked:
How much must a retailer increase his volume for his overhead cost per dollar of sales to fall enough to offset the cost of stamps?
The answer reads:
Too many variables are involved to give a precise answer and it varies from business to business. But the average supermarket operator, for example, can cover this cost if he can increase his volume approximately 12 per cent.
In other words, once a chain of stores or a store enters into such a program they must increase their sales by at least 12 per cent to cover their costs.
Food chain stores themselves have disagreed on stamps. A number of them, with more courage and principle perhaps than others, have not been taken in by the trading stamps fad and they definitely remain aloof. Other chain store operators have admitted that they raise prices and others argue that they do not. One chain store executive said: "These gimmicks are nothing but parasites preying on the public gullibility". Another commented: "It is like a disease, a cancer that just keeps growing".
It is generally agreed that the customers themselves will pay 2 per cent additional costs where such plans are in operation. Sometimes the prices may be lowered temporarily in certain areas, but when everybody gets into the trading stamp plan, which so often happens as a result of the merry-go-round, the customer does pay that extra 2 per cent, and the only one who really profits is probably the trading stamp company at the back of it.
The royal commission on price spreads had a great deal to say about the fact that the public is paying extra for continually increasing packaging and processing charges before the sales are made. There has been no increase to farmers and fishermen, the primary producers who initiate the products in 79951-0-471
Criminal Code
the first place, whom many of us represent and wish to assist and who deserve every assistance possible. Trading stamps are added, often unnecessarily, like fancy and eye-catching packaging, to the cost of the product and the ultimate increased cost to the consumer. It is no wonder under these circumstances that the Canadian Association of Consumers and other organizations are waging an all-out battle against the false representation of trading stamp programs. It is true that these campaigns are luring a great number of adherents but that, of course, does not by any means mean that they are right.
I hope that the compaign being waged by the Canadian Association of Consumers will be eminently successful in combating this menace. The whole merchandising and retailing field would be better off if it could be rid of this nefarious practice. It has been amply shown that trading stamp programs are based essentially on misrepresentation. They hold down the price to the producer by gobbling up the additional price spread when prices go up. They add to the servicing cost and often are a substitute for lower prices. They tend to confuse the buying public on proper values and often deprive consumers of necessary services when the costs of trading stamp plans are added to the product.
All in all, the buying public would be far better off in the long run, even if they do not realize it at the present time, although I think they will catch on before too long, if all trading stamp and similar programs were eliminated. And if the retailer and consumer were to combine so as to realize the ultimate satisfactory condition in that field where the merchant gives-and the customer receives the maximum of quality and service for his or her dollar when this great mirage of trading stamp programs is removed completely from the scene.
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-
Rosemoni): Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes I should like to consider certain aspects of Bill No. C-5 in connection with the amendment of section 322 of the Criminal Code respecting trading stamps. The question of trading stamps has aroused a great interest among the public and at this point I might underline immediately the strong attitude taken by the Canadian Association of Consumers, as reported by the Toronto Star in their issue of January 12 where they say:
We object to these schemes because they increase distribution costs and thus increase the cost of living.
This brings up a very important question. Do trading stamps in fact have the result of increasing the price to the consumer? At this time of unemployment and tight money,

Criminal Code
when more than half a million Canadians are living on unemployment insurance benefits, this is really a matter of great importance. If it is so, I do not think we should tolerate a system which has the result of increasing the cost of living.
I would have hoped that the government would have already investigated and brought this fact to light through a special committee which could also have examined the practice of giving away gifts and toys with the purchase of certain goods as is done today nearly everywhere in Canada. I suspect personally that such gifts and premiums are in the end paid for by the consumers. These are practices which it would be worth while to investigate in the interests of Canadian consumers.
But Bill No. C-5 is in fact a minor amendment to the provisions of section 322 of the Criminal Code. I have the impression that most Canadians have thought that since 1905 trading stamps were prohibited under the provisions of section 322 of the Criminal Code. It might be that at the time of the revision of the Criminal Code in 1953 a gate was opened to trading stamps. This is left to be proved.
But there is no doubt that an important controversy has developed between the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and the majority of the attorneys general of the provinces as to their mutual responsibility with respect to trading stamps. It seems that the position taken by the Minister of Justice is that the regulation of the contractual aspect of trading stamps between merchants and consumers is strictly a provincial responsibility. On the other hand, the attorney general of Ontario, Mr. Kelso Roberts, in the Ottawa Citizen of November 30, 1959 is reported to have said "that there is no particular piece of legislation in Ontario concerning trading stamps and that the responsibility remains with the federal government."
The attorney general of the province of Quebec has also expressed the same views in a recent interview on television. In the meantime, a certain portion of public opinion firmly believes that there is a blanket prohibition in the Criminal Code concerning trading stamps. Unless something is done immediately to clarify this situation, we are going nowhere but into a state of complete confusion.
In view of the fact that we are dealing here with a very important matter, a matter which affects most Canadians because it concerns the cost of living and the price of food, and because also of the opposing views expressed by the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general of most provinces, I think

the government of Canada should take the lead in helping to clarify the confused situation. This is of course a personal opinion but I think that the smoothest and quickest way of doing so is by way of a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. The government of Canada and the attorneys general of each of the provinces would have an opportunity, through their local agent, to go before the supreme court to discuss two or three questions that might be prepared by the able officers of the Minister of Justice. Ultimately, we would be in a position to obtain the opinion of the highest court on the following questions: I do not pretend, of course, that I have here covered in two questions the main points to be clarified. I do believe the questions prepared by the minister's officers could be along these lines:
First, are the contractual aspects of trading stamps, in so far as merchants and customers are concerned, strictly a provincial responsibility?
Second, does the enactment of legislation prohibiting trading stamps fall within the jurisdiction of the federal or provincial government? The results of a reference of that kind to the Supreme Court of Canada would be the first step in clarifying the responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments in this matter of trading stamps. The governments concerned would, therefore, be able to ascertain, quickly and without any discussion, their respective jurisdictions in that field, and thereafter it should be easy to tackle this problem of trading stamps.
However, if the Minister of Justice or one of his colleagues refuses to take advantage of the opportunity provided by this bill to give such a lead, to give a clear indication of the intentions of the government toward this important problem, then, Mr. Speaker, this government can be assured that hundreds of thousands of Canadians will resent this lack of leadership.


Mr. Stuart Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: In the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, the preponderance of opinion appears to be against the use of trading stamps. Some members have indicated that although for various reasons they do not favour the bill as an effective deterrent to the use of these stamps, others accept the bill as it is presented to us as a means of eliminating trading stamps from use in current mercantile practice in the promotion and merchandising of goods. I think, for my own part, that my opinion runs almost parallel with that of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse), who indicated his personal dislike of trading stamps but also expressed some doubt

as to the advisability and wisdom of endeavouring to pass legislation against one single aspect, one single manifestation of the promotional techniques of modern merchandising.
I believe there is another point that we should take into account, something which I do not believe has been taken sufficiently into account by associations of merchants in the country, by consumer organizations and others, and that is this increasing desire to go to the government to regulate and restrain business practices. I find, for my own part, that I am increasingly concerned at the possibility that, if all levels of business are going to continue to go to governments and say, you must protect us against ourselves, we will succeed finally in strangling entirely what we choose to call free enterprise, if we have it now. There must be some regard for the possibility that business itself and those who are opposed to this type of promotional practice have a responsibility to get across to the public, by every means at their disposal, by all forms of public education, the undesirable features of trading stamps practice.
I am not sure in my own mind that the government can continue to pass enforceable laws on every possible occasion that some particular division of business or industry feels its interests are being damaged. There is a great mass of laws on the statute books now which have fallen into complete disrepute in the minds of the public because the public does not believe they are desirable and people have no desire to obey them. I can think of one law which we have now that is flouted quite widely throughout the country because the public does not believe in it. I refer to our law regarding lotteries, sweepstakes and gambling of that sort. If we were to check up on the practices rather than pay attention to the protestations on the matter, we would find the law is being completely disregarded by a very large number of Canadians.
I should like to refer to the list of names of organizations read by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald) which have indicated their opposition to trading stamps. I have no doubt in my own mind that if I were to go downtown in Ottawa on Saturday morning to one of the large supermarkets I could find members of every one of those organizations purchasing their week-end provisions in a store that gives trading stamps. These are matters which must be considered when we are discussing a bill of this kind and when we are asked to consider whether or not it will do an effective job of protecting the public.
My own belief is that the public must surely by now know that if they patronize a
Criminal Code
store offering trading stamps the cost of those trading stamps and premiums is contained in the mark-up on the merchandise which they purchase. There is nowhere else from which that cost can come. It must be there. If the public is prepared to pay that mark-up in the cost of the article they buy in the store, accepting as part of the price the premium stamps or premiums of some kind or another, I feel it is the right of the public to make that decision for themselves. It may be more desirable for the store offering stamps to say in its advertising, if you do not want to take the stamps you can have the equivalent in a cash discount. I understand that is not done, but that is not to say, of course, that it might not be done. This is a possibility that might develop. But it is true also that the majority of the public who now buy in stores offering trading stamps have the opportunity of buying in stores that do not offer them. As long as this opportunity exists, it cannot be fairly said that anybody is being forced into dealing with merchants who offer trading stamps. There is not, therefore, any undesirable influence being exerted on the buying public.
However, on the other side of the picture, Mr. Speaker, I think we must emphasize that there are dangers in the trading stamp philosophy of merchandising, in this promotional type of advertising, these massive promotions which the general public now accepts and which, if they were to stop to consider, they should avoid on every occasion.
I think of instances of which I have been told where producers have been brought under influence to sell products-farm products in particular-to large chain operations at reduced prices in order to provide the chain organizations with the opportunity of offering specials. The chain store or the large supermarket concerned very often says that it is giving to the public a special at a very greatly reduced price. But you often find it is not the store that is giving the special at all; it is the man who supplied the store with the produce in the first place.
This situation works a hardship on certain branches of our manufacturing industries, processing industries and farm producers. But I think these things can be corrected only by an understanding on the part of the public of all the factors involved in the use of trading stamps, by an understanding on the part of the suppliers to the large organizations that it is perhaps not in their own best interests to become involved in contractual agreements whereby they must provide produce at prices which make possible the use of the trading stamp as a mass promotional device.

Criminal Code
I think that somehow or other educational programs must be undertaken by consumer organizations, the retail merchants of Canada, better business bureaux and others, in order to give the public some idea of how they may estimate for themselves whether they are securing good value for the money they spend. Very often it is now extremely difficult to determine. At the same time I think that we here in this House of Commons must be very careful about how we try to wrap the public up in cotton wool perhaps against the public's own desires and to protect it from itself.
This is the very same public to which, every four or five years, we come back and entrust the decision to name the government that will conduct the affairs of the country for the following four or five years. There is no doubt in our minds that when we go back to the people they can make a decision for themselves on how they shall be governed and I think we are presuming a great deal when we decide that they cannot make a decision on how and where they will buy the products and merchandise they require for their daily living. If we ever come to the point where we decide that we can make that kind of decision for the public, I think we are striking at the very roots and principles of the institutions on which our country is founded.
However, I will only say this further. It can be proven on analysis that trading stamps are nothing more than a means of persuading people to go into a certain store or market to purchase. If the public is given access to all the facts of what is involved in this promotion, the opportunity to make its own decisions and to understand perhaps any merits there may be in the system as well as the demerits, I think that in due course an educated public will take care of this problem for itself.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am greatly impressed by the number of people who are now using stamps of various kinds as a method of selling free enterprise. While it may be a form of free enterprise, we believe there are many problems arising from that practice that are not in keeping with free enterprise, if that phrase means competitive enterprise.
I visited a number of stores because I was concerned about the statement that was made the other day by the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) in which she said that the women of the country were very much in favour of having these trading stamps. I visited some of the grocery stores
[Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke) J
and several other small stores in order to find out whether or not they were in favour of these trading stamps and, if so, why.
In one small store I picked up a catalogue. Certainly it was a nice catalogue. I saw in it a great deal of valuable merchandise. I also picked up a little stamp book. The dealer from which I obtained it was interested in giving me the catalogue and the stamp book. Then I asked him his opinion. I said, "I should like to know whether you are in favour of the stamps, whether they have helped your business and whether you would like to carry on with them." He said to me, "Do you own a store?" I said, "No, I do not own a store". He said, "I am afraid I cannot tell you that. You will have to see the company that supplies me with the stamps". He did not want to discuss the matter at all. He may have had an opinion or he may not have had but he was not saying anything.
I looked at this little book. It is quite fancy in itself when it is empty. It has some interesting pictures in it. On the other side it has a number of quotations. Some of them-they are all along the same line-are quite interesting. Here is one:
Hurrah for Hannah Housewife She's really very wise She always shops at Gold Bond Stores And saves each time she buys.
Here is another one:
Here's a way to help your friends,
Says thrifty Sandy Saver.
Tell them to save Gold Bond Stamps And do them all a favour!
I would suggest that the people who are receiving this favour are probably the Gold Bond Company more than anyone else. It seems that this is a way they have of talking to the women. The women all show some interest in it.
We have been told that the C.C.F. want to legislate against the wishes of the people themselves and that sometimes we want to put into effect legislation because it is good for the people whether the people like it or not. I think that all we are suggesting is that if these things are free and if you are getting something for nothing, the C.C.F. would be more in favour of that happening than would anyone else I know of. I think it is also the contention of all hon. members who have spoken that somebody is going to pay for these premiums, these nicely coloured catalogues, and these fancy little books.
I am quite sure that Mr. Loeb is not in the business of retailing food and other merchandise throughout the Ottawa valley just in order to give you something for nothing. The reason that he went into the stamp company and is now president of it is that there is something in it for Mr. Loeb. I am quite

sure that somebody is going to pay for them because these stamps are not redeemable at the bank. The consumer is not going to get anything out of them for nothing. Somebody is going to pay for them and I am quite sure that everybody will agree that it is the consumer. We are of the opinion that the consumer does not always know that he-or she, in the main-is paying for the stamps which the public are told continually are giving them premiums for nothing.
I had an interesting conversation early this evening with a young lady who I understand is the public relations official for a number of these stamp companies which have got together and hired her to do a survey. In talking to her I was quite interested in learning that in six hours she was able to get 1000 signatures on a petition asking the provincial government to allow these stamps to be used in the stores and that she did this without a great deal of effort on her part. I do not think this proves that what we are trying to do is wrong. It just proves, as the hon. member for York-Humber pointed out the other day, that women may look at things in a different way.
In introducing this legislation I think the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) had in mind not only the legislative side of this question and some of the legalities and illegalities that are connected with it, some of which have been tried in the provincial courts and some that may be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, but I think he was also taking into consideration the moral aspects of it. I think this is where the disagreement comes in, that we believe that if a thing is not good for somebody, even if it makes money for other people, that does not necessarily make it any better. If these companies are going to put out these stamps and say, "This will cost you money; somebody will have to pay for it, and it will be you", that is all right. If the wife wants to take the money her husband gives her and put away a certain amount of it as a saving and at the end of six months come home with a lamp, she can say to her husband, "This is something which I bought, and I bought it because I was sharp enough to deal at a store supplying stamps which allows me to get this kind of premium."
However, if we are being continually handed the propaganda from the various stores that they are giving away something for nothing, then I think this would be as dishonest as if we were to sell cotton shirts and say that they were 100 per cent pure wool. There are laws in Canada to prohibit that particular scheme, and I think there should be restrictions to prevent schemes taking place in this other field.
Criminal Code
I notice that the particular book I have, and others, have come before the royal commission on price spreads, and they point out on page 52 of the Stewart report that the retailers' obligation is to purchase the stamps from the stamp company, usually in batches of 20,000 at $20 a batch. A batch usually represents $1,000 of retail sales. Apparently the cost of trading stamp plans to the retailers is equivalent to about 2 per cent of the sales.
It has been pointed out this afternoon by a number of speakers that it represents only a cost of 2 per cent. But they may not have read the next sentence, which goes on to say that executive and trade opinion is that the retailer requires an increase of at least 20 per cent in his dollar sales volume if the plan is to be judged a success. In other words, unless he can increase his over-all volume of sales by 20 per cent somebody is going to have to pay for this program directly, and it will probably be paid for by the consumer because of resultant higher cost of produce.
It is also a fact, which is not contested by anyone, that if all the stores in a particular area subscribe to one or another of these plans, then obviously the advantage to the consumer which may accrue where the volume increases beyond 20 per cent will not be lost, and each one of the retail agents will be stuck with a plan which he will have to continue over a period of time, and he will have no way of unloading this type of advertisement or gimmick.
It has also been said that most of this 2 per cent will go back to the consumer himself in the form of these plans. I would suggest that this is not my experience with the plan, because having been in two or three of the large grocery stores of today, and having done so myself on other occasions as a transient, in most cases these people not collecting that particular kind of stamp say, "I don't want the stamps", and they give them to somebody else in the line-up, or give them to the girl behind the cash register.
I suggest that beyond this there are many people who take these stamps home and never do anything with them. This is a complete loss, and there is no value at all in the argument that they are getting something which they have already paid for; if they get the trading stamps and do not take them back, they are not even getting what they consider they have paid for.
There was an interesting presentation of this subject by William Dennison, member of the board of control, Toronto, where he pointed out the case of a man he talked to who had met a particular problem in his dealings with these stamps. One pensioner wrote

Criminal Code
that he had carefully pasted some 2,290 trading stamps in a book supplied for that purpose. He spent about $229 in that store to get these stamps. He bought four bottles of glue costing $1.20, and he and his wife wasted many hours neatly pasting these stamps in the book. All he was offered in return for his labour was three ordinary cups and saucers worth from fifty cents to $1. This is one of the problems with these trading stamps. If you do not collect a fantastically large number of them, you do not get anything of value, and while probably you can get something for one hundred stamp books, it would not be worth the bother of getting them.
In glancing over this particular catalogue I will agree with those who have said that in the main it is merchandise of well known companies and worth-while merchandise of name brands. But I would suggest that those who are connected with one of these wholesalers could get this merchandise a great deal cheaper if they wished and in turn could give it to their customers at a largely reduced price compared with the price quoted in this book. Just to take one example, you can get a thirty ounce thermos bottle for one and one fifth books, which would amount to $4 worth of premiums. So this could be bought at a cheaper price than you are having to pay for it, and I would say there are no advantages in buying it this way. It is not a wholesale proposition; the catalogue is calculated on the full retail price.
I suggest that if we are faced with the problem of women not knowing what they should do, if we as men consider them to be inefficient in their buying habits, then I think we have to support this legislation to protect our women folk against themselves.


Mr. Brunsden:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he suggesting that Canadian women are unintelligent?


William Arnold Peters: I am certainly not suggesting that, no. I am suggesting that probably a man supplying money for the groceries would consider his money better spent than if his wife were buying a number of the premiums contained in this book.
Then we go from that point to another, which is probably the crux of the whole matter, and that is whether or not this advertising the women are paying attention to is false advertising or not. I think this matter was given consideration in the report of the royal commission on price spreads by Dr. Stewart. On page 36 he had this to say: The ultimate misconception to which people can be led is that anything in the market is "free".
If consumers are misled by being induced to buy something which is said to be "better" when it is not, they may never find out. Further, we are 
reluctant to accept the argument that, if consumers find they have been misled, the lesson to be learned is to use better judgment next time. As we have pointed out, in the case of a new product, the consumer cannot tell whether or not she wants it until after the purchase has been made. For this reason, we feel that any argument that condones misleading advertising indicates a cynical disregard for the welfare of the consumer.
It is my contention that this is exactly what is happening in the advertising which is taking place in connection with these stamp programs. On every page of this bulletin you will find a reference to getting something for nothing, and I am suggesting that there is nothing for nothing. If people are to be told: you will be able to have this merchandise, but what you buy will cost 2 per cent more, then well and good. But if we allow people to think that they are getting something for nothing, then in my opinion this is advertising as false as any which already comes under the act. Accordingly I suggest that we prohibit the use of the trading stamps as the province of Alberta has done, and I suggest this could best be accomplished through the method advocated by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Mr. McGee:: Might I be permitted to ask the hon. member a question? Having given us his views on the buying habits of motherhood, I wonder if he would favour the house with his views on sin?


William Arnold Peters: You want to ask about the Conservative party?


Frank Charles McGee: Is that your definition of sin?


William Arnold Peters: I would suggest that the purchasing trend of the women folk have not always been along the same lines as those of men. In this particular case I do not think it is because they are women that they are misled. It is simply because the propaganda surrounding trading stamps is directed to them and they are not acquainted with all the facts.


Miss Margaret  Aiiken@York-Humber: Mr. Speaker, I am simply trying to rise before the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) really becomes involved.
We have heard some extremely interesting views on this subject of trading stamps today, and having listened to hon. gentlemen on all sides of the house I can only assume that nobody likes trading and discount stamps except the women who do the buying in this country. Personally, I can agree with much that has been said today. I have no particular regard for these gimmicks, but I feel very strongly that it is a ridiculous thing for this government to spend all day being asked to

put in our Criminal Code, the basic law oi our country, such a trivial thing as a provision concerning trading stamps.
Actually, as the hon. member tor Saskatoon (Mr. Jones) said this afternoon, trading stamps are already illegal in this country. The reason is that back at the turn of the century stamp salesmen came to this country from the United States and sold the unsuspecting merchants this idea of trading stamps. Then when the time came around to collect the premiums the stamp salesmen had decamped. So the legislators of that day-1905-decided that the public was being victimized and that something should be done about it. But nobody in this country today has said that the public is being victimized in this way at the present time in regard to trading stamps, and, if they are, I think there are other ways of dealing with the question rather than by incorporating this inconsequential provision into our Criminal Code. One of those ways would be to oblige the trading stamp companies to bond themselves. That would protect the public.
There are some who say that these stamps are just a fad, and this may be true. I would not be surprised if it were true. If that is so, and if this is just a fad, what happens after it has died out, and-judging from the atmosphere in this house today-a provision has been included in the Criminal Code against it? What will happen? Some ingenious advertising man or promotion man will dream up another gimmick and everybody will rise up in wrath and say: these poor women are being fooled or duped. We are much smarter than they are. They should not have anything to do with these things, and we must ban them under the Criminal Code. Mr. Speaker, in the course of time we would have a Criminal Code stretching from here to Halifax.


An hon. Member:: A dreadful thought.


Miss Aitken (York-Humber):: I remember that some years ago somebody dreamed up a gimmick and put cards in cigarette packs. People collected these cards, and when they had a deck of cards they were entitled to a premium or gift. As I recall it there was no particular outcry against that, and there are no cards in cigarette packages today. In other words, these things come and go, but to legislate against them in our Criminal Code every time they occur seems to me to be ridiculous.
Mention has been made of the cost of these stamps and it has been argued that they inevitably cause the price of food to rise. The merchants using the stamps say that is not so, and that the increased volume of sales covers the cost of the stamps. As we know in this house-and we have been listening to 79951-0-48
Criminal Code
examples in the last ten days-incredible things can be done by the manipulation of statistics. In the end it is the consumer buyer who judges cost, and I personally cannot believe that in this very competitive field of food merchandising one merchant is going to let another merchant undersell him, stamps or no stamps.
Some years ago, in 1956 or 1957, I wrote some columns in this subject of trading stamps because it interested me. This was before it became a controversial subject. I received a great many letters from those "poor simple women" who collected stamps as well as from some other people, and one of those was from a man who tried to explain to me how the costs are absorbed in this business. In the example he gave me he said there was a particular company which had a warehouse. To maintain this warehouse costs $50,000 a year. After introducing trading or discount stamps the company found that the volume of business increased so much that it was able to put on a second shift of workers. This, of course, gave added employment to the community. That was just an incidental. The cost of maintaining the warehouse remained the same, but there were two shifts of workers, and the second shift was paid for by the added volume of business. We have not heard of this kind of statistic today.
I can understand why socialists would introduce such a bill as this. Socialism is dedicated to more and more controls over private enterprise and competition.


Frank Howard: That is not true.


Miss Margaret  Aiiken@York-Humber: It has been pointed out in editorials all across the country that when restrictions are placed on competition the consumer is the one who suffers most. I am not advocating trading stamps. I have never collected them and I never expect to.


An hon. Member:: You never know.


Miss Margaret  Aiiken@York-Humber: No, you do
not. Some people claim that trading stamps are irritating. To tell you the truth, I would be inclined to agree with this if one did not collect them. But, Mr. Speaker, I find advertising interruptions of a good program on television terribly irritating. I am not going to come to this House of Commons and ask for a ban of those advertisements on television, and I will fight violently against such a thing. I am not advocating trading stamps but I am advocating private enterprise.
My whole premise in this matter is that governments should not be asked to interfere with or legislate against such unimportant things. Our Criminal Code embodies the basic laws of our country and I feel that it should not be cluttered up with such

Criminal Code
trivia. If all the irritants of life were brought to parliament and we were asked to ban them in the Criminal Code, as I said before, the record would stretch from Halifax to Victoria.
My reasons for being against this bill boil down to four. It is ridiculous that such trivia should be part of our Criminal Code, when there is no proof-and I have listened very carefully all day so far-that anybody is being victimized. I know the hon. member for Timiskaming thinks that the women are being fooled, but even he did not say they were being victimized.
Such gimmicks will be always with us. If it is not trading stamps it will be something else, and how far should we go as a government in interfering with these things. To date there has been no proof that there has been an increase in the price of food, but most important of all, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is a socialist bill aimed at the curtailment of freedom and of competition.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the hon. lady a question before she completes her remarks? Will she indicate whether she would be favourably disposed to removing from the Criminal Code the definition of trading stamps as contained now in section 322 and section 369, I believe it is, which prohibits the use of trading stamps?


Margaret Aitken: Would I be willing to-


Frank Howard: Will the hon. lady indicate whether it would meet with her approval to eliminate from the Criminal Code the definition of trading stamps contained in section 322 and also remove from the Criminal Code section 369, I believe it is, which prohibits the use of trading stamps? Would she be favourably disposed to removing these sections from the code?


Margaret Aitken: Mr. Speaker, I think I will have to resort to a cabinet technique in this instance and say I would like to give it consideration.


Murdo William Martin: May I ask a question? The hon. lady mentioned in her remarks that trading stamps are illegal at the present time. But it is also obvious that the practice is very widespread. I should like to ask the hon. lady whether she agrees with the sentiment expressed in a comic strip which has more political education in it than most of the editorial pages of our daily newspapers? I am referring to Li'l Abner by A1 Capp, in which General Bullmoose said it is all right to be illegal as long as you do not break the law.


