1966-05-30

Mr. Richard Cashin (SI. John's West) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on industry, research and energy development, presented to the house on Thursday, May 26, 1966, be concurred in.


Mr. Caouelie:: On division.

Motion agreed to on division.



BANK OF CANADA ACT


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-190, to amend the Bank of Canada Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mitchell William Sharp: A bill to revise the Bank of Canada Act was introduced at the last session. It received second reading and was referred to committee but lapsed with the ending of the session on June 30. The present bill is identical with that introduced a year ago except for one minor addition.
The principal change in the Bank , of Canada statute which is being proposed is for the purpose of clarifying the relationship between the government and the central bank by authorizing the government, under conditions which are specified in the bill, to give the bank a directive concerning monetary policy.
Another important change is to authorize the bank to impose and vary a minimum secondary reserve requirement for the chartered banks in place of its present power to vary their minimum cash reserve requirement. A number of technical changes are also being proposed and some revisions to eliminate obsolete provisions of the act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


David Réal Caouette: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Douglas: 1.	Have any film camera crews been sent to Viet Nam by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation since January 1, 1965?
2.	If so, on what dates were such crews in Viet Nam?
3.	Was any film footage taken of the hostilities in Viet Nam?
4.	Is it the intention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to show any such film footage on television?
5.	If not, who made the decision not to show this film footage, and what was the reason for this decision?
6.	Was any film footage taken of American activities in Viet Nam?
7.	If so, is it the intention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to show this film footage on television?
8.	If not, who made the decision not to show this film, and what was the reason for this decision?
9.	Who were the members of any such film camera crews and what were the responsibilities of each member?
10.	How much film footage was shot by each such camera crew?
11.	What was the cost of sending each such film camera crew to Viet Nam?
12.	Has there been any showing of any such film footage taken and, if so, who attended such showings?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: 1.	Yes.
2.	News: (a) February 9-24; (b) March 29-April 22; (c) August (intermittently); (d) December 20-23. Public Affairs: August 24-Sep-tember 29.
3.	Yes.
4.	It has been shown.
5.	N/A.
6.	Yes.

May 30, 1966
Questions
7.	It has been shown.
8.	N/A.
9.	News: (a) Bill Cunningham, producer; Tom Gould, correspondent; Graham Mc-Mullin, camerman. (b) Bill Cunningham, producer; Tom Gould, correspondent; Bob Dutru, cameraman; P. Spence-Thomas, soundman, (c) Don Cameron, producer; Tom Gould, correspondent; Jean Bisson, cameraman; Roger Champagne, soundman, (d) Don Cameron, producer; Tom Gould, correspondent; Lars Tjernberg, cameraman. Public affairs: Beryl Fox, director and sound technician; Eric Durschmied, cameraman.
10.	News: (a) 8,000 feet approximately, (b) 14,900 feet approximately, (c) 13,600 feet approximately. (d) 5,100 feet approximately. Public affairs: 10,000 feet.
11.	News: (a) $6,750; (i hour Newsmagazine). (b) $11,031; (i hour Newsmagazine), (c) $16,040; (Two J hour Newsmagazines), (d) $7,600; (Part of Year-end Newsmagazine). Public affairs: $6,672; (Hour-long document: "The Mills of the Gods").
12.	Yes. In addition to telecasts by C.B.C. on December 5 and by B.B.C. in February, "The Mills of the Gods" has been screened for numerous interested parties in Toronto, New York, Washington, London and West Germany. Following screening by Long Island University, it was awarded the George Polk memorial award.


RADIO AND TELEVISION SERVICE
Mr. Laprise: 1.	In Canada, how many districts with a population of 500 people and more are not yet adequately served by private or state radio and, of that number (a) how many of these districts are inhabited by a majority of Canadians whose mother tongue is French (b) how many are inhabited by a majority of Canadians whose mother tongue is English?
2.	In Canada, how many districts with a population of 2,000 people and more are not yet adequately served by private or state television and, of that number (a) how many of these districts are inhabited by a majority of Canadians whose mother tongue is French (b) how many are inhabited by a majority of Canadians whose mother tongue is English?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the CBC as follows:
1.	At present, 89 areas with a population of 500 or more do not receive adequate national radio network service. In 12 of these, French speaking Canadians are in the majority; English speaking Canadians are in the

majority in the other 77. However, in some areas the majority language population is receiving service while the needs of the minority are not yet adequately served. Taking this into account, the breakdown is 37 French-language and 52 English language relay stations planned by the corporation.
2.	At present, 106 areas with a population of 2,000 or more do not receive adequate national television network service. In 17 of these, French speaking Canadians are in the majority; English speaking Canadians are in the majority in the other 89. In terms of general station planning, the breakdown is 33 French language, 73 English language.


TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING POTASH MINES
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has the government of Saskatchewan asked permission from the government of Canada to table in the Saskatchewan legislature all correspondence between the premier of Saskatchewan and the Minister of Finance for Canada concerning a request for changes in the application of tax regulations as they affect potash mines using the solution method of mining?
2.	If so, on what date was the request made?
3.	Has approval for the tabling of this correspondence been granted by the federal government?
4.	If so, on what date was approval granted?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1 and 2. As of March 18, 1966, no such request had been received. However, subsequent to that date a request along the lines indicated in the question was received and later withdrawn.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.


C.B.C. FILM &quot;RIVERS OF CANADA&quot;
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Who is responsible for the production of the C.B.C. television series "Canada 99"?
2. Who directed the filming of the Rivers of Canada, featuring the Saint John river, the Margaree river, and the Humber river, which appeared on the C.B.C. network Sunday, February 6, 1966, and (a) who wrote the script for this production, particularly the portion on the Margaree river (b) what was the cost of this program?
3.	What is the name of the young lady who appeared in the scenes about the Margaree river, and (a) is she a native of (i) Cape Breton island or (ii) the province of Nova Scotia (b) what was her salary for that role?
May 30, 1966

4.	Has the C.B.C. received any complaints or petitions regarding the above mentioned program and, if so, how many?
5.	Did the cameraman filming the scenes of the Margaree river have difficulty locating the Margaree river?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	The special features department of C.B.C.
2.	(a) The filming was directed by Michael Rothery and the script was written by Clement Perron, (b) Approximately $20,000.
3.	Miss Antonia McGrath, (a) No. (b) She was paid regular union scale.
4.	The corporation is not aware of any petition. Unfavourable audience letters and telephone calls totalled 79 nationally.
5.	No.


WHARF AND WAREHOUSE REVENUE, PUGWASH, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the total revenue received by the government from the public warehouse at the public wharf at Pugwash, Nova Scotia, for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65?
2.	Does Maxwell Allen occupy space in the public warehouse on the Pugwash wharf, and, if so, did the government receive a rental fee from him for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65?
3.	What was the total revenue received by the federal government for the use of the wharf facilities at Pugwash. N.S.?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. 1963-64, $106.66; 1964-65, nil.
2.	T. M. Allen occupied space in the shed during 1963-64 and a rental fee was paid.
3.	1963-64, $9,929.75 (gross); 1964-65, $21,384.81 (gross).


TRAINING PROGRAM, AGENCE MARITIME INC.
Mr. Bechard: 1.	Has the government been informed by Agence Maritime Inc.. Quebec city of the existence of a financial assistance program to encourage its deck and engine room personnel to obtain certificates of competency and, if so (a) of what does this program consist (b) when was it started?
2.	Have periodic reports been received by the government from Agence Maritime Inc. on the operation of this training program and, if so (a) how many members of its deck and engineroom personnel were reported as having taken advantage of the program during the 1965-66 winter season (b) how many of these members of its personnel have during the same period obtained certificates of competency as deck and engine room officers (c) what certificates of competency were obtained in each case?
Questions


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. When Agence Maritime Inc. began using larger ships in 1964, they required exemptions under section 137 of the Canada Shipping Act because of the unavailability of duly certificated officers and the company, when applying for such exemption in June 1964 informed the department that the company had initiated a training program to bring up the standards of its officers. In December 1965 the department was informed that the program consisted of granting employees leave, with pay, to attend training courses and examinations.
2.	Agence Maritime Inc. reported to the Department of Transport on 18 April 1966 that four of deck personnel and one of engine room personnel had taken advantage of the program. The records of the Department of Transport show that two of these have obtained certificates as master of a home trade steamship and one has obtained a certificate as third class engineer and it has not been necessary to issue any further exemptions in respect of deck officers.


PENSION PLAN RECIPROCITY WITH OTHER COUNTRIES
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Have discussions been held between the government of Canada and the governments of other countries concerning the possibility of reciprocal agreements with respect to the Canada Pension Plan and corresponding legislation in such other countries?
2.	If so, with what countries have such discussions been held?
3.	Have agreements been concluded with any other countries?
4.	If so, which ones, and what are the terms of each such agreement?
5.	With what countries are such discussions continuing?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes.
2.	Great Britain, France and Federal Republic of Germany. Arrangements are being made for discussions with the United States.
3.	No.
4.	See answer 3 above.
5.	See answer 2 above.


RECIPROCAL AGREEMENT WITH U.K. ON PENSION PLAN
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Have discussions been held between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom concerning the possibility of a
5668

May 30, 1966
Questions
reciprocal agreement with respect to the Canada Pension Plan and corresponding legislation in the United Kingdom?
2.	If so, what conclusions have been reached?
3.	If no conclusions have yet been reached, are such discussions continuing and will a report on such discussions be made to the House of Commons at an early date?


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The answer to the first part of the question is, ye,'. The answer to the second part is, none. The answer to the third part is yes, and a report will be made in due course.


RECIPROCAL AGREEMENT WITH FRANCE ON PENSION PLAN
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Have discussions been held between the government of Canada and the government of France concerning the possibility of a reciprocal agreement with respect to the Canada Pension Plan and corresponding legislation in France?
2.	If so, what conclusions have been reached?
3.	If no conclusions have yet been reached, are such discussions continuing and will a report on such discussions be made to the House of Commons at an early date?


Margaret Isabel Rideout: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part is none. The answer to the third part is yes, and report will be made in due course.


RECIPROCAL AGREEMENT WITH GERMANY ON PENSION PLAN
[Stage Direction]
Quesion No. 1,359-Mr. Knowles:
1.	Have discussions been held between the government of Canada and the government of Germany concerning the possibility of a reciprocal agreement with respect to the Canada Pension Plan and corresponding legislation in Germany?
2.	If so, what conclusions have been reached?
3.	If no conclusions have yet been reached, are such discussions continuing and will a report on such discussions be made to the House of Commons at an early date?
Margaret Isabel Rideout: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part is none. The answer to the third part is yes, and a report will be made in due course.


UPGRADING SCHOOLS ON INDIAN RESERVES
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Have educational upgrading schools been conducted on certain Indian reservations during the past winter?
2.	If so (a) which reserves have been involved in this program (b) when did these schools get underway (c) when did they conclude (d) how many students were registered (e) how many of these students completed the course?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. Yes.
2. See attached table.


UPGRADING CLASSES INCLUDING LITERACY COURSES ON INDIAN RESERVES
[Stage Direction]
No.
Region	Reserve	Classes Started	Classes Concluded	Enrollment	Completed ProgramMaritimes	-	-	-	Quebec	. .. Obedjiwan	October	March	32	24Miquelon	October	March	33	26LacCooper	October	March	5	5Pointe-Bleue	October	February	22	12Manowan	February	June	20	Bersimis	October	March	35	22Maliotenam	October	March	69	56Natashquan	October	March	15	0Romaine	October	March	35	29Mingan	October	March	70	59Restigouche	January	May	16	9Seven Islands	February	April	22	22Seven Islands	October	March	20	13Seven Islands	October	March	28	20Seven Islands	January	May	14	14Seven Islands	January	May	19	14Seven Islands	October	March	18	13
Classes Still in Session
[Stage Direction]

May 30, 1966 COMMONS DEBATES 5669 Questions UPGRADING CLASSES INCLUDING LITERACY COURSES ON INDIAN RESERVES 1965-1966-Concluded						
					No.	Classes
Classes	Classes	Completed	Still inRegion	Reserve	Started	Concluded	Enrollment Program	SessionOntario	.. Grassy Narrows	January	April	25	25	Lansdowne House	October	December	20	20	Webiqui	February	March	25	25	N ipissing	January	June	26	XSpanish	December	May	17	XCaradoc	December	March	8	4	Manitoba	-. Norway House	January	Mav	25	XShamattawa	October	March	13	9	Split Lake	September	March	19	13	Pukatawagan	May	30	XLake Manitoba	February	24	XJack head	January	March	24	2C	Peguis	November	May	26	XLake St. Martin	December	March	30	21	Long Plains	January	April	25	9	Oak River	March	24	XGod's River	November	December	32	19	Wasagamach	October	October	90	80	lied Sucker	January	June	30	XGarden Hill	November	December	16	13	God's Narrows	February	April	19	19	Saskatchewan	.. Standing Buffalo	January	March	IS	14	Standing Buffalo	January	March	11	4	Piapot	April	20	XPiapot	April	12	XMuscowpetung	April	11	XCowessess	January	May	20	20	Cowessess	January	February	20	18	Ochapowace	February	March	16	16	Alberta	.. Cold Lake	December	April	8	0	Saddle Lake	November	February	80	39	Frog Lake	December	March	23	20	Good Fish Lake	January	April	34	22	British Columbia ..	.. Alert Bay	February	May	14	XAlkali Lake	March	Mav	11	XBurns Lake	February	April	16	12	(Ft. St. John)-	Blueberry River	January	June	17	XCanyon City	March	June	8	XDoig River	February	April	12	7	Ft. Babine	January	March	13	8	Fort Ware	February	May	24	XGreenville	December	March	37	31	Halfway River	January	March	13	6	Kelly Lake	February	May	14	XMount Currie	November	June	16	Moricetown	February	June	21	XMusqua	January	February	4	4	Penticton	March	June	10	XPendleton Bay	October	December	11	8	Prophet River	January	March	19	11	Stoney Creek	January	May	18	XTakla Landing	February	March	18	12	Uncha	January	March	14	10	Total	1,604	877	23033-360J	
May 30. 1966
Questions

Mr. Ricard: 
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian Nationals Railways advise as follows:
1.	Yes. (a) No, (b) No; pursuant to the contract the contractor is required to supply the equipment.
2.	It is not within the knowledge of the company as to who is the owner of the equipment used by the contractor.


USE OF SEAWAY BY RUSSIAN VESSELS
Mr. Horner (Acadia): Are Russian vessels now being refused permission to sail up the St. Lawrence seaway to the lakehead?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows:
No. All applications for pre-clearance of Russian vessels filed to date have been approved.


GRAIN STORAGE IN LAKE VESSELS
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	How many lake vessels are being used and have been approved for storage and how much grain is being stored in them under the authority of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Forestry?
2.	Is any grain now being stored with the approval of the Minister of Forestry in storage facilities other than the lake vessels or licensed elevators in eastern Canada?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1. None. The storage assistance program expires on April 15 of each year. Last winter, under the feed grain assistance policy, seven lake vessels were approved by the Minister of Forestry for winter storage of feed grains, 2,661,000 bushels of feed grain were stored in such vessels.
2. No. However, during the time the program was in force this past winter the Minister of Forestry did approve non-licensed facilities at three Atlantic ports as supplementary storage.