Margaret Aitken: Mr. Speaker, I am out of my league; I do not read the comic strips.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Hasiings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest this afternoon and this evening to the many speeches on the bill concerning trading stamps. At this time I should like to say a few words. In my remarks I shall take a little different approach to the problem than has been taken in the house today. I personally feel that it is of major importance to deal with this bill and that it should have earnest consideration of hon. members.
It has been suggested here today that the government should not have any part of or take any part in a case of this kind; but it is of major importance when one is dealing with the welfare and future of 300,000 small businesses. This figure is taken from the 1951 census and excludes small contractors. Perhaps it is a very conservative estimate. It also has to do with over one million of our workers.
As members of parliament, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that it is also important to the government, when one considers that every one of the small businessmen pays municipal taxes, provincial taxes, federal taxes and income tax. We should also remember the large number of people employed by various wholesale houses, warehouses, and the travellers whom they employ who are continually on the roads, staying at our hotels, motels and summer resorts and who are each and every day buying their meals in the different places along the road and purchasing motor products. Then there are the number of cars, trucks and railroads whose facilities are used for the delivery of this merchandise in Canada. Not to be excluded is the gasoline tax derived from all those vehicles.
A major fact also is that almost every dollar of the money spent by the small merchant is recirculated in Canada. That means the profits are not going to another country.
I should like to point out that at least the majority of our small businessmen want to buy and do buy Canadian-manufactured goods. It is my opinion that if these gimmicks are allowed to continue it will matter not whether the goods are manufactured in Canada. Price only will be the guide. I should like to point out that this is one way in which business and money can be spread throughout the entire country, thus giving small business a chance of survival. Therefore I feel personally that trading stamps should be abolished.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the pros and cons with respect to the matter of trading stamps. Having in mind all the speeches I have heard today, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) for taking such an objective attitude. I believe we should take an objective stand. Personally I think the subject matter is ultra vires of the federal parliament. In my opinion it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces under property and civil rights.
At the present time several cases in Manitoba have not been heard by the court of appeal and we do not know what the decisions will be. Hon. members who support the bill have referred to the fact that the province of Alberta has prohibited trading stamps, and we must be sure whether it is the federal parliament or the provincial legislatures that have jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, we have the bill before us and I think we should take an objective attitude toward it. We should analyse it from all sides. I should like to take the other side of the question and defend the poor stamp. I do not do so just to be different but because I feel that both sides of the question should be heard. We know who are opposed to trading stamps. We know that especially in the big centres the chain stores, in order to attract business, have entered into the scheme of giving so many trading stamps for every dollar of goods purchased. This hurts somebody but every promotional scheme, every promotional device, hurts somebody.
To refer again to the speech of the hon. member for York-Humber, I believe that we are creating a tempest in a teapot. If this scheme or gimmick is abolished some other smart scheme will be introduced. If it is to the detriment of consumers it will die a natural death and we should not clutter up the ' Criminal Code any more than it is already. This is a promotional scheme or device and we live in a free country with a free economy. Every business has to fight for every dollar it gets and various schemes are used. Trading stamps are just one scheme. Are we going to abolish all of them? I am going to list a few of them. What about newspaper advertising? We see whole page advertisements in the daily press, and they must cost a pretty penny. Who pays for them? You and I, the consumers, only we do not see it. We get one of these trading stamps for every ten cents worth of goods purchased and some people want to treat this as a crime. I do not want to mention the store I get them from because that would be an advertisement for the store.
79951-0-481
Criminal Code
But who pays for the pages and pages of advertising of groceries, dry-goods and everything else? Whom does it hurt? I will tell you. It hurts the little merchant, the little grocer who cannot afford to advertise. Then we have advertising on radio and television, which was also referred to by the hon. member for York-Humber. I think she took part of my speech away.


An hon. Member:: That is a woman for you.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Whom do you think pays for the time of that sweet lady on television who holds in her hand a pack of cigarettes and sings, "Ask for-" or "Smoke..."? Who pays for that if not you and I? Every customer who buys that particular product pays for it. Why is there this advertising on radio and television? It is a promotional gimmick or device to get customers interested in the particular product, to get them to buy. Trading stamps are just another promotional device and I see absolutely no difference between them and newspaper or radio and television advertising.
If we are so concerned about the cost of the product being increased on this account, we might as well make it illegal for people to advertise in the newspapers and on radio and on television. There are other promotional devices that competition has compelled business to use. Let me give an example. I do not know whether those who live in the large centres get them but I know that in rural Manitoba envelopes containing coupons are received by the householders from time to time. With a coupon I can go to the store and get a certain brand of cereal for ten cents less. The coupon is worth ten cents if I buy that cereal, or it may be a coupon for a certain brand of toilet soap, soap flakes or something else. The coupon is worth so much. I have seen little storekeepers up to their necks trying to sort out these coupons at the end of the month because they get a refund on them.
But who pays for them if not the customer? It costs money to print the coupons. There is also the cost of postage stamps and envelopes to send them to the householder. We pay for these things. We might as well make these schemes illegal. There are also coupons for the purchase of tea, coffee and so on. We have seen advertisements that if you buy a tankful of gas you will get a carton of soft drinks or something else free. What is the reason for that? Is that not a promotional device? You can call it a gimmick or whatever you like, but business must fight for every dollar it can possibly get from consumers. In the case of all these devices I ask the question again, who pays? You pay and I pay.

Criminal Code
At the beginning of my address I said that we know those who are against trading stamps. But I wonder how many members have noticed in today's Ottawa Journal a story with the headline, "1,000 City Women Join Fight to Keep Trading Stamps". I believe that for every woman who objects there must be ten who are in favour, and the attitude of these women is becoming known. They are organizing throughout the country.
I believe in our free economy, and I believe in the integrity and common sense of our women who do most of the buying. They have a choice of the stores they want to patronize. They can very quickly detect whether or not they are being fleeced. They can very quickly detect whether or not, by virtue of receiving trading stamps, the quality of the goods is lower or the price is higher.
I have not heard any statistics, and we could have had statistics from those who wanted to support this bill, as to what happens to prices in the non-stamp stores. Mark you, Mr. Speaker, I would consider it a crime to permit the issue or receipt of trading stamps if it could be proven to my satisfaction, and the satisfaction of all Canadians that the customer is being fooled into believing he is getting something for nothing. Some reference was made to that by some hon. members. I could quote statistics given by Dr. James Phillips before the United States committee on agriculture, and who said that the customer does receive value for these trading stamps and the value he receives is anywhere from 1.55 per cent to 2.29 per cent on every dollar spent in the store. Unless it can be proven that the customer gets nothing, that he is fooled, then you cannot make this a crime. Any provision you place in the Criminal Code immediately creates a crime punishable by either a fine or a jail term.
Another point which I should like cleared up before I would condemn the present practice is whether the customer is cheated through the use of stamps. Are we so gullible and ignorant that we do not catch on? Are our wives and daughters so ignorant and foolish that they do not catch on to any scheme that tries to cheat them out of a hard earned dollar? I do not believe there was a single address during the course of the day which gave any indication that that was the case, or at least did not give us statistics to prove that was the case.
We have heard charges that this practice increases the cost of doing business. To whom does it increase the cost? Does it not increase the cost of doing business if a firm decides to take a full page advertisement in a daily

newspaper? Does it not increase the cost of doing business if a merchant remodels his store and puts in self-service shelves? Does it not increase the cost of his business if he puts in plate glass windows or if he hires extra boys to carry out the ladies' parcels to their cars? Is that not just another promotional device? These things do increase costs, but to whom? It has to be proven that this increase is all passed on to the consumer, and this has not been proven. I do not believe we have received any statistics on that point at all.
Those who promote these trading stamps naturally depend on an increased volume of business, and thus increased profits and increased employment. Certainly this hurts somebody. Every promotional scheme in a competitive economy such as ours always hurts somebody. When I started legal practice in my town, every time a new lawyer came in it was hurting me. This was competition, and it was taking business away from me. Every new merchant who comes in is competition and hurts somebody. Are we going to make it illegal to expand or are we going to kill competition when competition is the very essence of our economic life?
Another point upon which I would have liked to have some proof is, does the retailer increase prices? I would have liked to hear from those who would like to make this a crime-provided of course the matter is intra vires of the dominion parliament-whether or not the retailer increases his price by virtue of the fact he handles stamps. Does a pound of coffee of the same brand and quality cost the same in a store that hands out trading stamps as it does in a store that does not give trading stamps? If it costs the same, then who is being hurt? These trading stamps do have value, and if they have value then the customer is not hurt, and there are more customers than storekeepers.
I could name other devices, Mr. Speaker, which are practised by our retailers and even by the wholesale trade. I know of chewing gum manufacturers who come along with a deal and if a merchant buys so much of that particular product they give him a bathroom scale. I have actually seen that scheme in operation. This is another promotional scheme. Are we going to make that illegal as well because it hurts somebody? If your store is loaded up with that particular brand of chewing gum, then other chewing gum manufacturers have not much chance of selling their product to your store. That is a device we have. Then there is the device of giving an exclusive agency to one storekeeper, one out of ten, who will sell a particular manufactured product, whether it is a washing

machine, radio or something else. Are we going to make that illegal too? It hurts somebody. It is not fair for one Tom Jones, or whoever he is, to have exclusive selling privileges for that product. Are we going to make it illegal?
There are many other instances I could mention. Some people get so fired up by their missionary zeal to sponsor something that they would like to see the government take action upon that they want this practice declared a crime right away. Put everybody in jail. You have to consider these things in an objective manner, as the hon. member for York-Humber has done, and look at them from all sides. Let us find out first whether the matter is entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces. If it is entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces, then we certainly have wasted a wonderful afternoon and evening in this house. Supposing it is not within the jurisdiction of the provinces, Mr. Speaker, I think it is too trivial a matter with which to clutter up our Criminal Code. I believe that Canadian buyers, and our women, are intelligent enough to see on which side their bread is buttered. They will go where they can buy the best quality goods at the best prices, regardless of whether or not they are getting trading stamps.
(Translation):


Mr. Vincent Brassard (Chicoutimi):: Mr
Speaker, unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity of hearing those who spoke before me in this debate. However, without wishing to promote my own business, I may say that, for the last fifteen years, I have been operating a meat packing business and dealing with more than six hundred food products retailers. Therefore-without wishing to make any invidious comparisons- I know the problem perhaps a little better than lawyers or intellectuals who form part of this house.
I know the problem, because I live with these people; I have been working with them for fifteen years and I know, for instance, that our small grocers are an essential link in the economy of our country. I know also that, in winter, when our workers are temporarily jobless, when our farmers are short of income or when our fishermen are idle, small grocers are the ones who finance the situation, who advance food and who, in other words, are responsible for the maintenance of the economy.
Alongside those independent grocers and dealers, we have large chain stores, those multi-million enterprises having at their disposal extraordinary means, able to hold a weekly draw for a car, and at the same
Criminal Code
time distribute trading stamps, or else buy whole pages of advertising in large dailies, or use television. Those large undertakings, which sell on a strictly cash basis, have no doubt served the Canadian economy. But they must not be allowed to squeeze out small grocers, small independent merchants.
As Conservatives, if we consider the maintenance of private enterprise as a matter of principle, we must, it seems to me, legislate in such a way as not to remove small independent merchants, because, once they are out of the picture, one thing only will remain: a chain of huge business firms. This would be the first step toward socialization. Indeed, socialization is unthinkable when there are thousands of small business firms, but it would be quite possible with just a single group of large corporations.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, after stating the disastrous effects of trading stamps with regard to the small business man, I am necessarily in favour of the bill before us. I am supporting it, not because the distribution of trading stamps is, in itself, a criminal action, but simply because I believe it to be a system that helps suppress small business,-which is immoral.
We have had instances in my own district, where we witnessed more than 28 bankruptcies on the consumer market this year. That is a figure which makes one stop and think, and it can be attributed to the competition of those large business firms.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support the bill before the house, on the principle that the government is responsible for protecting free enterprise, even if, to do so, we have to put the brakes on the activities of some people who are more enterprising than others.
I believe that is a necessity. The little corner store must be saved because it has been part of our economy for a great many years and, I think, will still remain a necessity in the years to come.
(Text):


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with a great deal of interest to the debate this afternoon and this evening. I can understand the motion put forward by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) because his thinking is to this effect, "Let us force somebody to do something". I think there would be disappointment to hear another hon. member from that small group admit that he could not budget on his own salary. I should like to make him an offer and it is this. We will budget for him.

Criminal Code
Several things have been admitted here today. One thing I should like to point out is that we in Canada have some of the finest legislation in the world for the protection of our consumers. We have our Food and Drugs Act, we have our marketing acts and we have our grading acts. All I should like to say is that any consumer who cannot read should get somebody to do it for him. I repeat that people are protected.
There is nothing new about trading stamps, premiums or about any of these things. They have all been in existence for centuries. However, it is left up to the individual whether or not he wants to accept them. When you buy porridge-and I will not mention the brand name-and they say they are going to put in a cup and saucer, what are you buying? Are you buying a cup and saucer or are you buying 16 ounces of porridge? That is your privilege.
I assume that the wife of the hon. member for Skeena has the same control over the purse strings that my wife has.


Frank Howard: Probably greater.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Like 90 per cent of the women of this country, my wife does the shopping for my family. The insinuation implied by the introduction of this private bill is that she has not enough ability to find her way down to the shopping centre. If we want to protect the consumer, we are going at it from the wrong angle. We should not tell the consumer, "You cannot go there". Nobody drags him in off the street. We have certain other angles from which we can attack. In its legislation the federal government today is protecting the consumers against adulteration. It is making sure that they are getting what they pay for.
We could approach the matter from another angle. What about all the zoning laws in the city of Ottawa? Some women have not the time in which to go all the way downtown. They are forced to shop in certain areas. I do not think we are going to gain anything by saying to the customer, "You cannot take trading stamps". You are not obliged to take them. You may leave them on the desk and forget about them.
As to trading stamps, they are not new. In 1952 the premium houses came out to Saskatchewan. They came to sell us an advertising deal. I am now speaking as a merchant. They said, "Here, we will set up a scheme for you. We will provide the stamps. Here are your premiums. It will cost you so much". As an individual businessman I had my choice. I really appreciate the criticism we are getting from that little

group over at the left. We have been told not only that many of us could not make a living but will never be able to make a living. In fact I appreciate their interest, but we are not the group that are asking for pensions. The basic thing is this. As an individual businessman I had the choice of accepting or rejecting that scheme. I made that choice and it was not based on nebulous reasons. I made it as a businessman. The question was whether it would pay me to spend that much money on advertising. It would not pay me, so I did not accept the scheme.
Now, I do not think that because I decide it will not pay me I should stop my neighbour from making his decision as to whether it pays him. If he loses his shirt that is his business; if he makes money, that also is his business. But I am so tired of being looked after by these connoisseurs, and I think a great many other people in Canada are getting tired of it too. We have just wasted a good deal of time, costing the Canadian taxpayer a good deal of money today, on an argument that the average taxpayer does not give a darn about.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I imagine the hon. member for Skeena, (Mr. Howard) has had a great deal of edification today in the way his proposed bill has been debated. Before I give my views on this subject, I should just like to go back to a question he asked the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) with regard to whether that hon. member would be willing to have section 322 deleted, and some other sections too.
In order to set the stage, so to speak, for this, I would like to quote from the Canadian Grocer, the issue of November 21, 1959, which has to deal with an interview between the editor of that magazine and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton). It reads:
Mr. Fulton was interviewed by Canadian Grocer's Ottawa editor. His answers are clear enough in the story in this issue but they rate some emphasis because there is so much misunderstanding on the whole question-
The Criminal Code, including its provisions about trading stamps, is federal legislation. Its purpose is to protect against crime, which includes fraud and potentially fraudulent activities.
If trading stamps are inclined to produce fraud or fraudulent activities, then I suggest the Department of Justice will prosecute any company which is responsible for any such activity. But if trading stamps are simply another weapon in the free enterprise system in which one business competes with another business for customers, then

whether you agree with that type of advertising or not, it is still a very valid weapon to use.
The editorial goes on to make this point rather abundantly clear. It says:
Ottawa is concerned with the enforcement of the Criminal Code from the standpoint of preventing and punishing fraud. But it is inclined to stand clear of situations in which the code might be made the basis of actions in which the real purpose is not to eliminate fraud but to regulate business practice.
This is the intent of this bill. It is not to eliminate fraud. It has nothing to do with criminal activity. It is simply another way of regulating business practice. That is the fundamental weakness in the bill.
Much has been said about trading stamps. I know I am rather fond of certain types of dry cereals, but I am infuriated at the advertising on the box. You are always being asked to send five box tops and ten cents for a yo-yo, or some other toy. I would sooner have a reduction in price. But it is all right if that is the way they market them. As the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) pointed out, some stores may increase their costs by putting in, for example, some parking space. Others employ boys to take the groceries to the car, and so on. They are all competing by giving service in different ways. They are all competing with their advertising budgets. One store may spend a very large proportion of its allowable expenses on advertising, and other stores may spend only half as much. Who is to say whether the store which spends only half as much is giving better value in the goods they sell as compared with the store with a very high advertising budget?
I think we all experience the situation where we go down town to a large department store to look around. I know when I go in that I purchase right away. My wife is a very careful shopper and she looks and checks all the prices. Time after time she will come back to small stores in our own neighbourhood and get just as good or better value than from the large departmental stores. It is just a question of how that particular businessman runs his business, whether his money is going into advertising in all its various forms and ramifications, or whether it is in the form of advertising by word of mouth, being passed on from customer to customer.
We live in an age when advertising is essential, when it is one of the foremost tools of business, and advertising is slanted to influence you to come in and buy. If I may come back to the Canadian Grocer, the Ottawa editor goes on to quote the Minister of Justice as saying:
Criminal Code
-the present government feeling is that the trading stamp provisions of the Criminal Code do serve their purpose effectively, although if it were later found that loopholes existed which might permit fraudulent practices, including abuse of currency regulations, then Ottawa would be ready to step in with necessary amendments.
This editor points out that this bill has no place at the present time in this house. This bill is properly a bill to be presented in the legislatures of the various provinces, as it has in Alberta. The other thing which the editorial makes a point of, and I think this is something to be considered is this:
This leaves the other provinces a choice of going along with the federal Department of Justice on its attitude toward trading stamps, or taking local action of their own.
Canadian Grocer holds no brief for trading stamps. As a business practice they are justifiable only to the extent that they may produce sufficient added business to cover their very considerable cost without price increases.
But if it is a choice between freedom to give (and collect) trading stamps, and legislation by lobby, we will take trading stamps any day.
That is the key to the whole editorial, that lobbies, whether on the part of supermarkets or on the part of other business organizations or what-not, require legislation, and this magazine, which is perhaps the spokesman for the grocery business in Canada, says they want no part of lobbies.
The editorial goes on:
Existing legislation, if properly enforced, provides very considerable safeguards.
Then it goes on to point out some of the other safeguards which we have. It says:
The Combines Investigation Act and associated clauses of the Criminal Code provides for suitable action to be taken where any practice tends toward monopoly, undue restriction of competition and freedom of enterprise.
That would appear to be a fairly effective weapon in the Criminal Code. The conclusion of the editorial is this:
There are no doubt occasions when business practices can lead to chaotic conditions and when some form of legislative form of control is required both in the interests of the public and the trade. But a state of mind which leans upon regulation to protect the protectable from the rigours of competition is not one that points the way to success in so-called free competitive economy.
The point which has been laboured by speaker after speaker is that this bill, and companion pieces having the same philosophy, is an attempt to legislate people into being good. They are attempts to mould us into the form of the particular group of which the hon. member himself is such a distinguished member. They want to make us all one. They do not want us to be allowed to make any mistakes. They want to regiment us, and they want to regiment business.
I am sure that all hon. members have received this booklet which sets out the case

Criminal Code
for discount stamps in Canada. It is a biased book, because it is issued by one of the trading stamp companies, but it does present arguments for both sides. It points out, as several hon. members have done in this debate, that the Criminal Code was amended in 1905, and it also refers to a publication which was issued by the board of trade in the United Kingdom-the report of a committee set up to examine this question of gift coupons and trading stamps. The United Kingdom report is in favour of trading stamps or, rather, the committee takes the position that a cure would be a greater evil than the one it would seek to prevent. Some pertinent points are made in that publication, and under the heading "Arguments Against Trading Stamps" the report says one of the objections raised is:
That the customer of a stamp-trading shop is misled by the inducements held out into believing that he is getting something for nothing, whereas in fact he may be paying very heavily for his purchase.
That objection has been mentioned today and hon. members have commented on the philosophy of "something for nothing". Well, people buy sweepstake tickets and go to bingo games. The lure of something for nothing is felt within the human race and no legislation can ever prevent people hoping for a lucky bet, or a piece of luck in a lottery or winning something from one of these companies. The report goes on to mention a further objection:
That many trading stamp companies offer poor value in the gifts which they themselves provide.
That argument appears to have been well refuted. The gifts are well known branded household names. The gifts are good, if you can get them. Again, the report mentions the objection:
That the retailer is frequently unable to escape from the trading stamp system even though he may wish to do so.
This, I think, is a valid argument because although we hear that an increased volume of sales will mean that trading stamps may be used at no cost to the merchant, if everybody uses trading stamps, where is the increased volume to come from? If a company uses trading stamps as a means of building up a business, will it not be forced to continue the practice in order to maintain that business? However, a company would in any case be obliged to continue other forms of advertising in order to maintain its position, or be forced to continue giving other forms of service if it wished to keep its business.
Another point which the committee brought up was:

That trading stamp companies are essentially parasitic, providing no useful service to the community in return for the profit which they make.
This implies that all who are, say, hucksters are parasitic; that all advertising agents and all those employed in advertising media contribute nothing. I would think that that is not a very valid contention, believing as I do that advertising has contributed to the development of a higher standard of living in Canada, United States and the rest of the western world. Finally, this objection is noted:
That the system oilers special temptations to fraud by ephemeral trading stamp companies.
If that is the case we have provisions in the Criminal Code which will take care of that situation.
The Economist, a well known British publication, summed up the case against trading stamps very well, in my opinion, in its issue of May 2, 1959. It had this to say:
The National Chamber of Trade's report strongly deplores stamp trading (and all other forms of cut-price trading), arguing that traders will lose money, that customers will pay more for their goods, and that only the promoters stand to gain. There is some truth in these statements, but probably not much. Traders will lose no more money through this form of price-cutting than another: the moment it becomes too expensive they will no doubt drop it, and return to conventional pricecutting, if not to uncompetitiveness. Should all retailers adopt stamp trading schemes, prices would probably rise slightly to cover their cost; but competition should keep this to a minimum, and most price cuts-in supermarkets, for example-are now paid for by quietly "loading" other prices. The stamp traders will profit from their activities, certainly; provided they give value for money, why not? The one thing which is most certainly true about stamp trading is that the actual savings to the consumer are not as great as they are made out to be: but this is true in many, if not most, aspects of retailing.
I think that last sentence puts it in a nutshell. These trading stamps are simply an ingenious scheme-a scheme which started some 70 years ago in the United States but which is relatively new here and in the United Kingdom.


Frank Howard: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Ernest James Broome: I am afraid I want to finish this. What was the hon. member's question?


Frank Howard: I should like to ask the hon. member whether he would agree with me that he has now coined a new word in the House of Commons' vocabulary by brooming this bill out?


Ernest James Broome: What I have done, I think, is to put this bill in its proper light. This is light fare for the House of Commons; it has no place in this house-no place in being debated in this house because it is not really

an amendment to the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code as it covers criminal activities with regard to fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation.


The Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the house what is the business for tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we shall go into committee of supply and consider the supplementary estimates which were tabled yesterday. If those are finished we will then take as the second item of business the resolution on today's order paper in the name of the Minister of Justice dealing with an amendment to the Department of Justice Act. The third item of business would be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport dealing with an amendment to the Railway
Business of the House
Act and, item 4, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works dealing with amendments to the National Housing Act.
If the house disposes of these items we will then take second readings with regard to the Indian Act, the Canada Elections Act and the Export and Import Permits Act.


Lionel Chevrier: That is almost a week's work. May I inquire what we shall be doing on Monday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Monday will be private members' day. On Tuesday we shall resume consideration of the business I have just outlined.


Lionel Chevrier: In that order?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it will be in that order, yes.
It being three minutes past ten o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Questions



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the government or its agencies any control over operations of the Jacques Cartier bridge in Montreal?
2.	If so, what has been the toll structure on the bridge since 1956?
3.	Have any changes taken place in the toll structure or any modification in collection since 1956?
4.	If so, what are the changes?
5.	What has been the month by month income and expenses for this bridge since January 1957?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	From February 1, 1941 to 31 March, 1959 inclusive, the toll structure was in accordance with tariff of bridge tolls, national harbours board by law B-13, approved by order in council (dominion government) P.C. No. 635 dated January 29, 1941, and published in the Canada Gazette February 1, 1941. Approved by order in council (province of Quebec) No. 4091 dated November 27, 1940.
Since 1 April, 1959, the toll structure is as provided in tariff of bridge tolls, national harbours board by law B-13, enacted by order-in council (dominion government) P.C. 1959243 dated February 26, 1959. Published in the Canada Gazette March 11, 1959. Enacted by order in council (province of Quebec No. 87) dated February 4, 1959.
3.	Yes.
4.	The collection system was changed from a manually operated system to an automatic system. The major changes in the toll structure were as follows:
Item
1.	Passengers in vehicle ...
2.	Motorcycles-
Cash fare	
Commuted rate	
3.	Private cars-
Cash fare	
Commuted rate	
4.	Trucks	
5.	Truck-trailer combination
6.	Buses	
Before 1 April, 1959 50 or 10 for 25<J
On and after 1 April, 1959 Nil
15<S	250
Nil	80
60
250 to $1.50 Truck rate plus trailer, 200 to 700 600 plus passenger rate
80
250 to $1.50 500 to $2.00 $1.00
5. The month by month income and expenses since January, 1957, are as follows:
	1957			1958	
	Total	Total			
	Income	Expenditure			
January ...	$137,715.22	$100,586.14	January .	. $151,667.00	$116,423.33February ..	130,511.72	99,515.01	February	. 114,349.56	102,885.72March	166,545.15	103,841.24	March ...	. 150,518.55	104,812.41April 	192,474.09	105,753.41	April	. 204,184.28	110,391.16May 	210,390.82	105,465.61	May	. 191,475.57	114,165.05June 	232,192.97	112,753.67	June ....	. 201,911.89	118,271.32July 	249,611.14	114,798.40	July ....	. 225,743.67	108,776.31August 	232,314.43	122,796.09	August ..	. 219,951.90	107,652.56September .	200,504.00	108,178.82	September	. 199,266.30	121,162.14October ...	199,116.97	108,740.69	October ..	. 241,164.23	110,199.65November .	179,572.70	107,254.00	November	. 166,511.76	107,196.13December .	195,399.41	120,800.93	December	. 169,472.50	138,832.78January ..	$148,197.29	$134,424.28February ..	122,708.36	110,349.63March 	164,602.78	122,571.68April 	201,528.03	111,822.58May	173,066.91	122,939.50June 	195,541.08	127,209.59July 	203,248.17	122,351.10August ....	183,537.80	128,945.82September .	264,366.94	148,446.21October ...	344,143.74	125,089.60November .	247,472.08	124,174.87
^December
(*)Figures not yet available.


ADVANCE PAYMENTS ON GRAIN, 1957-58-59
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	What have been the costs, expenses and other financial obligations incurred by the treasury to date with respect to (a) the 1957 crop; (b) the 1958 crop; (c) the 1959, in the making of advances on account of initial payments for grain produced for the wheat board prior to delivery thereof?
2.	What have been the extra costs, expenses and financial obligations with respect thereto, if any, to be borne by the Canadian wheat board?
3.	What has been the average amount of advance provided per producer in each crop year?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
1.	Interest: (a) Crop year ending July 31, 1958, $476,895.30; (b) Crop year ending July 31, 1959, $519,275.91; (c) Crop year ending July 31, 1960, $324,412.62, (as at Dec. 31/59.)
Defaulted accounts; The government assumed liability in the amount of $50,241 for accounts placed in default as at December 31, 1958. Since this date, $22,122 has been collected from the producers concerned and refunded to the government in accordance with section 17 of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. Accounting has not been completed for defaulted accounts as at December 31, 1959.
2.	Crop year ended July 31, 1958, $153,923.20; Crop year ended July 31, 1959, $208,016.92.
3.	Crop year: 1957/58, $698; 1958/59, $758; 1959/60, $776, (as at January 20, 1960).


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-DAMAGE, COTE STE. CATHERINE LOCK
Mr. Argue: 1.	Has any damage been done by ships passing through the St. Lawrence seaway at Cote Ste. Catherine lock to seaway equipment, monoliths or lock structures since the beginning of operations?
2.	If so, (a) what was the nature and extent of the damage; (b) on what dates did it occur; (c) what ship or ships were involved; (d) why did it happen; (e) what is the estimated cost of repairs at the site of each accident?
Questions
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of
Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows;
1.	Yes.
2.	(i) (a) One post on lockgate walkway bent, damage minor, (b) April 26, 1959, (c) SS Santa Regina, (d) Vessel's gangway protruding over side, (e) $15.
(ii)	(a) One railing on lockgate walkway bent, damage minor, (b) May 15, 1959, (c) Vessel unknown, (d) Cause not known,
(e)	$100.
(iii)	(a) Lamp broken in hollow quoin recess, damage light, (b) May 19, 1959, (c) SS Corcovado, (d) Vessel too close to No. 3 gate, (e) Actual cost $9.25.
(iv)	(a) One railing on coping wall bent, damage minor, (b) May 20, 1959, (c) SS Merlin, (d) Vessel not under proper control while entering lock, (e) $45.
(v)	(a) Four posts on sector gate walkway bent and concrete of gate recess chipped,
(b)	June 10, 1959, (c) SS Marcos, (d) Vessel not under full control because of brisk wind, (e) Actual cost $113.65.
(vi)	(a) Concrete coping near gate 3 damaged, (b) September 7, 1959, (c) MV Iroquois, (d) Vessel too close to No. 3 gate, (e) $500.
(vii)	(a) Concrete lock wall above gate 1 damaged, (b) September 12, 1959, (c) SS Coeur Dalene Victory, (d) Steel brackets protruding from vessel, (e) $50.
(viii)	(a) Concrete lock wall near gate 5
damaged, (b) October 31, 1959,	(c) MV
Trans-Canada, (d) Vessel too close to No. 5 gate, (e) $150.
(ix)	(a) Concrete lock wall near fender No. 1 damaged, (b) November 11, 1959, (c) SS Sunnanbris, (d) Vessel not under proper control in lock, (e) $30.
(x)	(a) One gate footwalk, railing and electrical conduit bent, (b) November 16, 1959, (c) M.V. Rigoletto, (d) Improper handling of vessel's fender by deckhand, (e) $500.


SHIPPING ACCIDENTS, GREAT LAKES
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does the Department of Transport keep a record of all accidents involving ships in the Canadian waters of the great lakes?
2.	If so, what is the record for the shipping season of 1959, including the specifics of which of the ships involved were foreign ships and whether they did or did not have licensed pilots on board at the time of the accidents?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	The Department of Transport keeps a record of all accidents reported to the department which involve accidents to ships in the Canadian waters of the great lakes.

Questions
2.	Record of 1959:
(a)	Minor mishaps incurred
in berthing	 54 ships
(b)	Collision, grounding, foundering or fire-
(i)	British registry	 13 ships
(ii)	Foreign registry with
Department of Transport pilot on board	 14 ships
(iii)	Foreign registry (U.S.A.)
with no pilot on board_____	1 ship
Total	 82 ships
M.V. "saint JACQUES"


CARGO STATISTICS
Mr. Bourgel: 1.	What was the volume of goods transported by the M. V. Saint Jacques, owned by Captain Eugene Laboie, between Ile-aux-Grues and Montmagny, county of Montmagny, Quebec, during 1959?
1.	How many loans under part II of the farm machines were transported by the said vessel during 1959?
3.	What was the volume of goods transported during 1958?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of
Transport):
The Canadian maritime commission advises as follows:-
1.	537 tons.
2.	78 vehicles, 17 self-propelled farm machines, 11 hay bale pressers.
3.	287 tons.


FARM CREDIT ACT LOANS
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	How many loans under Part II of the Farm Credit Act have been made prior to January 15, 1960, between the former lending limit of $15,000 under the farm loan act and the new lending limit of $20,000?
2.	How many loans similarly have been made requiring utilization of appraised values between the former maximum limit of 65 per cent and the new limit of 75 per cent?
3.	How many loans over $15,000 have been made to January 15, 1960, under part III of the Farm Credit Act?
4.	Why was the act not proclaimed before October 5, 1959?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister
of Agriculture):
1. 112.
2.	(withdrawn).
3.	None.
4.	The Farm Credit Act was assented to on July 18, 1959 and proclaimed on October 5, 1959. The intervening period was required to arrange for the appointment of members of the corporation and for completion of the work of the Canadian farm loan board prior to the transfer of its functions to the farm credit corporation.


CABINET COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has there been a meeting of the cabinet committee on economic and industrial development since September 1957?
2.	What agency of the government of Canada is responsible for the policies of full employment including public investment?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker
(Prime Minisier):
1.	The means by which the cabinet conducts its business are traditionally regarded as its own domestic affair, and questions on the subject are normally neither asked nor answered. It is well known that many committees of ministers are formed from time to time, and meet as and when required, to facilitate the working of the cabinet as a whole. Only the two established by statute have power to exercise any legal authority.
2.	The cabinet as a whole is responsible for policies to promote full employment. The measures necessary to implement these policies are undertaken by numerous departments and agencies, under the directions of the ministers responsible for them. The public investment included in such measures is provided for in the estimates, and by loans and expenditures authorized by the National Housing Act, the Canadian National Railways financing acts and other statutes.


ROADS TO RESOURCES PROGRAM, ONTARIO
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	When did the federal government first make an offer to the Ontario government to share equally in costs of a construction program described as roads to resources?
2.	When did the Ontario government sign an agreement pursuant to this offer?
3.	What road projects have been mutually agreed will be constructed under the terms of the agreement?
4.	On which such projects, if any, has the federal government agreed to share in costs of any work done before the signing of the roads to resources agreement, and what is the estimated amount of any federal share agreed to be so paid retroactively?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	February 12, 1958.
2.	December 22, 1959.
3.	(a) Savant Lake south-Approximately 90 miles: This work, which will commence from the end of secondary highway No. 599, consists of new construction and the improvement of existing roads to connect with trans-Canada highway No. 17.
(b) Foleyet to Chapleau south-Approximately 60 miles: This work consists of new construction for the entire length commencing at the end of secondary highway No. 624 at

Foleyet, proceeding in a southwesterly direction to connect with highway No. 129 in the vicinity of Chapleau.
(c)	Minaki south

Approximately 15 miles: This work consists of new construction from Minaki on the Canadian National Railway southerly to connect with secondary highway No. 596 at Pellatt. From Minaki northerly there is an existing low standard road which may require improvement in order to provide access to potential mineral and timber interests to the north (subject to the approval in writing of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources).
(d)	Nakina northerly-Approximately 50 miles: This work consists of new construction from Nakina on the Canadian National Railway northerly via Cavell to the area in the vicinity of Percy lake and Melchett lake.
(e)	Goldpines to Uchi Lake-Approximately 50 miles: This work consists of reconstruction of an existing low standard road. It commences at Goldpines on highway No. 105 and proceeds northeasterly to Uchi lake.
(f)	Port Arthur north-Approximately 70 miles: This work consists of new construction from a point on trans-Canada highway No. 17 immediately east of Port Arthur, extending in a northerly direction to the vicinity of Cheeseman lake west;
(g)	Resource development roads in the northerly and northwesterly part of the province: Such other road or roads as may be mutually agreed after completion of a photographic and magnetometer survey and a geological reconnaissance to be carried out in the area north of the Canadian National Railway from Nakina westerly to the Manitoba boundary.
4.	The federal government has agreed to share in the costs of approved work done on and after November 6, 1958, the date when agreement in principle was reached with the province. The maximum amount of the federal contribution to Ontario under the program is $7,500,000. It is not possible, at this time, to estimate how much of the $7,500,000 will apply to work done prior to the signing of the formal agreement as claims have not yet been received from the province covering that work.


FROZEN PORK DISPOSAL
Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1. Have any quantities of frozen pork remained in storage longer than six to eight months?
Questions
2. If so, what disposition has the government made of inedible frozen pork after six to eight months' storage?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):
1.	Yes.
2.	There is no evidence that any government held pork has become inedible.


ROADS TO RESOURCES PROGRAM, ONT.   EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Benidickson: How many persons were employed on or about January 4, 1960, in Ontario on each road project subject to the roads to resources agreement?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
While the federal government shares one half the cost of constructing all roads covered by the roads to resources agreement, the actual work is undertaken by the provincial government, which awards all contracts subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. The federal government is, therefore, not in a position to say how many persons were employed on any project at any given time. This information could, however, be obtained from the provincial authorities.


OLD AGE SECURITY FUND
Mr. Carter: 1.	How much money has been paid into the old age security fund per month since July 1, 1959?
2.	How much has been paid out of the fund each month since July 1, 1959?
3.	What is the balance remaining in the fund at the present time?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
	(1)	(2)
	Paid into fund	Paid out
	(revenues)	(pensions)
	(in millions of dollars)	
July, 1959 . .	
43.7	47.5August ....	
44.5	47.6September .	
43.9	47.9October ....	
54.1	48.2November . .	
45.6	48.0December ..	
44.6	48.0276.4	287.2
(3) The balance remaining in the fund at the present time is nil. Temporary loans to the fund by the Minister of Finance, outstanding at December 31, 1959, amounted to $44.2 million.

Friday, February 5, 1960


MAIN ESTIMATES, 1960-61
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1961, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Deputy Speaker to the house.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, in tabling the main estimates for the fiscal year 1960-61 I should like to make a very brief statement to the house indicating to hon. members certain significant features.
I am pleased to report that compared with the estimates for 1959-60 tabled to date, a decrease of $164.9 million has been effected in the total of the non-statutory items for 196061 and that the over-all increase has been held to $58.2 million, an increase of approximately 1 per cent. This result continues the trend established last year in bringing about reductions in controllable expenditures. The very careful and detailed review of the estimates made by treasury board this year has permitted this reduction to be achieved without any decrease in essential public services.
These estimates provide for sustaining, and in some cases enlarging, the expenditures relating directly to national development such as atomic energy, exploration and scientific research, and transportation and communications. Other controllable costs have been sharply restrained.
I move, seconded by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill):
That the message of His Excellency, together with the estimates presented this day, be referred to the committee of supply.


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


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some concern at this point because, the minister having made a statement in connection with his proposals in the estimates for the coming year, I assume that on that basis, and having regard to certain procedures that have been established, an opportunity will then be given to representatives of the other parties to make some comment. On the other hand, on
the point of order which prompts me to rise at the moment, I believe the motion itself is not debatable.
I must point out to the house that last year the Minister of Finance greatly offended those in this party because he made a very lengthy statement at this stage in the proceedings, and the most offensive part of it was that he introduced the statement with the words that he was following the example of his predecessors in doing such and such.
Now, he did indicate that a statement such as he gave had not been given at least for some five years in the house. I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that on the previous occasions when a statement of this kind was made, it was given by one of his predecessors not with any attempt or design to have any political tub-thumping or self-praise, but on the contrary simply to point out to the house -I assume, having regard to the procedure, with the consent of the house-that the estimates as tabled did have some novel features in the style of the contents. The predecessor of the present Minister of Finance was quite terse in making any references to actual comparisons of expenditures, with those of previous years.
One has a great deal of hesitancy about speaking to the Minister of Finance in the light of what he had to say last week concerning the rights of opposition members to make remarks. One, of course, was reminded of that statement by one of the French kings, "L'etat, c'est moi".


Some hon. Members:: Point of order?


William Moore Benidickson: My point of order is this. I feel that if the minister, on occasions of this kind, feels obliged to make a statement, then you should rule that those on this side of the house representing the two opposition parties should similarly have an opportunity to make a statement.
The motion that is involved in this particular procedure is, under our rules, section 32 (2), not debatable. The minister was reprimanded last week for being unduly loquacious in connection with filing ordinary documents in the house. I refer to the tariff board report. If we are to have a new procedure that involves debate I think it should be given consideration by Your Honour; because, as all members of the house know, two or three hours prior to the opening of a session of this kind detailed information regarding

Tabling of Main Estimates this voluminous book of expenditures is provided to the press. They are given a press release in a form that suits the Minister of Finance.
Last year the minister chose to present a controversial statement, and in presenting one this year he pats himself on the back with respect to his book of estimates. I ask a ruling from Your Honour.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In
view of the fact that the minister made a statement I presume we are in order in making a short statement in reply.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the point of order only.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That makes me take a second look. I might say, on behalf of this happy band, that we hope these estimates do not overlook any essential expenditure in view of current unemployment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he is not discussing the point of order. The point of order raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) is the fact that the Minister of Finance should not have made a statement. That is the only point upon which I should like to hear the hon. member.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Following the argument put forward by the member for Kenora-Rainy River, I simply say this to the point of order. We have nothing further to say. We think the minister should have done as suggested, so as to give us an opportunity to look this mangy gift horse in the mouth to see whether its teeth are sound.


Erhart Regier: On
this point of order, I feel that the minister was permitted to make a statement which he concluded by making a motion. I feel that motion must be held in abeyance until the opposition parties have had a chance to reply to the statement of the minister. I would appeal to you to rule in that manner.


An hon. Member:: The motion is not
debatable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Except by the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps I might say a word upon the point of order on which, if I may say so with respect, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is quite mistaken. This brief statement I made today, by way of simply comparing the estimates tabled with those of the previous year, has an abundance of precedents. May I mention four precedents, Mr. Speaker? The first was established by my predecessor, Mr. Abbott, on February 24, 1950. You will find it at pages 197, 198 and 199 of Hansard of that

year. If you will take the trouble to examine the record there, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the statement made by Mr. Abbott on that occasion embraces two and a half pages of Hansard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the form of the estimates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was followed by the motion I have made today, that the estimates be referred to the committee of supply, and the opposition did not rise and make a protest on a point of order. There was brief comment and a question, and the then prime minister replied to the question. That was what followed on that occasion.
Then in the following year, 1951, Mr. Abbott again made a statement. He introduced the estimates on March 12, 1951. You will find the passage containing his statement at page 1155 of Hansard. There he again drew comparisons with the estimates of the previous year at much greater length than I have done today. His statement on this occasion occupies about three quarters of one column of Hansard. But in it there is one interesting passage to which I would direct attention in view of the reference made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River to the fact that the estimates were given to the press in a closed meeting from which no one was released until the opening of the house this afternoon. May I just refer to that passage. It is in the middle of the statement made by Mr. Abbott, and is as follows:
Instead I am following the practice that my predecessors and I have followed in past years of issuing a detailed statement to the press at the time the estimates are presented to the house.
He then went on to say that copies of the press statement would be available to members of the house at his office if they wished to have the full statement that was issued to the press.
Then the third of these precedents, Mr. Speaker, is to be found-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I interrupt the minister and ask him whether in this particular year the leaders of the opposition parties made comments following the comment by the then minister of finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In 1951, the date to which I just referred, there was no comment or discussion of any kind. Hansard indicates that the motion was agreed to immediately following the statement of Mr. Abbott.


William Moore Benidickson: Because the statement was not political.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not quite sure what the hon. gentleman means by "political". If he includes comparisons with

the estimates of the previous year as being political, then I am afraid he will have to pass the same judgment on this passage in the statement made by Mr. Abbott in 1951. Mr. Abbott stated:
As regards the figures themselves, the grand total of the estimates is, of course, much larger than this past year, because expenditures on defence and defence production have increased from about $770 million in this current year to $1,664 million in the new year-an increase of $894 million. The estimates for all other departments amount in total to approximately $1,923 million, compared with $1,958 million for the current year, including those supplementaries already appropriated. Thus we show a reduction for departments other than defence of $35 million, notwithstanding substantially higher levels of costs.
There was no comment from the opposition, and that was natural and proper. The opposition in those days were a little bit better acquainted with the rules of the house than are the opposition today.
The third precedent is to be found on February 5, 1954, in Hansard at page 1809. On this occasion Mr. Abbott again made a statement which occupies nearly a full page of Hansard, in the course of which he engaged in a detailed comparison of the estimates he was then tabling with those of the previous year, including the supplementaries which had been tabled up to that date. He introduced the same motion, that the estimates be referred to the committee of supply, and Hansard records simply "Motion agreed to". There was no statement from the opposition and no point of order was raised, as indeed there could not properly be.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the other precedent is one which I am sure hon. members opposite will not view with quite the same measure of approval, because it was a year ago when, following the example set by my illustrious predecessor, Mr. Abbott, on three occasions, I brought in the estimates on February 5, 1959, and made a statement extending over a page and three quarters. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that that is substantially shorter than the statement which was made by Mr. Abbott in 1950. Then the motion was agreed to, and after it was agreed to the Leader of the Opposition rose and proposed to make a detailed comment on the estimates.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, the motion of course is noit debatable. There will be days and days and days throughout this session when these estimates will be under review, and the fullest opportunity extended to all hon. members to make whatever comments they wish on these estimates, either in detail or in aggregate. So this pretence, Mr. Speaker, of being denied an opportunity to comment on a statement made by the Minister of Finance in tabling the estimates is very hollow.
Tabling of Main Estimates


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, may I reply briefly to the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance. I have read carefully all the precedents he has indicated and they do not in any way conflict with the original statement I made as to what caused previous ministers of finance to make any statements at all in connection with motions of this kind. As one can see, on the previous occasions the matter was so non-controversial that nobody in the opposition felt obliged to say a word in connection with it.
The point is that on both occasions, in 1951 and 1954, the form of the estimates themselves was substantially changed. In 1954 the estimates were being changed pursuant to a recommendation of a committee of this house, the public accounts committee, and the minister chose that opportunity to explain to the house that he had acceded to the recommendations of the parliamentary committee in this respect. The point I was making-


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask if the
hon. member will not agree that the minister on that occasion, Mr. Abbott, also went on to compare the estimates he was tabling with those of the previous year?


William Moore Benidickson: I said that in my original statement, Mr. Speaker. My words were that he did so in the tersest possible form. I contrast that with the precedent of last year which I deplore and to which I object, a precedent that is developing under the leadership of the Minister of Finance, a precedent that he himself has referred to, when he has this kind of political-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask the hon.
member if he would specify the points in the statement of the minister to which he objects.


William Moore Benidickson: Of last year, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Not of last year; the statement he made today.


William Moore Benidickson: It is a question whether or not, on the introduction of a motion that is not debatable, without justification such as I indicated was the justification in the past precedents where there was a change in the form of the estimates, a statement should be made by the minister.


George Harris Hees: Would the hon. member permit a question?
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposifion): On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to ask the Minister of Finance whether he extended the same consideration, indeed courtesy, to the leaders of the opposition parties that he

Tabling of Main Estimates extended to the press in making available to them in advance copies of his estimates and his statement?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I followed the practice of my predecessors. I checked on it very carefully.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh, no, you did not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Copies were given to the press and, in accordance with the practice, were not given to hon. gentlemen opposite until tabled in the house. I did, of course, communicate with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River this morning, as financial critic for the opposition, to inform him that I would be tabling the estimates this afternoon and that the brief statement I proposed to make would not exceed two paragraphs.


Harold Edward Winch: On
the point of order, might I put it this way; how ridiculous can we get in this house? I do not doubt that points can be raised, but what are they about? They are about what has happened in the past. What is happening now? The fact is that the estimates are tabled. We shall have a chance to discuss all these estimates, so why waste the time of this house?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: I want to say on this point of order that we shall be doing a damned sight better job representing the people of Canada if we get away from these attacks and crossfire and what has happened in the past, and get down to business.
All our discussion up to now means nothing at all, absolutely nothing except perhaps for a few headlines. I say let the Minister of Finance and the opposition and everyone else forget these little technicalities. They don't mean a damn in hell. Let us get down to the job and pass this motion, and then we will deal with the estimates-and I mean, deal with the estimates-when they come before us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At the risk of taking an unpopular stand I should like to say one word on the point of order and it is this. Technicalities are what make it possible for parliament to work, and without a proper respect for the rules parliament will not work.
My hon. friend the member for Kenora-Rainy River has shown that on three occasions there was a special reason for taking an exceptional line, and I submit that the Minister of Finance has attempted to justify his action by taking three exceptions-not out of the immediate past, because there were none in

that period-but out of the period when Mr. Abbott was minister of finance, and I think he was minister of finance for longer than anyone else with perhaps one exception.


An hon. Member:: You are wasting time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, of course, talking is wasting time. Ask your leader whether talking in parliament was wasting time when he was over here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think we might take the question as being now sufficiently aired. I would have thought that the comment made by the minister was very brief indeed, and that it would have been possible for the opposition parties to have commented at the same length. Therefore, if the house agrees, I shall put the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel) moved:
That the first report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house under standing order No. 65 presented yesterday be approved.
Motion agreed to.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Churchill):
That the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to it by the house; and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


Harold Edward Winch: I would like to ask, if I may-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is not debatable. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Harold Edward Winch: I want to know whether this will also apply to all other committees of the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since the motion is not debatable I shall put the question. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Harris Hees: That the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines be empowered to consider the toll collections operation on the Jacques Cartier bridge, Montreal, Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to allow this motion to stand until tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion stands.
Motion stands.


CANADIAN CENTENNIAL
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short announcement. As hon. members are aware, I have been in correspondence with the premiers of the several provinces concerning initial plans for the observance of Canada's centennial in 1967. As a result of those communications, representatives of the provinces will meet with some of my colleagues and myself on Monday, February 8 in connection with preliminary plans for the celebrations in question.
It is hoped that at this meeting there will be a wide range of ideas and views presented on ways and means in which this important milestone in the national history of Canada can be best observed.
Following this meeting the government hopes that working arrangements and groups can be formed to carry on the initial plans.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members will have welcomed the announcement of the Prime Minister that preparatory steps are to be taken in collaboration with the provinces to bring about an appropriate celebration for our 100th birthday. This will be a great year in Canada's history, and we are all anxious that it shall be celebrated fittingly. It is not too soon to begin the preparations now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, we also have the same point of view on this important matter as the Leader of the Opposition, and welcome these steps toward celebrating our 100th anniversary. In addition, I might say on behalf of the members of this group that we trust when we celebrate our 100th anniversary we will have a Canada in which all Canadians will enjoy the full benefits of our production.


BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Erik Nielsen: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-43, to amend the 79951-0-46
Proposal Legislation
British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952, with respect to representation in the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Erik Nielsen: The purpose of this bill is simply to provide representation in the Senate of Canada for the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


REPRESENTATION ACT
Erik Nielsen: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-44, to amend the Representation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Erik Nielsen: The purpose of this bill is to provide representation for Canadians in the Franklin and the Keewatin districts of the Northwest Territories, representation which all other Canadians already enjoy.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


BILL OF RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will he comment on the statement of the attorney general of Quebec in the legislative assembly that the Prime Minister's proposed bill of rights would have inadmissible results for which the Quebec government would never stand?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no observations to make on the reported statement, except to say that it has been made manifestly clear over and over again that any bill of rights passed by this parliament would be in respect of those matters which come exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In other words it will be completely ineffective.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the genial Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is
714	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry consideration being given to the request of the Canadian Legion for the government to take action to restore the disability pensioner to at least the same comparable position he held in 1920?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The government has received representations from the Canadian Legion, as well as from other veterans organizations, requesting a review of the Pension Act. I do not understand just what the hon. member means by his statement "to take action to restore the disability pensioner to at least the same comparable position he held in 1920". There have been many changes in the act since 1920, and many benefits have been added since that time.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, the government is always pleased to take under consideration representations made by veterans organizations for the improvement of veterans legislation.


THE ROYAL FAMILY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State. A board of school trustees in our area is exploring the (possibility of naming a new school building in honour of the new royal baby. My question is, is it necessary for public bodies or individuals to obtain permission before using the names of members of the royal family for buildings or other structures? If so, would the minister care to comment on the necessity for such permission?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question I must say that it is necessary to file a detailed request through the Department of the Secretary of State. As far as the other part of the question is concerned, I must say that the request seems a little premature. I would inform my hon. friend that Her Majesty the Queen has asked in the past that, until her children are considerably older, their names should not be associated with public institutions.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF queen's PRINTER
On the orders of the day:
Alexis Pierre Caron: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can


he tell us why there has been such an extraordinarily long delay in the appointment of the queen's printer?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the records are examined it will be found that on occasion there have been delays made necessary by circumstances or otherwise.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the Prime Minister think it is necessary in the public interest to keep this post vacant for this long period?



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the literature received by members the day before yesterday on the subject of refugees, is any consideration being given to amending the regulations so as to put an end to the discrimination against coloured people?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I
do not know of any discrimination against coloured people.


Erhart Regier: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister explain to the house why the Canadian decision to participate in the project known as world refugee year is limited to refugees in Europe?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the intention of this whole plan is to clear the camps of Europe; and Canada, as the hon. member knows, is taking her part by bringing tubercular refugees to this country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs state that the intention of refugee year is merely to clear the camps of Europe?


Howard Charles Green: Well, it is hoped that eventually the whole refugee problem will be settled, but at least this is a very worth-while start and Canada has taken her part in the project.


Leon David Crestohl: May I ask a
further supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house whether there is a statutory or other definition of "refugee", or can he define the word "refugee" for the house?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that his question cannot be in order because in fact he is asking for an opinion from the minister. At least the question sounded like that to me.


Leon David Crestohl: We are using the word "refugee", and may I point out that I am asking the minister whether or not there is a statutory definition of the word "refugee".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is exactly it. The hon. member can refer to the statutes, and he can ask for an opinion from a legal adviser.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask a supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration what categories of persons are admissable as refugees?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Those who are selected by the United Nations high commissioner for refugees.


Erhart Regier: I should like to ask another supplementary question directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to inform us when we may expect the establishment of a scrutiny committee, such as he announced on January 27; and will this committee be permitted to investigate alleged discrimination because of colour in Canadian immigration regulations?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the first question is the only one I can answer at this time. When we arrive at that point in the proceedings and I am able to bring about agreement with the members of the opposition as to the establishment of this committee then, if it is agreeable to the house, the committee will be set up. As to what it will look into and its powers, I think what the hon. gentleman has in mind has not been the usual practice followed by the United Kingdom scrutiny committee.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received any representations to move the Regina experimental farm, and is any consideration at all being given by the government to abandoning the project?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the Regina experimental farm is located	on leased land.
79951-0-46J
Inquiries of the Ministry Representations have been received to release to the owner the portion of this leased land on which the headquarters of the experimental farm are located. The matter is still in the exploratory stage. No firm decision has been taken yet with respect to the relocation of the project, but there is no intention of closing out the farm or abandoning the project.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Armand Dumas: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister confirm or deny the accuracy of a statement reported to have been made by Premier Roblin of Manitoba that the plans to locate the proposed nuclear research centre in Manitoba will not be altered?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have not seen the report, Mr. Speaker.


Osias.-J. Godin: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received from the Sudbury district chamber of commerce a telegram as to the possibility of further study of the project with a view to the establishment of this nuclear research centre in northern Ontario? If so, will he state to the house that the government is prepared to study the possibility of changing the site of the nuclear research centre?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we have
received various communications concerning the nuclear research centre which is to be established at Whiteshell in Manitoba. Questions have been asked in the house previously on this very matter, which I have answered. The Leader of the Opposition has asked questions concerning this matter. Full consideration was given to the establishment of this nuclear research plant, and the decision was reached that it would be at Whiteshell.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is that a final decision, not subject to reconsideration?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, Mr. Speaker, many decisions have been reconsidered. If the hon. member has suitable grounds for suggesting reconsideration it might be taken under advisement, but at the moment I have not heard from him to that effect.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister has heard from me many times to that effect, as he will see if he will just look at his files.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Armand Dumas: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister tell the house whether he agrees with a report in the Northern Miner of today that the minister's recommendation to establish a nuclear research centre at Whiteshell, Manitoba, is considered a plum for Manitoba?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the establishment of a new nuclear research centre is a plum for all of Canada. It will contribute to the progress we are making in nuclear research.


Armand Dumas: I have one other question. Does the minister consider it would also be a plum for Elliot Lake, which is in an extremely difficult situation at the present time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It would be helpful to Uranium City as well, and perhaps to the Bancroft area.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Oscar William Weichel: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. What progress has been made in regard to the new post office at Kitchener, and the site for the new post office at Waterloo?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, a site for the new post office at Kitchener has been selected at the southeast corner of Charles street and Gaukel street. Negotiations are proceeding at the present time. In connection with Waterloo, in our planning program we have included an item for new construction at Waterloo to increase post office accommodation, and the project has been tentatively listed to start in the fiscal year 1961-62.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. Can the Minister of Public Works tell the house whether or not he has received a request from the town of Belle River in the riding of Essex East for the construction of a new post office building in that very fine community?


David James Walker: I will be glad to accept this very important and vital question as notice.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Min-

ister of National Revenue. Can the minister inform the house if he will file or have members supplied with copies of the audience research report recently reported to have been presented by Mrs. Aitkens to the C.B.C. board of governors?


George Clyde Nowlan: I shall refer that question to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a reply.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister make inquiries at the same time with respect to whether such a report was requested or received by the C.B.C. board of governors, and so inform the house?


George Clyde Nowlan: I shall refer this request to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a reply.