COST OF INCREASING BLIND PERSONS
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has any estimate been made by the government of the total annual cost of the federal share of increasing allowances under the Blind Persons Act to (a) $100 per month (b) $125 per month (c) $150 per month?
2.	If so, what are such estimates?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. (a) (b) and (c)
No such estimates have been made. Under the Unemployment Assistance Act recipients of blind persons allowances can receive additional amounts based on need as provided in that act.
2. See answer 1 above.


AIR CANADA SERVICE TO RUSSIA
Mr. Allard: Will Air Canada set up the first direct airline connecting Russia with North America?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The answer to this question is not known with certainty at present. Air Canada is engaged in inter-air line discussions with Aeroflot. If these discussions and the necessary intergovernmental negotiations between the two countries which must also take place are concluded satisfactorily, a service between the U.S.S.R. and North America will be established.


WORK HOURS, COAST GUARD VESSELS
Mr. Douglas: 1.	How many days on the average does the crew, other than masters and officers of the Canadian Coast Guard vessels Racer and Ready work each year?
2.	How many hours per year does this average out to?
3.	How many days off does the crew, other than masters and officers, receive in addition to annual leave and statutory holidays?
4.	What is the rate of pay for the crew, other than masters and officers, on the Racer and Ready?
5.	When on leave, is the crew, other than masters and officers, of the Racer and Ready required to be on a standby basis?
6.	In compensatory leave granted to the crew, other than masters and officers, of the Racer and Ready for Saturdays and Sundays worked?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. An average of 225 days per year.
May 30, 1966

2.	and 4. Because of required standby and readiness arrangement, the crews operate on a two watch system of six hours on and six hours off for 28 days, followed by 14 days off duty ashore. This 42-day cycle averages out to 56 hours per week, and salary rate has been established on basis of a 56-hour week: seaman, $392; oiler, $401; steward, $399.
3.	Crew members are off duty 121 days per year exclusive of annual leave and statutory holidays.
5.	No.
6.	No, because of the special arrangements described above regarding the work cycle.


INQUIRIES BY INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH BRANCH
Mr, Orlikow: 1.	Has the government of Alberta requested the investigation and research branch of the Department of Justice to investigate the Canadian underwriters association for price fixing in the field of automobile insurance and, if so, is such an investigation being carried on and when is it expected that a report will be made?
2.	Did the city of Winnipeg ask the investigation and research branch of the Department of Justice to investigate identical bids and a possible combine in the sale of concrete and, if so, is that investigation being carried on and when is a report expected?
3.	Did the Winnipeg school board request the investigation and research branch of the Department of Justice to investigate identical bids and a possible combine in the field of electric light bulbs and, if so, is that investigation being carried on and when is a report expected?
4.	Is the investigation and research branch of the Department of Justice investigating the recent uniform price increases in newsprint inaugurated by Canadian newsprint companies, on the grounds that these and earlier identical increases indicate the operation of a combine?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Presideni of the Privy Council):: 1. Such a request has been received. The general practice, however, is that no information is given out as to whether a particular inquiry has been or is being pursued with respect to a particular group of companies or individuals unless and until a report is published or court proceedings have been instituted.
2.	Same as 1.
3.	Same as 1.
4.	In accordance with the usual practice, the combines branch carefully considers price increases in important commodities such as newsprint in order to determine whether the situation is such as to warrant formal inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act. The
Questions
general practice, however, is that no information is given out as to whether a particular inquiry has been or is being pursued with respect to a particular group of companies or individuals unless and until a report is published or court proceedings have been instituted.


AIR CANADA STEWARDESSES
Mr. MacDonald (Prince): 1.	Does Air Canada now make a practice of employing one less stewardess on flights from the maritimes to central Canada than it regularly employs on its cross-Canada flights?
2.	Was there only one stewardess on Viscount flight No. 433 on May 3, 1966 and only two stewardesses on Vanguard flight No. 701 on May 8, 1966 and, if so, for what reason?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Air Canada advise as follows:-
1.	No. Flight crew complements are established by aircraft type, the in-flight service to be provided, and the flying time available to provide that service, without regard for geographic areas.
2.	Yes, one stewardess on Viscount flight 433 Moncton to Montreal; no, there were three stewardesses on Vanguard flight 701 St. John's to Montreal.


RENAMING OF POST OFFICES AT DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENTS
Mr. Barnett: 1.	Has official action been taken to rename post offices associated with defence establishments in Canada since renaming of national defence establishments was introduced?
2.	If so, what are now the names of such post offices?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1. The Post Office Department and the Department of National Defence have agreed to the use of civilian names in the renaming of postal installations associated with defence establishments. At the present time names are being selected by the Department of National Defence which is submitting the individual names for consideration and implementation by the Postmaster General.
2. While no name changes have yet been settled, the Post Office Department is now clearing a number of suggested name changes with the Canadian permanent committee on geographical names.

May 30, 1966
Questions


EXEMPTIONS FROM SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIAL
Mr. Caouette: What wood materials are exempt from the 11% sales tax on building material, machinery and equipment?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Lumber and wood building materials are subject to sales tax except those building materials provided for in section 29 (2b) of the Excise Tax Act. Goods referred to in this section are taxable only with respect to the raw material content. Section 32 of the Excise Tax Act provides exemption for logs and round unmanufactured timber.


MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS, ARMED FORCES
Mr. McCleave: 1.	How many officers and other ranks of the Canadian armed forces made applications for pensions arising out of injuries received in motor vehicle accidents since 1956?
2.	Of these, how many were turned down on the grounds that the accidents did not occur during performance of military duty?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1, 2. This information is not available as statistics are not kept on the number of claims arising from motor vehicle accidents.


CHLORDIAZEPOXIDE HCL
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	Did Chlordiazepoxide HC1 appear on the market in the past month under the name "Nack"?
2.	If so, did the food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare approve the labels in conformity with the C.03.014 regulation and when did it do so and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Is the dosage of this product inscribed on the samples distributed to doctors?
4.	Is the active ingredient of this product of Canadian or foreign make and, if the latter, what country does it come from?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes.
2. Draft labels were submitted for review in January, 1966 and corrections were indicated to the manufacturer at that time. When the drug appeared on the market recently, the manufacturer was requested to make additional changes.

3.	The dosage of the drug is not inscribed in the samples distributed to physicians, but the package label carries a statement that the dose should be in accordance with the doctor's prescription. This drug is sold only on prescription.
4.	The active ingredient of this drug is manufactured in Canada.
LEnglish]


IRRADIATED FOODS
Mr. Schreyer: Have any studies been made by the food and drug directorate relative to the effects and possible dangers of the sale of irradiated foods?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes. In addition to studies which were carried out in the laboratories of the food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare, extensive research data from other institutions dealing with the safety of irradiated foods were reviewed.


SUFFERANCE WAREHOUSES, TORONTO
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to establish another sufferance warehouse in the area of metropolitan Toronto?
2.	What is the average length of time required to clear merchandise at the present two sufferance warehouses in Toronto?
3.	Under whose control and by whom are these two sufferance warehouses operated?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: The answer is in three parts. The answer to the first part is no. The answer to the second part is, within 24 hours. The answer to the third part is Midcontinent Truck Terminal Ltd., and Toronto Sufferance Truck Terminal Ltd., respectively.


FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, BIG QUALICUM RIVER, B.C.
Mr. Barnett: Did the Department of Fisheries move or have moved on its behalf at or below high water mark any gravel or other material from a spit or other shoreline adjacent to the mouth of the Big Qualicum river in connection with the fisheries development project on this river?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: No.
May 30, 1966


PAYMENTS TO COMMISSIONER AND COUNSEL, SPENCE INQUIRY
Mr. Gundlock: 1.	What honorarium or allowance is being granted to the commissioner in the Spence Commission?
2.	What is the rate per day of pay and allowances for counsel to the commission (a) while in attendance at commission hearings (b) for preparatory work, including interviews?


John Ross Matheson: 1. No honorarium is being paid to the commissioner in the Spence commission. Authority has been obtained, however, to pay the commissioner a non-accountable per diem living allowance of $60 and actual transportation expenses while in travel status from his normal place of residence in connection with the conduct of the inquiry.
2. (a) John L. O'Brien, $400 per day; John J. Urie, $250 per day. (b) John L. O'Brien, $40 per hour; John J. Urie, $25 per hour.
In addition to the above, both counsel may be paid a non-accountable per diem living allowance of $25 and actual transportation expenses while in travel status from their normal place of residence in connection with the conduct of the inquiry.


BILINGUALISM SECRETARIAT, PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE
Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	Has a special secretariat on bilingualism in the public service been established in the privy council office?
2.	If so (a) what are its functions (b) who are the officers of the secretariat?


John Ross Matheson: 1 and 2. As
indicated to the house by the Prime Minister in his statement of policy respecting bilingualism, Hansard of 6th April, page 3,915, a secretariat on bilingualism will be established in the Privy Council office. The Prime Minister outlined the function of the secretariat, at page 3917, Hansard, April 6th. Appointments are now under consideration and announcements will be made shortly.


HIGHWAY FROM GOOSE BAY TO ST. LAWRENCE
Mr. Brand: 1. Is the federal government aware of a press release of Canadian Javelin Limited concerning a $35 million paved highway to connect Goose Bay with the gulf of St. Lawrence and, if so, has the government anounced its intention to build such a road?
Orders for Returns
2. Has the said road been approved by the government and (a) if so, when (b) if not, what is the present position of this project?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The answer to both parts is no.
2. No such project has been approved by the government.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,056

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton
North and Victoria):
1.	Since the commencement of the restoration of the Louisburg fortress, what contracts have been awarded under the project, on what dates, to whom and for what amounts?
2.	Since the commencement of the restoration of the Louisburg fortress, what contracts have been awarded under the project without the calling of tenders, on what dates, to whom and for what amounts?
Return tabled.

Mr. Irvine: Have any payments been made by the comptroller of the treasury for services rendered to the electoral boundaries commissions or any members thereof and, if so (a) what were the amounts of such payments (b) to whom were the payments made in each instance (c) does the amount paid include cost of advertising or publicizing the program in (i) newspaper (ii) radio (iii) television (iv) other media, and, if so, what is the amount for each (d) what is the estimated amount of any such payments outstanding to complete the entire program?
Return tabled.


CENSUS OFFICIALS, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Hamillon: 1.	What are the names of the (a) census commissioners (b) assistant commissioners or area supervisors by constituency for the seventeen constituencies in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	When were they appointed?
3.	On what recommendation (s), by constituencies, were they appointed?
Return tabled.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. If I do so at this time, it is because of a statement

May 30, 1966
Questions of Privilege
I made in this house on Wednesday, May 25, that is, last week. I must apologize at once to the house if my remarks created some confusion or were misinterpreted. I never intended that my remarks should be interpreted as they were. First of all, it was never my intention to involve or connect the suicides in the Guadeloupe area with the winter works program and even less with the municipal council of the parish. Also, when I mentioned that those suicides had been committed, I had in mind localities surrounding Notre-Dame-de-la-Guadeloupe, because I asked the future minister of manpower (Mr. Marchand) to conduct an investigation in the case of parishes surrounding Notre-Dame-de-la-Guadeloupe.
It is unfortunate that this happened, but if it turned out that way, it is because I said the R.C.M.P. could inquire into the matter of winter works, since charges of fraud have been made, and that such offences come under the Criminal Code. I also referred to the matter of suicides, because I felt the R.C.M.P. might conduct an investigation in that connection.
I apologize for not having made the difference, for there is no relationship between winter works and those suicides. I had mentioned seven suicides by hanging and now Le Devoir sought information from the local coroner and there may have been at least a dozen, in the past six years, as mentioned in Le Devoir.
It is then not a question of suicides. I wanted to mark the difference and to enlighten the house on this question because I never intended to relate such suicides to the question of winter works. I apologize to the house if a misunderstanding occurred; I apologize to the people concerned but, on the other hand, I relied on information supplied by the minister to a question on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member does not have a question of privilege and I do not believe he should pursue the matter further.
It may be that he was entitled to set the record straight but I respectfully and humbly submit that there is no question of privilege involved and that he should not pursue the subject any further.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lotbiniere and the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) asked the house for an explanation. Last Friday the hon. member for Lotbiniere violently took me to-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is aware of the fact the speeches he is referring to were given in the course of a debate on the estimates of a department or on interim supply and although the hon. members have suggested that an explanation should be given by the hon. member for Megantic, I believe such explanation should not be given under the guise of a question of privilege.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There cannot be a debate since there is no question of privilege.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
says he wants to rise on a question of privilege concerning what may have been published in Hansard.
I suggest to him that he should have given advance notice to the Chair and I ask for his co-operation in allowing the Chair to proceed with the business of the house and, therefore, I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Labour to give us a report on the abortive proceedings regarding settlement of the longshoremen's strike, and after he has given his report I hope to ask him some supplementary questions.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will pardon me if my answer is a little longer than it normally would be to a question on orders of the day.
Together with two of my colleagues, the Minister of Industry and the President of the Privy Council, as well as Judge Rene Lippe, the government appointed mediator, my deputy minister and other senior officials, I met here in Ottawa with representatives of the two parties to the dispute on the evening of Friday last. I might say that the meeting lasted several hours and the discussions were both informative and useful.
The Minister of Industry and I met again with these groups on Sunday afternoon and evening in Montreal. I might say that the longshoremen's association had made certain

May 30, 1966

proposals late in the week which were considered by the shipping federation over the week end. The federation indicated that they were prepared, inter alia, to agree to a very substantial increase in pay in order to bring about a settlement; but they stressed, I think quite properly, the desirability of higher productivity during the second year of the proposed agreement.
In the course of the meetings I made some suggestions which were discussed at length. Unfortunately no solution was reached.
While the discussions terminated without a solution after many hours of earnest and frank debate, there were some important accomplishments, and at least the differences between the parties with reference to wages and fringe benefits were narrowed. I believe that with further serious discussion and, if necessary, further mediation a solution will be found within a reasonable time. Judge Lippe is closely following the situation, as I am, and our good offices-that is the way the parties described them last night-are available to both parties at any time if requested.
Mr. Speaker, as I said in the house on Friday last I believe that in most industrial disputes the natural process of collective bargaining brings about the best and most effective solution. In spite of the seriousness of the present situation I remain convinced that with a sincere desire on the part of both parties to bring about a solution, the remaining differences will be resolved within a reasonable time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would now ask the minister what he means by a reasonable time, because this has been the explanation all along as they have dillied and dallied. I should also like to ask him, in the choice of those who would meet with the ship owners and the longshoremen, why it was that men like the President of the Privy Council were chosen to be with the minister rather than the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who understands labour problems.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that is very simple. Nearly 3,000 of the workers involved live and work in Montreal and I had two of my colleagues from Montreal with me.


John George Diefenbaker: Is not the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration from Montreal?