Harold Edward Winch: The minister has said, Mr. Speaker, that he will refer this to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Will the minister give an answer in the House of Commons to this question? I think I am within my rights. He said he would refer it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind the hon. member that he cannot force the minister to give an answer.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not, sir; I am asking if he will give an answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister decides not to answer, the hon. member cannot insist.



SUGGESTED MOVEMENT TO LAKEHEAD BY PIPE LINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: I should like to direct a question to the minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the house whether any proposals have been made to the government concerning the possible movement of grain from the west to the lake-head by pipe line?


George Harris Hees: I am not aware of any such request, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCES ON 50-50 PROPOSAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether, as he said on Tuesday he would try to do, it will be possible for him today to make the correspondence with the

governments of the prairie provinces available in order to facilitate consideration of the estimates tomorrow?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible for me to do that. As the hon. member is well aware, correspondence of this sort has to be referred to the provinces from which it has come for their concurrence in its being filed. I have not secured that concurrence to date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister heard that there is a telegraph service in this country?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the hon. member forgotten that he disapproved of the use of the telegraph service for communicating with the provinces?



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexis Pierre Caron: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. About two weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that Premier Barrette announced his readiness to participate in building a new bridge which is so needed between Ottawa and Hull, if he would make an announcement on the matter. Is the Prime Minister ready to inform the house on this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: No, sir.


Alexis Pierre Caron: May I ask a supplementary question. If the Prime Minister is not ready to say that the new bridge can be completed in time for the celebration of the 100th anniversary of confederation, would he take advantage of next Monday to discuss the matter with the premiers of Quebec and Ontario?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not believe the premiers of Quebec and Ontario will be here. The suggestion of the hon. member is not a new one. It has been made by a number of members, one of the Ottawa members and I think the hon. member for Carleton, on an earlier occasion. I am sure it is one of those matters that would merit the fullest consideration.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John (Jack) McIntosh: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Would the minister coninquiries of the Ministry sider ordering an investigation by the combines branch into what appears to be use of the government's proposed deficiency payment plan for eggs by the marketing agencies in the prairie provinces to maintain an unusually low price to the producer?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention. In reply I would say that the combines branch is ready at all times to commence an inquiry into any matter upon which there is good reason to believe a breach of the legislation has been or is about to be committed. If the hon. member has specific information in that regard I can assure him that it would be very much appreciated if he would bring it to the attention of the director under the Combines Investigation Act so it could be considered.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Now that the Prime Minister has had an opportunity of travelling along, if not on, the Richelieu river from Sorel to the United States border, can he say whether a study of the economic and technical feasibility of the Richelieu waterway is under way or is being contemplated by the government?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there has been a continuing study, apparently for quite a number of years, of this question. Indeed, an examination of the records would indicate that when the last government was in power there was an investigation, and that is still continuing.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Can the Prime Minister say whether or not he has received any invitation or representation from the state of New York or from Washington concerning a combined study of this project?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to answer that question with complete certainty. However, speaking subject to the usual uncertainties of memory, I may say I have no recollection of such a representation from the state of New York.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
a supplementary question to that of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. Will the Prime Minister give consideration to the suggestion made by the member, the mayor of Sorel, and others in the area, for the establishment of a board of engineers to consider the feasibility of this project, its cost, and also its economic advantages?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Representations were
made by the mayor, and naturally this is a matter that deserves most serious consideration.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: I have now had an opportunity of looking at the new book of estimates, and I think the Minister of Finance would agree that when one calculates-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Moore Benidickson: I have to establish a basis for my question, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister of Finance will agree that when one calculates the amount to be voted, the amount authorized by statute, the amount under the old age security fund, it totals $6,330 million. Will the minister indicate whether or not he has some anxiety because that is $1,111 million more than when similar proposals were put forward at this stage by the last Liberal finance minister?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the purpose of that question was to elicit information, it is an extraordinary one indeed.


William Moore Benidickson: About your anxiety, yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, the principal anxiety I have in relation to hon. members opposite is that they should learn something about the rules of the house soon.


Erhart Regier: May I ask a supplementary question to the one asked by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. In view of the 13 per cent increase in the estimates for the minister's own department, would he give consideration to referring those estimates to either the banking and commerce committee or the estimates committee, so we may ascertain why we have to pay $176 million more this year for the minister's own department?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. gentleman will take the trouble of reading beyond page 1, and turn over to the pages that give the items for the Department of Finance, he will find the whole story set forth there.


Erhart Regier: Would the minister agree to refer these estimates so the members of the House of Commons may ascertain whether or not these high interest rates are necessary?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is repeating the same question, and should be satisfied -with the answer he obtained.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Bourget: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the minister in a position to say that the province of Quebec following the recent exchange of correspondence between the premier of that province and the minister is now ready to accept contributions to assist in the construction of roads leading to resources?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have no information to give the house on this subject at the present time.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I do so because of Canada's interest in world peace. In view of recurring reports of disturbances on the Israeli-Arabic border-I use "Arabic" in all its connotations-can the minister bring the house up to date on what action Canada is taking, through his office, in trying to have matters brought to a peaceful conclusion?


Howard Charles Green: There is, Mr. Speaker, on the northern border between Israel and Syria, a United Nations truce supervisory organization which has been active. They have requested each side to get out of the demilitarized zone. I understand the commander of that organization is now in the district checking to see whether or not this has actually been done. In the meantime both the United Arab Republic and Israel have filed a memorandum with the United Nations, but neither has asked for a meeting of the security council.
With regard to the Israeli-United Arab Republic border to the south, there have been no further developments. Apparently the rumour that a division of United Arab Republic troops had moved in near the border is not correct. We have received no reports of any serious developments on that southern border.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a supplementary question. In view of these developments, which I am certain are of concern to all of us and to all democratic countries, may I ask whether


I960
[Stage Direction]
any consideration is being given by the minister's department to the possibility or the necessity of recommending to the United Nations that the emergency force be extended beyond the Gaza strip and be a U.N. emergency force on all borders where there is trouble?
Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker; no decision of that kind has been taken. The United Nations emergency force was set up under the authority of all the member states in the United Nations, and it is fulfilling its function at the present time on the southern border. The truce supervisory organization is doing the same thing on the northern border. For the time being at least there is no need to take the further step suggested by the hon. member.


Harold Edward Winch: Perhaps I misunderstood the minister, and I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the United Nations emergency force has proved so successful on the Gaza strip, and in view of the fact that we are now probably facing a serious situation elsewhere, will consideration be given to the expansion of that principle and policy on other borders?


Howard Charles Green: Of course, as the hon. member knows, Canada's policy has been to have one of the battalions of our regular army in Canada earmarked for service under the United Nations should the government decide that the need has arisen to take such action. That is the part Canada is playing in this regard at the present time.


Harold Edward Winch: One battalion?


Howard Charles Green: We think that is the practical course to follow, and the secretary general of the United Nations is of the same opinion.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to direct a further question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, though it might perhaps be directed to the Minister of National Defence. The question is raised in view of the disturbances on the Israeli-Arab republic border. Are the Canadian members of the United Nations emergency force armed or unarmed?


George Randolph Pearkes: The force carries light arms which are sufficient for them to be able to protect themselves but not sufficient for taking part in any major engagement.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National
Inquiries of the Ministry Defence. Does the minister consider that national defence is an essential public service?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, that is a question to which the answer is so obvious that it does not call for a reply.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What is the answer?


George Randolph Pearkes: It is an inane question, and it does not require any answer.
(Translation):



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Romuald Bourque: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In a recent issue, a Montreal weekly, under the heading "Plaints and Complaints", published the following item:
It is unthinkable that the telephone operator at the Department of Transport's office in Dorval does not speak French. If anyone happens to request the slightest bit of information in our language, he is instantly told: "I am sorry, I can't understand you".
Can the minister tell us if he is aware of this situation?


George Harris Hees: Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to take this question as a notice, and I shall answer it later.
(Text):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: Yesterday the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) sent me an envelope and asked as to the requirement for having postage affixed thereto because it was addressed to the Department of National Revenue, taxation division, box 456, Ottawa.
In reply I would say that the envelope in question follows upon the introduction in 1959 of the plan whereby taxpayers in Ontario filing T-l short income tax returns would do so at one agency, where the returns are processed by electronic computers. The envelope is addressed to the post office box number of a field agency known in the Department of National Revenue as the Ottawa service agency, and is not connected with departmental headquarters in any way. The field agency is in the same category as a district

Criminal Code
taxation office, mail to which must bear the appropriate postage, and is not postage free as is official correspondence addressed to the minister or to his officers at departmental headquarters in Ottawa.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of newspaper reports to the effect that the Canadian government plans to acquire complete control of sections of the pipe line system located in northwestern Canada, and in view of the general interest in the statement by federal officials that the reason cannot be disclosed immediately, is the minister in a position to give the house any information that will satisfy the curiosity of members and the general public?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder whether the hon. member could contain his curiosity until tomorrow, when an item in the estimates will be up for consideration.



CRIMINAL CODE


Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill No. C-5, to amend the Criminal Code (trading stamps).
He said: Mr. Speaker, trading stamps have ofttimes been referred to as lotteries; and it was through the lottery system that luck arranged for this particular bill be drawn first out of the hat and thus provide an opportunity for a full day's debate on this particular subject matter. While I welcome my good fortune at having this bill being pulled first out of the hat in this type of lottery, nevertheless I disagree with the process used.
There is a wide ranging effect on the economy of the nation through the use of trading stamps and other similar promotional gimmicks, and I hope the debate which ensues today will be able to cover the pros and cons of the trading stamp question and other related types of promotional activities. I understand that in the gallery today are representatives of the Canadian Association of Consumers, who are most interested in this specific problem, and 1 hope the debate will also be of interest to them.
The design of the bill, without referring to its details, is that generally speaking it seeks

to amend section 322 of the Criminal Code which defines trading stamps and also provides certain loopholes through which trading stamps may be introduced and used in Canada. The purpose of the bill before the house at the moment is to plug those loopholes and make it illegal to use trading stamps anywhere in the nation.
This section, although not in its present form, was initially introduced in 1905. At that time the stamp promoters were attempting, through the use of trading stamps, to establish small scale monopolies in certain retail fields by confining the use of the stamps to particular stores. Also certain stamp companies in 1905 were nothing more than what we loosely refer to as fly by night outfits. That is to say, they would invade a certain area and embarked upon a sales campaign of stamps to individual stores; then they would fly the coop, as it were, so that when the consumer came to redeem his stamps there would be no merchandise for which to exchange them.
The history of the development of business enterprise and its activities over the years shows that there are certain trends which private enterprise takes. One of these trends is toward a monopoly or control of the markets for its particular product. Another is an ordinary trend toward bigness itself, whether it be in one field of production, such as aluminum, or whether it be in the many fields of production such as those covered by the Argus corporation. Then there are trends toward price fixing and restriction of production in order to maintain unnecessarily high prices. There are predatory price cutting practices designed to drive other competitors out of business, and there are deceitful and dishonest promotional and advertising schemes.
Trading stamps fall into this category, being a promotional gimmick. That is, in effect, part of a dishonest form of advertising. It also tends to assist in the movement toward a monopoly situation or oligopoly or control of the market within fewer and fewer hands. While the bill relates specifically to trading stamps and receipts which may be redeemed for particular merchandise, this is only a part of the over-all picture of what I consider to be dishonest forms or gimmicks in the advertising field.
Some argument is raised that the government or parliament has no right to interfere in, regulate, or control the operation of private enterprise; that is to say, private enterprise should have the opportunity, without interference or restriction, of doing whatever it pleases. But a review will show that every time parliament, upon the initiative of government through its prerogative in introducing

certain types of bills, has considered these interferences with or invasions of the activities of free enterprise, it has been prompted by governments which are partial to the free enterprise system itself; and the private enterprisers themselves have, by their activities, practically demanded governmental or parliamentary interference, regulation or control of some of those activities.
This interference with and regulation of certain activities of the private enterprise system over the years is necessary in order to protect the consumer against irresponsible or unethical business practices. We accept today as necessary parliamentary or government regulation against those practices in order to protect the consumer. The damaging effects that trading stamps can have upon our economy and the business world certainly call for such regulation.
The major damaging effect of trading stamps is that they accentuate this trend toward control of a market within fewer and fewer hands. The royal commission on price spreads recently gave us some indication how that trend has been developing in the grocery field. In fact, if I may, I should like to refer to one or two figures from the commission's report to show how this has been developing. For instance, in 1951 the percentage of the grocery trade which chain stores had was 37.2 per cent, and in 1958 it had practically doubled and was 64 per cent. This compares with the independent grocer whose percentage decreased from 62.8 per cent in 1951 to only 36 per cent in 1958, and should indicate the trend toward control over the market, in the grocery field especially, with it falling into fewer and fewer hands all the time while the activities of the independent grocer or businessman are declining. This trend will be helped, and is being helped at the moment, by the use of trading stamps. In this regard it represents not very much more than another nail in the coffin of the small business entrepreneur in this nation.
The argument is made that even though the small businessman may be prohibited from participating in trading stamp schemes himself, he can compete with these concerns which are using trading stamps in the matter of price; that if the small businessman wants to compete and does not want to or cannot use these stamps, then his answer is to compete in the field of price reduction in order to attract people to his particular store. This, of course, is rather an erroneous approach, because it relates to different systems or arrangements or concepts of what appeals to the consumer.
Criminal Code
Stamps in themselves have an appeal to the unknown-to me, at least-psychological desire on the part of the consumer to participate in saving things, or to play some sort of game and see how long it takes to fill up a book. It may be some desire to satisfy that inculcated attitude that we have of getting something for nothing by thinking that by saving stamps from a particular store you are able to get other merchandise, such as a floor polisher or something like that, free of charge. Price as a competitive factor cannot bear comparison or compete with the psychological appeal that trading stamps and other promotional gimmicks have. It is trying to relate two different concepts of what constitutes competition, and they do not fit together. In this field, the promise of something for nothing, even a brief look at the advertising material used to sell these stamp deals, the books issued by the stamp companies, shows an obsession with the idea that the consumer is getting something for nothing; that father is getting a free buggy, or that it is not costing anything to get a new bike, and so on.
Mr. Pallet!:	Sounds like socialist philosophy.


Frank Howard: We all know we do not get
something for nothing for ourselves. These things are being paid for by somebody, and that somebody is the consumer.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If I may be permitted
to ask a question, would the hon. member state in the course of his speech whether in his opinion these trading stamps have the effect of increasing the price of food? If so, would he kindly indicate this?


Frank Howard: Yes. As far as I know there has been one survey conducted. That was made by the United States department of agriculture a few years ago, and covered the period from November, 1953 to March, 1957. This survey was conducted in 21 of the states of the United States, and it compared the price increases in stores using stamps with those in stores which did not use stamps. While I am not in possession of the complete report I have a newspaper reference to it which indicates that in those stores using stamps the price increase was .6 per cent greater on an average than in stores which did not use them. I have further reference to make to the question of the effect of trading stamps on prices, but perhaps the hon. member will permit me to follow the outline of my remarks first of all, and I will return to that question later.
There is no doubt, as I was saying, that we do not get anything free today. The consumer pays for the stamps or for the

Criminal Code
merchandise given in exchange for the stamps, in one way or another. Whether an increase takes place as a result of the use of stamps is difficult to determine. The United States department of agriculture survey to which I made reference a few moments ago indicates a figure arrived at on an average and in the face of general food price increases at a retail level. There is a thorough examination of this question in the report of the royal commission on price spreads, and it is almost impossible to determine what actual price increase is the direct result of using stamps.
One of the arguments used by those who have instituted stamp programs in their stores is that because they are an advertising and promotional gimmick, they immediately result in an increased volume of sales for the particular store using them, and that as a result of this increased volume of sales the store is able to absorb the cost of the stamp plan. This cost, I understand, runs in the neighbourhood of 2 per cent of the sales volume. If the volume of sales increases the cost of the stamp plan can be recovered.
But how is this increase to be procured? It can come only at the expense of the store's competitors. These competitors, then, in order to compete on the same psychological basis are themselves forced to introduce a stamp system. Thus, over a period of time the more extensively stamp plans are introduced the greater is the trend to revert to the volume of sales each store enjoyed before the introduction of stamp schemes. And once this condition is reached, if the volume of sales does decline, or if it remains, relative to other stores, what it was before, there is no other way possible than to arrange an increase in price to cover the cost of the stamp plan.
As to the stamp plans which have been introduced in the Ottawa valley, for example, all the companies which have introduced them invariably say they did so because they were forced to by a competitor, or because they were afraid that one of their competitors was about to introduce them first and they wanted to get the jump on him. I believe there is no doubt that even those major stores which are today using stamp plans would like to be free of this cancerous growth and merry-go-round. This is indicated by their own comments on this method of trading.
The royal commission on price spreads to which I made reference a while ago-I do not intend to read extracts from it because it is available to any hon. member who is interested-dealt thoroughly with the use of promotional gimmicks such as trading stamps,

and condemned them. It came conclusively to the opinion that this type of trading was detrimental to the consumer. There is no substitute for price reduction or price competition, no matter to what extent these promotional gimmicks are gilded; they are no substitute for lower prices to the consumer, which is the type of competition in which the consumer is interested.
There are certain forces in Canada at the moment which are engaged in promoting the use of trading stamps. These public relations activities are designed to show that stamps are good things and that we should use them, and that the federal government should not take any action to eliminate or condemn them. Sperry and Hutchinson which, I understand, is the largest stamp plan company in the United States, recently came to Canada and set up a public relations office in Toronto. I am sure all hon. members here have received material from Sperry and Hutchinson which answers a number of questions from Sperry and Hutchinson's point of view as to why stamps are a good thing and why they should be accepted by Canadians.
But the activities of this particular company and some of the people associated with it should make one wonder just what sort of public relations game they are engaged in. I would make reference here to Maclean's magazine of January 2, 1960, page 39. I hope this is a factual reference, because if it is not I am at fault in calling attention to it. I shall read the whole paragraph so it is in its proper context, even though some of it may not be really relevant to the point with which I am dealing. It says:
The CAC (Canadian Association of Consumers) is opposed, ironically, by Byrne Hope Sanders who once helped set up (for the wartime prices and trade board) a now-defunct network of women that was similar in purpose to the CAC. Now a Toronto research and marketing executive, she has launched a pro-stamp campaign on behalf of Sperry and Hutchinson, oldest (since 1896) and largest stamp company of them all-
And so on.
The reference I wish to make here is that Miss Sanders is engaged with Sperry and Hutchinson in a public relations job selling the stamp idea to Canadians. I understand that Miss Sanders is connected with another organization called the Canadian institute of public opinion, the Gallup poll of Canada. The Canadian institute of public opinion conducted a poll recently and in one of their releases dated Saturday, December 5, 1959 we find this with respect to stamps:
To find out the Impact of stamps in its varying degrees across the country-

They asked some questions. The Canadian institute of public opinion, I understand, normally desires to get unconditioned public opinion. It normally desires to phrase its questions so that they are not leading questions and are not designed to get a specific answer; but in its attempt to find out the impact of stamps in varying degrees they asked two very simple questions, which do not show the impact of stamps in any degree, never mind the varying degree. One question reads as follows:
Do you happen to know whether such stamps are given by any stores in this community?
I am sure this question does not elicit too much indication of the impact of stamps. The second question reads:
Is anyone in your family saving these stamps?
The answers are given; certain percentages are given, and I will not bother making reference to them. They relate to Quebec, Ontario and the west. The unfortunate thing, as I said, for the Gallup poll is that if this is being used to serve private ends, such as it might well be because of the connection of the same person with the Canadian institute of public opinion and with Sperry and Hutchinson, a public relations office, then the Gallup poll is going to fall into great disrepute in this country. We certainly hope that such questions as are mentioned in this Gallup poll are not going to be used later on and then have it said, we asked questions and public opinion favours trading stamps, or something of that nature. This is the type of conclusion one could easily come to because of the loaded questions that are in this release and because of the connection this one person has both with the so-called Gallup poll agency and the public relations concern of Sperry and Hutchinson.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Would the hon. gentleman have any objection to putting those figures on Hansard? I think they would be of interest to us.


Frank Howard: Not at all. I thought it might clutter up the record if I read them. I do not know whether my hon. friend would like me to read from them or if he would like to have this press release inserted in Hansard in its entirety?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Does the house wish to give unanimous consent to have this press release placed in Hansard? It would be in order if the house agrees.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Criminal Code
[Editor's note: The press release referred to is as follows:]
Public Opinion News Service



CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC OPINION GALLUP POLL OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
For Release-after 9 a.m. on Saturday December 5th, 1959
Gallup Poll of Canada
About six in ten homes now have stamp-savers By Canadian Institute of Public Opinion In Quebec it's eight in ten; in Ontario five in ten.
What impact have trading stamps made throughout the communities of Canada in terms of availability? Back of all the argument that's going on, how many households are collecting them?
To get the first properly organized national measurement on this contentious issue, the Gallup poll sampled a national cross-section across the country to report on what was actually happening in regard to consumers and retail stamp programs.
In Canada as a whole, stamps are now available in 65 per cent of the communities. They are collected in 59 per cent of the households, averaging the country as a whole.
This national average varies greatly with the regions. In Quebec province where stamps have been in use for many years, they are available in 94 per cent of the communities. Across the province 80 per cent of Quebec homes are collecting stamps.
Ontario has known stamp plans for several years in some areas, such as the Ottawa valley, but they were only introduced in a big way in August of this year. Today they are available in 90 per cent of the communities in Ontario, and saved in 50 per cent of the households.
In the west, where stamps have just been introduced, and have recently been banned in Alberta, stamps are available in only 14 per cent of the communities. They are collected in 14 per cent of the homes.
To find out impact of stamps in its varying degrees across the country, interviewers for the Gallup poll asked this question:
"As you may know some stores give stamps to customers when they buy: These are saved, pasted in books and exchanged for products illustrated in catalogues. Do you happen to know whether such stamps are given by any stores in this community?
Yes	No Don't Know
% % %
Canada	
65	25	10Maritimes	
30	46	24Quebec	
94	2	4Ontario	
90	7	3The West	
14	65	21
Interviewers put a second question to those men and women who said that stamps were available in their community.
"Is anyone in your family saving these stamps?" Columns below compare Quebec, Ontario and the west, with the national average. Number of interviews in the Maritimes in those communities where
stamps are	available is	too small for sound	reporting.	Yes	No	Don't Know%	%	Canada 	
59	41	*Quebec 	
80	19	1Ontario 	
50	50	*The West ...	
19	81	** Less than	1 per cent.	Stamps are	available to	a greater	degree in the
nation's cities, than they are in rural areas. Among
[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code
the largest cities, 66 per cent of the households are saving stamps. In rural areas 55 per cent of farm homes are collecting them.
World Copyright Reserved
Frank Howard: At this stage perhaps I might make reference to the figures themselves so that hon. members can jot them down if they wish. In reply to the question:
Do you happen to know whether such stamps are given by any stores in this community?
The replies indicated that 65 per cent said yes; 25, no; and 10 per cent said they did not know. This applied to all Canada. In the maritimes, 30 per cent replied yes; 46 per cent replied no; and 24 per cent, don't know. In Quebec 94 per cent said yes; 2 per cent, no; and 4 per cent, don't know. In Ontario, 90 per cent said yes; 7 per cent, no; and 3 per cent, don't know. In the west- I assume that means everything from the Ontario-Manitoba border west; we always consider British Columbia to be the west- 14 per cent said yes; 65 per cent said no; and 21 per cent, don't know.
The answers to the question:
Is anyone in your family saving these stamps?
-indicate that in all of Canada 59 per cent said yes; 41 per cent, no. Those who said "don't know" were something less than one per cent. In Quebec, 80 per cent said yes; 19 per cent said no and 1 per cent, don't know. In Ontario, 50 per cent yes and 50 per cent said no. In the west, 19 per cent said yes and 81 per cent said no.
There was reference also to the fact that if parliament were to act as I am suggesting it should act on this bill it would represent an invasion of or a detraction from our freedom of choice. I suggest that when it comes to stamp plans there is relatively little choice. Many consumers are forced by circumstances as to where they live or how close they live to certain stores to deal with stores where stamps are available. Merely because they are available is another reason why choice is denied. I know it is said that this fits into the psychological pattern-I do not know what it is-to save things or to save stamps; that once a consumer embarks upon the saving of stamps his or her eye is then glued primarily to the catalogue and to primarily how long it will take him or her to accumulate enough stamps from a particular store- whether they be pink, blue, green or any other colour-to fill a book or 20 books that the customer needs to get a particular piece of merchandise. People will buy goods from particular stores because those stores have stamps of a particular colour and they need that particular stamp in order to get something they desire. Thus, freedom of choice,
[The Acting Speaker.]
of course, is watered down quite a bit when we take those facts into consideration.
I understand the attitude of the Minister of Justice is that this is a question that is within provincial jurisdiction and that the federal government should have nothing to do with it. It is unfortunate that the government is a bit lacking in courage if it adopts this attitude of passing the buck. If it is the government's attitude that this is a question that is primarily the responsibility of the provincial governments and that the provincial governments should take action such as Alberta has done to wipe out trading stamps completely, then the government should move to clear out this section from the Criminal Code. It should remove it completely from the statute books and make it entirely and purely a provincial matter. If the government did that we would know where we stood. If it is going to say it is a matter of provincial responsibility and yet retain on the statute books the present sections of the Criminal Code dealing with trading stamps then it is nothing more than buck passing and a lack of courage on the part of the government to face up to the facts.
I should like to wind up my remarks by saying that I look with anticipation upon what I hope will be a full ranging debate on this particular subject matter. I hope, sir, that you will be as lenient with other members who participate in the debate as you have been with me because I feel I have ranged a bit beyond the principle of the bill itself. I think you will appreciate, and I am sure hon. members will appreciate, that it may be necessary in this particular field to go beyond the actual principle of the bill and allow a fuller debate than would normally be the case at this particular stage of discussing a bill.
I wish to say that trading stamps and other similar promotion gimmicks, as I said earlier, are deceitful, dishonest and injurious to the consumer. They cannot be compared with price competition and price reduction because price reduction and price competition are the only types of competition that are beneficial to the consumers.
This is the most important issue that we have had occasion to concern ourselves with for some years. I say that not because I was fortunate enough to have the bill brought up at this stage so that it would be discussed but because I believe the principle behind the question itself is that important.
I have left much unsaid. It is not possible to make all the comments I should like to make because of the limited time at my disposal. I am sure also that other hon. members

will want to participate in the debate and will deal with additional aspects of this proposal. I have tried to confine my remarks to what I think are the basic principles involved in trading stamps and not to deal with what may be considered to be side issues. I think this bill is just as important as the one which the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) has on the order paper concerning capital punishment. I know that this bill is important in a different field and in a different way but I think it is important enough to warrant a vote by members of the house. I hope we will have a full and free debate and that the debate will end in time for us to have an opportunity to express by vote whether or not we are in favour of the bill. As I say, I think it is just as important in a different way as the proposal of the hon. member for York-Scarborough regarding capital punishment because trading stamps are a sort of economic punishment inflicted on defenceless consumers.


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I ask the hon. member a question before he sits down? He referred to a survey by the United States department of agriculture indicating the price index change in stores that use stamps compared with stores that do not use stamps. Did I hear him correctly that the increase was 6 per cent?


Frank Howard: I am sorry if the hon. member got that impression. It was .6, six tenths of one per cent.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I have a question along the same line. I realized that the figure was .6 per cent but I did not know what the source of the statistic was or what types of stores were covered. Were they chain stores or did it include independent merchants?


Frank Howard: I tried to indicate that I had not had a chance to see the report itself. I cannot answer these questions because I do not know but the type of store would have a bearing on the statistical information given in the report. If I may cover the ground again, I mentioned earlier that the introduction of stamps initially by one store to the exclusion of others apparently results in an increase in volume and in such a case the increase in volume will be sufficient to cover the cost of the stamps and therefore there is no increase in prices. Sales go up anywhere from 15 per cent to 40 per cent so there is no increase in the price of goods to cover the cost of the stamp plan. But when other stores enter into the field their sales volumes eventually tend to revert to the level it was prior to the introduction of the plan. When they are all using stamps there is no other way to cover the cost of the plan than by an increase in the
Criminal Code
prices of their goods. One would have to study the report of the United States department of agriculture thoroughly to see how many stores there were in one city, how many were chain stores and so on. I am sorry I have not had a chance to study the report although I wrote and asked for it.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, since the subject of trading stamps has engaged public attention I have been deluged, as I am sure every other member of the house has, with material, letters and advice, both for and against. A considerable amount of the material in favour of stamps has been furnished members by the Sperry and Hutchinson Corporation which I presume is a Canadian subsidiary of Sperry and Hutchinson Incorporated in the United States.
Nothing that I have read has shaken my conviction that trading stamps are another hand in the till of the retail merchant and another hand in the pockets of the consumers. Having said that as clearly and unequivocally as I can, the question remains, why should we try to prevent trading stamps if the public wants them? The answer to that is clear. Nobody wants to prevent the public getting what the public in fact wants provided, as far as our jurisdiction in this matter is concerned, that the criminal law is not contravened.
We are not called upon today to discuss the whole issue of trading stamps, whether they are good or bad or whether or not they are a help to the consumer and the retailer. What we are concerned with only is whether, using the bill before us as our terms of reference, all forms of discounts to consumers by means of what are commonly called trading stamps are of such a serious nature that they constitute a crime against the nation.
In this connection I should like to refer briefly by way of introduction to some of the material that has been submitted. I am well aware of the good work that has been done by the Canadian Association of Consumers in bringing to public attention the chief factors which are disturbing them in connection with trading stamps. The president of that association, Miss Isabel Atkinson, is well and favourably known in my own constituency. Another group which has been opposed to trading stamps is the retail merchants, both their national and provincial organizations.
I would say that the public has a right to be informed of the evils of trading stamps and of their uneconomic and costly use of time and money. They are uneconomic for the retailer because in addition to the staff of the store having to provide the service of

Criminal Code
displaying, storing and distributing the goods that the customer wants the staff also has to handle the trading stamps and this adds to the cost of doing business. It adds to the cost of the goods the consumer buys. I do not think it is possible to deny that.
I have heard the view expressed that the use of trading stamps reduces the cost of goods to the consumer because it increases the volume of goods handled by a particular store. I suppose it is possible for a cost accountant to -calculate whether or not trading stamps used by a particular store increase its volume to such an extent that its costs of operation go down and therefore it is in a position to reduce the cost -of its goods or to increase the benefits to its customers by way of trading stamps. However, the surveys I have seen, and which have been referred to by the hon. member which has just spoken, cannot in my opinion be held to demonstrate whether or not trading stamps on a national basis can be said to reduce costs to the consumer.
There are so many factors arising in each business which has been studied which contribute to the increase or decrease in costs, that I do not think it is possible on a nationwide scale to arrive at any conclusion from that method. We do know that if all stores used trading stamps the result would be an increase in cost to the consumer because this would inevitably increase the cost of doing business. The use of trading stamps, as I pointed out, involves the use of the retailer's time; it involves the use of a staff to carry out the distribution of these stamps; it involves printing extra material to be passed to the consumer, all of which has to be paid for by the consumer.
However, I believe we must direct our attention more closely to the bill that is before us. I want to do that, Mr. Speaker, and in that regard we have to consider what the field of jurisdiction of this government is. A press release issued by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) on November 3, 1959, contains this statement:
I do not for a moment minimize the objections that may be made to the economic effects of trading stamps. But in so far as their use relates only to the terms and conditions attached by a retailer to the sale of a particular article or articles of merchandise, there is nothing to bring such use within the criminal jurisdiction of the dominion parliament. From this point of view the only authorities who can control, regulate or abolish trading stamps as such are the provincial legislatures, acting under their exclusive jurisdiction over the laws relating to such matters as contract and the sale of goods.
The hon. member for Skeena said that this was merely passing the buck. He said that the government could clear up this

matter by removing the references to trading stamps from the Criminal Code and merely stating that this was a provincial matter. With the very greatest deference to the opinions of the hon. member for Skeena, I would say that our constitution cannot be disposed of in that way. It is not up to this government to say that this matter is no longer a matter of federal jurisdiction but is a matter of provincial jurisdiction or vice versa. Under our constitution, there are certain powers that are allocated to the federal government, and certain things to the provincial government; then again, certain matters are under the jurisdiction of both governments. The federal government is not empowered to pass this legislation and have that legislation enforced by the courts. We cannot simply do away with the constitution by saying this is not a matter for the federal government, or clear the field so that the provinces may work on it.
There is a federal responsibility in this field which has been recognized since the origin of trading stamp legislation in this country. That is legislation in the criminal field. In the earliest days, when this practice first became prevalent in this country, we find these words spoken by Mr. Kemp as reported in Hansard, 1905, volume V, column 9432. He attributed the necessity for passing this legislation to this -state of affairs:
Certainly some remedy should be applied to this abuse. These trading stamp companies, small and insignificant as they are, are permitted to do what no other kind of financial corporation can do. They are permitted to circulate money. This trading stamp resembles a postage stamp. They are sold at $5 for a hundred dollars face value. The merchant hands them out to his customer and they get into circulation that way.
Later on, he said:
The people who have been deceived into taking these stamps are generally poor people, and it takes them a long time to collect $100. Where the tremendous profit of the trading stamp companies comes in is due to the fact that the stamps are never redeemed. Then

when people present the stamps at the store, they will be told that the store is out of goods but some are expected in a few days, and in the end the trading stamp agents get away without paying anything.
This was a statement by one of the members at the time this legislation was originally enacted. It demonstrates the concern of the legislators at that time over the criminal activities of these trading stamp companies, and the fact that these activities should be removed. The legislation was, therefore, put on the statute books. Other matters were discussed at that time and most views, but not all, were in line with Mr. Kemp's views. Those discussions would indicate that it was

certainly the criminal activities with which the legislators were concerned. They were concerned with fraud and so on.
Mr. R. L. Borden, as he was before he was knighted had this to say, speaking to the legislators at that time:
Unless we are to proceed along a line of legislation that has not hitherto been proposed, it goes too far. But if we are to proceed along that line of legislation, it does not go far enough. To show that it does not go far enough, I have only to point out that under this law trading stamps may still be distributed and redeemed, if the person distributing is also the person who redeems, and if he redeems them at his own place of business. This still leaves untouched the element of lottery which was referred to in the argument of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)-and I am bound to say that that argument seemed to me to carry a good deal of weight.
It was, therefore, the opinion of both Mr. Borden and Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier that one of the main abuses about which they were talking was lotteries in the way they were carried out at that time. The trading stamp companies may have been conducting a lottery because the persons who procured these trading stamps would be left holding the bag by the premium companies. This is the situation to which the hon. member for Skeena referred and which led to the introduction of the section in the Criminal Code to curtail the distribution of trading stamps and that section is certainly one that commends itself to this house.
The bill in question here at the present time, however, in my view takes this matter right out of the criminal law and brings it squarely under the jurisdiction of the provinces because it relates to property and civil rights. In order to show that it does so, Mr. Speaker, I have merely to bring to your attention some of the defects or some of the arguments against trading stamps which show that undeniably this is a matter that is concerned with the regulation of trade.
This matter was investigated in England. The board of trade had a committee on gift coupons and trading stamps which reported in July, 1933. In the course of the report they summarized the arguments against trading stamps. If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to quote some of the arguments they summarized as follows:
That the customer of a stamp-trading shop is misled by the inducements held out into believing that he is getting something for nothing, whereas in fact he may be paying very heavily for his purchase-*
That many trading stamp companies offer poor value in the gifts which they themselves provide-
That the retailer is frequently unable to escape from the trading stamp system even though he may wish to do so-
That trading stamp companies are essentially parasitic, providing no useful service to the community in return for the profit which they make.
Criviinal Code
There is the further one which, of course, does come squarely under the federal legislation and which is covered by the present legislation. It is as follows:
That the system offers special temptations to fraud by ephemeral trading stamp companies.
Of course our legislation is specifically designed to get at people of this sort. The Indiana university school of business conducted a research into this matter and in their summary of conclusions, at page 118 of their report which was published in 1956, they outline some of the weaknesses of the trading stamp system which appear to be inherent and which I will set forth in order again to demonstrate that the weaknesses, apart from those that are already covered by the code, are matters of provincial jurisdiction. Here are the weaknesses as set forth in this report:
(1) the necessity of safeguarding stamps, (2) the reduction of market potential by premiums awarded to customers, (3) the inflexibility of a promotional program in which the cost varies directly with sales, and (4) the inability of operators to emphasize merchandise values, store services, and facilities.
The report goes on to state as follows:
In addition, other possible disadvantages of the trading stamp program for a specific retailer in the light of his store situation may include: (1) the prohibitive cost of stamps, (2) the necessity of increasing prices to offset cost, (3) the difficulty of discontinuing the stamps, (4) the possibility that benefits will be neutralized by a competitor's stamp plan-*
In other words, they all get them.
(5) the possibility that store operations may be hampered, and (6) the likelihood that advertising will have to be increased to promote the stamp, should strong stamp competition develop.
As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, those are matters of regulation of trade, a subject which is not under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. I should point out that the retail merchants are strongly opposed to trading stamps for three very good reasons. The first, of course, is that trading stamps which are defined by the code as stamps now are illegal and, second, that it adds to the cost of goods to the consumers or prevents reduction in prices which would otherwise occur. In the third place, trading stamp schemes are promoted by companies which are not in the business of providing goods for the retail market. It is therefore an encroachment on retail business by these companies that adds nothing to the service rendered or the quality of the goods supplied by retailers. I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that in recommendations of the British board of trade, they had this to say in their conclusions:
-it appears to us to be better for the retailers in any area to combine together to issue joint

Criminal Code
trading stamps, thus maintaining their independence, from outside competitive pressure, than to adhere to a scheme organized by a trading stamp company.
I do not really think that suits the Canadian situation at all. It is an observation made for action by a parliament which has complete control over all the affairs carried on in the British nation. We here are charged only with enacting legislation which is designed to come within the scope of our legislative competence at Ottawa.
May I for a moment now refer to what I consider to be one of the most serious aspects of these trading stamps as far as retailers are concerned, namely the fact that trading stamps represent an attempt by persons who have nothing to do with the retail trade to muscle in on the retailers' market. Those who issue trading stamps in contravention of the provisions of the Criminal Code, as I have said before, are engaged in crime. They demand a tribute from retailers and customers, promising in return to the retailer an illusory increase in sales and to his customer a premium which in value bears little relation to the toll exacted.
For reasons that I have mentioned in opposition to trading stamps in general I am glad that this bill has come before the house. It gives an opportunity for hon. members to express their views on the value or otherwise of trading stamps. But I think we must not be led into the position of passing legislation which would not be enforced by the courts because it is beyond our legislative jurisdiction. That is why I think it is necessary for us on this occasion to look more closely at the bill itself than has been done by the hon. member who introduced it. I have only these comments at this stage to make with regard to it.
The proposed amended definition restores the phrase "besides trading stamps commonly so-called", and it is not one to which I would take objection; but the deletion of the parts of the Criminal Code suggested in this bill would have two very serious effects, and they must be considered. In the first place, it would go beyond the legislative competence of this house; second, the bill the hon. member has introduced recites that "trading stamps includes... any form of cash receipt. .. given to the purchaser of goods by the vendor thereof... to represent a discount on the price". The amendment that the hon. member has proposed I think might well have the effect of preventing co-operatives from giving proper discounts to their own members, and that would have a most serious and disastrous effect upon the whole co-operative movement.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to have drawn to the attention of this house some of the disadvantages in the use of trading stamps, but I do urge hon. members to consider the points I have made with regard to the legislative power of this house to enact the bill which is before it.
(Translation):


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) made some very interesting remarks this afternoon when introducing this bill and, like other hon. members in this house, I very much appreciated his comments.
I also listened with much attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones), who, if I understood him correctly, does not so much defend the trading stamps or the kind of promotion mentioned in the bill, as he disagrees with the hon. member for Skeena as to the means which might be applied in getting rid of this means of publicity.
Mr. Speaker, as far as I am personally concerned, I have always been opposed to that kind of publicity, to advertising involving the distribution of gifts in packages, or the distribution of trading stamps like those mentioned today. I have always been opposed to that type of publicity in all its forms. I refrained until today from public comments on this matter, or from dealing with it here in the house, because I wanted to study it thoroughly and satisfy myself that the position I would take in this house would be first and foremost to the advantage of the Canadian consumer, of the retail merchant and more particularly of the small retailer.
I wanted to satisfy myself, Mr. Speaker, that the benefits to the consumer from a legislation like the one introduced this afternoon would outweigh the disadvantage of a certain measure of government interference in private enterprise.
In the light of the present act, which was put into force in 1905 and amended when the Criminal Code was amended in 1953 and 1954, I studied the various briefs that were recently submitted by retail associations, by the Canadian consumers association, and also by the promoters of gift or trading stamps, as they are generally called. When I studied those records and those briefs, Mr. Speaker, I was astonished to find that the Retail Merchants Association as well as the various consumer associations of Canada were opposed to the distribution of trading stamps throughout Canada.

I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, to see that in our country only the promoters of trading stamp schemes favoured the system and this type of promotion.
And still, in the briefs submitted to us, I found that they had gone out of their way to try to convince us of the benefits resulting from the distribution of trading stamps. No more than the hon. member for Saskatoon was I convinced by the arguments presented in the brief submitted by the trading stamps information bureau, and published by the Sperry and Hutchinson Company of Canada Limited.
Mr. Speaker, what do the retail merchants, through the Retail Merchants Association, say in the brief presented by the association on January 7 to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker)? The Canadian Retail Merchants Association, under the signature of Miss Isabel Atkinson, stated in its preliminary remarks that, for some years, the Canadian consumers assocation had shown growing concern as a result of the increasing use made by retail merchants of promotional means which add nothing to the value of the merchandise put on sale, and which in no way help Canadian consumers to get better value for their money.
The brief went on to say that, at the annual meeting of that association the delegates representing consumers' associations from almost all provinces of Canada, since they represented sixteen regional associations, had expressed their strong opposition to the distribution of trading stamps across Canada.
And in the brief we find the reasons for which the association is opposed to a continuation of this particular type of sales promotion. Among the main reasons we find that some retailers object to this form of sale on the grounds that trading stamps increase distribution costs.
The second argument was that trading stamps have replaced low sale prices. The brief further says that they divert the consumers' attention from the value and the price of goods, that trading stamps are economic parasites and that their use tends to increase an already expensive publicity which misleads the consumer.
The brief adds that trading stamps deprive the consumer of the service offered by the retail merchant.
Here is what the Retail Merchants Association of Canada is asking, in the conclusion of its brief presented to the Prime Minister.
We ask that during the current parliamentary session, the existing legislation be reenforced so as to effectively prohibit all trading stamp systems in Canada, to rid our economy of this economic parasite.
Criminal Code
Now, what does the Canadian consumers association have to say? The chairman of the Canadian consumers association stated not so long ago, as quoted in Week-End, in January 1960, that "trading stamps are illegal, and that they add to the cost of products without benefiting the consumer."
A few months ago, I had the opportunity to receive from a fellow citizen in Montreal, who lives in the constituency of Dollard, a letter dated June 30, 1959. The letter was from Mr. Ivan Hamel who was drawing my attention to an item published in La Presse for June 23, 1959, under the heading "Readers Forum". The article signed by Paul Robi-taille, Q.C., dealt with the matter of trading stamps. He suggested an efficient way and a correct remedy.
The letter read:
On reading that part of section 322 of the Criminal Code, I am firmly convinced that the Canadian government had already legislated to prohibit and prevent that plague. However, some people resort to devious means of diverting people's mind from the existing legislation.
I believe, sir, that it is up to you to prepare and support all legislation which might bring about an adequate solution like the one suggested by Mr. Robitaille.
The letter referred to an article published by La Presse, under the signature of Mr. Robitaille, a lawyer, who wrote, on this same subject:
It is easily seen that merely by changing or striking out a few words the present practice of trading stamps would be made illegal.
Both the public and associations could therefore demand at once the necessary changes to rid us of those stamps which are unwanted by every body-including the merchants themselves-and which must surely contribute to inflation, because someone has to pay for those premiums: they are not free.
Mr. Speaker, on top of this evidence given by the Retail Merchants Association and by certain consumers, there is the evidence given by the Better Business Bureau which, as early as a few years ago, was asking the province of Alberta to adopt some legislation designed to abolish the use of trading stamps.
It would seem, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that promoters and distributors of trading stamps, in this country, are the only people who favour the system.
Some time ago, we received a document, referred to, a moment ago, by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones); it gives the reasons which seem to favour the maintenance of this system in Canada. That document does not seem to have convinced the hon. member for Saskatoon, nor has it convinced me of the desirability of continuing that practice.
Besides, I shall have the opportunity, later on in my remarks, to answer a few of the statements contained in that document.

Criminal Code
In order to introduce trading stamps in this country, their promoters had to by-pass the law and take advantage of certain loopholes in section 322 of the Criminal Code.
I should like to remind the house that, in May 1956, according to the same article I quoted a moment ago, from Weekend Magazine, an Ottawa businessman, Mr. Bertram Loeb, had a special study made of sections of the Criminal Code concerning the distribution of trading stamps, so as to make sure that he would not be brought into court if he had trading stamps printed and distributed in the stores under his control.
After a study made by Canadian lawyers, he managed to find a loophole which allowed him to go ahead with the distribution of trading stamps. He then formed a company, of which he became president, the Gold Bond Stamps Company of Ottawa. He has been conducting a thriving business ever since.
That is the result of that gap, of that loophole in our Criminal Code, and that is the situation which the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) would like to have corrected in introducing this bill.
If the bill were adopted in its present form, I believe the confusion which now exists, with regard to certain loopholes in the law, would be dispelled.
Some provinces have taken it upon themselves to legislate in this field. In 1937, the province of Alberta, for its part, amended the section concerning the trades and business act.
British Columbia, and more particularly certain municipalities of that province, that is, Vancouver, Victoria and others, objected to merchants using trading stamps, and the practice ceased at once.
In the maritimes, the practice is practically non-existent, but it does flourish in Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland.
In Ontario, Mr. Speaker, just because of those loopholes in the legislation, the provincial government wants to make a test case with regard to the practice.
According to an item published in the Globe and Mail of January 28 last, the Ontario government is planning to make a test case on trading stamps circulating in this province. This is what the article says:
(Text):
The entire concept of trading stamps will be challenged in court for the first time in Canada in an action now being prepared on orders from attorney general Roberts.

(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, if this bill were passed, I think neither the provinces nor the municipalities would have to go to court to find out exactly where they stand in this field. The Canadian parliament has a perfect right to legislate on matters concerning Canada's Criminal Code.
If section 322 of the Criminal Code were amended so as to completely rule out the use of trading stamps in Canada, I think that would settle the matter and would eliminate the present confusion.
You may wonder what the consumer's reaction will be. I think the reaction of housewives, the main users of those stamps, would react in about the same way as this Toronto woman who, on hearing that the federal government was going to introduce a bill prohibiting the use of trading stamps, only replied: "I hope I can fill up my last stamp book before stamps are outlawed". In my view, that is the present position.
Retail merchants, just as the consumers, are very anxious to get rid of this bother, but as the practice is allowed in some provinces, businessmen have to compete, each in his own field, so, as an inducement to customers, they have to use that publicity gimmick. Then the consumer gets caught in a vicious circle, and seemingly prefers to buy from the dealer who gives trading stamps.
Mr. Speaker, my present position on this matter stems primarily from a desire to safeguard the interests of the Canadian consumer. In his remarks, the hon. member for Skeena showed us quite clearly, I think, that prices were slightly higher in stores using trading stamps. If we want the cost of living index in Canada to go down, I think one good way would be to eliminate trading stamps. It would greatly assist in lowering the cost of living in Canada.
While the primary objective is to protect the Canadian consumer, we must also protect the businessman, the small retailer who has to compete with stores that use trading stamps as a means of promotion. If the small retailer uses them, he has to pay for them, and the result may be that he will lose money, that his business will be less profitable, or that he will have to raise his prices. Again in this case, it is the consumer who foots the bill.
The reasons put forward by the promoters of such publicity methods, are, as I said, not sufficient to make us change our mind in the matter.

On page 6 of the brief which has been submitted by one of those promoters, whose name I mentioned a few moments ago, we are given a few reasons for which the distribution of trading stamps throughout the country should be favoured. The first reason advanced is that it is a painless way to save money for the consumer. The trading stamps are compared with deductions made from workers' cheques, to help them buy government bonds. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any possible comparison between trading stamps and the amount our Canadian workers are made to save for the purchase of a victory bond. I also do not believe a Canadian taxpayer can be forced to economize if he does not want to; this is a personal matter and I think it would be antidemocratic to force a Canadian citizen to save if he does not wish to do so.
It has also been said that people who collect trading stamps are looked upon by their friends as good managers. Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me to tell you that this is a misleading statement. It does not hold water.
It has also been maintained that collecting trading stamps or gift certificates satisfies the instincts of people who like collecting stamps or antiques. There again, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this a sound reason. I am unable to imagine the satisfaction it can give to anybody to stick 100, 200 and even 300 stamps, all of the same size and all looking alike. To my mind, this satisfaction can scarcely be compared to that of a stamp collector who has come upon a rare stamp that was lacking in his collection. This stamp will be dear to the philatelist, whereas the trading stamps given out by the various dealers have no sentimental value, no feeling attached to them whatsoever.
Another reason given by the promoters, is that when they have filled their booklet, people feel deeply gratified when they go to the shop to sell it back. Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what sort of satisfaction anybody can feel who having collected enough trading stamps to be able to exchange them cannot even choose the kind of articles he wants, because the choice has to be made from a catalogue and he has to accept whatever he is given in exchange for the trading stamps he has in hand.
And other reasons are being given, emphasizing the pleasure, the thrill people feel, thanks to trading stamps, in getting something for nothing.
Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is bad education for the Canadian people and,
Criminal Code
second, that argument is false, because the consumer who is in possession of trading stamps, has paid for them, since he gave money in advance to get them. In my opinion, it is easy to refute the arguments advanced by trading stamps promoters. But I will not elaborate on this point.
Mr. Speaker, housewives have told me they would rather pay lower prices than get trading stamps, since, with the money thus saved, they would buy what they want, where they want and when they want.
I do not think that it would be a breach of the Canadian constitution as mentioned a moment ago by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones), if that amendment to the Criminal Code were adopted. In fact, since retail merchants are now concerned with all the trouble constantly arising out of trading stamps promotion, due to the fact that promoters took advantage of a loophole in the legislation, it is therefore up to us and to the Canadian government to plug that loophole, and to adopt the bill which is now before us. The law will then be adhered to, and trading stamps will disappear, and nothing more will be heard about them.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we shall hear other members express their opinion on the matter. I agree with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) when he says he hopes there will be enough time left to allow members to express their opinion, tonight, through a vote, in order that this legislation may be adopted.
(Text):


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I propose to say a few words in English because it seldom happens that I share the same opinion as my friends from the C.C.F. party and, more particularly, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard); but on this question I feel it is my duty to rise in my place and to acknowledge the perfect definition that appears in this new bill presented this afternoon by the hon. member for Skeena. However, when we read the explanatory note, we find that this bill has one purpose, namely to amend section 322 of the Criminal Code-and I quote:
The proposed amended definition restores the phrase "besides trading stamps commonly so-called", which was deleted in the 1953-54 revision of the code.
If we analyse this proposed change in the law, we find that it has now become necessary on account of the lack of interest, intuition and guidance of the former Liberal

Criminal Code
government which changed the law in 1953 and opened the door to this most disagreeable way of dealing with what are called trading stamps.
I do not want to condemn the members of the Liberal party who have spoken in favour of the abolition of trading stamps; however, I do condemn the former Liberal party, which was in power at that time, for not foreseeing the most amazing effect that this amendment of the law would have on the people of this country. Now that the harm has been done, we of the Conservative party are asked to vote in favour of a bill which I think deserves our most immediate attention and consideration. We are asked, as I said, to vote in favour of a bill which will correct this very deplorable situation.
Although I share the opinion of the hon. member for Skeena with regard to his main purpose of amending the law and having a ban put on trading stamps, I do not share some of his other opinions. For instance, he compared trading stamps to lotteries but I think they are quite different.


Frank Howard: I did not say that.


Georges-J. Valade: I am sorry if I made a mistake.


Frank Howard: I said that some people compare them to lotteries.