Mr. Pickersgill:: He is from Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of Labour whether the main obstacle has to do with the insistence of the shipping federation that the work gangs be reduced, and whether it is correct that the federation is prepared to guarantee jobs to only 85 per cent of the men at that time.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, that is hardly an accurate summary of the situation. There is more than one point still outstanding, though admittedly the question of productivity during the second year of the contract is an important one. As I have said, very substantial increases-some say fantastic increases, I would suggest-in pay were offered. In return for these, the shipping federation has suggested, and I think properly, that they might expect increased productivity during the second year of the agreement.
Perhaps I should say at this point that one of the suggestions that I made, which seemed to have been received favourably by both sides, was in inquiry into working conditions in the three St. Lawrence ports concerned, which would include an objective look into the matter of increased productivity and not only the structure and size of the work gangs but also the use of new equipment and other items of that nature. This was accepted in principle by both sides, and it was generally agreed that if such a commission were set up that they would look into all aspects of working conditions. A second substantial increase would take place with the implementation of any recommendation which might come out of this.
In fact, if no recommendations were to come out of it there still would be a further increase; but in connection with the proposal for reorganization of the gangs, the suggestion was made that there might be some lay-offs involved. The shipping federation offers job security for all the people who had worked for more than a given period of last year; in fact they offered job security for all those who had worked, I think, for more than 15 or 16 weeks. That was put forward for consideration. This is where the figure of 85 per cent comes in. I am advised that the other 15 per cent or less comprises the casual groups, such as the taxi drivers, students and those who work for a limited period each year.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement just made by the minister, in which he expressed hope

May 30, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry that a settlement may now be closer and that appreciable progress has been made, does he not now feel that it might have been better had the government carried out the type of intervention that has just been made considerably earlier, so the strike might now be settled?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is argumentative.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he received a telegram from Mr. Gerard Tremblay, who is the Atlantic regional vice president of the international longshoremen's association, stating that the main obstacle to a settlement is the insistence of the federation on wiping out the jobs of some 15 per cent of the employees? Do I take it from the minister's statement that he is agreeing with that position on the part of the federation, and does he not think that in this instance the Freedman principle ought to be applied?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the full and frank discussions that took place I stressed at some length parts and the significance of the Freedman recommendation, but even Mr. Justice Freedman did not suggest that casual employees should be looked after, in the way suggested in the telegram.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour in relation to this point under discussion. During the discussions that took place did the minister make the suggestion that the new contract should include the type of provisions that have been put into contracts between the longshoremen and the shipping federation on the west coast regarding automation, which is a main consideration in respect of productivity, under which the men are guaranteed compensation for lay-offs? As the minister is probably aware, these lay-offs occur at the higher range among senior members rather than at the lower range among junior members.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, without going into too much detail, there was no suggestion on the part of the shipping federation to indicate that they were not prepared to take care of permanent and normal I.L.A. members for the term of the duration of the contract. The 15 per cent figure referred to in the telegram mentioned by an hon. member

refers to what I term casual employees, workers who are employed for terms of 15 or 16 weeks per year.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. In the event that discussions break down in the immediate future, and in consideration of the fact that at best this can only be called an illegal wildcat strike, has the government given any consideration to making a more direct intervention?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this is not an illegal strike; it is a legal strike.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the original statement made today by the minister he said that as a result of his intervention and discussions with both parties to the dispute some progress was made. I should like to ask him why he is not continuing this intervention and participation in order that a final solution may be brought about.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if one really believes in the principle of collective bargaining, which I do and have advocated for many years, both as an employer and as a practitioner of law, he can only come to the conclusion that the government should not step in at the early stages of a dispute and certainly should not intervene until all parties have had an opportunity of seriously discussing the issues. The final proposals in respect of which there was an intervention were only submitted last Thursday night.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, was the minister not engaged in collective bargaining when he met with both parties?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will not say that I was not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative. Does the hon. member for Northumberland wish to ask a supplementary question?


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was a very distinguished and able labour leader in the province of Quebec, would it not have made good sense to include him as a member of the
May 30, 1966

delegation that attempted to solve this problem over the week end?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: If the hon. member had listened to my statement he would have heard me say that the gentleman was part of
the delegation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will hon. members kindly resume their seats.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour.
Last Friday I directed a question to the Minister of Labour concerning the strike which is continuing in the national harbours on the St. Lawrence, in Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres.
The minister told me then that a delegation was coming to Ottawa to discuss with the department the possibility of settling the conflict in these national harbours.
I would like to know today, at a time when the farmers of the province of Quebec are lamenting and asking the federal government to take action so as to give them satisfaction and enable them to obtain feed grains for their animals, whether the Minister of Labour is in a position to tell us that a solution has been found, so that the farmers of eastern Canada, or the province of Quebec, are given satisfaction by the federal administration.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased that this question has been asked. This point was raised during the course of our discussions. This is a legal strike, and peaceful picketing is permitted during such a strike. During peaceful picketing it is not likely that a union member would drive through a picket line. However, there is nothing to prevent a farmer from driving his truck in to an elevator to get feed grain if he so desires.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the importance of bringing this transportation tie-up to an end as quickly as possible, why has the natural ability of the Minister of Transport as a mediator been ignored?


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary
Inquiries of the Ministry question. The Minister of Labour has referred several times to the fact that the 15 per cent figure embraces only casual labour. When he describes the 15 per cent as casual labour is he giving us information he obtained from the shipping federation, or is this information with which the longshoremen's union is in agreement?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this information was furnished by the shipping federation, which has offered to submit it to the longshoremen's association for analysis.


David Lewis: Has the longshoremen's union agreed with this descripition of the 15 per cent as being casual labour?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In view of the fact that we have been dealing with questions on this subject for approximately 20 minutes, it seems to me that it would be advisable at this time to move on to another subject. I will recognize the hon. member for Halifax, however.


Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour one final supplementary question. Can he advise the house whether there is any danger of this strike spreading to other ports by way of support strike action, for instance at the yards at Halifax, Saint John, on the west coast or at Toronto?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would think not in view of the fact that an agreement has been signed at Halifax and negotiations are well advanced at Saint John.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether his department is collaborating with the government of Manitoba in the free passage program to attract immigrants to that province, which has just been announced; and will the minister give consideration to the establishment of a general national program for this purpose?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a question of very general nature in respect of general policy. I suggest that the hon. member may wish to put it on the order paper.

May 30, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry



REQUEST FOR DELAY IN DEPORTATION OF YUGOSLAV SAILORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the mass meeting that is being held tonight in Toronto to protest the deportation of two Yugoslav sailors who left their ship, has the minister any statement to make in respect of their future position?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the only statement I can make is that the two Yugoslav sailors have not been deported; the decision will be reviewed when a judgment is rendered in two similar cases. I think the meeting tonight will enable us to know the feelings of the people who will attend but nevertheless I must wait for the decision of the appeal court.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I would ask him whether the Donald report is yet available to the government and, if so, when it will be released.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not yet available. I understand it is being delivered this week.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, I fully realize that when members ask ministers questions we must accept the answers, and that the minister himself is not necessarily obliged to answer; in other words he does not need to answer at all. But I would point out to you, sir, that on May 22 an answer given to me was to the effect that it was on its way; later, on the 25th of the month, the same answer, "It is on its way."
I protest very strongly the attitude of the government and the ministers in this type of answer in respect to a matter of great concern to the miners of Cape Breton.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: I
should like to ask the Prime Minister when it is the government's intention to activate the policy statement in respect of the $25 million aid program for the Nova Scotia coal industry, which was referred to by the then minister of labour as emergency aid?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: We will be dealing with that problem before long, I hope.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of what I understand is the closing by recommendation of an engineer of his department of the federal day school in Aklavik, is the minister's department taking some action to ensure that the children who attended that school can continue their education at least for this term, and will the department take steps to rebuild the building next year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that the minister responsible has noted the representations he is now making, and I would think this is not the type of question that can be asked now.



YUKON-INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct an urgent question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in view of the fact that the office of commissioner of the Yukon Territory will be vacated tomorrow. Can the minister now announce to the house the name of the commissioner's successor?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is difficult for the Chair to ascertain whether an appointment must be made immediately upon the resignation of one of the members of a commission. I suggest that the question might be placed on the order paper.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps the complexities of government escape Your Honour's attention. The commissioner's office will be vacated
May 30, 1966

tomorrow. The urgency lies in the fact that he is the head of the government there, and I am asking the minister when that head will be replaced.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the problem is under very active consideration.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in his capacity as future minister of manpower.
Further to certain statements to the effect that the Notre-Dame-de-la-Guadeloupe municipality did not get $400,000 for winter works since 1961, and in view of the fact that the hon. minister indicated that the amount of $300,855 had been paid, does the minister intend to check the matter and find out how come such an error was made?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I did not quite get the question. Would the hon. member for Megantic kindly tell me exactly what he wants to know?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I heard the question of the hon. member for Megantic. It might give rise to a question of privilege or a point of order, but this is certainly not the time to bring it up. I suggest that the hon. minister should take note of the representations of the member; he might give an explanation later on.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The figures I mentioned were given to me by the minister in answer to a question I had put on the order paper. As the municipal authorities in question deny categorically the figures given, I was merely asking the hon. minister if he intended to look into the matter and find out where the money went.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me I was quite generous in my interpretation of the question of the hon. member; he should not try to pursue it further.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the future minister of manpower.
In view of the fact that the hon. member for Megantic caused a political suicide by the statement he made recently, are there federal investigators at Notre-Dame-de-la-Guadeloupe, checking up on the truth of the recent accusations with regard to winter works?


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, this question should be placed on the order paper.


David Réal Caouette: Ten o'clock.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister inform the house of the progress being made by the group of ten in working out ways of augmenting and supplementing the resources necessary for financing world trade and aid?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This appears to me to be a question of a very general nature and should not be asked at this time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of my colleague the hon. member for Vic-toria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), who is unavoidably absent at this hour. Is the minister aware of the disastrous hail storm in the area of New Denmark, Victoria county, New Brunswick, which yesterday wiped out nearly 60 per cent of the 1966 potato crop? If so, will the federal authorities co-operate with the New Brunswick provincial authorities in carrying out a survey to determine the extent of the damage, and render any other assistance which may be within the power of the federal government?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I have not yet heard from the provincial authorities in this regard, but the hon. member may rest assured that we will give the matter every consideration when we have heard from them.

May 30, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR CANADA



INQUIRY AS TO PROGRESS IN SETTLING LABOUR DISPUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is he in a position today to make any further statement concerning the Air Canada dispute? Has he yet received the report of the conciliation board? Can he say whether the parties are meeting?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the report has not yet come in. I assured the hon. member in answer to a question that was put during the discussion on the estimates last Friday that I would give prompt attention to his suggestion when the report comes in; but it has not come in as yet.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chaiterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in virtue of his responsibility for matters arising under the National Housing Act. In view of the concern of our senior citizens over the increase in the cost of living and particularly the increased cost of construction, will the minister reconsider the recent increase in the N.H.A. interest rate for non-profit and public housing from 5J to 5f per cent?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Having regard to the cost of money today, I think it is a very reasonable charge.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   C.-A. Gauihier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. As I do not see him, I shall put it to his parliamentary secretary.
Following the discovery by children of the Lake St. John area of three hundred $100 brand new bank notes bearing serial numbers
[Mr. Greene.)
AJ8065600 to AJ8065900, would the minister launch an investigation with regard to income tax, in view of the fact that Mr. Justice Tous-saint McNichol contends that he lost those bank notes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest the hon. member put this question on the order paper.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that he had Mr. Keate go into the question of the program "Seven Days", whether he has been advised that the C.B.C. has refused to renew the contracts of the "Seven Days" staff-that is directors, story editors, researchers including Mr. Zolf and Miss Beryl Fox, some 12 or 15 in number-for the next year, and has offered them contracts for the next three months only. Will the Prime Minister also say whether this is in keeping with the recommendations of Mr. Keate and the criticism of the highhandedness of the C.B.C.?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have received no information in regard to those matters, and I would assume that if there was information which should be submitted to parliament on this matter it would be through the Secretary of State. Meanwhile, I have received none.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister simply because he seemed to have taken the matter over. I now ask the Secretary of State, has she received any communication along the line indicated?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the previous question I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether, in view of the C.B.C.'s willingness to improve relations between producers and management as outlined in the Keate report, it would be possible for the C.B.C. officials to review the negotiations pertaining to all contracts renewable after January 1 this year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is of a purely general nature. There does not seem to be that much urgency to the question that it should be asked at this time.
May 30, 1966


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to address my question to the honourable and gallant Secretary of State.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My supplementary question is simply this. Is the matter referred to by the hon. member who has just asked the question, part of the iceberg that she referred to in a previous speech?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REPORTED USE OF DRUG IN SCENE FOR &quot;THIS HOUR HAS SEVEN DAYS&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Solicitor General and ask him whether it is a fact that his department has received a report from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regarding allegations that certain C.B.C. personnel were involved in giving drugs to teenagers or taking pornographic scenes for a youth program. As a result of investigation by the R.C.M.P. has it been found that no charges should be laid, and that the C.B.C. personnel to whom reference had been previously directed have been completely exonorated?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: was advised, Mr. Speaker, that a certain report had been brought to the attention of the R.C.M.P. I was speaking with the R.C.M.P. on Thursday evening last. I have not received their final report, so I will take the question as notice and reply to the right hon. gentleman later.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to set up a commission to inquire into all aspects of fraudulent bankruptcies.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The question of bankruptcies will be before the house when the Senate finishes its consideration of a bill, and this matter can be discussed then.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Erik Nielsen: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister give consideration to referring that bill to the committee on justice and legal affairs so that representations which have been received can be made directly to that committee by the authors thereof?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to give consideration to that suggestion.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Albert Bell: I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration what is causing the delay in the publication of the white paper on immigration, and if he can now make a forecast as to when it might be tabled in the house.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is probably the same reason which caused all the delay in the publication of that white paper. I hope that, in the near future, we will be able to submit to the house new elements in that field which I have no doubt will win the approval of the hon. member for Carle-ton.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Nasserden: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. When can the teachers employed by the department of Indian affairs expect to receive the salary increases which were authorized in March of this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.
ILater:]


Edward Nasserden: Perhaps I could rephrase my question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can he tell us the reason for the delay in sending out supplementary salary cheques to the members of the teaching profession engaged by Indian affairs?


Arthur Laing: There has been a major reclassification of both teachers

May 30, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry and salaries under way in respect of approximately 1,060 teachers in Indian schools. It will be completed before June 30 and the salaries will be made retroactive to the beginning of the current year, which commenced on September 1 last.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL INQUIRY AS TO MEDALLION FOR STUDENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government has any plans to have a medallion struck for the distribution to students of Canada to mark Canada's centennial.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, that matter is under consideration. The Secretary of State will be in a position to make a statement about it very shortly.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: I intended to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works as house leader, but in his absence I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister indicate when steps will be taken to set in motion the joint committee on divorce which was established two and a half months ago, in view of the very great interest which has been taken in this committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall have to take the question as notice and look into it right away.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
We have been asking for two years if the government intends to extend the C.B.C. television and radio service to British Columbia, and the minister has kept telling us that the Fowler commission will decide if it is advisable for the government to take such a decision. Is the minister in a position to tell us today whether the French Canadian population in British Columbia will be served in French by the C.B.C.?
[Mr. Laing.l


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has just said that he has been making that suggestion for two years; he will therefore be able to put that question on the order paper.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Having in mind that on at least a half dozen occasions the Prime Minister has mentioned that he expects to be able to announce the appointment of a royal commission on security, can he give us any indication when he may make this announcement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I apologize to my hon. friend; I know he has asked this question a good many times. I can only repeat what I said the other day, that the difficulty is getting a suitable commission and appropriate terms of reference, so that this commission, which is going to be a very important one and is going to take quite a long time to do its work thoroughly, will be set up on the best possible basis.