Georges-J. Valade: I am sorry that I misunderstood the hon. member. On the other hand, I do share the opinion of the hon. member when he said that trading stamps tended to leave the control of business in fewer and fewer hands. I think that is exactly the purpose of trading stamps as they are used now. They are leading to a monopoly by a few. On this ground alone I think the government should pay attention to this question and the house should be asked to vote in favour of the motion.
However, I cannot agree with the member for Skeena when he said that the Minister of Justice lacked courage and was passing the buck in this matter. I think that the Minister of Justice has fully acknowledged his duty by interpreting the law as it stands, and I think that is also the way the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones) has interpreted the matter. We live in a free country, a democratic country and we are law-abiding people. We have full democracy and consequently the Minister of Justice in rendering his opinion on this matter has fully acknowledged the fact that we live in

a democracy and that no compulsory action can be taken. In view of the legal situation as it now stands, I think the Minister of Justice acted fully in accordance with the law of the country.
I will not give statistics with respect to this matter because I think the question of trading stamps does not need statistics. It needs good sense, and I believe that if we analyse public opinion generally as to this question we will see readily that the public generally want a ban imposed on trading stamps because they are becoming one of the main elements of our commerce and industry in this country.
(Translation):
My remarks will be brief, Mr. Speaker, on this matter of trading stamps. It is not my intention to waste the house's precious time in dealing with this matter, which I think requires most urgent legislative action. However, I realize that in expressing my views on this subject, I speak as a retail merchant myself, and also on behalf of thousands of small contractors or businessmen, in every field of trade, who are threatened with extinction by this system. I also speak on behalf of thousands of consumers who have become victims of this illegal trade practice.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I regard this situation as a threat to the very existence of small businesses across the country. I shall therefore show, for the consideration of parliament, first the way these trading stamps operate; then the producer's point of view; then the retailers' point of view, and finally, the consumer's point of view.
I shall try to set out very briefly the legal aspect of the question with regard to the federal and provincial governments.
Let us examine first how these trading stamps operate, right from the printing shop to the consumer. I think it should be stressed here that as a general rule, trading stamps are sold by promotion agencies to retailers. The retailers pay cash for the stamps and give them to the consumers, on an established percentage basis, in exchange for purchases. At the end of the line, the consumer who has collected a certain minimum number of stamps goes to the promotion agency and trades them for some merchandise.
As an illustration let us take the case of a Mrs. X who, having made a certain number of purchases, has managed to collect 1580 trading stamps. She goes to the promotion

agency and gets a piece of merchandise which retails for $15.80 at market prices. However, another person who has only 600 stamps is able to buy-I use the word "buy" intentionally, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize the monetary aspect of these stamps-merchandise worth $6.
Trading stamps, therefore, have a monetary aspect, which indicates that the use of trading stamps should be subject to the penalties provided in the criminal code against restrictive trade practices.
Moreover, if you look closely at the operation of these stamps, I sincerely believe they are a cause of inflation in Canada, and therefore should be abolished. Having paid for trading stamps the dealer distributes them to his many customers. Many of those customers must surely have lost or ignored those trading stamps. In short, the person mentioned a few moments ago, who obtained an article with a retail value of $15.80, is now the owner of an item for which the public relations firm does not collect $15.80, but $30.00, if not more.
Mr. Speaker, since nothing can be had for nothing; someone is bound to pay the difference between the actual value of the item and the price paid by the consumer. In fact, somebody does pay this premium. Since the producer or operator must necessarily make profits in his business, there is only one person who pays for those trading stamps, and it is the consumer.
The current uneasiness of retailers over the trading stamp system is even felt by the producer. I should like to quote an item appearing in The Rural Co-operator of October 27, 1959, under the heading Farm Business and entitled: "Who makes stamp money?"
(Text):
Trading stamps profit nobody but the companies that issue them and farmers should support demands to have them outlawed in Canada. We all like to think that we can get something for nothing but the trading stamps add to food store costs. When trading stamps add to food store costs they add to consumer food costs without any corresponding increase in returns to the farmer.
Food costs in Canada are not high in comparison to income. But consumers, led on by critics of agriculture, believe that food costs are high. This belief, supplemented by another unfounded belief that farmers are profiting enormously from today's food prices, makes it difficult for farmers to secure reasonable prices for their products.
(Translation):
And a little farther down, the article continues:
Criminal Code
(Text):
The fact that an officer of a large supermarket chain last week called the premiums a consumer discount and stated that a 12 to 15 per cent increase in volume would cover the store's cost of providing premiums doesn't prove that consumers aren't paying for the premiums.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, this article gives a good idea of how producers feel about trading stamps.
As for the retailer, there can be no doubt about his desire to put an end to the practice.
Indeed, the retailers have become the very victims of that system of control by a handful of individuals. Then again, the practice places the small concern or the small retailer at a great disadvantage in relation to chain stores several of which control the printing, distribution and division of trading stamps for which they allow goods to people who have become their customers and find themselves under their definite control.
It is a form of economic coercion which places the small businessmen in the power of the big ones. Furthermore, I think that the practice is contrary to the public interest.
Even the consumer, Mr. Speaker, has become conscious of this undesirable position. I shall confine myself to one excerpt from the memorandum submitted to the Prime Minister, and published on January 7, 1960, in the magazine Canadian Association of Consumers. Page 2 of that report presents objections to that system and I should like, at this point, to read the more important excerpts:
(Text):
Trading Stamps Increase Distribution Costs
We object to these schemes because they increase distribution costs and thus increase the cost of living. They are a non-productive expense which widens the gap between the producer and consumer. Even if the claim were true that the increased cost due to stamps is offset by increased sales this could only be valid for a short period, and in particular instances. It cannot be true in the longer period when competing stores introduce these schemes. Food sales are closely related to population and growth, and no sales promotion schemes can make them rise suddenly in all stores in one shopping district.
In paragraph 2, we read:
Trading Stamp Schemes are Substitutes for Lower Prices
The royal commission on price spreads of food products drew attention to this point and stated in its report:	"In many instances promotional
expenditures are undertaken as an alternative to a reduction in price."
Criminal Code

(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, that opinion expressed by the consumers association fully explains the present situation and emphasizes the inconveniences of the trading stamps system.
The legal aspect of the matter, I shall let my friends, the lawyers go into. However, I should like simply to compare a statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) on November 3, 1959, with the legal opinion given by the Canadian consumers association, on page 1 of the brief submitted to the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. And I quote that part of the answer given by the Minister of Justice:
(Text):
In the first place. If a trading stamp scheme in its nature or operation comes within any of the fields which are proper for inclusion in the criminal law, it would be the responsibility of the dominion parliament to enact any necessary legislation to deal with the situation.
(Translation):
I have therefore shown, Mr. Speaker, the economic drawbacks of this trade practice, and have also tried to show the house the various interest groups involved in this unfortunate situation of trading stamp distribution among the people.
Who, in fact, stands to gain from this system? No one, execept a small group of individuals who are striving to monopolize and control free enterprise and stifle healthy competition. Who, then, should step in? Should it be the federal government or the provincial governments? I am inclined to believe that under the circumstances, and in view of the monetary aspect of trading stamps, the responsibility for intervention rests on the federal government. However, it is for the house to decide on that point, but I think it is imperative that immediate and positive action be taken to put a stop to this practice which is deadly to normal business conditions.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think trading stamps are a menace to the small retailer on the part of monopolizing supermarkets.
Second, the practice represents an illegal or illicit way of attracting customers to a specific store.
Third, the multiplicity of stamps cancels the desired effect while increasing the consumer price, whereas the alternative, i.e. unification, or rather the use of a single kind of stamp would constitute a monopoly.
I therefore ask this parliament immediately to take some positive and appropriate action to stop a practice, which I consider illegal.
[Mr. Valade.l
Before closing my remarks, may I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to allude to the reports mentioned a few moments ago by the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau). On page 4 of the brief prepared by the Sperry and Hutchinson Company of Canada Limited we read the following:
(Text):
Q: If these discount stamps are legal, then who opposes them and why?
A: The principal opposition has come from merchants who do not wish to offer stamps and who are afraid of losing customers. In other words, the controversy over stamps has been largely a battle among merchants, some favouring free competition including the right to use stamps and others who wish to limit such competition.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most untrue statements I have ever read in any memorandum which is supposed to be sensible and which is supposed to come from business-minded people. I believe there are those who oppose stamps. I think the question in people's minds really is, are these stamps in the interests of this nation as a whole. Then, there are those who claim that trading stamps have left small businessmen near bankruptcy. It has been said that sometimes the ladies have been inclined to spend much more than they wanted to spend in these stores because of the advertisements for trading stamps. I think now is the time that this parliament should correct the wrong that was done in the last amendment to the law in 1953. This parliament should pronounce itself at this time by voting for the bill banning trading stamps from Canada.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this debate I should like to assure the house that I will, as usual, be very brief. It has been pointed out by several of the members who spoke previously in this debate that this whole idea of trading stamps is tied up in a very false scheme and that this scheme has been insidiously growing in this country through the idea of something for nothing.
It has been pointed out also by one of the previous speakers that there may be a little difficulty in classifying this practice of using trading stamps as being really criminal. I should like to point out that at least in one or two ways this is indeed a criminal practice. One of the things that this practice does, as has been pointed out by the speakers, is that it has built into our economic society a level of false cost. If we look across the world today and realize, as we must, the economic challenge that we are getting, and going to

be increasingly getting from the countries behind the iron curtain, I think all hon. members must agree that anything that builds a false cost into our economy is indeed very criminal.
There will be some question in people's minds as to whether or not the federal government should interfere with the freedom of choice of the individual. Some people feel the individual should be free to use his own judgment in this matter. I would agree with that if I thought for one moment that the individual was indeed free to use his judgment. But I do not believe that is the case. Unfortunately his judgment is likely to be based on the fact that he has seen only one side of the picture.
Modern advertising, both in this trading stamp field and in many others, has tended, I submit, to brainwash the citizens of this country from the time they are one year old. From the time they are old enough to watch television, to listen to the radio or to read a newspaper they are subjected day in and day out-in fact, almost every hour of the day-to advertising and promotion based on this false premise that you can get something for nothing. When do they ever see the other side of the picture and from whom do they get it? It is certainly not from our so-called free enterprise system because it is not profitable for anybody to do so. They certainly cannot get it from the newspapers, the radio stations or the television stations because unfortunately they have been dragged into the position in which they are dependent for their lifeblood upon this false advertising.
During a trip out west last fall I had occasion to obtain a copy of the Regina Leader-Post. I may say this was just about the time the report had come out from the commission that sat on the price spreads of food in the Canadian economy. An extremely interesting editorial or story-I believe it was an editorial-in the paper of that day stressed the part in this commission's report which said that the public themselves were to blame in that they tolerated this form of promotion which was increasing the cost of the products they bought. What I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that not only did this very newspaper as well as the other newspapers tolerate this system but they in fact promoted it. All you had to do was to turn the page and you would see on the next page a whole page full of advertisements which fell into the particular category which they were pointing out the public was at fault in tolerating. All newspapers and in fact all the mediums at our disposal in this country today to a great extent are obliged to depend upon this false advertising which is shown up so well in this trading stamp racket.
Criminal Code
If we cannot hope for any help in this matter from our newspapers and from our other mediums of supplying information to the public, then where can we hope to get some assistance? I submit that there is only one place from which the Canadian public can hope for any protection or for any assistance and that is from the legislators of this country, the people who make the laws. I would suggest that the best way in which to put a stop to this false premise of something for nothing is to make the practice illegal.
In the debate on the speech from the throne the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) pointed out the need for Canada to have a little bit more complete honesty with regard to world affairs. I would suggest that we carry this idea also into our own economic front at home. I do not think any hon. member will disagree with the statement that this whole trading stamp practice is-to put it kindly-dishonest. Since when, in this country of ours, is dishonesty not criminal?
I would suggest that the law already deals with the principle of trading stamps and that the situation today has come about because a loophole in the law was found. I submit that it is nothing more nor less than a deliberate attempt on the part of the promoters to circumvent the intention of that very law. I would suggest that the best way in which to deal with that situation is for this parliament, which makes the laws of this country, to proceed to plug those loopholes and to put a stop once and for all, if at all possible, to this deliberate evasion of the law.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, as one who has spent a considerable number of years in the selling field, both wholesale and retail, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this bill.
I am also pleased to see the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) finally showing an interest in the competitive free enterprise system. His concern for the capitalist system, a system that has built up our industries in Canada until today we are the fifth largest trading nation in the world, and the interest he has shown in this system causes me to hope that there may yet to be a convert among the divided eight in the far corner of the chamber.
In the beginning, I wish to state most emphatically that I am against the use of trading stamps, and any other promotional device used by Canadian retailers which add nothing to the value of the goods offered for sale and which in no way help consumers when making purchases to get the best value for their money. Throughout the years all of

Criminal Code
us have seen these promotions in many forms, but their use is most widespread in retail food merchandising, with premiums inside packages, coupons to be redeemed on a specified product, and lately trading stamps calling for so-called free gifts. The increase in the use of this latter type of promotion has caused considerable controversy across Canada in recent months and I think it is fitting that this matter should be discussed in this chamber.
In my riding there are some chain store operators but there are also a large number of independent merchants who operate their own retail stores and are not affiliated with any chain. When discussing this matter with independent operators I found that their chief objection to trading stamps was the increased cost to their business, which must be added to the items sold, thus increasing their distribution costs and eventually the cost of living. Trading stamps serve as a non-productive expense which further widens the gap between the consumer and the producer. In reply to this argument some will claim that the increases in sales offset the cost of trading stamps; but if this claim were true, it would certainly be for only a short period.
After all, if any store in any village or town introduced a trading stamp program, and by so doing increased its sales, its competitors are not going to stand idly by for any length of time and see their business taken away by this type of program. It would not take them very long to institute a similar program, and therefore any advantage gained by one store having a stamp program of its own would soon be lost.
The original idea of forming food chain stores was to reduce the cost of retail food marketing. However, present trends would indicate a change from this policy of price competition to non-productive and costly sales promotions to attract customers. Another claim made is that trading stamps are free. This is, of course, deceptive and untrue, for the cost of buying trading stamps must be hidden in the price of the merchandise when it is sold.
In the beginning of my remarks I stated I was opposed to the use of trading stamps. However, I cannot vote to amend this act, for like so many bills which are introduced into this house by the C.C.F., I believe it to be a further infringement on our rights as private citizens and on the freedom of all Canadians. These socialists in the far corner have only one theme: There ought to be a law; there ought to be a law for this, there ought to be a law for that. They endeavour whenever possible to make changes in our

laws which would further increase bureaucratic controls and also cause further regimentation in Canada.
I do not believe that shoppers who like to buy stamps with food should be barred by law from doing so. The issuance of stamps by anyone is purely and simply a sales promotion. At the present time the shopper is free to purchase food from stores which give these stamps, or she can shun those stores like the plague. After all, sales promotions are not something new. For years soap companies have been giving coupons with their products; rolled oats have been packed with tumblerware, chinaware and silverware; and I well remember, when a salesman some years ago for one of Canada's large cereal companies, that the plain package was outsold by the premium pack by five to one. It was quite simple to see what the cost of the premium was by making a comparison between the retail price of the premium pack and the plain pack. Nevertheless, the premium package was the one that was selected by the majority of the shoppers. Even in popcorn little trinkets are packed, and I could mention many other promotions.
There are many who point out that the premiums secured with stamps are not free; the public is paying the bill. All of us know that you cannot get something for nothing, and while it is true that the public is paying for trading stamps, it is equally true that these stamps can be redeemed for a variety of valuable premiums. The promotion method may be deceptive, but it certainly cannot be called fraudulent.
There is an old saying that seems to be overlooked in the present controversy, and it is that the customer is always right. Today women do most of the retail buying in Canada, and usually they are careful spenders. Certainly this is the case in my household. Perhaps when shopping where stamps are issued they are paying more for the initial product. However, they are saving money, saving it in the form of coupons or stamps toward the attainment of some object they want, or believe they need. They of course are best able to judge whether there is a value in trading stamps, and I believe that if this parliament were to make laws to prohibit trading stamps it would be a restriction on advertising, a curb on competition, a limit to the benefits accruing from competitive free enterprise, and a further restriction on our individual liberties.
If this amendment were passed there would no doubt be short term rejoicing among independent merchants. But it is a reasonable fear that once the principle of limiting competition by prohibiting sales promotions was

established we could expect under this act or further supplementary legislation still further controls on competition. Certainly when reading the scope of this legislation as presently introduced there is every indication that there is little or no limit to the controls which can be applied. The amendment states, for example, that no trading stamps or any form of cash receipt, receipt, coupon, premium ticket or other device can be given to the purchaser which would represent a discount on the goods purchased.
I believe that implementation of this amendment could work to the detriment of independent merchants. These independents may not give away trading stamps, but in some cases they provide credit services, free delivery services, telephone charge accounts, entertainment in stores, free samples and free parking areas. All of these could be classed as a promotional sales device and give some idea of the regimentation of freedom incorporated in this C.C.F. amendment.
The government is being asked to be the official custodian of the shopper's purse, to direct the thinking of every Canadian, and eliminate the right of Canadians to decide for themselves the retail stores which give them the best value for their money. Like all other sales promotions, I believe that this fad will eventually run its course without the government restricting by legislation the rights of every Canadian of free choice in the market place.


Georges-J. Valade: May I direct a question to the hon. member?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Certainly.


Georges-J. Valade: When the hon. member said that the customer is always right, I was just wondering if you should sell arsenic to anyone who asks for it?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather difficult question. I said there was an old custom which said that the customer is always right. Of course, if he prefers to buy arsenic because he requires it for his diet, I do not see how we can limit the sale of it. He will not require it very long.


John Augustine Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make my few remarks on this subject I realize full well, as do other hon. members of the house, that it is a very "hot topic" today. I might say I have considerable interest in it, being presently engaged in the general merchandising business, and also due to the fact that our firm once used these trading stamps. This is a question of very great importance, not only to those engaged in the mercantile business, or any business along that line, but also to the public across Canada.
Criminal Code
I may say that involved in this struggle which is going on today are not only the producers, the consumers and the men who service the goods in between, but also the trading stamp companies which have become a big factor in this warfare. The opposition to trading stamps seems to be stiffening all the time. Our own firm's position was that the stamps did not seem to accomplish anything. We were more or less driven into the field because our main competitor had taken up a trading stamp program, but after several months experience we both decided it was more or less a fraud at the expense of the public and we both got out of the program.
The background and history of trading stamps is as follows: they were started in the United States. I think Sperry and Hutchinson claim they first started them in Jackson, Michigan, in 1896, but there is evidence that they were also started in Milwaukee shortly before 1900. However, it is not the origin but the practice with which we are most concerned. The use of stamps spread rapidly at that time. It was a great fad, and all the confidence men who wanted to make a fast buck got into the act and a great deal of money was made in a short time by some unscrupulous people. The fad spread swiftly across the country around 1900 and things became so bad that in 1905 the parliament of Canada had to pass legislation banning the use of trading stamps. For a time this checked their use until about the year 1956 they began to show up again in Canada-they had come back some three years earlier in the United States. In the meantime, the people had forgotten in the course of a few generations the very unfortunate experience the mercantile trade of Canada had suffered during the first appearance of the stamps.
The present situation is that there is a determined effort being made by the trading stamp companies to flood the country again with their type of in-between merchandizing, and the Canadian consumer is caught at the present time in this more or less feverish competition of the chain stores, and the trading stamp companies are reaping the benefit of this competition.
Lined up against the present trend to trading stamps, are of course, a number of organizations including one of the most important, the Canadian Association of Consumers. This organization has, I think, about 26,000 members and there are another half million in 17 affiliated groups. I should like to read the names of these groups in order that hon. members may realize the type of organizations which are taking part in

Criminal Code
this fight against trading stamps. They are: Canadian dietetic association; Cercles de fermieres; Canadian federation of business and professional women's clubs; Canadian federation of university women; Canadian home economics association; Dominion council of the woman's association, United Church of Canada; Federation nationale St. Jean-Baptiste; Federated women's institutes of Canada; Hadassah organization of Canada; Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire; National council Canadian daughters' League; National council of Jewish women of Canada; The national council of women of Canada; Y.W.C.A. of Canada; the Salvation Army; Ukrainian women's association of Canada; and the Pioneer Women's Organization Inc.
I want to point out that this is a most influential group, very well organized and well informed on the problems of the Canadian consumer today. It is also one which is very interested in seeing that buying habits are protected. Their aim-and I quote-is: "to protect against promotional devices which add nothing to the value of the goods they sell and which in no way help consumers when making purchases to get best value for money."
Another organization which is also a large one and which is opposing this movement is the Retail Merchants Association which is made up of a very large number of independent merchants, from every province in Canada. This organization labels trading stamps "a parasitic innovation in the mercantile blood stream". Its very able president, Mr. David Gilbert of Winnipeg, explains that in endeavouring to get across this lure of something for nothing "they tell you the bargains available on stamps, not bargains available on food."
I might mention also that this stamp program has been opposed by the Canadian Congress of Labour which has through its chairman described the stamp program as "an attempt to levy tribute on the retail trade." I might mention also that two other organizations which have recently come out against trading stamps are numerous C.C.F. groups and the young Progressive Conservative association of Canada.
May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
John Augustine Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, when we rose at six o'clock I had been detailing groups of organizations that were at present 
taking strong objection to and fighting the trading stamp system. During the supper hour I happened to look up a couple of papers and I found several samples of the type of advertising one can expect under this and other similar programs. For example, I have one here with a number of pictures of dollars on it purporting to be coupons worth $5, $10, $25, and so on. Another paper I looked at had a full-page advertisement of one of the supermarket firms, and over one third of the page was taken up with the words, "Free 300 Stamps". It also has the picture of a smiling child alongside. These are just several examples of the kind of advertising that the public is subjected to under the trading stamp system.
Let me give a brief rundown of what the provinces are doing with regard to trading stamps. Last November the government of Alberta passed an order in council banning trading stamps in that province. In Manitoba the legality of trading stamps is before the court of appeal of that province at the present time. In Saskatchewan prosecutions have temporarily rid the province of trading stamps. Many cities are doing the same thing. Recently, the Vancouver city council adopted a policy of refusing business licences to those dealing in trading stamps. In the Gazette of February 1, 1960 there appeared an article headed:
Stamps mean higher costs, slow service.
The article reads:
The Quebec farmers association, in a statement issued Saturday, termed premium stamps "a malevolent form of promotion, harmful to both producers and consumers.
As a promotion gimmick, they serve only to draw customers away from one store to another. When all stores have stamps their net effect is higher cost, slower customer service and a larger part of price mark-up for stamp boosters", the statement added.
The inevitable effect of premium stamps, the association claims, is to increase costs.
"Stamps provide a form of competition between stores which is subtle and less likely to lead to real competition than price reductions."
Many other groups and societies have registered their strong objections to this reprehensible form of merchandizing. Mr. Speaker, the old saying is, "where there is smoke, there is fire". I submit that there is ample evidence that a large body of independently-minded citizens object strongly to this form of merchandising. The reasons have been partially covered by previous speakers, but I should like to go over a few of them.
Back of this whole movement is the pressure applied by the trading stamp companies themselves and, of course, this is backed by the motive of profit. A good proof of this is stated right in this publication called "The

Case for Discount Stamps in Canada" from "the information bureau on discount stamps" by the Sperry and Hutchinson Company of Canada Limited, 600 University Avenue, Toronto. It states on page 12:
Discount stamps are not a panacea for poor merchandising practices. But, documented case histories have shown that, everything else being equal, the retailer who operates a sound plan and promotes it properly is going to enjoy increased volume-and most important-increased profits.
This establishes very clearly that the main purpose of trading stamps is to increase profits. It is a very frank statement and, in order to attain those increased profits, some companies are ready to engage in all kinds of questionable tactics. This booklet also admits that trading stamps must increase sales by 12 per cent to cover costs. I quote from page 11, where the following question was asked:
How much must a retailer increase his volume for his overhead cost per dollar of sales to fall enough to offset the cost of stamps?
The answer reads:
Too many variables are involved to give a precise answer and it varies from business to business. But the average supermarket operator, for example, can cover this cost if he can increase his volume approximately 12 per cent.
In other words, once a chain of stores or a store enters into such a program they must increase their sales by at least 12 per cent to cover their costs.
Food chain stores themselves have disagreed on stamps. A number of them, with more courage and principle perhaps than others, have not been taken in by the trading stamps fad and they definitely remain aloof. Other chain store operators have admitted that they raise prices and others argue that they do not. One chain store executive said: "These gimmicks are nothing but parasites preying on the public gullibility". Another commented: "It is like a disease, a cancer that just keeps growing".
It is generally agreed that the customers themselves will pay 2 per cent additional costs where such plans are in operation. Sometimes the prices may be lowered temporarily in certain areas, but when everybody gets into the trading stamp plan, which so often happens as a result of the merry-go-round, the customer does pay that extra 2 per cent, and the only one who really profits is probably the trading stamp company at the back of it.
The royal commission on price spreads had a great deal to say about the fact that the public is paying extra for continually increasing packaging and processing charges before the sales are made. There has been no increase to farmers and fishermen, the primary producers who initiate the products in 79951-0-471
Criminal Code
the first place, whom many of us represent and wish to assist and who deserve every assistance possible. Trading stamps are added, often unnecessarily, like fancy and eye-catching packaging, to the cost of the product and the ultimate increased cost to the consumer. It is no wonder under these circumstances that the Canadian Association of Consumers and other organizations are waging an all-out battle against the false representation of trading stamp programs. It is true that these campaigns are luring a great number of adherents but that, of course, does not by any means mean that they are right.
I hope that the compaign being waged by the Canadian Association of Consumers will be eminently successful in combating this menace. The whole merchandising and retailing field would be better off if it could be rid of this nefarious practice. It has been amply shown that trading stamp programs are based essentially on misrepresentation. They hold down the price to the producer by gobbling up the additional price spread when prices go up. They add to the servicing cost and often are a substitute for lower prices. They tend to confuse the buying public on proper values and often deprive consumers of necessary services when the costs of trading stamp plans are added to the product.
All in all, the buying public would be far better off in the long run, even if they do not realize it at the present time, although I think they will catch on before too long, if all trading stamp and similar programs were eliminated. And if the retailer and consumer were to combine so as to realize the ultimate satisfactory condition in that field where the merchant gives-and the customer receives the maximum of quality and service for his or her dollar when this great mirage of trading stamp programs is removed completely from the scene.
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-
Rosemoni): Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes I should like to consider certain aspects of Bill No. C-5 in connection with the amendment of section 322 of the Criminal Code respecting trading stamps. The question of trading stamps has aroused a great interest among the public and at this point I might underline immediately the strong attitude taken by the Canadian Association of Consumers, as reported by the Toronto Star in their issue of January 12 where they say:
We object to these schemes because they increase distribution costs and thus increase the cost of living.
This brings up a very important question. Do trading stamps in fact have the result of increasing the price to the consumer? At this time of unemployment and tight money,

Criminal Code
when more than half a million Canadians are living on unemployment insurance benefits, this is really a matter of great importance. If it is so, I do not think we should tolerate a system which has the result of increasing the cost of living.
I would have hoped that the government would have already investigated and brought this fact to light through a special committee which could also have examined the practice of giving away gifts and toys with the purchase of certain goods as is done today nearly everywhere in Canada. I suspect personally that such gifts and premiums are in the end paid for by the consumers. These are practices which it would be worth while to investigate in the interests of Canadian consumers.
But Bill No. C-5 is in fact a minor amendment to the provisions of section 322 of the Criminal Code. I have the impression that most Canadians have thought that since 1905 trading stamps were prohibited under the provisions of section 322 of the Criminal Code. It might be that at the time of the revision of the Criminal Code in 1953 a gate was opened to trading stamps. This is left to be proved.
But there is no doubt that an important controversy has developed between the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and the majority of the attorneys general of the provinces as to their mutual responsibility with respect to trading stamps. It seems that the position taken by the Minister of Justice is that the regulation of the contractual aspect of trading stamps between merchants and consumers is strictly a provincial responsibility. On the other hand, the attorney general of Ontario, Mr. Kelso Roberts, in the Ottawa Citizen of November 30, 1959 is reported to have said "that there is no particular piece of legislation in Ontario concerning trading stamps and that the responsibility remains with the federal government."
The attorney general of the province of Quebec has also expressed the same views in a recent interview on television. In the meantime, a certain portion of public opinion firmly believes that there is a blanket prohibition in the Criminal Code concerning trading stamps. Unless something is done immediately to clarify this situation, we are going nowhere but into a state of complete confusion.
In view of the fact that we are dealing here with a very important matter, a matter which affects most Canadians because it concerns the cost of living and the price of food, and because also of the opposing views expressed by the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general of most provinces, I think

the government of Canada should take the lead in helping to clarify the confused situation. This is of course a personal opinion but I think that the smoothest and quickest way of doing so is by way of a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. The government of Canada and the attorneys general of each of the provinces would have an opportunity, through their local agent, to go before the supreme court to discuss two or three questions that might be prepared by the able officers of the Minister of Justice. Ultimately, we would be in a position to obtain the opinion of the highest court on the following questions: I do not pretend, of course, that I have here covered in two questions the main points to be clarified. I do believe the questions prepared by the minister's officers could be along these lines:
First, are the contractual aspects of trading stamps, in so far as merchants and customers are concerned, strictly a provincial responsibility?
Second, does the enactment of legislation prohibiting trading stamps fall within the jurisdiction of the federal or provincial government? The results of a reference of that kind to the Supreme Court of Canada would be the first step in clarifying the responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments in this matter of trading stamps. The governments concerned would, therefore, be able to ascertain, quickly and without any discussion, their respective jurisdictions in that field, and thereafter it should be easy to tackle this problem of trading stamps.
However, if the Minister of Justice or one of his colleagues refuses to take advantage of the opportunity provided by this bill to give such a lead, to give a clear indication of the intentions of the government toward this important problem, then, Mr. Speaker, this government can be assured that hundreds of thousands of Canadians will resent this lack of leadership.


Stuart A. Fleming: In the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, the preponderance of opinion appears to be against the use of trading stamps. Some members have indicated that although for various reasons they do not favour the bill as an effective deterrent to the use of these stamps, others accept the bill as it is presented to us as a means of eliminating trading stamps from use in current mercantile practice in the promotion and merchandising of goods. I think, for my own part, that my opinion runs almost parallel with that of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse), who indicated his personal dislike of trading stamps but also expressed some doubt

as to the advisability and wisdom of endeavouring to pass legislation against one single aspect, one single manifestation of the promotional techniques of modern merchandising.
I believe there is another point that we should take into account, something which I do not believe has been taken sufficiently into account by associations of merchants in the country, by consumer organizations and others, and that is this increasing desire to go to the government to regulate and restrain business practices. I find, for my own part, that I am increasingly concerned at the possibility that, if all levels of business are going to continue to go to governments and say, you must protect us against ourselves, we will succeed finally in strangling entirely what we choose to call free enterprise, if we have it now. There must be some regard for the possibility that business itself and those who are opposed to this type of promotional practice have a responsibility to get across to the public, by every means at their disposal, by all forms of public education, the undesirable features of trading stamps practice.
I am not sure in my own mind that the government can continue to pass enforceable laws on every possible occasion that some particular division of business or industry feels its interests are being damaged. There is a great mass of laws on the statute books now which have fallen into complete disrepute in the minds of the public because the public does not believe they are desirable and people have no desire to obey them. I can think of one law which we have now that is flouted quite widely throughout the country because the public does not believe in it. I refer to our law regarding lotteries, sweepstakes and gambling of that sort. If we were to check up on the practices rather than pay attention to the protestations on the matter, we would find the law is being completely disregarded by a very large number of Canadians.
I should like to refer to the list of names of organizations read by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald) which have indicated their opposition to trading stamps. I have no doubt in my own mind that if I were to go downtown in Ottawa on Saturday morning to one of the large supermarkets I could find members of every one of those organizations purchasing their week-end provisions in a store that gives trading stamps. These are matters which must be considered when we are discussing a bill of this kind and when we are asked to consider whether or not it will do an effective job of protecting the public.
My own belief is that the public must surely by now know that if they patronize a
Criminal Code
store offering trading stamps the cost of those trading stamps and premiums is contained in the mark-up on the merchandise which they purchase. There is nowhere else from which that cost can come. It must be there. If the public is prepared to pay that mark-up in the cost of the article they buy in the store, accepting as part of the price the premium stamps or premiums of some kind or another, I feel it is the right of the public to make that decision for themselves. It may be more desirable for the store offering stamps to say in its advertising, if you do not want to take the stamps you can have the equivalent in a cash discount. I understand that is not done, but that is not to say, of course, that it might not be done. This is a possibility that might develop. But it is true also that the majority of the public who now buy in stores offering trading stamps have the opportunity of buying in stores that do not offer them. As long as this opportunity exists, it cannot be fairly said that anybody is being forced into dealing with merchants who offer trading stamps. There is not, therefore, any undesirable influence being exerted on the buying public.
However, on the other side of the picture, Mr. Speaker, I think we must emphasize that there are dangers in the trading stamp philosophy of merchandising, in this promotional type of advertising, these massive promotions which the general public now accepts and which, if they were to stop to consider, they should avoid on every occasion.
I think of instances of which I have been told where producers have been brought under influence to sell products-farm products in particular-to large chain operations at reduced prices in order to provide the chain organizations with the opportunity of offering specials. The chain store or the large supermarket concerned very often says that it is giving to the public a special at a very greatly reduced price. But you often find it is not the store that is giving the special at all; it is the man who supplied the store with the produce in the first place.
This situation works a hardship on certain branches of our manufacturing industries, processing industries and farm producers. But I think these things can be corrected only by an understanding on the part of the public of all the factors involved in the use of trading stamps, by an understanding on the part of the suppliers to the large organizations that it is perhaps not in their own best interests to become involved in contractual agreements whereby they must provide produce at prices which make possible the use of the trading stamp as a mass promotional device.

Criminal Code
I think that somehow or other educational programs must be undertaken by consumer organizations, the retail merchants of Canada, better business bureaux and others, in order to give the public some idea of how they may estimate for themselves whether they are securing good value for the money they spend. Very often it is now extremely difficult to determine. At the same time I think that we here in this House of Commons must be very careful about how we try to wrap the public up in cotton wool perhaps against the public's own desires and to protect it from itself.
This is the very same public to which, every four or five years, we come back and entrust the decision to name the government that will conduct the affairs of the country for the following four or five years. There is no doubt in our minds that when we go back to the people they can make a decision for themselves on how they shall be governed and I think we are presuming a great deal when we decide that they cannot make a decision on how and where they will buy the products and merchandise they require for their daily living. If we ever come to the point where we decide that we can make that kind of decision for the public, I think we are striking at the very roots and principles of the institutions on which our country is founded.
However, I will only say this further. It can be proven on analysis that trading stamps are nothing more than a means of persuading people to go into a certain store or market to purchase. If the public is given access to all the facts of what is involved in this promotion, the opportunity to make its own decisions and to understand perhaps any merits there may be in the system as well as the demerits, I think that in due course an educated public will take care of this problem for itself.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am greatly impressed by the number of people who are now using stamps of various kinds as a method of selling free enterprise. While it may be a form of free enterprise, we believe there are many problems arising from that practice that are not in keeping with free enterprise, if that phrase means competitive enterprise.
I visited a number of stores because I was concerned about the statement that was made the other day by the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) in which she said that the women of the country were very much in favour of having these trading stamps. I visited some of the grocery stores
[Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke) J
and several other small stores in order to find out whether or not they were in favour of these trading stamps and, if so, why.
In one small store I picked up a catalogue. Certainly it was a nice catalogue. I saw in it a great deal of valuable merchandise. I also picked up a little stamp book. The dealer from which I obtained it was interested in giving me the catalogue and the stamp book. Then I asked him his opinion. I said, "I should like to know whether you are in favour of the stamps, whether they have helped your business and whether you would like to carry on with them." He said to me, "Do you own a store?" I said, "No, I do not own a store". He said, "I am afraid I cannot tell you that. You will have to see the company that supplies me with the stamps". He did not want to discuss the matter at all. He may have had an opinion or he may not have had but he was not saying anything.
I looked at this little book. It is quite fancy in itself when it is empty. It has some interesting pictures in it. On the other side it has a number of quotations. Some of them-they are all along the same line-are quite interesting. Here is one:
Hurrah for Hannah Housewife She's really very wise She always shops at Gold Bond Stores And saves each time she buys.
Here is another one:
Here's a way to help your friends,
Says thrifty Sandy Saver.
Tell them to save Gold Bond Stamps And do them all a favour!
I would suggest that the people who are receiving this favour are probably the Gold Bond Company more than anyone else. It seems that this is a way they have of talking to the women. The women all show some interest in it.
We have been told that the C.C.F. want to legislate against the wishes of the people themselves and that sometimes we want to put into effect legislation because it is good for the people whether the people like it or not. I think that all we are suggesting is that if these things are free and if you are getting something for nothing, the C.C.F. would be more in favour of that happening than would anyone else I know of. I think it is also the contention of all hon. members who have spoken that somebody is going to pay for these premiums, these nicely coloured catalogues, and these fancy little books.
I am quite sure that Mr. Loeb is not in the business of retailing food and other merchandise throughout the Ottawa valley just in order to give you something for nothing. The reason that he went into the stamp company and is now president of it is that there is something in it for Mr. Loeb. I am quite

sure that somebody is going to pay for them because these stamps are not redeemable at the bank. The consumer is not going to get anything out of them for nothing. Somebody is going to pay for them and I am quite sure that everybody will agree that it is the consumer. We are of the opinion that the consumer does not always know that he-or she, in the main-is paying for the stamps which the public are told continually are giving them premiums for nothing.
I had an interesting conversation early this evening with a young lady who I understand is the public relations official for a number of these stamp companies which have got together and hired her to do a survey. In talking to her I was quite interested in learning that in six hours she was able to get 1000 signatures on a petition asking the provincial government to allow these stamps to be used in the stores and that she did this without a great deal of effort on her part. I do not think this proves that what we are trying to do is wrong. It just proves, as the hon. member for York-Humber pointed out the other day, that women may look at things in a different way.
In introducing this legislation I think the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) had in mind not only the legislative side of this question and some of the legalities and illegalities that are connected with it, some of which have been tried in the provincial courts and some that may be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, but I think he was also taking into consideration the moral aspects of it. I think this is where the disagreement comes in, that we believe that if a thing is not good for somebody, even if it makes money for other people, that does not necessarily make it any better. If these companies are going to put out these stamps and say, "This will cost you money; somebody will have to pay for it, and it will be you", that is all right. If the wife wants to take the money her husband gives her and put away a certain amount of it as a saving and at the end of six months come home with a lamp, she can say to her husband, "This is something which I bought, and I bought it because I was sharp enough to deal at a store supplying stamps which allows me to get this kind of premium."
However, if we are being continually handed the propaganda from the various stores that they are giving away something for nothing, then I think this would be as dishonest as if we were to sell cotton shirts and say that they were 100 per cent pure wool. There are laws in Canada to prohibit that particular scheme, and I think there should be restrictions to prevent schemes taking place in this other field.
Criminal Code
I notice that the particular book I have, and others, have come before the royal commission on price spreads, and they point out on page 52 of the Stewart report that the retailers' obligation is to purchase the stamps from the stamp company, usually in batches of 20,000 at $20 a batch. A batch usually represents $1,000 of retail sales. Apparently the cost of trading stamp plans to the retailers is equivalent to about 2 per cent of the sales.
It has been pointed out this afternoon by a number of speakers that it represents only a cost of 2 per cent. But they may not have read the next sentence, which goes on to say that executive and trade opinion is that the retailer requires an increase of at least 20 per cent in his dollar sales volume if the plan is to be judged a success. In other words, unless he can increase his over-all volume of sales by 20 per cent somebody is going to have to pay for this program directly, and it will probably be paid for by the consumer because of resultant higher cost of produce.
It is also a fact, which is not contested by anyone, that if all the stores in a particular area subscribe to one or another of these plans, then obviously the advantage to the consumer which may accrue where the volume increases beyond 20 per cent will not be lost, and each one of the retail agents will be stuck with a plan which he will have to continue over a period of time, and he will have no way of unloading this type of advertisement or gimmick.
It has also been said that most of this 2 per cent will go back to the consumer himself in the form of these plans. I would suggest that this is not my experience with the plan, because having been in two or three of the large grocery stores of today, and having done so myself on other occasions as a transient, in most cases these people not collecting that particular kind of stamp say, "I don't want the stamps", and they give them to somebody else in the line-up, or give them to the girl behind the cash register.
I suggest that beyond this there are many people who take these stamps home and never do anything with them. This is a complete loss, and there is no value at all in the argument that they are getting something which they have already paid for; if they get the trading stamps and do not take them back, they are not even getting what they consider they have paid for.
There was an interesting presentation of this subject by William Dennison, member of the board of control, Toronto, where he pointed out the case of a man he talked to who had met a particular problem in his dealings with these stamps. One pensioner wrote

Criminal Code
that he had carefully pasted some 2,290 trading stamps in a book supplied for that purpose. He spent about $229 in that store to get these stamps. He bought four bottles of glue costing $1.20, and he and his wife wasted many hours neatly pasting these stamps in the book. All he was offered in return for his labour was three ordinary cups and saucers worth from fifty cents to $1. This is one of the problems with these trading stamps. If you do not collect a fantastically large number of them, you do not get anything of value, and while probably you can get something for one hundred stamp books, it would not be worth the bother of getting them.
In glancing over this particular catalogue I will agree with those who have said that in the main it is merchandise of well known companies and worth-while merchandise of name brands. But I would suggest that those who are connected with one of these wholesalers could get this merchandise a great deal cheaper if they wished and in turn could give it to their customers at a largely reduced price compared with the price quoted in this book. Just to take one example, you can get a thirty ounce thermos bottle for one and one fifth books, which would amount to $4 worth of premiums. So this could be bought at a cheaper price than you are having to pay for it, and I would say there are no advantages in buying it this way. It is not a wholesale proposition; the catalogue is calculated on the full retail price.
I suggest that if we are faced with the problem of women not knowing what they should do, if we as men consider them to be inefficient in their buying habits, then I think we have to support this legislation to protect our women folk against themselves.


Edwin William Brunsden: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he suggesting that Canadian women are unintelligent?


William Arnold Peters: I am certainly not suggesting that, no. I am suggesting that probably a man supplying money for the groceries would consider his money better spent than if his wife were buying a number of the premiums contained in this book.
Then we go from that point to another, which is probably the crux of the whole matter, and that is whether or not this advertising the women are paying attention to is false advertising or not. I think this matter was given consideration in the report of the royal commission on price spreads by Dr. Stewart. On page 36 he had this to say: The ultimate misconception to which people can be led is that anything in the market is "free".
If consumers are misled by being induced to buy something which is said to be "better" when it is not, they may never find out. Further, we are 
reluctant to accept the argument that, if consumers find they have been misled, the lesson to be learned is to use better judgment next time. As we have pointed out, in the case of a new product, the consumer cannot tell whether or not she wants it until after the purchase has been made. For this reason, we feel that any argument that condones misleading advertising indicates a cynical disregard for the welfare of the consumer.
It is my contention that this is exactly what is happening in the advertising which is taking place in connection with these stamp programs. On every page of this bulletin you will find a reference to getting something for nothing, and I am suggesting that there is nothing for nothing. If people are to be told: you will be able to have this merchandise, but what you buy will cost 2 per cent more, then well and good. But if we allow people to think that they are getting something for nothing, then in my opinion this is advertising as false as any which already comes under the act. Accordingly I suggest that we prohibit the use of the trading stamps as the province of Alberta has done, and I suggest this could best be accomplished through the method advocated by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Frank Charles McGee: Might I be permitted to ask the hon. member a question? Having given us his views on the buying habits of motherhood, I wonder if he would favour the house with his views on sin?


William Arnold Peters: You want to ask about the Conservative party?


Frank Charles McGee: Is that your definition of sin?


William Arnold Peters: I would suggest that the purchasing trend of the women folk have not always been along the same lines as those of men. In this particular case I do not think it is because they are women that they are misled. It is simply because the propaganda surrounding trading stamps is directed to them and they are not acquainted with all the facts.


Miss Margaret  Aiiken@York-Humber: Mr. Speaker, I am simply trying to rise before the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) really becomes involved.
We have heard some extremely interesting views on this subject of trading stamps today, and having listened to hon. gentlemen on all sides of the house I can only assume that nobody likes trading and discount stamps except the women who do the buying in this country. Personally, I can agree with much that has been said today. I have no particular regard for these gimmicks, but I feel very strongly that it is a ridiculous thing for this government to spend all day being asked to

put in our Criminal Code, the basic law oi our country, such a trivial thing as a provision concerning trading stamps.
Actually, as the hon. member tor Saskatoon (Mr. Jones) said this afternoon, trading stamps are already illegal in this country. The reason is that back at the turn of the century stamp salesmen came to this country from the United States and sold the unsuspecting merchants this idea of trading stamps. Then when the time came around to collect the premiums the stamp salesmen had decamped. So the legislators of that day-1905-decided that the public was being victimized and that something should be done about it. But nobody in this country today has said that the public is being victimized in this way at the present time in regard to trading stamps, and, if they are, I think there are other ways of dealing with the question rather than by incorporating this inconsequential provision into our Criminal Code. One of those ways would be to oblige the trading stamp companies to bond themselves. That would protect the public.
There are some who say that these stamps are just a fad, and this may be true. I would not be surprised if it were true. If that is so, and if this is just a fad, what happens after it has died out, and-judging from the atmosphere in this house today-a provision has been included in the Criminal Code against it? What will happen? Some ingenious advertising man or promotion man will dream up another gimmick and everybody will rise up in wrath and say: these poor women are being fooled or duped. We are much smarter than they are. They should not have anything to do with these things, and we must ban them under the Criminal Code. Mr. Speaker, in the course of time we would have a Criminal Code stretching from here to Halifax.


An hon. Member:: A dreadful thought.


Margaret Aitken: I remember that some years ago somebody dreamed up a gimmick and put cards in cigarette packs. People collected these cards, and when they had a deck of cards they were entitled to a premium or gift. As I recall it there was no particular outcry against that, and there are no cards in cigarette packages today. In other words, these things come and go, but to legislate against them in our Criminal Code every time they occur seems to me to be ridiculous.
Mention has been made of the cost of these stamps and it has been argued that they inevitably cause the price of food to rise. The merchants using the stamps say that is not so, and that the increased volume of sales covers the cost of the stamps. As we know in this house-and we have been listening to 79951-0-48
Criminal Code
examples in the last ten days-incredible things can be done by the manipulation of statistics. In the end it is the consumer buyer who judges cost, and I personally cannot believe that in this very competitive field of food merchandising one merchant is going to let another merchant undersell him, stamps or no stamps.
Some years ago, in 1956 or 1957, I wrote some columns in this subject of trading stamps because it interested me. This was before it became a controversial subject. I received a great many letters from those "poor simple women" who collected stamps as well as from some other people, and one of those was from a man who tried to explain to me how the costs are absorbed in this business. In the example he gave me he said there was a particular company which had a warehouse. To maintain this warehouse costs $50,000 a year. After introducing trading or discount stamps the company found that the volume of business increased so much that it was able to put on a second shift of workers. This, of course, gave added employment to the community. That was just an incidental. The cost of maintaining the warehouse remained the same, but there were two shifts of workers, and the second shift was paid for by the added volume of business. We have not heard of this kind of statistic today.
I can understand why socialists would introduce such a bill as this. Socialism is dedicated to more and more controls over private enterprise and competition.


Frank Howard: That is not true.


Miss Margaret  Aiiken@York-Humber: It has been pointed out in editorials all across the country that when restrictions are placed on competition the consumer is the one who suffers most. I am not advocating trading stamps. I have never collected them and I never expect to.


An hon. Member:: You never know.


Miss Margaret  Aiiken@York-Humber: No, you do
not. Some people claim that trading stamps are irritating. To tell you the truth, I would be inclined to agree with this if one did not collect them. But, Mr. Speaker, I find advertising interruptions of a good program on television terribly irritating. I am not going to come to this House of Commons and ask for a ban of those advertisements on television, and I will fight violently against such a thing. I am not advocating trading stamps but I am advocating private enterprise.
My whole premise in this matter is that governments should not be asked to interfere with or legislate against such unimportant things. Our Criminal Code embodies the basic laws of our country and I feel that it should not be cluttered up with such

Criminal Code
trivia. If all the irritants of life were brought to parliament and we were asked to ban them in the Criminal Code, as I said before, the record would stretch from Halifax to Victoria.
My reasons for being against this bill boil down to four. It is ridiculous that such trivia should be part of our Criminal Code, when there is no proof-and I have listened very carefully all day so far-that anybody is being victimized. I know the hon. member for Timiskaming thinks that the women are being fooled, but even he did not say they were being victimized.
Such gimmicks will be always with us. If it is not trading stamps it will be something else, and how far should we go as a government in interfering with these things. To date there has been no proof that there has been an increase in the price of food, but most important of all, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is a socialist bill aimed at the curtailment of freedom and of competition.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the hon. lady a question before she completes her remarks? Will she indicate whether she would be favourably disposed to removing from the Criminal Code the definition of trading stamps as contained now in section 322 and section 369, I believe it is, which prohibits the use of trading stamps?


Margaret Aitken: Would I be willing to-


Frank Howard: Will the hon. lady indicate whether it would meet with her approval to eliminate from the Criminal Code the definition of trading stamps contained in section 322 and also remove from the Criminal Code section 369, I believe it is, which prohibits the use of trading stamps? Would she be favourably disposed to removing these sections from the code?


Margaret Aitken: Mr. Speaker, I think I will have to resort to a cabinet technique in this instance and say I would like to give it consideration.


Murdo William Martin: May I ask a question? The hon. lady mentioned in her remarks that trading stamps are illegal at the present time. But it is also obvious that the practice is very widespread. I should like to ask the hon. lady whether she agrees with the sentiment expressed in a comic strip which has more political education in it than most of the editorial pages of our daily newspapers? I am referring to Li'l Abner by A1 Capp, in which General Bullmoose said it is all right to be illegal as long as you do not break the law.


Margaret Aitken: Mr. Speaker, I am out of my league; I do not read the comic strips.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest this afternoon and this evening to the many speeches on the bill concerning trading stamps. At this time I should like to say a few words. In my remarks I shall take a little different approach to the problem than has been taken in the house today. I personally feel that it is of major importance to deal with this bill and that it should have earnest consideration of hon. members.
It has been suggested here today that the government should not have any part of or take any part in a case of this kind; but it is of major importance when one is dealing with the welfare and future of 300,000 small businesses. This figure is taken from the 1951 census and excludes small contractors. Perhaps it is a very conservative estimate. It also has to do with over one million of our workers.
As members of parliament, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that it is also important to the government, when one considers that every one of the small businessmen pays municipal taxes, provincial taxes, federal taxes and income tax. We should also remember the large number of people employed by various wholesale houses, warehouses, and the travellers whom they employ who are continually on the roads, staying at our hotels, motels and summer resorts and who are each and every day buying their meals in the different places along the road and purchasing motor products. Then there are the number of cars, trucks and railroads whose facilities are used for the delivery of this merchandise in Canada. Not to be excluded is the gasoline tax derived from all those vehicles.
A major fact also is that almost every dollar of the money spent by the small merchant is recirculated in Canada. That means the profits are not going to another country.
I should like to point out that at least the majority of our small businessmen want to buy and do buy Canadian-manufactured goods. It is my opinion that if these gimmicks are allowed to continue it will matter not whether the goods are manufactured in Canada. Price only will be the guide. I should like to point out that this is one way in which business and money can be spread throughout the entire country, thus giving small business a chance of survival. Therefore I feel personally that trading stamps should be abolished.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the pros and cons with respect to the matter of trading stamps. Having in mind all the speeches I have heard today, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) for taking such an objective attitude. I believe we should take an objective stand. Personally I think the subject matter is ultra vires of the federal parliament. In my opinion it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces under property and civil rights.
At the present time several cases in Manitoba have not been heard by the court of appeal and we do not know what the decisions will be. Hon. members who support the bill have referred to the fact that the province of Alberta has prohibited trading stamps, and we must be sure whether it is the federal parliament or the provincial legislatures that have jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, we have the bill before us and I think we should take an objective attitude toward it. We should analyse it from all sides. I should like to take the other side of the question and defend the poor stamp. I do not do so just to be different but because I feel that both sides of the question should be heard. We know who are opposed to trading stamps. We know that especially in the big centres the chain stores, in order to attract business, have entered into the scheme of giving so many trading stamps for every dollar of goods purchased. This hurts somebody but every promotional scheme, every promotional device, hurts somebody.
To refer again to the speech of the hon. member for York-Humber, I believe that we are creating a tempest in a teapot. If this scheme or gimmick is abolished some other smart scheme will be introduced. If it is to the detriment of consumers it will die a natural death and we should not clutter up the ' Criminal Code any more than it is already. This is a promotional scheme or device and we live in a free country with a free economy. Every business has to fight for every dollar it gets and various schemes are used. Trading stamps are just one scheme. Are we going to abolish all of them? I am going to list a few of them. What about newspaper advertising? We see whole page advertisements in the daily press, and they must cost a pretty penny. Who pays for them? You and I, the consumers, only we do not see it. We get one of these trading stamps for every ten cents worth of goods purchased and some people want to treat this as a crime. I do not want to mention the store I get them from because that would be an advertisement for the store.
79951-0-481
Criminal Code
But who pays for the pages and pages of advertising of groceries, dry-goods and everything else? Whom does it hurt? I will tell you. It hurts the little merchant, the little grocer who cannot afford to advertise. Then we have advertising on radio and television, which was also referred to by the hon. member for York-Humber. I think she took part of my speech away.


An hon. Member:: That is a woman for you.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Whom do you think pays for the time of that sweet lady on television who holds in her hand a pack of cigarettes and sings, "Ask for-" or "Smoke..."? Who pays for that if not you and I? Every customer who buys that particular product pays for it. Why is there this advertising on radio and television? It is a promotional gimmick or device to get customers interested in the particular product, to get them to buy. Trading stamps are just another promotional device and I see absolutely no difference between them and newspaper or radio and television advertising.
If we are so concerned about the cost of the product being increased on this account, we might as well make it illegal for people to advertise in the newspapers and on radio and on television. There are other promotional devices that competition has compelled business to use. Let me give an example. I do not know whether those who live in the large centres get them but I know that in rural Manitoba envelopes containing coupons are received by the householders from time to time. With a coupon I can go to the store and get a certain brand of cereal for ten cents less. The coupon is worth ten cents if I buy that cereal, or it may be a coupon for a certain brand of toilet soap, soap flakes or something else. The coupon is worth so much. I have seen little storekeepers up to their necks trying to sort out these coupons at the end of the month because they get a refund on them.
But who pays for them if not the customer? It costs money to print the coupons. There is also the cost of postage stamps and envelopes to send them to the householder. We pay for these things. We might as well make these schemes illegal. There are also coupons for the purchase of tea, coffee and so on. We have seen advertisements that if you buy a tankful of gas you will get a carton of soft drinks or something else free. What is the reason for that? Is that not a promotional device? You can call it a gimmick or whatever you like, but business must fight for every dollar it can possibly get from consumers. In the case of all these devices I ask the question again, who pays? You pay and I pay.

Criminal Code
At the beginning of my address I said that we know those who are against trading stamps. But I wonder how many members have noticed in today's Ottawa Journal a story with the headline, "1,000 City Women Join Fight to Keep Trading Stamps". I believe that for every woman who objects there must be ten who are in favour, and the attitude of these women is becoming known. They are organizing throughout the country.
I believe in our free economy, and I believe in the integrity and common sense of our women who do most of the buying. They have a choice of the stores they want to patronize. They can very quickly detect whether or not they are being fleeced. They can very quickly detect whether or not, by virtue of receiving trading stamps, the quality of the goods is lower or the price is higher.
I have not heard any statistics, and we could have had statistics from those who wanted to support this bill, as to what happens to prices in the non-stamp stores. Mark you, Mr. Speaker, I would consider it a crime to permit the issue or receipt of trading stamps if it could be proven to my satisfaction, and the satisfaction of all Canadians that the customer is being fooled into believing he is getting something for nothing. Some reference was made to that by some hon. members. I could quote statistics given by Dr. James Phillips before the United States committee on agriculture, and who said that the customer does receive value for these trading stamps and the value he receives is anywhere from 1.55 per cent to 2.29 per cent on every dollar spent in the store. Unless it can be proven that the customer gets nothing, that he is fooled, then you cannot make this a crime. Any provision you place in the Criminal Code immediately creates a crime punishable by either a fine or a jail term.
Another point which I should like cleared up before I would condemn the present practice is whether the customer is cheated through the use of stamps. Are we so gullible and ignorant that we do not catch on? Are our wives and daughters so ignorant and foolish that they do not catch on to any scheme that tries to cheat them out of a hard earned dollar? I do not believe there was a single address during the course of the day which gave any indication that that was the case, or at least did not give us statistics to prove that was the case.
We have heard charges that this practice increases the cost of doing business. To whom does it increase the cost? Does it not increase the cost of doing business if a firm decides to take a full page advertisement in a daily

newspaper? Does it not increase the cost of doing business if a merchant remodels his store and puts in self-service shelves? Does it not increase the cost of his business if he puts in plate glass windows or if he hires extra boys to carry out the ladies' parcels to their cars? Is that not just another promotional device? These things do increase costs, but to whom? It has to be proven that this increase is all passed on to the consumer, and this has not been proven. I do not believe we have received any statistics on that point at all.
Those who promote these trading stamps naturally depend on an increased volume of business, and thus increased profits and increased employment. Certainly this hurts somebody. Every promotional scheme in a competitive economy such as ours always hurts somebody. When I started legal practice in my town, every time a new lawyer came in it was hurting me. This was competition, and it was taking business away from me. Every new merchant who comes in is competition and hurts somebody. Are we going to make it illegal to expand or are we going to kill competition when competition is the very essence of our economic life?
Another point upon which I would have liked to have some proof is, does the retailer increase prices? I would have liked to hear from those who would like to make this a crime-provided of course the matter is intra vires of the dominion parliament-whether or not the retailer increases his price by virtue of the fact he handles stamps. Does a pound of coffee of the same brand and quality cost the same in a store that hands out trading stamps as it does in a store that does not give trading stamps? If it costs the same, then who is being hurt? These trading stamps do have value, and if they have value then the customer is not hurt, and there are more customers than storekeepers.
I could name other devices, Mr. Speaker, which are practised by our retailers and even by the wholesale trade. I know of chewing gum manufacturers who come along with a deal and if a merchant buys so much of that particular product they give him a bathroom scale. I have actually seen that scheme in operation. This is another promotional scheme. Are we going to make that illegal as well because it hurts somebody? If your store is loaded up with that particular brand of chewing gum, then other chewing gum manufacturers have not much chance of selling their product to your store. That is a device we have. Then there is the device of giving an exclusive agency to one storekeeper, one out of ten, who will sell a particular manufactured product, whether it is a washing

machine, radio or something else. Are we going to make that illegal too? It hurts somebody. It is not fair for one Tom Jones, or whoever he is, to have exclusive selling privileges for that product. Are we going to make it illegal?
There are many other instances I could mention. Some people get so fired up by their missionary zeal to sponsor something that they would like to see the government take action upon that they want this practice declared a crime right away. Put everybody in jail. You have to consider these things in an objective manner, as the hon. member for York-Humber has done, and look at them from all sides. Let us find out first whether the matter is entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces. If it is entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces, then we certainly have wasted a wonderful afternoon and evening in this house. Supposing it is not within the jurisdiction of the provinces, Mr. Speaker, I think it is too trivial a matter with which to clutter up our Criminal Code. I believe that Canadian buyers, and our women, are intelligent enough to see on which side their bread is buttered. They will go where they can buy the best quality goods at the best prices, regardless of whether or not they are getting trading stamps.
(Translation):


Vincent Brassard: Mr
Speaker, unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity of hearing those who spoke before me in this debate. However, without wishing to promote my own business, I may say that, for the last fifteen years, I have been operating a meat packing business and dealing with more than six hundred food products retailers. Therefore-without wishing to make any invidious comparisons- I know the problem perhaps a little better than lawyers or intellectuals who form part of this house.
I know the problem, because I live with these people; I have been working with them for fifteen years and I know, for instance, that our small grocers are an essential link in the economy of our country. I know also that, in winter, when our workers are temporarily jobless, when our farmers are short of income or when our fishermen are idle, small grocers are the ones who finance the situation, who advance food and who, in other words, are responsible for the maintenance of the economy.
Alongside those independent grocers and dealers, we have large chain stores, those multi-million enterprises having at their disposal extraordinary means, able to hold a weekly draw for a car, and at the same
Criminal Code
time distribute trading stamps, or else buy whole pages of advertising in large dailies, or use television. Those large undertakings, which sell on a strictly cash basis, have no doubt served the Canadian economy. But they must not be allowed to squeeze out small grocers, small independent merchants.
As Conservatives, if we consider the maintenance of private enterprise as a matter of principle, we must, it seems to me, legislate in such a way as not to remove small independent merchants, because, once they are out of the picture, one thing only will remain: a chain of huge business firms. This would be the first step toward socialization. Indeed, socialization is unthinkable when there are thousands of small business firms, but it would be quite possible with just a single group of large corporations.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, after stating the disastrous effects of trading stamps with regard to the small business man, I am necessarily in favour of the bill before us. I am supporting it, not because the distribution of trading stamps is, in itself, a criminal action, but simply because I believe it to be a system that helps suppress small business,-which is immoral.
We have had instances in my own district, where we witnessed more than 28 bankruptcies on the consumer market this year. That is a figure which makes one stop and think, and it can be attributed to the competition of those large business firms.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support the bill before the house, on the principle that the government is responsible for protecting free enterprise, even if, to do so, we have to put the brakes on the activities of some people who are more enterprising than others.
I believe that is a necessity. The little corner store must be saved because it has been part of our economy for a great many years and, I think, will still remain a necessity in the years to come.
(Text):


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with a great deal of interest to the debate this afternoon and this evening. I can understand the motion put forward by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) because his thinking is to this effect, "Let us force somebody to do something". I think there would be disappointment to hear another hon. member from that small group admit that he could not budget on his own salary. I should like to make him an offer and it is this. We will budget for him.