HATE LITERATURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the Prime Minister whether at the present session the government will bring before the house amendments to the Criminal Code to cover the question of hate literature and hate programs in general? He gave an indication some months ago that the matter was urgent and would receive the earliest attention. I ask him now, is this going to be proceeded with at this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Immediately after the receipt of the report on this matter a committee of officials under the auspices of the Department of Justice was set up to go into the practicability and desirability, from the official point of view, of implementing its recommendations. I understand the committee has just about completed its work and will be in a position to make a report to the cabinet very shortly. The cabinet will then consider that report and I will be glad to answer my right hon. friend's question at that time.
May 30. 1966



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
LOANS AND GRANTS FOR CLASS "A" FAIRS On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo South):: should like to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of requests from municipalities for long term loans and grants for class A fairs, can the minister say whether he intends to introduce legislation to meet these requests? If so, when might we expect the legislation to come before the house?


John James Greene: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. This is a matter of government policy, and if it is to be adopted will be announced in the normal manner in due course.



FARM MACHINERY

[Stage Direction]
POSSIBLE TIME REQUIRED FOR INQUIRY On the orders of the day:
['Order, please. I fail to see how this aspect of the matter is so urgent that a question should be asked at this time.']
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the establishment of a commission of inquiry into farm machinery prices on Friday we have learned that the commissioner intends to take up to two years to make this investigation. I ask the minister if he is satisfied with this time factor, or if he intends to issue any request or directive to the commissioner to have the inquiry completed within a more reasonable period of time.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that question be placed on the order paper.



[Stage Direction]
RHODESIA-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON CURRENT TALKS On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister anything further to report with respect to the discussions between representatives of the government of Great Britain and representatives of the government of Rhodesia?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can say it is now agreed that the group that met in London as a result of an initiative taken by Mr. Smith will resume its discussions in Salisbury, this time at the instance of the governor of Rhodesia. In announcing this I
Inquiries of the Ministry can say, as I said on Friday, that the British Prime Minister has noted that this is without any commitment, and all that is involved are talks to inquire whether or not there is a basis for negotiation.


Mr. T. S. Barneff (Comox-Alberni):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate to the house the immediate situation in respect of the shipment of ore from Zambian mines, and can he tell us whether Canada is participating in any way in respect of meeting the problem which I understand


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I fail to see how this aspect of the matter is so urgent that a question should be asked at this time.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Sainf John-Alberf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport on his return to the house. Is the report of the independent consultants in connection with the seaway ready, and will it be made public?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I understand that on Thursday last it was indicated by a number of hon. members that they would like an opportunity to consult the report made by the independent consultants. The report, of course, was made for the seaway authority, but I can see no reason, except for its volume and cost, why it should not be made available to anyone who seriously wants it.
The seaway authority is going to have a reprint made. The report consists of about 350 pages and as soon as the copies are ready the authority will be willing to supply a copy to any member of the public who is interested for the price of $5, which is quite a bargain. In the case of members of parliament I have persuaded the authority not to charge anything, but I hope members will not sell them after getting them.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question
May 30, 1966

Government Organization to the Minister oi National Health and Welfare which is supplementary to the answers given today by his parliamentary secretary to three of my starred questions. Can he give any indication when a report will be made to the House of Commons concerning the negotiations referred to in those questions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture?
Now that the minister has had the opportunity to look into the difficulties facing the farmers because of the longshoremen's strike, would he tell the house what he intends to do so as to assist these distressed farmers who do not have any feed grain?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Labour stated earlier, following the discussions between himself and other governmental officials yesterday the facilities are now open and trucks are entering and delivering feed grain today.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Is that all the Minister of Agriculture intends to do with regard to this question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 25, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-178, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Pearson-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 4-Duties of Solicitor General of Canada.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Wednesday, May 25, 1966, clause 4 of the 
bill, with an amendment thereto proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood, was being discussed. The question is on the amendment. Is the house ready for the question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make this comment before the vote is called and then I will leave the matter entirely in the hands of the committee. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood would entail, if it is carried, consequential amendments. It is a matter of procedure, of course, but clause 37 makes provision for certain acts set out in part I of the schedule to be administered by various ministers. The schedule itself makes reference, for example, to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police legislation.
In other words, if this amendment should now be carried we would find ourselves in the position that certain provisions would still be left in the bill which would have the effect of carrying out the objective which the hon. member for Greenwood is seeking to eliminate. I would call that to your attention, Mr. Chairman. It means that we may have to go through this whole procedure again in the event that the amendment is now carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, if I may say a
word on behalf of the hon. member for Greenwood, who is not able to be here at the moment, the point taken by the hon. member for Peace River is well taken but is a point that my colleague has in mind. At the moment clause 4 of the bill is before the committee, to which an amendment has been proposed. If the amendment carries we think there are two places where consequential amendments will have to be made and we will have them ready at the appropriate moment.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two in support of the amendment before the question is put. My position was made clear on the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Justice for the year 1965-66, which were debated earlier this session. I took the opportunity at that time to refer to the proposal to divide the duties formerly discharged by the Minister of Justice between three departments.
My view then expressed was that instead of this division, which I believe will increase the difficulties of co-operation and co-ordination between the various branches and services that now report to the Minister of Justice, co-operation and co-ordination which are vital and are becoming more vital, the
May 30, 1966	COMMONS
reorganizing and strengthening of these functions would best be served by maintaining one ministry and Department of Justice but providing for three deputy ministers, with three divisions or main branches in that department. There would be a deputy minister in charge of over-all administration who would be directly responsible for the present functions of the department, giving legal advice to the government, the drafting of legislation and those functions which might be termed strictly the departmental functions of the present Department of Justice.
Second, there would be a deputy minister in charge of a division of enforcement which would include the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the combines investigation branch and the bankruptcy division.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Third, it would include a deputy minister in charge of corrections, including the penitentiaries branch, the parole services and the functions related to the correctional program.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Would the hon. member permit a question? Do I understand his suggestion to be that there ought to be three deputy ministers, in other words, that there should be, in addition to the present deputy minister and an associate deputy minister, one more deputy minister?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My suggestion is that there ought to be three deputies, one to be known as the deputy minister of justice, the other to be known as the deputy minister of enforcements and the third to be known as the deputy minister of corrections, all reporting to the one minister of justice. The deputy minister of justice would be responsible under the minister for co-ordination of the three divisions, with the minister, however, having responsibility in cabinet and a concomitant responsibility therefore to parliament and to the country for the co-ordination and effective discharge of all the services and duties of the Department of Justice.
In my view this would be a far more effective way of ensuring co-ordination than the present proposal. I agree with the solicitor general that the duties of the Minister of Justice have increased. This is inevitable with the growth of the country. But in my view the way to assist him better to discharge the increase in responsibilities would be by a reorganization along the lines I have suggested.
I must say that, to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood on
DEBATES	5685
Government Organization Wednesday dealing with this proposal the Solicitor General made a reply which, while I accept the logic in it, in my humble submission did not take account of the facts. I assure the minister that I do not wish to be in any sense improperly derogatory about the argument he has used. But it does seem to me that it is an argument which is attractive in theory more than it is sound in fact, in the light of the realities of the situation. There is enough difficulty now in ensuring co-operation and co-ordination.
In his reply the minister based his position in part upon the experience in the United Kingdom. Although I am very much impressed with the desirability of studying the precedents and examples set by the oldest existing parliamentary democracy in the world, I respectfully suggest that the position in the United Kingdom is not in this case as valid a precedent for us to follow as in some others, because of the peculiar problems which, in the field of the administration of justice and enforcement of law, are created by the differences in governmental jurisdiction in Canada, because of our division into a federal and ten provincial governments, a situation not paralleled in any respect in the United Kingdom.
The particular situation in Canada involves constant problems of co-operation and consultation with provincial governments and the very frequent consultations between the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada with provincial Attorneys General not only with respect to constitutional matters but with respect to legal matters and those having to do with law enforcement generally. We are entering a period when the problem of combating organized crime in this country is assuming ever more serious proportions and involving ever more serious responsibilities of government. A special responsibility is imposed on the federal government by reason of the fact that since there are people who are prepared to organize crime on a national basis it surely follows that the fighting of this trend should be nationally co-ordinated.
Indeed, it seems to me that many measures ought to be initiated by the central government on behalf of the people of Canada generally in order that our program to counter organized crime is as effective as the program of those who organize crime on a national scale. This must involve increasing consultation and co-ordination with provincial Attorneys General and law enforcement
5686	COMMONS
Government Organization agencies, and also involves the constitutional aspect.
It seems to me, however, that by the step taken here, we are inevitably creating a multiplicity of channels of communication and increasing the difficulties of co-ordination and co-operation, whereas if there were one minister of justice responsible for the co-ordination of all these functions many difficulties would be avoided.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word about the situation respecting the R.C.M.P. In what I have said before and in what I am about to say, the solicitor general knows that I make no reflections upon him personally. I express the hope, if the government goes ahead with the setting up of this department, which I am opposed to, that the minister will be able to ensure that the prestige and function of the force are maintained at the highest level.
But I doubt very much that the Department of the Solicitor General can or should achieve the standing and prestige of a properly constituted and administered Department of Justice, which in my view, by the very nature of its primary function, is one of the most important departments of government. It is the department responsible for advising the government generally and for ensuring that all actions of the government conform to the law and are of the proper standard. It is the department responsible for ensuring that government actions are in accordance with constitutional responsibility and authority. All these functions plus many others which have traditionally been discharged by the department and its minister over the years have by their very nature ensured the seniority of this department, not because of the persons involved in it but because of the function of the department and its head.
For this reason I think it is an undesirable development for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which has traditionally been responsible to the Minister of Justice, to be taken out of or removed from a relationship with that department. I feel that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has not been well served in recent years by certain developments, the details of which I do not propose to go into at this time. Through no fault of its own the prestige of the force has suffered. I think it is incumbent upon the government to take every step to ensure that the prestige of the force, which remains ready and able to discharge its responsibilities and to live up to its standards and prestige, is restored and not diminished.

DEBATES	May 30, 1966
At another and more appropriate time I propose to discuss specific proposals by which that can be done. I am talking now only about the proposition of removing the force from the Department of Justice and placing it under the proposed Department of the Solicitor General. This, I think, is again a move against the trend which I think should be followed, the trend of supporting, reinforcing and re-elevating, if you like, the prestige and stature of Canada's central law enforcement body.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
It will therefore be seen, Mr. Chairman, that while the amendment itself does not go far enough it should nevertheless have the effect of preserving the relationship between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Department of Justice and Minister of Justice. To the extent, therefore, that it removes one aspect of the proposed division I support the amendment although, speaking for myself and for the members of this party, whether or not the amendment carriers we shall oppose the clause which gives effect to the other division of the functions of the Minister of Justice.
Amendment (Mr. Brewin) negatived: Yeas, 42; nays, 66.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the clause carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Department established.
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, this bill is, of course an attempt to reassess the functions of government and to devise government machinery capable of handling those functions. Since the beginning of this debate it has been clear to at least some members of the government that these reassessments and changes are not necessarily final. The Prime Minister himself, in his introductory remarks strongly indicated that the machinery of government will be changing continually because of the needs of the times in which we live.
We in this party believe there is one change which should be made without delay. Both in this chamber and in various parts of Canada outside this house, attention has been called to the need to establish a department of government to protect the affairs of consumers. A former minister of the crown, speaking in Toronto, pointed out the need
May 30, 1966	COMMONS
which he saw arising in the near future for the establishment of three departments, one of which would be a department of consumer affairs.
I see no reason why the government should hesitate to proceed along these lines while this legislation is in progress. Demands for such a department are being made continuously in all parts of the country and will become increasingly heavy. I suggest, therefore, that it would be wise to make the change now without waiting even for another year, by which time the demand will be even greater than it is today.
In an attempt to avoid a solution which would mean the setting up of an entirely new department and involve large expenditures of money and so on, alternative suggestions have been made. I believe we have found a solution which is workable and which would be acceptable to the government. Indeed, this approach was opened up by the Prime Minister himself speaking in this debate the other day. The proposal I have in mind is nothing more or less than the utilization of an existing department which could be called the department of consumer affairs and which would gather together all the work in this field now being done by many government departments.
I should like to read from the speech which the Prime Minister made on May 24 in the course of this debate, as reported at page 5430 of Hansard. I believe his words in this connection were significant and very much to the point. He said:
One of the matters which will have to be considered early in the establishment of the department of the registrar general is to what extent it can further assist and protect the Canadian consumer, which is a matter that was mentioned in the discussion on the resolution, especially by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Mae-Innis). The Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of National Health and Welfare, and the Department of Agriculture-
The right hon. gentleman might have mentioned several other departments as well:
-now have active consumer protection roles within their own departmental areas of responsibility, but there may be other areas in which the federal government can develop consumer protection programs and there may be a real need to co-ordinate what is being done now in a number of departments.
It is the government's intention to ask the Economic Council to look at the field of consumer affairs, along with some of the other functions now to be undertaken by the registrar general under the legislation before us, with a view to providing advice as to the courses of action that seem best
DEBATES	5687
Government Organization
suited to meeting the needs of the Canadian people and the Canadian economy in the consumer field.
I have no doubt that the Prime Minister and the other members of his government are fully aware of the need for a department of consumer affairs. We can understand their reluctance to create a new department with all that would be entailed in the recruitment of staff and so on. But we echo the words of the Prime Minister himself in this regard. There is already in contemplation the setting up of a department which would have a large measure of responsibility for consumer affairs-the department of the registrar general. It is to this department that we wish to direct our amendment this afternoon.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)

In our party, we are quite used to making the ammunition and seeing the others use it.
The main thing is that the well-being of our consumers be protected as effectively as possible and with the least possible delay.
Therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman), I propose the following amendment:
That Bill C-178 be amended by changing the heading preceding clause 6 from "Department of the Registrar General" to "Department of Consumer Affairs", and that clause 6 be amended by changing the words "Department of the Registrar General" to the words "Department of Consumer Affairs", and also by changing the words "Registrar General of Canada" to the words "Minister of Consumer Affairs", wherever the said words appear in subclause (1) and subclause (2) of the said clause 6.

Mr. Chairman, I have copies of the amendment in both French and English.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, following the remarks of the member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-in her case, I should say Vancouver-Queensway-and the amendment she moved-


An hon. Member:: That is good.


Guy Favreau: -and the statements or suggestions made concerning the nature of the department, I should like to say a few words about the new proposed department, that of the registrar general of Canada. I shall attempt to prove that the meaning of the title proposed in the amendment is too restricted in relation to the duties the department will be called upon to perform, but that, on the other hand, what should be determined is
5688	COMMONS
Government Organization precisely the essential and actual nature of the powers devolved to the new minister. I feel that after studying the wording of the proposed legislation, as well as the powers suggested for the Registrar General, everybody will be satisfied that such powers include, in addition to others, those designed to protect the interests of consumers.

The new department of the registrar general groups together a number of agencies whose primary responsibilities can be described as reflecting public policy toward business organization. The principal agencies are the office of the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act and the related Restrictive Trades Practices Commission, the office of the Commissioner of Patents, having jurisdiction over patents and copyrights, the office of the Registrar of Trademarks, the office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy and the corporations branch.
All of these agencies have been engaged in the administration of the ground rules established by parliament for the conduct of those engaged in business under our free enterprise economy.
Each of the laws has developed over the years, starting with fairly primitive controls to prevent frauds and other flagrant abuses. The various bodies of law, such as the anticombines law and patents law, tended to develop independently of each other, to be the object of separate disciplines, and to be administered by different government departments. As our economy became more advanced and more complicated, corporations took on and continue to take on a greater importance in relation to the national economic objectives. It is essential that the legislation which provides the ground rules within which corporations must operate is designed and co-ordinated in such a way as to encourage maximum efficiency and responsiveness to the needs of the public at large.

These laws provide the basic framework for corporate activity and as such they are laws of general application. They are readily distinguished from legislation which arises out of economic policies designed to improve the performance of particular industries or to influence particular activities in the economy. They are, nevertheless, an integral part of the economic fabric of the country and it is important to recognize that each agency is

DEBATES	May 30, 1966
affected by and affects economic policy in other areas.
As these are laws of general application, their economic impact ordinarily becomes apparent only in the long run; but they are no less important for this reason than economic policies which have a more immediate impact upon the economy.
There are a number of important reasons for grouping these agencies in the new department. Each agency shares the same ultimate goal of encouraging the corporate sector of the economy to work more smoothly and efficiently while remaining consistent with the public interest. Each agency is linked in a direct and special way with at least one of the others. The work Of each agency is based on detailed statutes and a large body of case law. For this reason the agencies are administered to a large extent by lawyers. There is a danger that, in isolation, the legislation may be administered and revised with a purely technical bias rather than in terms of its fundamental social and economic purposes.
The Combines Investigation Act is based on the principle that under normal circumstances competition provides the greatest spur to efficiency and to the best allocation of economic resources in the private sector of the economy. This is sometimes forgotten in the more immediate concern about possible exploitation of consumers or about the inequitable treatment of some economic units by others. Where competition is effective, efficiency is rewarded and inefficiency is penalized. In the long run, efficient corporations grow and inefficient ones decline. Scarce resources are therefore channelled into the hands of those who use them best.
Combines policy is closely linked with other government economic policy. For example, it is evident that if economies of large scale in a particular industry are such that the Canadian market cannot sustain enough producers to provide effective competition, appropriate tariff policy may make it possible to solve the problem by encouraging concentration while at the same time expanding competition from foreign companies. This would transfer to the public some of the gains in efficiency arising out of the consolidation of the industry into a few large corporate units. [DOT] (4:10 p.m.)

Although legal proceedings are necessarily important in the administration of the Combines Investigation Act, the objectives sought by the legislation are economic. For
May 30, 1966

these reasons it is most desirable that the Combines Investigation Act be administered in a department more directly concerned with economic policy. The Canada Corporation Act, in conjunction with its provincial counterparts, provides the basic framework on which modern corporations are constructed. Although the federal act recently has been amended the proposed Ontario legislation probably will be making still greater advances which most likely will require a review of the Canada Corporation Act to make sure not only that it is fully co-ordinated with the government's economic objectives but also that it keeps pace with legislative advances in this field.
Incidentally, the proposed Ontario legislation stresses the close relationship between corporate affairs of a continuing nature and those relating to the issue and sale of securities. Through adequate disclosure requirements and regulations of such matters as insiders' trading, this legislation in conjunction with similar provincial legislation can make an important contribution to the efficient allocation of resources in the economy. This will happen in a number of ways. Lack of information and unregulated insider transactions cause investors to mistrust company directors and officers. Potential investors are thus less likely to invest or their funds are unlikely to be well invested. Shareholders have great difficulty in forcing management to be efficient if they do not have access to well prepared and complete company accounts. The absence of information may lead to a failure to identify those sectors of the economy which are inefficient as a result of restrictive practices or lack of new competitors. A federal-provincial meeting of officials will be held on June 27 and 28 and will consider the whole field of financial disclosure and securities regulation. These are areas in which the federal government may assist and in this respect the registrar general's department will have its role to play.

The principal justification of the patent system is that it encourages research and development and thus contributes to the acceleration of economic progress. It will do this, however, only where it harmonizes with other economic policies. A patent is a temporary monopoly granted to the inventor by the state; and government policy on patents
Government Organization clearly must be co-ordinated with government policy on competition. The close connection between the two has been recognized in the past and there are references in the Combines Act to patent and trade mark abuses and in the Patent Act to restraint-of-trade abuses. In addition, the Trade Marks Act by its nature, is concerned with what is termed unfair competition such as when attempts are made to pass-off as the same, goods of a different origin.
The patent system should not be permitted to frustrate any benefits anticipated from a reduction in other obstacles to trade. Strong views have been expressed that as trade barriers are reduced, industrialists are likely to place greater emphasis on industrial property rights to replace the geographical protection lost by the reduction of tariff barriers. The patent system should not encourage the creation of an inefficient structure of Canadian industry by compelling the working of patents in Canada when it is otherwise uneconomic for production to take place. The Ilsley Commission on Patents devoted considerable attention to this particular matter. A very high percentage of all Canadian patents are owned by non-residents and there is danger where patents act as a barrier to the entry of new firms, that the patent system will increase unnecessarily foreign control of Canadian industry.

The new department will have to consider also the implications of the registered user provisions of the Trade Marks Act. These provisions are comparatively new and are a departure from the theory that a trade mark should identify a single origin. Problems may arise where other Canadian companies must compete against a registered user in Canada of an American trade mark because the registered user normally will benefit from overflow advertising from the United States. All of these matters have been or will be considered by an interdepartmental committee which has been studying the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Patents.
The smooth and efficient working of the economic system obviously is injured by the economic dislocation and waste which results from unnecessary bankruptcies. Perhaps more important, unnecessary bankruptcies tend to produce a general decline in investor confidence and a greater reluctance to take risks and to innovate. To the extent that
May 30, 1966

Government Organization adequate disclosure requirements and securities regulations are introduced in Canada, the number of needless or fraudulent bankruptcies may be reduced and the work of the bankruptcy branch made more effective. Close liaison between the bankruptcy branch and the corporations branch will make it possible for more effective action to be taken against those dishonest persons who hide behind corporate laws.
The role of the registrar general initially will be to administer existing statutes along these lines to ensure that they are well co-ordinated with each other and with the general aspects of government economic policy. The field of consumer protection has been the subject of a good deal of research in many jurisdictions and in some has given rise to new legislation. These developments are being followed with interest and may point to the possibility of fruitful action at the federal level in the interest of the consumer and the investing public. The importance which the house attaches to this problem has been reflected in the establishment of a special committee on the price of drugs, a joint Senate and House of Commons committee on consumer credit, and in many other expressions of opinion within parliament in recent years. At present there are, I think, 13 private members' bills or measures which concern either consumer credit or in some fashion the interests of the consumers.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
To the extent that there has been any tendency to create industry oriented departments without providing a corresponding organization to have particular responsibilities for the consumer and the public at large in corporate matters, the new department presents an immediate opportunity to correct this deficiency. The registrar general will have a voice in the development of the government's economic policy and he will have to see to it that as policy develops it is in harmony with the philosophy of the statutes for which he is responsible or that decisions are made to modify the statutes.

In other words, I believe it will be readily understood that the new department of the registrar general will, on the whole, be entrusted with co-ordinating, in the interest of the depositors as well as the consumers and any other party interested in either of those fields, such federal legislation concerns the
[Mr. Favreau.l
application of the major economic policies of the government.
In this sense, it can be understood that this department, although one of its functions will be to safeguard the rights and interest of the consumers, will have broader duties which will also comprise the application of the statutes to other areas.
For those reasons, I believe that limiting the title to that of department of consumer affairs would be unduly to restrict the scope of the jurisd ction of this new department. I think that the title of registrar general, which immediately gives the idea of registration and control as concerns federal affairs, is closer to the very character of the department than the name now suggested.
Be that as it may, for want of a name more closely adapted to the character of the functions proposed for the new department, I believe that what matters is to ascertain in depth the very functions of the new minister. On this score, I feel the title is much less significant than the substance and it would be proper for the house to maintain the suggested title of registrar general which is one of long standing in the traditions of government, one that has always been in existence and one which reflects adequately enough, at least an important part of the role of the one responsible for the new department.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, the minister
has dealt with this matter as though we were considering clause 1 of a separate bill and I propose to deal with it in the same way. I have said before and I repeat that, like the hon. member for Kamloops, I believe the only method by which organized criminal activities in this country can be combatted at all is on an organized basis. For that reason it is heartening to note that bankruptcy legislation once again will come under the same umbrella of jurisdiction as companies and winding-up legislation because these things are inseparable. However, as I see it, there still exists a great gap in that the enforcement agency will come under a separate minister.
When organized rackets exist in more lucrative areas, namely, in respect of bankruptcies, surely the enforcement of federal legislation should come under the jurisdiction of the same minister who is responsible for the administration of that legislation in breach of which these frauds are perpetrated. As the hon. member for Kamloops has mentioned, there is a responsibility and indeed, an urgent
May 30, 1966

necessity for federal authorities to co-ordinate all activities in this regard. This has been suggested in respect of fraudulent bankruptcies and bankruptcy legislation under the jurisdiction of the new department.
I should like to refer to one specific aspect of this matter which has been raised by the press, in comments both inside and outside this house and by the Minister of Justice in correspondence he has had with me. This matter relates to fraudulent bankruptcies and the proper course, if I may condense it in that fashion, to be followed by individuals who are interested in seeing a discontinuance of fraudulent activities by any person.
On May 11, 1966, I received a letter from the Minister of Justice which I propose to read into the record in order to make sure that the facts are stated correctly. It is dated May 11, is under the letterhead of the Minister of Justice, and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
A Canadian Press story in this morning's edition of the Globe and Mail states that you told reporters in Windsor, yesterday, that you had information on the involvement of federal officials in fraudulent bankruptcies.
I am writing to you as the minister responsible for matters relating to bankruptcy, and respectfully request that you provide me or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with any information you have in support of these allegations.
I assure you that my department and the federal government is anxious to ensure that no federal officials shall be a party to any wrongdoing.
Yours very truly,
Lucien Cardin, Minister of Justice
I did not reply to that letter between that date and May 16, which was the date of a second letter directed to me by the Minister of Justice on his stationery. For some reason this one was registered. It stated:
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
A Canadian Press story in the May 11, 1966, edition of the Globe and Mail states that you told reporters in Windsor, last Tuesday, that you had information on the involvement of federal officials in fraudulent bankruptcies.
I am writing to you as the minister responsible for matters relating to bankruptcy, and respectfully request that you provide me or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with any information you have in support of these allegations.
I assure you that my department and the federal government are anxious to ensure that no federal officials shall be a party to any wrongdoing.
Yours very truly,
Lucien Cardin,
Minister of Justice
In view of the fact that this matter has been raised by members of this house, the
Government Organization press and the minister I have had considerable difficulty and I have discussed my difficulty with the Solicitor General. It relates to the obligation of a member of parliament to this institution, the freedom of access of citizens to members and the information which comes to members as a result of that access accompanied by a request that it be kept confidential and that the names of these people not be disclosed.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I am glad to see that the President of the Privy Council is paying attention to what I have to say at this time. I should like to deal with two other facets of this matter. The first relates to the knowledge which the Minister of Justice had or should have had before he wrote the two letters which I have read. He knows, for instance, that I disclosed of my own volition certain information which was of substantial assistance in the Banks case. He knows too that I had discussions with officers of the force with respect to fraudulent bankruptcies before he wrote me these letters. Since that time I have had further discussions at the request of the informant. Therein lies the important difference between the obligation that a member has of his own volition, the obligation that he owes to the citizen to maintain free access to his member and the obligation the member has with respect to the institution itself.
But, sir, I would suggest to the minister who will likely be the new registrar general that there are certain investigative procedures that should be followed, and followed now, in cases such as fraudulent bankruptcies. There is a chain of investigative processes that parliament has authorized the Minister of Justice to follow in an inquiry into bankruptcy matters under the minister's jurisdiction, and we will clothe the new registrar general with the same kind of authority because these matters are imminently to come under this minister's jurisdiction if he indeed is going to be the registrar general as I anticipate.
He should follow these procedures and not,
I suggest with respect and with no intention of innuendo or anything else with regard to the Minister of Justice, write members of parliament letters which in effect can be interpreted as "lettres de cachet", as I think they are referred to in French. When the minister wishes to investigate the conduct of any of the public matters with which he is charged by parliament the procedure for him
5692	COMMONS
Government Organization to follow is clearly laid out for him by parliament. This was one of the purposes of my asking the Prime Minister the question I did at the opening of the sitting today.
Under the Department of Justice Act, chapter 71 of our statutes, "The Minister of Justice shall have the superintendence of all matters connected with the administration of justice in Canada, not within the jurisdiction of the governments of the provinces." Under section 91 (21) of the British North America Act the federal government has exclusive legislative authority over bankruptcy matters. As the minister well knows, under this authority parliament has made the Minister of Justice responsible for the administration of the Bankruptcy Act. That is to be found in chapter 14 of our revised statutes. According to a government booklet entitled "The Organization of the Government of Canada":
The administration of the Bankruptcy Act is under the supervision of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, whose duty it is to ensure the efficient carrying out of the provisions of the act, who has certain powers of control over the trustees throughout Canada in the discharge of their duties, and who generally investigates and reports to the Minister of Justice on matters pertaining to the administration of the act.
In particular, parliament has given the Minister of Justice the exclusive power to authorize, if he considers it will be of public advantage so to do, the issue of a licence to a person to act as a trustee. The minister is thus solely responsible for the conduct of a trustee while the trustee holds that licence or any renewal thereof. I do not think it can be argued for a moment that a trustee is not a federal official appointed under the provisions of the bankruptcy legislation.
To counterbalance the responsibility thus placed upon the minister, under section 3, parliament has given the superintendent power to make or cause to be made investigations outside his office, and when it appears a licensed trustee has been guilty of any improper conduct the superintendent may report and make recommendations to the minister. The superintendent may report that his powers of investigation are not enough. In such case he may recommend to the minister that the minister avail himself of the more extensive powers that parliament has given to the minister under part II of the Inquiries Act, chapter 154 of our statutes. Section 6 of that act provides:
The minister presiding over any department of the civil service of Canada may appoint at any time, under the authority of the governor in council, a commissioner or commissioners to investigate and