Criminal Code
Several things have been admitted here today. One thing I should like to point out is that we in Canada have some of the finest legislation in the world for the protection of our consumers. We have our Food and Drugs Act, we have our marketing acts and we have our grading acts. All I should like to say is that any consumer who cannot read should get somebody to do it for him. I repeat that people are protected.
There is nothing new about trading stamps, premiums or about any of these things. They have all been in existence for centuries. However, it is left up to the individual whether or not he wants to accept them. When you buy porridge-and I will not mention the brand name-and they say they are going to put in a cup and saucer, what are you buying? Are you buying a cup and saucer or are you buying 16 ounces of porridge? That is your privilege.
I assume that the wife of the hon. member for Skeena has the same control over the purse strings that my wife has.


Frank Howard: Probably greater.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Like 90 per cent of the women of this country, my wife does the shopping for my family. The insinuation implied by the introduction of this private bill is that she has not enough ability to find her way down to the shopping centre. If we want to protect the consumer, we are going at it from the wrong angle. We should not tell the consumer, "You cannot go there". Nobody drags him in off the street. We have certain other angles from which we can attack. In its legislation the federal government today is protecting the consumers against adulteration. It is making sure that they are getting what they pay for.
We could approach the matter from another angle. What about all the zoning laws in the city of Ottawa? Some women have not the time in which to go all the way downtown. They are forced to shop in certain areas. I do not think we are going to gain anything by saying to the customer, "You cannot take trading stamps". You are not obliged to take them. You may leave them on the desk and forget about them.
As to trading stamps, they are not new. In 1952 the premium houses came out to Saskatchewan. They came to sell us an advertising deal. I am now speaking as a merchant. They said, "Here, we will set up a scheme for you. We will provide the stamps. Here are your premiums. It will cost you so much". As an individual businessman I had my choice. I really appreciate the criticism we are getting from that little

group over at the left. We have been told not only that many of us could not make a living but will never be able to make a living. In fact I appreciate their interest, but we are not the group that are asking for pensions. The basic thing is this. As an individual businessman I had the choice of accepting or rejecting that scheme. I made that choice and it was not based on nebulous reasons. I made it as a businessman. The question was whether it would pay me to spend that much money on advertising. It would not pay me, so I did not accept the scheme.
Now, I do not think that because I decide it will not pay me I should stop my neighbour from making his decision as to whether it pays him. If he loses his shirt that is his business; if he makes money, that also is his business. But I am so tired of being looked after by these connoisseurs, and I think a great many other people in Canada are getting tired of it too. We have just wasted a good deal of time, costing the Canadian taxpayer a good deal of money today, on an argument that the average taxpayer does not give a darn about.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, I imagine the hon. member for Skeena, (Mr. Howard) has had a great deal of edification today in the way his proposed bill has been debated. Before I give my views on this subject, I should just like to go back to a question he asked the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) with regard to whether that hon. member would be willing to have section 322 deleted, and some other sections too.
In order to set the stage, so to speak, for this, I would like to quote from the Canadian Grocer, the issue of November 21, 1959, which has to deal with an interview between the editor of that magazine and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton). It reads:
Mr. Fulton was interviewed by Canadian Grocer's Ottawa editor. His answers are clear enough in the story in this issue but they rate some emphasis because there is so much misunderstanding on the whole question-
The Criminal Code, including its provisions about trading stamps, is federal legislation. Its purpose is to protect against crime, which includes fraud and potentially fraudulent activities.
If trading stamps are inclined to produce fraud or fraudulent activities, then I suggest the Department of Justice will prosecute any company which is responsible for any such activity. But if trading stamps are simply another weapon in the free enterprise system in which one business competes with another business for customers, then

whether you agree with that type of advertising or not, it is still a very valid weapon to use.
The editorial goes on to make this point rather abundantly clear. It says:
Ottawa is concerned with the enforcement of the Criminal Code from the standpoint of preventing and punishing fraud. But it is inclined to stand clear of situations in which the code might be made the basis of actions in which the real purpose is not to eliminate fraud but to regulate business practice.
This is the intent of this bill. It is not to eliminate fraud. It has nothing to do with criminal activity. It is simply another way of regulating business practice. That is the fundamental weakness in the bill.
Much has been said about trading stamps. I know I am rather fond of certain types of dry cereals, but I am infuriated at the advertising on the box. You are always being asked to send five box tops and ten cents for a yo-yo, or some other toy. I would sooner have a reduction in price. But it is all right if that is the way they market them. As the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) pointed out, some stores may increase their costs by putting in, for example, some parking space. Others employ boys to take the groceries to the car, and so on. They are all competing by giving service in different ways. They are all competing with their advertising budgets. One store may spend a very large proportion of its allowable expenses on advertising, and other stores may spend only half as much. Who is to say whether the store which spends only half as much is giving better value in the goods they sell as compared with the store with a very high advertising budget?
I think we all experience the situation where we go down town to a large department store to look around. I know when I go in that I purchase right away. My wife is a very careful shopper and she looks and checks all the prices. Time after time she will come back to small stores in our own neighbourhood and get just as good or better value than from the large departmental stores. It is just a question of how that particular businessman runs his business, whether his money is going into advertising in all its various forms and ramifications, or whether it is in the form of advertising by word of mouth, being passed on from customer to customer.
We live in an age when advertising is essential, when it is one of the foremost tools of business, and advertising is slanted to influence you to come in and buy. If I may come back to the Canadian Grocer, the Ottawa editor goes on to quote the Minister of Justice as saying:
Criminal Code
-the present government feeling is that the trading stamp provisions of the Criminal Code do serve their purpose effectively, although if it were later found that loopholes existed which might permit fraudulent practices, including abuse of currency regulations, then Ottawa would be ready to step in with necessary amendments.
This editor points out that this bill has no place at the present time in this house. This bill is properly a bill to be presented in the legislatures of the various provinces, as it has in Alberta. The other thing which the editorial makes a point of, and I think this is something to be considered is this:
This leaves the other provinces a choice of going along with the federal Department of Justice on its attitude toward trading stamps, or taking local action of their own.
Canadian Grocer holds no brief for trading stamps. As a business practice they are justifiable only to the extent that they may produce sufficient added business to cover their very considerable cost without price increases.
But if it is a choice between freedom to give (and collect) trading stamps, and legislation by lobby, we will take trading stamps any day.
That is the key to the whole editorial, that lobbies, whether on the part of supermarkets or on the part of other business organizations or what-not, require legislation, and this magazine, which is perhaps the spokesman for the grocery business in Canada, says they want no part of lobbies.
The editorial goes on:
Existing legislation, if properly enforced, provides very considerable safeguards.
Then it goes on to point out some of the other safeguards which we have. It says:
The Combines Investigation Act and associated clauses of the Criminal Code provides for suitable action to be taken where any practice tends toward monopoly, undue restriction of competition and freedom of enterprise.
That would appear to be a fairly effective weapon in the Criminal Code. The conclusion of the editorial is this:
There are no doubt occasions when business practices can lead to chaotic conditions and when some form of legislative form of control is required both in the interests of the public and the trade. But a state of mind which leans upon regulation to protect the protectable from the rigours of competition is not one that points the way to success in so-called free competitive economy.
The point which has been laboured by speaker after speaker is that this bill, and companion pieces having the same philosophy, is an attempt to legislate people into being good. They are attempts to mould us into the form of the particular group of which the hon. member himself is such a distinguished member. They want to make us all one. They do not want us to be allowed to make any mistakes. They want to regiment us, and they want to regiment business.
I am sure that all hon. members have received this booklet which sets out the case

Criminal Code
for discount stamps in Canada. It is a biased book, because it is issued by one of the trading stamp companies, but it does present arguments for both sides. It points out, as several hon. members have done in this debate, that the Criminal Code was amended in 1905, and it also refers to a publication which was issued by the board of trade in the United Kingdom-the report of a committee set up to examine this question of gift coupons and trading stamps. The United Kingdom report is in favour of trading stamps or, rather, the committee takes the position that a cure would be a greater evil than the one it would seek to prevent. Some pertinent points are made in that publication, and under the heading "Arguments Against Trading Stamps" the report says one of the objections raised is:
That the customer of a stamp-trading shop is misled by the inducements held out into believing that he is getting something for nothing, whereas in fact he may be paying very heavily for his purchase.
That objection has been mentioned today and hon. members have commented on the philosophy of "something for nothing". Well, people buy sweepstake tickets and go to bingo games. The lure of something for nothing is felt within the human race and no legislation can ever prevent people hoping for a lucky bet, or a piece of luck in a lottery or winning something from one of these companies. The report goes on to mention a further objection:
That many trading stamp companies offer poor value in the gifts which they themselves provide.
That argument appears to have been well refuted. The gifts are well known branded household names. The gifts are good, if you can get them. Again, the report mentions the objection:
That the retailer is frequently unable to escape from the trading stamp system even though he may wish to do so.
This, I think, is a valid argument because although we hear that an increased volume of sales will mean that trading stamps may be used at no cost to the merchant, if everybody uses trading stamps, where is the increased volume to come from? If a company uses trading stamps as a means of building up a business, will it not be forced to continue the practice in order to maintain that business? However, a company would in any case be obliged to continue other forms of advertising in order to maintain its position, or be forced to continue giving other forms of service if it wished to keep its business.
Another point which the committee brought up was:

That trading stamp companies are essentially parasitic, providing no useful service to the community in return for the profit which they make.
This implies that all who are, say, hucksters are parasitic; that all advertising agents and all those employed in advertising media contribute nothing. I would think that that is not a very valid contention, believing as I do that advertising has contributed to the development of a higher standard of living in Canada, United States and the rest of the western world. Finally, this objection is noted:
That the system oilers special temptations to fraud by ephemeral trading stamp companies.
If that is the case we have provisions in the Criminal Code which will take care of that situation.
The Economist, a well known British publication, summed up the case against trading stamps very well, in my opinion, in its issue of May 2, 1959. It had this to say:
The National Chamber of Trade's report strongly deplores stamp trading (and all other forms of cut-price trading), arguing that traders will lose money, that customers will pay more for their goods, and that only the promoters stand to gain. There is some truth in these statements, but probably not much. Traders will lose no more money through this form of price-cutting than another: the moment it becomes too expensive they will no doubt drop it, and return to conventional pricecutting, if not to uncompetitiveness. Should all retailers adopt stamp trading schemes, prices would probably rise slightly to cover their cost; but competition should keep this to a minimum, and most price cuts-in supermarkets, for example-are now paid for by quietly "loading" other prices. The stamp traders will profit from their activities, certainly; provided they give value for money, why not? The one thing which is most certainly true about stamp trading is that the actual savings to the consumer are not as great as they are made out to be: but this is true in many, if not most, aspects of retailing.
I think that last sentence puts it in a nutshell. These trading stamps are simply an ingenious scheme-a scheme which started some 70 years ago in the United States but which is relatively new here and in the United Kingdom.


Frank Howard: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Ernest James Broome: I am afraid I want to finish this. What was the hon. member's question?


Frank Howard: I should like to ask the hon. member whether he would agree with me that he has now coined a new word in the House of Commons' vocabulary by brooming this bill out?


Ernest James Broome: What I have done, I think, is to put this bill in its proper light. This is light fare for the House of Commons; it has no place in this house-no place in being debated in this house because it is not really

an amendment to the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code as it covers criminal activities with regard to fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation.


The Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the house what is the business for tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we shall go into committee of supply and consider the supplementary estimates which were tabled yesterday. If those are finished we will then take as the second item of business the resolution on today's order paper in the name of the Minister of Justice dealing with an amendment to the Department of Justice Act. The third item of business would be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport dealing with an amendment to the Railway
Business of the House
Act and, item 4, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works dealing with amendments to the National Housing Act.
If the house disposes of these items we will then take second readings with regard to the Indian Act, the Canada Elections Act and the Export and Import Permits Act.


Lionel Chevrier: That is almost a week's work. May I inquire what we shall be doing on Monday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Monday will be private members' day. On Tuesday we shall resume consideration of the business I have just outlined.


Lionel Chevrier: In that order?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it will be in that order, yes.
It being three minutes past ten o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Questions



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the government or its agencies any control over operations of the Jacques Cartier bridge in Montreal?
2.	If so, what has been the toll structure on the bridge since 1956?
3.	Have any changes taken place in the toll structure or any modification in collection since 1956?
4.	If so, what are the changes?
5.	What has been the month by month income and expenses for this bridge since January 1957?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	From February 1, 1941 to 31 March, 1959 inclusive, the toll structure was in accordance with tariff of bridge tolls, national harbours board by law B-13, approved by order in council (dominion government) P.C. No. 635 dated January 29, 1941, and published in the Canada Gazette February 1, 1941. Approved by order in council (province of Quebec) No. 4091 dated November 27, 1940.
Since 1 April, 1959, the toll structure is as provided in tariff of bridge tolls, national harbours board by law B-13, enacted by order-in council (dominion government) P.C. 1959243 dated February 26, 1959. Published in the Canada Gazette March 11, 1959. Enacted by order in council (province of Quebec No. 87) dated February 4, 1959.
3.	Yes.
4.	The collection system was changed from a manually operated system to an automatic system. The major changes in the toll structure were as follows:
Item
1.	Passengers in vehicle ...
2.	Motorcycles-
Cash fare	
Commuted rate	
3.	Private cars-
Cash fare	
Commuted rate	
4.	Trucks	
5.	Truck-trailer combination
6.	Buses	
Before 1 April, 1959 50 or 10 for 25<J
On and after 1 April, 1959 Nil
15<S	250
Nil	80
60
250 to $1.50 Truck rate plus trailer, 200 to 700 600 plus passenger rate
80
250 to $1.50 500 to $2.00 $1.00
5. The month by month income and expenses since January, 1957, are as follows:
	1957			1958	
	Total	Total			
	Income	Expenditure			
January ...	$137,715.22	$100,586.14	January .	. $151,667.00	$116,423.33February ..	130,511.72	99,515.01	February	. 114,349.56	102,885.72March	166,545.15	103,841.24	March ...	. 150,518.55	104,812.41April 	192,474.09	105,753.41	April	. 204,184.28	110,391.16May 	210,390.82	105,465.61	May	. 191,475.57	114,165.05June 	232,192.97	112,753.67	June ....	. 201,911.89	118,271.32July 	249,611.14	114,798.40	July ....	. 225,743.67	108,776.31August 	232,314.43	122,796.09	August ..	. 219,951.90	107,652.56September .	200,504.00	108,178.82	September	. 199,266.30	121,162.14October ...	199,116.97	108,740.69	October ..	. 241,164.23	110,199.65November .	179,572.70	107,254.00	November	. 166,511.76	107,196.13December .	195,399.41	120,800.93	December	. 169,472.50	138,832.78January ..	$148,197.29	$134,424.28February ..	122,708.36	110,349.63March 	164,602.78	122,571.68April 	201,528.03	111,822.58May	173,066.91	122,939.50June 	195,541.08	127,209.59July 	203,248.17	122,351.10August ....	183,537.80	128,945.82September .	264,366.94	148,446.21October ...	344,143.74	125,089.60November .	247,472.08	124,174.87
^December
(*)Figures not yet available.


ADVANCE PAYMENTS ON GRAIN, 1957-58-59
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	What have been the costs, expenses and other financial obligations incurred by the treasury to date with respect to (a) the 1957 crop; (b) the 1958 crop; (c) the 1959, in the making of advances on account of initial payments for grain produced for the wheat board prior to delivery thereof?
2.	What have been the extra costs, expenses and financial obligations with respect thereto, if any, to be borne by the Canadian wheat board?
3.	What has been the average amount of advance provided per producer in each crop year?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
1.	Interest: (a) Crop year ending July 31, 1958, $476,895.30; (b) Crop year ending July 31, 1959, $519,275.91; (c) Crop year ending July 31, 1960, $324,412.62, (as at Dec. 31/59.)
Defaulted accounts; The government assumed liability in the amount of $50,241 for accounts placed in default as at December 31, 1958. Since this date, $22,122 has been collected from the producers concerned and refunded to the government in accordance with section 17 of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. Accounting has not been completed for defaulted accounts as at December 31, 1959.
2.	Crop year ended July 31, 1958, $153,923.20; Crop year ended July 31, 1959, $208,016.92.
3.	Crop year: 1957/58, $698; 1958/59, $758; 1959/60, $776, (as at January 20, 1960).


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-DAMAGE, COTE STE. CATHERINE LOCK
Mr. Argue: 1.	Has any damage been done by ships passing through the St. Lawrence seaway at Cote Ste. Catherine lock to seaway equipment, monoliths or lock structures since the beginning of operations?
2.	If so, (a) what was the nature and extent of the damage; (b) on what dates did it occur; (c) what ship or ships were involved; (d) why did it happen; (e) what is the estimated cost of repairs at the site of each accident?
Questions
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of
Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows;
1.	Yes.
2.	(i) (a) One post on lockgate walkway bent, damage minor, (b) April 26, 1959, (c) SS Santa Regina, (d) Vessel's gangway protruding over side, (e) $15.
(ii)	(a) One railing on lockgate walkway bent, damage minor, (b) May 15, 1959, (c) Vessel unknown, (d) Cause not known,
(e)	$100.
(iii)	(a) Lamp broken in hollow quoin recess, damage light, (b) May 19, 1959, (c) SS Corcovado, (d) Vessel too close to No. 3 gate, (e) Actual cost $9.25.
(iv)	(a) One railing on coping wall bent, damage minor, (b) May 20, 1959, (c) SS Merlin, (d) Vessel not under proper control while entering lock, (e) $45.
(v)	(a) Four posts on sector gate walkway bent and concrete of gate recess chipped,
(b)	June 10, 1959, (c) SS Marcos, (d) Vessel not under full control because of brisk wind, (e) Actual cost $113.65.
(vi)	(a) Concrete coping near gate 3 damaged, (b) September 7, 1959, (c) MV Iroquois, (d) Vessel too close to No. 3 gate, (e) $500.
(vii)	(a) Concrete lock wall above gate 1 damaged, (b) September 12, 1959, (c) SS Coeur Dalene Victory, (d) Steel brackets protruding from vessel, (e) $50.
(viii)	(a) Concrete lock wall near gate 5
damaged, (b) October 31, 1959,	(c) MV
Trans-Canada, (d) Vessel too close to No. 5 gate, (e) $150.
(ix)	(a) Concrete lock wall near fender No. 1 damaged, (b) November 11, 1959, (c) SS Sunnanbris, (d) Vessel not under proper control in lock, (e) $30.
(x)	(a) One gate footwalk, railing and electrical conduit bent, (b) November 16, 1959, (c) M.V. Rigoletto, (d) Improper handling of vessel's fender by deckhand, (e) $500.


SHIPPING ACCIDENTS, GREAT LAKES
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does the Department of Transport keep a record of all accidents involving ships in the Canadian waters of the great lakes?
2.	If so, what is the record for the shipping season of 1959, including the specifics of which of the ships involved were foreign ships and whether they did or did not have licensed pilots on board at the time of the accidents?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	The Department of Transport keeps a record of all accidents reported to the department which involve accidents to ships in the Canadian waters of the great lakes.

Questions
2.	Record of 1959:
(a)	Minor mishaps incurred
in berthing	 54 ships
(b)	Collision, grounding, foundering or fire-
(i)	British registry	 13 ships
(ii)	Foreign registry with
Department of Transport pilot on board	 14 ships
(iii)	Foreign registry (U.S.A.)
with no pilot on board_____	1 ship
Total	 82 ships
M.V. "saint JACQUES"


CARGO STATISTICS
Mr. Bourgel: 1.	What was the volume of goods transported by the M. V. Saint Jacques, owned by Captain Eugene Laboie, between Ile-aux-Grues and Montmagny, county of Montmagny, Quebec, during 1959?
1.	How many loans under part II of the farm machines were transported by the said vessel during 1959?
3.	What was the volume of goods transported during 1958?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of
Transport):
The Canadian maritime commission advises as follows:-
1.	537 tons.
2.	78 vehicles, 17 self-propelled farm machines, 11 hay bale pressers.
3.	287 tons.


FARM CREDIT ACT LOANS
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	How many loans under Part II of the Farm Credit Act have been made prior to January 15, 1960, between the former lending limit of $15,000 under the farm loan act and the new lending limit of $20,000?
2.	How many loans similarly have been made requiring utilization of appraised values between the former maximum limit of 65 per cent and the new limit of 75 per cent?
3.	How many loans over $15,000 have been made to January 15, 1960, under part III of the Farm Credit Act?
4.	Why was the act not proclaimed before October 5, 1959?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister
of Agriculture):
1. 112.
2.	(withdrawn).
3.	None.
4.	The Farm Credit Act was assented to on July 18, 1959 and proclaimed on October 5, 1959. The intervening period was required to arrange for the appointment of members of the corporation and for completion of the work of the Canadian farm loan board prior to the transfer of its functions to the farm credit corporation.


CABINET COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has there been a meeting of the cabinet committee on economic and industrial development since September 1957?
2.	What agency of the government of Canada is responsible for the policies of full employment including public investment?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker
(Prime Minisier):
1.	The means by which the cabinet conducts its business are traditionally regarded as its own domestic affair, and questions on the subject are normally neither asked nor answered. It is well known that many committees of ministers are formed from time to time, and meet as and when required, to facilitate the working of the cabinet as a whole. Only the two established by statute have power to exercise any legal authority.
2.	The cabinet as a whole is responsible for policies to promote full employment. The measures necessary to implement these policies are undertaken by numerous departments and agencies, under the directions of the ministers responsible for them. The public investment included in such measures is provided for in the estimates, and by loans and expenditures authorized by the National Housing Act, the Canadian National Railways financing acts and other statutes.


ROADS TO RESOURCES PROGRAM, ONTARIO
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	When did the federal government first make an offer to the Ontario government to share equally in costs of a construction program described as roads to resources?
2.	When did the Ontario government sign an agreement pursuant to this offer?
3.	What road projects have been mutually agreed will be constructed under the terms of the agreement?
4.	On which such projects, if any, has the federal government agreed to share in costs of any work done before the signing of the roads to resources agreement, and what is the estimated amount of any federal share agreed to be so paid retroactively?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	February 12, 1958.
2.	December 22, 1959.
3.	(a) Savant Lake south-Approximately 90 miles: This work, which will commence from the end of secondary highway No. 599, consists of new construction and the improvement of existing roads to connect with trans-Canada highway No. 17.
(b) Foleyet to Chapleau south-Approximately 60 miles: This work consists of new construction for the entire length commencing at the end of secondary highway No. 624 at

Foleyet, proceeding in a southwesterly direction to connect with highway No. 129 in the vicinity of Chapleau.
(c)	Minaki south

Approximately 15 miles: This work consists of new construction from Minaki on the Canadian National Railway southerly to connect with secondary highway No. 596 at Pellatt. From Minaki northerly there is an existing low standard road which may require improvement in order to provide access to potential mineral and timber interests to the north (subject to the approval in writing of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources).
(d)	Nakina northerly-Approximately 50 miles: This work consists of new construction from Nakina on the Canadian National Railway northerly via Cavell to the area in the vicinity of Percy lake and Melchett lake.
(e)	Goldpines to Uchi Lake-Approximately 50 miles: This work consists of reconstruction of an existing low standard road. It commences at Goldpines on highway No. 105 and proceeds northeasterly to Uchi lake.
(f)	Port Arthur north-Approximately 70 miles: This work consists of new construction from a point on trans-Canada highway No. 17 immediately east of Port Arthur, extending in a northerly direction to the vicinity of Cheeseman lake west;
(g)	Resource development roads in the northerly and northwesterly part of the province: Such other road or roads as may be mutually agreed after completion of a photographic and magnetometer survey and a geological reconnaissance to be carried out in the area north of the Canadian National Railway from Nakina westerly to the Manitoba boundary.
4.	The federal government has agreed to share in the costs of approved work done on and after November 6, 1958, the date when agreement in principle was reached with the province. The maximum amount of the federal contribution to Ontario under the program is $7,500,000. It is not possible, at this time, to estimate how much of the $7,500,000 will apply to work done prior to the signing of the formal agreement as claims have not yet been received from the province covering that work.


FROZEN PORK DISPOSAL
Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1. Have any quantities of frozen pork remained in storage longer than six to eight months?
Questions
2. If so, what disposition has the government made of inedible frozen pork after six to eight months' storage?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):
1.	Yes.
2.	There is no evidence that any government held pork has become inedible.


ROADS TO RESOURCES PROGRAM, ONT.   EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Benidickson: How many persons were employed on or about January 4, 1960, in Ontario on each road project subject to the roads to resources agreement?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
While the federal government shares one half the cost of constructing all roads covered by the roads to resources agreement, the actual work is undertaken by the provincial government, which awards all contracts subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. The federal government is, therefore, not in a position to say how many persons were employed on any project at any given time. This information could, however, be obtained from the provincial authorities.


OLD AGE SECURITY FUND
Mr. Carter: 1.	How much money has been paid into the old age security fund per month since July 1, 1959?
2.	How much has been paid out of the fund each month since July 1, 1959?
3.	What is the balance remaining in the fund at the present time?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
	(1)	(2)
	Paid into fund	Paid out
	(revenues)	(pensions)
	(in millions of dollars)	
July, 1959 . .	
43.7	47.5August ....	
44.5	47.6September .	
43.9	47.9October ....	
54.1	48.2November . .	
45.6	48.0December ..	
44.6	48.0276.4	287.2
(3) The balance remaining in the fund at the present time is nil. Temporary loans to the fund by the Minister of Finance, outstanding at December 31, 1959, amounted to $44.2 million.

Friday, February 5, 1960