DEBATES	May 30, 1966
report upon the state and management of the business, or any part of the business, of such department, either in the inside or outside service thereof, and the conduct of any person in such service, so far as the same relates to his official duties.
I take it that the same provision will apply to the new position and department of the registrar general. The commissioners are given power to take evidence under oath or affirmation, to issue subpoenas for persons and documents, and to refer contempts to the judicial courts for punishment. If these powers are not enough, parliament provides that the minister may take the matter to his colleagues and, if they so recommend, the governor in council may cause inquiry to be made on a broader frame of reference under part I of the Inquiries Act.
These are the methods that have been approved by parliament and these are the powers given by parliament to the Minister of Justice as the methods to be employed by him and the powers to be exercised by him in investigating the administration and the conduct of the public business entrusted to him by parliament. These methods and powers are investigative and in some aspects inquisitorial beyond the processes of the common law. Parliament has given them its imprimatur but has provided that the minister shall be responsible to parliament for his use or abuse of those powers.
The minister exceeds his powers and is in breach of parliament's intent when he issues the kind of letters dated May 11 and May 16 which I have read into the record. I would hope that the new registrar general, whoever he might be, would follow the proper course in administering any investigative processes coming under the bankruptcy legislation, or indeed any other legislation which might come under his jurisdiction, rather than following the course that has been followed here.
None the less, while I was not in a position, having regard to the privileges of members of this house and of the institution itself, to comply at the time, with the minister's requests set out in those letters, I have since receiving them been placed partially in that position and information respecting four companies has now been placed in the possession of the R.C.M.P. Until a few days ago I was not in that position, not wishing to breach the confidence of the citizen who brought me the information, a privilege to which he is entitled in terms of the confidentiality which
May 30, 1966

must exist between the citizen and his member if the citizen so desires it, but even more important, the obligation of a member of parliament to maintain that freedom of communication between the citizen and himself that is so necessary if this institution and its members are to stand for anything with respect to those freedoms.
I replied to the letter of the Minister of Justice in the following terms, and I think the record should be made complete by placing my reply on Hansard. My letter to the minister was dated May 26 and was directed to him as Minister of Justice:
Dear Mr. Minister:
I have received your letters of May 11th and May 16th, the latter for some reason, under registered cover.
You may be certain that I will continue to pursue all proper means to ensure that no federal officials shall be party to wrongdoing.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
As you are no doubt aware, I have on more than one occasion communicated information to the R.C.M.P. which has been of substantial benefit to criminal investigations. I shall continue to follow this course wherever, in doing so, it will not be in conflict with my obligations as a member of parliament and to parliament, its privileges and those of its members.
I have spoken with your colleague the Solicitor General last May 24 and May 26.
I had not intended to participate in this discussion at all, sir, had it not been for the importance of the matter raised by the form of communication which was adopted by the minister. Every member of this house is constantly faced with the conflict which exists because of his obligation as a citizen with that which exists because of his obligation as a member of parliament. I am not inferring that this was done, but it does not behoove any member of the treasury benches to bring any form of pressure whatever upon a member of parliament with respect to his obligations which will harm the freedom of access of the citizen to his member.
This is what has happened here. I can refer the minister to my question No. 577 which I placed on the order paper many months ago. The last suggestion made to me by the minister in connection with that question was that if I, as a member of this house, would supply him with the names of the companies with respect to which specific answers should be made he would be delighted to provide the information. This suggestion was made notwithstanding the fact that on February 28 last he had information which I placed on Hansard with regard to five specifically
23033-361 i
Government Organization named companies. No reference was made to this. I can tell the minister that in my files there are some 30 to 50 companies which require investigative procedures, the names of which companies I cannot, because of the obligation I feel as a member in protecting the confidential nature of communications passed to me, provide in this house. Otherwise they would have been disclosed.


An hon. Member:: Then do it as a citizen.


Erik Nielsen: I would dearly love to. Notwithstanding the fact that a constituent comes into my office, gives me information and then says, please do not disclose my name because I fear for my life, I do not want to wind up in a lime pit, is the hon. member advocating that I should disclose the information? If he wants to destroy that relationship, that is what we should do. If this house imposes that obligation on me and if I see it that way, that is what I will do. I do not believe that is the obligation of a member. I think his obligation is to maintain absolute freedom of access between the citizen and himself. If you breach the trust a constituent places in his member in communicating information of this kind, that relationship is utterly destroyed.
There is one manner in which these matters can be gone into properly and thoroughly and that is by following the investigative process with which parliament has clothed the various ministers. This involves setting up a proper inquiry under either part II or part I of the act. Once this is done, once you provide the vehicle, not only members but citizens of this country, industrial and commercial organizations, dozens and dozens of which have been making representations to me, to other members of this house, to the minister himself, to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General, will have access to the proper forum for investigation of these various complaints.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Erik Nielsen: Certainly.


Richard Joseph Cashin: As I understand the hon. member, he is defending the right of a member of parliament and the informant or whoever it is to have a confidential relationship. Will the hon. member not agree that by making a public statement he changed the complexion of this problem and in fact made it a different situation? Once the hon. member made a
5694	COMMONS
Government Organization public statement, did he not really prejudice this relationship and cast aspersions or doubt and therefore a member of parliament or anyone would be quite within his rights in questioning the statement because it put a number of people in a difficult position?


Erik Nielsen: Not at all. I do not know whether the hon, member has had this experience but time after time I have had people write to me or see me in my office, as they did in connection with the Norris commission, and say, I am not going to say anything until I have the right to appear before a commission set up to make an inquiry into this matter and have the assurance of the protection of that commission. You remember what happened in connection with the Norris commission. Nobody would talk until the commission was set up. Once it was, once the ice was broken, you had all sorts of evidence adduced from people who were theretofore afraid to make disclosures. This is precisely the situation here, and that is the reason I have been urging specifically that this kind of proper investigative process be followed to inquire into the fraudulent bankruptcies which exist not only in the province of Quebec, as I said before, but in every province. As the R.C.M.P. report indicated, wherever there are densities of population you will find this type of racket. It is not a proper course to follow to get members to breach the obligation which exists.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I am following the analogy the hon. member has just given the house in the case of the Norris commission and applying it to his own circumstances. He feels an inquiry is needed. He makes this statement and leaves the matter hanging in the air. There is an obligation on the public authority, be it a minister or anyone, to ask for that evidence so it can be used as a basis for the kind of inquiry which would be analogous to the Norris commission. Unless the hon. member is prepared to do that, then his analogy to the Norris commission is incorrect.


Erik Nielsen: I suggest this is a new version-I will not put it that way because it will arouse political passions. What I will say is that the hon. member places a misconstruction on the analogy. It is not a proper course for any minister to follow to make inquiries of members, which I suggest he should know should not be made, when he knows there is a proper investigative procedure set down by parliament which should be followed. It has not been followed in this case.
IMr. Cashin.]
DEBATES	May 30, 1966
I will leave the matter with this comment and then sit down. One of the most important rights or freedoms of any citizen of this country is the freedom to untrammeled and confidential, if he wishes, access to his member of parliament. Destroy that and the institution is no longer worth anything, nor the members sitting in it. If a citizen comes into your office or writes to you and says, I am in fear of my life if I make a disclosure in connection with this case, even if the circumstances are mentioned my life is in danger, then what is a member's obligation?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Even if the minister was correct in making an inquiry, what is his obligation? I suggest that the proper obligation is for the government in power at the time to follow the investigative procedures which parliament itself has provided to cover circumstances of this nature, and that it should do so under the new department which is being set up. That is one of the very first things it should do. You will find, Mr. Chairman, that once that happens people will come forward. Commerce and industry in this country would welcome it with open arms and so would many individuals who, as the minister pointed out, have been hit and hit hard not only by isolated instances of individual frauds in bankruptcies but by the organized rackets which exist today. That is the only way you are going to get as full disclosure as possible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I desire to say a few words in support of the amendment proposed by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway in which she suggested that the name of this department be changed to the department of consumer affairs and that the minister of the department be known as the minister of consumer affairs.
The President of the Privy Council, in replying to the arguments put forward in support of the amendment, suggested that the proposal of the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway would narrow the powers of the proposed department. Then the minister proceeded to demolish most of his own arguments by outlining the functions of the various branches which will make up this department. He pointed out that the purpose of this department, which the government desires to call the department of the registrar general, is to bring under one minister the public legislation relating to business organizations.
May 30, 1966

He also pointed out that the minister would have under him the administration of the anti-combines legislation.
The minister said that the purpose of this legislation was to provide competition which would be a spur to efficiency. What is the purpose, Mr. Chairman, of having efficiency in business organization if it is not to lower the price of the product and provide cheaper goods for the consumer? Surely the anti-combines legislation and the restrictive trade practices commission have been designed for years to act as instruments for the protection of the Canadian consuming public.
The minister also mentioned the patent law and the Trade Marks Act which primarily are designed to protect the consumer. He also made reference to bankruptcy. We in this party would prefer to see the bankruptcy and insolvency legislation under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice for the same reason that we argue that the R.C.M.P. should be under the direction of the Minister of Justice, namely, because the enforcement agencies that would implement the basic purposes of the bankruptcy legislation ought to be under the Minister of Justice. But even assuming that the bankruptcy and insolvency legislation are left with the proposed minister of consumer affairs, surely the purpose of bankruptcy and insolvency legislation is to protect the consumers. If there are losses owing to frauds in bankruptcy, ultimately the cost is passed on to the consumer.
The minister spoke of the Companies Act legislation for the supervision of the activities of companies. Again I point out that these companies exist specifically to serve the community and to sell to the consumer. Every piece of legislation which will come under the supervision of this new department ultimately has to do with the consumer. Therefore it is completely fallacious to argue that calling this department the department of consumer affairs will narrow its functions.
On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, we propose that its functions shall be widened. We cannot make this proposal under clause 6 but when clause 8 comes before the committee we shall propose that the clause be amended so as to give to the department and to the minister of consumer affairs powers with regard to two very important matters, one of which is to provide consumer protection.
The minister has already said that some 13 private bills are before the house dealing with consumer credit. Surely, Mr. Chairman, that underlines the tremendous interest and

Government Organization concern existing in Canada today with respect to the exploitation of the consumer which is now taking place on the part of small finance companies owing to the failure to disclose interest rates properly. Surely the time has come to set up a department to which the necessary powers will be granted to protect the public from small loans companies and loan sharks, to protect the housewife against misleading advertising and packaging and to guarantee the safety and quality of goods sold over the counter. If this department is going to serve the consumer, these are the kind of powers it will require.
Most important of all, Mr. Chairman, we think that such a department would have to have power to review consumer prices. This is something which the members of this party have been talking about now for at least a year and a half. We have drawn the attention of the government to the fact that the cost of living is spiralling at an accelerated rate.
The cost of living has gone up 4 per cent in the past 12 months and there is every indication that it will go up another 4 per cent in the coming 12 months. The Minister of Finance has himself budgeted on the basis that it will go up 3J per cent, but that does not tell the whole story. The 4 per cent increase during the past 12 months is over the whole range of consumer goods.
For example, if one takes the list of 20 or 30 commodities which the average family must buy in order to maintain a minimum standard of decency, then the increase is much more than 4 per cent. In comparing April, 1965 with April, 1966 I noticed that while on all consumer items the cost of living went up percentage points, on food the cost went up 10.3 percentage points.
Items like food, clothing and drugs are items which the average family must buy. There are other items which they can postpone buying or which they can forego, but things like food, clothing, drugs and the payment of rent must be budgeted for and the increase in these costs has been a great deal more than 4 per cent.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The tragedy is, Mr. Chairman, that the government refuses to be concerned about the rising cost of living. So what happens? There are two categories of persons who are affected. Some persons, those in the first category must live on fixed incomes. They include those who have retired on a pension, who have an annuity or who draw the old age pension. For them an increase in the cost of
May 30, 1966

Government Organization living means only one thing, a reduction in their standard of living. They are number one victims of the government's callous apathy and inaction.
The second group of persons are those receiving wages and salaries. The only way they can cope with the rising cost of living is to ask for more money. This is why we now have a rash of labour disputes from one end of Canada to the other. This is why the Minister of Labour is being harassed with the longshoremen's strike, with the dispute between Air Canada and its employees, with the dispute between the seaway employees and the seaway authority. In almost every province of Canada today strike votes are being taken and labour discord is rife, not because workers are anxious to go on strike-anyone who has that illusion ought to try walking the streets or manning a picket line week after week without any income to realize that going on strike is no picnic-but because they have no other recourse.
Unless workers can have more wages their standard of living must go down. Wages have lagged behind the rising cost of living and increased productivity. Workers in all parts of Canada are now asking for increased wages as they negotiate new collective bargaining agreements.
The government, which would not do anything about the rising cost of living, now finds labour disputes on its doorstep. You see, Mr. Chairman, in the period this government has been in office it has never faced its problems. It has thought that it could solve its problems by sweeping them under the rug. Anybody realizes that when you sweep problems under a rug they multiply. Instead of having one problem you end up with six. That is exactly what has happened to the government. It is faced with labour discord, strikes and threats of strikes which loom up all across Canada, because during its 18 months in office it has turned its blind eye to the problem of rising living costs.
I suppose, following the statement of the Minister of Labour on Friday, the government thinks that the answer lies in putting the cork into the neck of the bottle and stopping these requests for higher wages. The minister spoke the other day about the possibility of setting up labour courts. I think the government may as well know that the working people of Canada will never stand for any government allowing somebody to adjudicate the price of their labour while at the same time refusing to adjudicate on the prices the

monopolies and combines demand for the products they sell in the consumer market. You cannot have a free market for the large corporations and a fixed, determined market governing the price which people get for their labour.
That is why we want to see a department of consumers affairs established. That is why we want set up under such a department a prices review board that will examine prices. If there is justification for setting up conciliation boards and arbitration boards to determine whether an increase in wages is justified, surely there is a case for setting up a tribunal to determine whether an increase in prices is justified. That is all we have been asking.
If the government once more turns down this suggestion it need not be surprised if labour disputes continue, if more farmers, as in Quebec, wheel their tractors out on the highway declaring that they will not pay their taxes. The government need not be surprised if the farmers on the prairies, finding that wheat, the main commodity they have to sell, has gone down in price while their cost of production has gone up, cry out in protest.
That is why we feel that this amendment is more than merely changing the name of a department from department of the "registrar general" to the department of consumer affairs. This amendment asks the government to set aside one department which, in addition to the duties already outlined by the minister having to do with anti-combines legislation, bankruptcy, the Trade Marks Act and the Companies Act, all of which concern consumers directly or indirectly, shall be charged with the positive and definite responsibility of protecting the consuming public of Canada against exploitation, against deception and against selfish and greedy profiteering.
I make a plea to the government to heed this request and consider this amendment. If the government fails to do so the troubles which today concern the Minister of Labour, and I am sure they do concern him, involving the discord and strife which have already appeared on the horizon of the labour front, will multiply in geometric progression and this country will face a very serious situation in the next 12 months.
If the Minister of Finance is right in his prediction that the cost of living in the next 12 months, as it has done in the previous 12 months, will rise by 3i to 4 per cent, then
Maj 30. 1966

we have only begun to see the discord and animosity which will arise in employer-employee relationships. The government now has a chance to act before it is too late. If it fails to act now I suggest it will reap the whirlwind of labour discontent in this country.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief remarks about the amendment. I certainly do not intend to range far and wide, as did the last speaker. I am convinced, despite the last speaker's opinions, that this amendment merely changes the name of the department. I do not think one can help but appreciate the objective of the amendment and we understand it. Personally, and here I am speaking for my party, I do not believe that the amendment will achieve what the hon. member has in mind. I think that the proposed name, "registrar general" expresses far more clearly the duties, activities and objectives of the department. I am not in favour of any change in the name.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Consumer affairs are much too important to be involved with a great many other considerations. With much of what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has said I agree, though, of course, he said other things with which I do not agree. I do not think the amendment would enable us to reach the objective which many members are seeking. I believe we should place consumer affairs on a completely separate basis. There should be a much wider consideration of the whole field, including consumer credit.
It is not enough merely to suggest that the name of a department be changed. The last speaker indicated that there would be other amendments to put more teeth, as it were, into the proposal now before us. But consumer affairs are much too vital to be handled in connection with the many other items listed in this and following clauses. For these reasons we intend to vote against the amendment.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Greenwood. When I first read the title of the proposed department, department of the registrar general, I at once connected it with the department of the registrar general in Ontario which deals with vital statistics and lists births and deaths. I would not want people from Ontario to become confused about the names of these departments.

Government Organization


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I wonder whether the hon. member knows that the Secretary of State is also the Registrar General of Canada at the moment.


John Gilbert: Thank you very much. I am sure the hon. lady knows we have a registrar general in Ontario who records births and deaths. That is the point I was making. I would not want the people of Ontario to become mixed up in this regard, which is a good reason for changing the name of the department and calling it the department of consumer affairs.
Looking at the list of the duties and functions of the department one finds a close relationship with the interests of consumers. The handling of corporate affairs affects not only the particular companies concerned but all the people of Canada. The question of copyrights and patents also affects all Canadians, as do bankruptcy and insolvency, the important subject with which the hon. member for Yukon dealt so fully. I hope the government will pay no attention to his suggestion that when the bill comes to us from the other place it should be referred to the committee on justice and legal affairs. I am sure that measure has received full consideration in the other place and it is my view that it should be given speedy passage through the House of Commons. The Canadian people, more especially Canadian businessmen, believe that fraudulent bankruptcies demand immediate attention. To refer this legislation to a committee, thereby holding it up for some considerable time, would not be fair to Canadian businessmen or to those who have been adversely affected by bankruptcies.
As to combines, mergers, monopolies and restrictive trade practices, it is hardly necessary for me to say that this field directly affects Canadian consumers. If we look at the cost of living index for February, 1965, we find that it stood at 137.1. By February, 1966. it had risen to 142.5, an increase of five points or 3J per cent. Since then the increase has gone to 4 per cent.
When I heard the Minister of Labour suggest on Friday that perhaps the time had come for the imposition of compulsory arbitration in certain areas of labour relations I was prompted to say immediately that the time has come to set up a department of consumer affairs, particularly a prices review board. Both shoes must be worn at the same time. You cannot ask for restraint and control in connection with wages without imposing
May 30, 1966

Government Organization similar restraint and control with regard to prices. It is important for the President of the Privy Council to realize that the combines legislation has not been effective in the past. We say that teeth should be put into this legislation in order to make it more effective in checking some of the practices which have been carried on by corporations across the country.
The Canadian consumer is also concerned about false advertising and packaging. These are matters which could be effectively dealt with by a department of consumer affairs. I agree with my hon. friend from Vancouver-Kingsway that a lead was given by the Prime Minister when he made his opening remarks on the subject of government reorganization and recognized the need for a department to deal with the many problems of vital interest to the consumers of this country. We say the time for action has now arrived because of the tremendous increase in the cost of living.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
There is one other matter on which I should like to comment. As the minister knows, there are dominion companies and provincial companies, the latter coming within provincial jurisdiction. In Ontario companies fall within the responsibility of the provincial secretary. Form now on, the department of the registrar general will have responsibility for federal companies. I entirely agree that the department must be headed by a person with legal experience. This is inevitable bearing in mind the many conflicting aspects of a registrar's functions. A colleague of mine says that possibly we need a layman in charge who would clear up the confusion, but I suggest it would be compounded by having a layman as the head of the department. We need a person with legal training who can cope with the intricate problems involving bankruptcies, combines and so forth.
The leadership with regard to consumer affairs must come from the government. It would be a sad mistake for the President of the Privy Council to say that consumer affairs are a provincial matter and that the federal government operates within a very narrow area. I suggest to him that it is the federal government which has to give leadership in this field, and it is to him we look for that leadership. He cannot shelter under the umbrella of alleged provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I fully support the amendment and urge that it be supported by all hon. members.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I believe that to call the department the department of consumer affairs would be a mistake and I would have to vote against the amendment. I suggest that if the mover of the amendment wants consumer affairs incorporated as part of the responsibilities of the new department the words "consumer affairs" could be added as paragraph (e) of clause 8. This would give substance to the intent she has in mind and I would be willing to support such an amendment.


Mr. Brewin:: In response to what has been said by the hon. member for Rosthern I should like to inform him that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway intends to propose an amendment to clause 8 as he suggests, but clause 6 comes first and we have to deal with it at the start.
I want to plead with the government to accept the hon. member's amendment. If the arguments put forward by my leader and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway do not carry weight with the government, then I plead with the government to pay attention to the amendment on the grounds of poetry, psychology and public relations. The term registrar general conjures up some official putting away dead documents, in other words, a keeper of musty records.
I believe that the President of the Privy Council holds a title which has some degree of romance and interest in it. Likewise the Minister of Justice has a title conjuring up something which makes sense, as have the Minister of Industry and the Minister of National Defence. Surely when naming a department which is to have important functions of government we do not want to give it a meaningless, dry as dust title.
It is not simply a matter of nomenclature or words. The purpose is to give notice to the long-suffering consumer that at last parliament, through the government, is concerned about the affairs of consumers. I am not going to repeat what has been said by other hon. members, but we all know that the consumer is the forgotten man and, even worse politically speaking, the forgotten woman when it comes to dealing with problems of government.
It has been suggested that we cannot discuss clause 6 intelligently without relating it to clause 8. Clause 8 gives the proposed registrar general responsibilities relating to combines, mergers, monopolies and restraint of trade. Why are we concerned with these
May 30, 1966	COMMONS
subjects? It is because we are concerned that the consumer shall not be gypped. Under paragraph (b) his duties relate to patents, copyrights and trade marks. The law we have on our statute books at present deals with trade marks and unfair trade practices. What we are urging is that the concept of unfair trade practices be enlarged so that we may have a department and a minister responsible not just for dealing with patents, copyrights and trade marks but for dealing with all unfair trade practices.
What allies these subjects is the protection of the consumer. I do not want to deal with the question of bankruptcies and insolvencies because that should come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice, but the trouble with corporate affairs at the present time is that the consumer has been forgotten. All sorts of people have manipulated corporate affairs and have forgotten that corporations exist in order to serve the consumer.
As I understand the concept of this department, as explained by the Prime Minister, it is that we should have someone in government concerned primarily to speak within the cabinet for the great body of Canadian consumers. Do hon. members believe that organizations like the Canadian Association of Consumers, which contains in its ranks a vast number of thoughtful, politically-minded women, would ask for this department if they did not think it had any meaning? I suggest that they are among the most practical-minded people in the whole community. They have asked for this department and for this name in order to stress something which hitherto the government has overlooked to a considerable extent.
If I had been on the government benches I would have accepted the hon. lady's amendment as a good piece of advice. I would have said, let us do this in a way that indicates a concern about consumer affairs and indicates to the people of Canada that we are taking a new look at this matter, instead of selecting a title like "registrar general."
With all due respect to the present registrar general, the title is one without poetry, without romance, with no evocative implications whatsoever. I say that for the sake of a more imaginative name, for the sake of psychology, for the sake of public relations, the government should accept a sensible amendment of this sort and indicate its intention to deal with consumer affairs. It is not a matter of words alone.
DEBATES	5699
Government Organization
I was happy to read this morning that the hon. member for Outremont-Saint-Jean, the former secretary of state, said when speaking in Toronto that several federal departments should disappear. I am sorry he is not in the chamber at the moment and so I cannot ask him which, but he said that a new department of scientific, consumer and family affairs should be formed. I say that the hon. member was speaking with good sense and I urge his colleagues to pay attention to his words.
I cannot see why this amendment should not be accepted. I repeat that it is not just a matter of title or name. If the title is changed in clause 6, then in clause 8 we can add more specific direction to the government showing that we want the affairs of the consumers to have priority, and this is the only way we can show it.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to say just a few words, Mr. Chairman. Mention of poetry always is a challenge to any member of this party which has a great deal of poetry in its make-up. The suggestion of the hon. member for Greenwood that the title should be changed because the proposed title would be more imaginative and more romantic makes me take the position that if this amendment were carried I think in the result the new name of the department would contain an indication to the general public that it was far more involved in the subject than actually would be the case. While I have every sympathy with the motives of the member who moved the amendment and others who have spoken in favour of it, I must say I feel compelled to vote against it. I do this with the full knowledge of the truthfulness of so much of what has been said, but I think the suggested name would indicate to the average member of the public that the federal government was assuming responsibilities which it in no way could undertake to fulfil or carry out.
The questions of interest disclosure and consumer prices are tremendously important at the present time, but how is it possible for the government, even if a prices board were established, to deal with this matter? By the time the board had been established, hearings held and the inquiry made, the prices would have been so interwoven into the economic fabric that it would be far too late. If such were possible, I like the idea proposed by the Labour government in the United Kingdom
5700	COMMONS
Government Organization shortly before the election to set up a board and make it mandatory for notice of proposals to increase wages and prices to be given. This would permit a period before the increases became effective in which there could be a valid inquiry. Of course, you would have to relate this to the Criminal Code because unfortunately in our distribution of constitutional responsibility the federal government finds this difficult except in the case of emergency. That has been the jurisprudence.
I offer the suggestion to the government that if members of the legal staff of the department are interested in trying to suggest that an emergency does exist they might say that so long as the present government stays in power there is a national emergency. This might form the basis for a solid argument because, of course, a national emergency would give them the right to intervene and deal with prices as in wartime. I doubt, however, that this advice is acceptable.
I do feel that imagination and romance would not recommend themselves to those in the department who say that the new department of consumer affairs would fail because it would be giving to a department of the federal government rights which it should not have. Much as I am in sympathy with the amendment, under these conditions I do not feel I can support it. For example, we have the suggestion that patents, copyrights and trade marks would be involved in the work of this department. I have had some discussion with the President of the Privy Council about this previously. Because this branch of our jurisdiction is founded on a narrow application of the criminal law it has been established as a result of a number of decisions that it is almost impossible for there to be that form of tracing of prices under the guise of combines, mergers and monopoly legislation that the government and the people may require.
Some time ago the minister indicated that some consideration was being given to an attempt to broaden the jurisdiction by seeing whether it could not be founded as well on trade and commerce. The very fact that the subject matter is now assigned to the department of the registrar general and not under the control of the Minister of Justice indicates that the government may be moving in that direction. The minister has not said anything. I do not know to what extent the officials of the department have considered this point and to what extent the law officers of the crown or officials of the restrictive

DEBATES	May 30, 1966
trade practices branch have made progress in an attempt to find an acceptable formula which would meet the constitutional law. It would be a very considerable step forward if something like that could be found. The fact that this subject matter is assigned to the registrar general is of some significance, but although I have every sympathy and find that for these reasons I cannot support the amendment. The suggestion by the hon. member for Rosthern might have some value if by the time we reach clause 8 there is a further amendment.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the discussion which has taken place on this amendment. I should like to advise my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood, who said it was very difficult to understand why the government could not accept the amendment, that he might have understood if he had looked at the civil servants in the gallery and had noted the consternation expressed by them in the last few minutes and the exchanges which have taken place. I am sure he will find that the government really cannot deviate from their policy because there is no one here who could authorize a deviation even if they wished to. I think also there is some indication now that the minister has been picked. I did not realize this previously.
If a consumers' department were established I should like to see the two ladies on that side involved in it. I should like to see the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare take over the consumer affairs department as minister because, although the government may not know it, half of the people in Canada are women and half of the voters are women.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Arnold Peters: They may not have realized this, but I think the women of Canada will be very much interested in the idea put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. She says that all the consumers of Canada are interested in having a department which would supervise many of the things which they think are not being supervised at the present time. It is quite true that no matter who might be the minister of this department he or she would be capable of doing something in this field, but I suggest that a woman would be much more capable in supervising the problems of consumers for the very simple reason that we in Canada seem to turn over to the women of the nation
May 30, 1966	COMMONS
most of the problems which concern the consumers of the nation.
We allow the women to do the buying. They are the ones who have to make the payments on the car. They are the ones who buy the groceries, pay the telephone bill and know when the taxes have gone up. The poor breadwinner is out working so hard that he cannot be bothered with these routine problems.


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member for Timiskaming whether the ladies in the house would not be likely to feel better with regard to the general argument he is now putting forward if he would first deal with the cogency of the argument just advanced by the hon. member for Peace River.


William Arnold Peters: Not being a lawyer I am in a very fortunate position; I do not have to become involved in the legal arguments raised in the house. There are others who are in a better position to do this than I. It would be rather foolish for me to argue here whether the establishment of a department of consumer affairs would interfere with provincial rights.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


John B. Stewart: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he concedes that the legal situation is at least of some relevance?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly I agree and I have no argument in that regard. However, the hon. member must realize that sooner or later, and I suggest that the sooner the better so far as the Canadian people are concerned, the government is going to have to face up to the fact that the consumers have some rights, and is going to have to get around the legal problems. The argument about legality in my opinion is more often abused than used.
I note that various members of the government department concerned are in attendance today and I am sure they could advise my colleague why the department is taking the stand it apparently is taking today. It is unfortunate that the government could not meet and decide upon their reasons for not accepting this amendment which would change the complexity of the contemplated department. In my opinion the amendment is not so involved that it cannot be understood.
In view of what the President of the Privy Council has said about the responsibilities and duties of this department, there seems to be some similarity between the department 23033-3621
DEBATES	5701
Government Organization and a consumers department such as we have suggested. We believe this department should concern itself with the problems that arise in regard to bankruptcies, copyrights, trade marks and restrictive trade practices. There seems to be a difference between our thinking and that of the government in that we are looking at the whole situation from the point of view of the consumer and the government seems to be looking at the situation as it affects corporate bodies and the legal interpretations that are involved.
In the result the consumer is the individual who always is hurt as the result of bankruptcies and the disadvantages which arise from restrictions in respect of copyrights. These are the people who are the victims of any non-competitive system of trade such as is allowed to develop in this country as the result of the structure of many of our corporations.
One of my colleagues referred to the serious labour difficulties that have been experienced in Canada this year. I should like to echo his sentiments and add that in my opinion the situation will become worse before it becomes better. It will worsen because most trade unionists are also consumers and know that if there is a 3.5 per cent increase in the consumer price index the retail consumer price will probably increase by 10 per cent. In this regard it is interesting to note that when one of the larger unions was presented by its bargaining committee with one of the best contracts ever negotiated on the North American continent it told the committee to renegotiate and get a better contract. No doubt this happened because they were aware that recent financial figures indicate that corporations are making higher profits than ever before and are being allowed special concessions for depreciation and expansion programs. The workers of this country realize that they are in a good bargaining position to obtain a fair share of the spoils.
We hope that some protection will be extended to all purchasers in Canada. As the former Conservative government often said, we should have competitive enterprise. So far as the consumer is concerned there is no such thing in Canada as competitive enterprise. Most of the enterprise in Canada is monopolistic rather than competitive. All one has to do is drive down the street and check the price of gasoline at various service stations to realize that the price is always the same regardless of the overhead involved. Anyone
5702	COMMONS
Government Organization who has any kind of business experience must realize that overheads vary and therefore prices should fluctuate. We all know that if Weston Bakeries increases the price of a loaf of bread all the rest of the bakeries follow suit. This fact is true of many other companies. For instance, if the price of sugar is raised by one of the largest companies the rest of the companies increase the price of sugar.
Apparently there is no supervision on the part of the government in regard to consumer prices. Many people were surprised to find this year that their telephone bills continued to increase in spite of the fact that the dividends paid by the Bell Telephone Company were the highest in history. They were so high that a government board investigated the situation and recommended that there should be some limitation. Surely this type of curb should be applied to all unreasonable or unrealistic increases in the price of consumer goods.
The type of department we have in mind could consider many things and supervise in fields in which the government has not been involved before. There seems to be an attitude on the part of governmental officials that if they become involved in fields with which they have had nothing to do previously it will shock the sensitivity of provincialists. We in this party believe that the minister of a department of consumers affairs, particularly if the minister were a woman, could look into the problems which housewives face in respect of varying sizes of clothing. Let me outline the problems I have in mind.
There is a tremendous variation in the actual size of children's clothes and shoes manufactured by different companies. It is obvious that all ten year old children are not going to be able to wear the same size pants, nature being what it is, but it would be nice if a mother could order a certain size and always get the same size regardless of the manufacturer. A pair of size 10 pants today should be exactly the same size as another pair tomorrow or next week. A department such as we have in mind could develop a Canadian set of standards so that all sizes would be uniform and so that when a company labelled an article of clothing as being shrink-proof it would be just that and would remain the same size after it was washed.
Something similar should also be done with regard to canned and packaged goods. How many housewives get hosed every time they buy so-called bargains at the grocery store?

DEBATES	May 30, 1966
For example, usually the housewife will buy a 13-ounce can of peas, but when they are put on sale at perhaps six for a dollar they are actually 5 or 6 ounce cans with the result that she is not getting a bargain at all. These goods should also be standardized as to size.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: What about frozen goods? They all come in standard sizes.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: I did not know that frozen goods came in uniform sizes, and perhaps what the hon. lady has said strengthens my argument. Frozen goods are sold by the pound and therefore they are the same in size. If this were true of all canned and packaged goods I am sure that the housewives of Canada could budget their money and make it go further than it does today. In my opinion, if this kind of advice were given to the housewives of Canada it would make their budgets go a lot farther than is the case at the moment. This is the kind of thing that consumers would expect from a consumers' bureau.
Perhaps the government is not interested in the housewives of this country. Perhaps they are not really interested in consumers at all. But I suggest they had better think about this question because the housewives are very vocal in this regard. They certainly are to me. Every time I walk into a grocery store at home I believe I talk to every housewife in the store about this subject, not because I want to do so, because I would like to sneak in sometimes and buy something and leave. But that is not possible. If I go into a grocery store I know I will hear from every housewife there about the increase in prices since the last time she shopped.
I believe the government will have to face this problem because sooner or later the housewives will decide that they are going to do something about it. Certainly organizations such as the Voice of Women, the consumer groups, the better business bureaux and others are now finding that the people are not just willing to talk at meetings but are interested in finding out what they can really do to solve these problems. They no longer are satisfied with talking about mundane things which have been brought before parliament in the past, and they will be putting before us matters of substance about which something should be done.
I would also like this consumers' bureau to have something to do with public utilities because I think this is a field that such bureau would want to take a close look at.
May 30, 19GS

We are finding that there is no competition in most of the public utility fields. In many ways we have established national monopolies in this respect. There is very little supervision over these public utilities and the agencies which have been created are certainly not capable of supervising them.
This is obviously true in the case of the Board of Transport Commissioners, which has looked at the operations of the Bell Telephone Company and has not been able to decide whether the Northern Electric Company should be divorced from the parent company although it knows full well that there have been many write-offs between these companies which have worked to the disadvantage of Canada and have provided no advantage to telephone subscribers. We have found that the subscriber has had to way of bringing his complaints to the attention of the company except by writing to the president. I was very surprised to hear the president inform us when he appeared before a committee not long ago that all complaints of subscribers of the Bell Telephone Company went to him. I presume the company runs itself and all he has to do is act as a clearinghouse for complaints. This is obviously a field in which the government should be interested, becauses we should be able to have as cheap telephone service as possible, allowing for a reasonable profit to the company and a reasonable amount of accumulated capital for whatever expansion is deemed necessary.
These remarks also apply to bus services in the various communities. There should be some type of control over such utilities which will provide at least a yardstick for assessing whether the consumer is getting a fair shake. The government is now toying with the idea of doing something in respect of the problem of car safety. They are being dragged into this problem by the scruff of the neck and the minister is fighting vainly to withhold action in this regard. I believe this is a field in which consumers are vitally concerned and will one day decide to so something about it in an election. It seems that the only way of changing the mind of government is for its members to travel about the country and at each meeting they attend a terrific bombardment in respect of these maters. During an election campaign the people are told that policy changes will be made but when we leave the election period the reluctance to continue a particular investigation is obvious.
Government Organization Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I do not expect that the government will consider the problem of consumer affairs. I do not think they will consider it simply because they did not think about it before the senior civil servants made up their minds what was going to be included in the new department. I believe this is a sad state of affairs and something the cabinet should think about. They should be in a position to make some decisions on their own; they should not have to wait until the senior civil servants decide for them whether they are going to do certain things. They should think about this question and be very cautious in choosing ministers for the various departments before the bill is passed and the departments are established.
I say this, Mr. Chairman, because I honestly think that if this change were made it would be very much appreciated by the Canadian public. I think the government would find that this department would bring in a great deal of good legislation which would provide an outlet for many of the complaints that will occur in the next few months as the cost of living continues to spiral. Consumers have not the right to strike; they have not the means with which to strike. No consumers' campaign in this country, including the one carried out with respect to bacon, has been a success in my opinion. It took five or six years before anything was done in that case.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Is it not a very good thing that somebody has not the right to strike?


William Arnold Peters: I agree with that, Mr. Chairman, but I have always thought that a consumers' strike would introduce a new element into the picture. From the point of view of the Minister of Labour it is certainly a good thing that some people have not the right to strike, but I believe he would agree that the reasons behind consumers taking this kind of action would be unlike those of people in other fields.
Therefore I hope the government will give consideration to this matter. I know that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has been very interested in the problem. I know that all women are very interested in it. I believe it is very difficult for a member of parliament, unless he is badly henpecked -certainly nobody is going to get up and say
5704	COMMONS
Government Organization that he is-and goes to the grocery store and does the shopping, to be fully aware of the problems in this regard.
However, the housewife is well aware of the fact that every time she goes shopping prices increase by one or two cents and that often the produce she buys is subject to sleazy merchandising, improper labelling and in many cases fraudulent advertising. I do not know the legal situation in this regard. If I were a lawyer I might not feel the same way about these things. In my opinion there may not be a federal case for the courts, but with regard to most consumer goods we are receiving representations that in my opinion are justified. The quality of products is not in conformity with the advertising. This is true, of course, with respect to soaps and many other things. Each manufacturer says that his product is the best, and being a layman I wonder how every product can be the best and none can be inferior. I believe the consumer will demand that certain things be done in this field.
I know that the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway will continue to press for action in this area, and as she continues to press for action the women of this country will learn that they have a voice in this house and a defender of their rights in the political arena. In time we will find that the women of the country will become more and more vocal in this respect and something will have to be done to solve their problems. Attention will have to be paid to their requests. I suggest to the government that they will in the future find themselves in a much better position if they accept this suggestion and do something about it. They should take this suggestion under consideration and at least be willing to put these two departments together, namely, the department of the registrar general and the department of consumers' affairs. If they wished they could have an associate minister of that branch because I can see some difficulties in uniting these two branches without a major change in clause 8.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I hope the government will give consideration to the proposal. More important, I hope the senior civil servants, who are already wedded to the bill they have prepared, will give some consideration to it because I am sure their wives will tell them that this is a very important matter. I have been here long enough to know that if there are good arguments supplied by some of the senior civil
[Mr. Peters.l
DEBATES	May 30, 1966
servants the minister is generally quite prepared to adopt them.


Max Saltsman: I should like to call it six
o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being six o'clock, in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business it is my duty to leave the chair.



JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask consent of the house to make two motions to refer subject matters to a standing committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before we agree, what is the subject matter?


John B. Stewart: In one instance we have a motion dealing with the matter of highway safety. This is similar to several other motions that have been referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs. The other is the subject matter of Bill No. C-176, which appears on page 22 of the order paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to move these two motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the subject matter of private members' notice of motion No. 38 be referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask as a matter of information-I assume this is so-whether the mover of the motion has consented?


John B. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the fact.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I
move:
That the subject matter of Bill No. C-176 be referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
May 30, 1966
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the two motions moved by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works, I ask on behalf of my colleague the hon. member for Greenwood if the parliamentary secretary would consider also moving that the subject matter of Bill No. C-105, order No. 68, be referred to the same committee?


John B. Stewart: I shall be glad to look at that particular order to see if it cannot be treated in a similar way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It deals with insanity too, so let us get it off the floor.



PROCCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), Agriculture-importation of eggs into Canada; the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell), Trade-Canada-West Indies-steps to bring about improvement; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), External Affairs-assistance to developing countries in population control.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


James Edgar Walker: That, in order to provide elected representation on the boards of crown corporations and other companies as may be owned, operated, or controlled by the federal government, this house is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability and the expediency of taking such steps as will provide for the appointment from time to time of members of this house as unpaid directors of some or all of such crown corporations or companies for a term not longer than the life of one parliament.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I hope the house will be as amiable in dealing with this resolution as it has just demonstrated it can be in dealing with the two motions put forward by the parliamentary secretary. Before I commence my remarks on this subject I should like to say a word of encouragement to the new members of parliament in connection with any bills or notices of motion they may put on the order paper. In February, 1964, I put this motion on the order paper. Since that
Crown Corporations
time a number of sessions as well as an election have intervened and a new parliament is in progress.
I can only suggest to new members, who feel some discouragement about their particular ideas which they would like to be discussed publicly, that they should not be discouraged but put them on the order paper and some day, as a result of that famous draw for position that takes place in the Speaker's office in connection with motions and bills, they may get up to No. 17. This will mean that they will be able to air their views.
I suggest that the motion today is an interesting one, not just because it is in my name and seconded by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) but because it does cover an area of increasing public concern. Regardless of the disposal of this motion today, Mr. Speaker, I hope we have a good discussion of it. I hope we can have a nonpartisan discussion because a reading of the motion will indicate there is no mention of the fact that representation on these crown corporations should be only by the members of one party or those representing the government side of the house.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
There are three purposes underlying the notice of motion and I should like to put them forward for consideration. The first is that such representation on the boards of directors of crown corporations would serve as a taxpayers' watch dog. Second-I will elaborate on this as I go on-there is an opportunity provided for involvement and participation on the part of members of parliament. I believe that this involvement and participation is very much in line with the thinking of most of the private members of parliament these days is something which could be raised, and we should be working toward that end. This raising of the status of private members is the third purpose of the notice of motion.
With regard to the first point of having what I call a taxpayers' watch dog on various crown corporations, and they fall into different categories, this is doubly necessary at a time of increasing expenditure on the part of public bodies which largely are cut off from any direct responsibility to the taxpayers, the people who in some instances are subsidizing their very operation.
I might not have put this motion on the order paper if that trend toward indirect

May 30, 1966
Crown Corporations
spending had been diminishing rather than increasing, but there is an increasing trend toward what I consider to be a deflection away from the principle for which parliament was originally set up. Basically, I think the original and perhaps only purpose of parliament was to make a very close examination and give final approval or rejection of the spending of tax dollars. I have heard it said in this house that really this is the main purpose of the House of Commons, to pass estimates and approve the spending of tax dollars.
The matter which concerns me, Mr. Speaker, and I believe should concern every member of the house, is that increasing amounts of tax dollars are being put at the disposal of non-elected people and bodies whose only responsibility to the public, through this house, is to a minister of the crown. We all know the position of ministers of the crown who report to the house on behalf of crown corporations when questions are put to them. I suggest that the only reply they can make is that they will refer the questions to the crown corporations concerned and will report back to the house. The min ster really only serves as a channel to obtain the opinions of people serving on a non-elected board.
May I, Mr. Speaker, in case we do not realize the amount of money involved quickly run down some of the figures about which we are talking today. If I might digress a little, when this motion was placed on the order paper a little over two years ago considerable attention and publicity was given to it in the press, and some interest by way of correspondence was also shown.
I am not saying that the motion is perfect in all respects, but the idea of more direct control over spending by the House of Commons did seem to receive quite favourable comment and commendation in the press. At any rate, one article outlined the three types of agencies or corporations. There were three groups: the agency corporations, the proprietary corporations and other corporations.
In the first group appear such giants as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, with a budget of $62 million. Then there were Crown Assets Disposal Corporation with a budget of $6.5 million, the National Capital Commission with an $84.4 million budget, the National Harbours Board with a $470.7 million budget, and Northern Canada Power Commission with a budget of $28.5 million.

The figures in the second category are as follows, and I presume that these figures are now two years out of date. There are such proprietary corporations as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with a budget of $108.3 million, the Canadian National Railways with assets of $3,754 million, Overseas Telecommunications, $61.8 million, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, $2,000 million, St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, $507.3 million and, of course, there is the Bank of Canada with assets of $3,300 million.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that these are terrific sums of money which have been placed in the hands of corporations some of which operate at a profit. Of course, profit is a relative thing, so I do not think that is a great point; but some of them do operate under a deficit, and I think that is a very pertinent consideration. We have placed huge sums of money at the disposal of these corporations, some of which are subsidized with the taxpayers' money, but no direct control over them is exercised by members of parliament.
My understanding as a representative of a constituency is that one of my duties here is to keep track, as much a I can, of taxpayers' dollars and how and where they are being spent. Some people fear the political control which one member of parliament might exert over the board of directors of one of these crown corporations. However, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this is a fallacious argument against this proposal. I cannot see that one member of parliament, even if he be most loquacious, in the minority position he would be in on a board of 15 or 20 directors would have a very disastrous effect on that board.


Mr. Churchill:: Would the hon. member answer a question?


James Edgar Walker: Yes, sir.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member not be disturbed if, say, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) became a director of the C.N.R.?


James Edgar Walker: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not at all. I say that because, in the limited way in which we examine these crown corporations in our house committees, the hon. member for Lapointe has in my judgment done a very good job. I believe that besides such examination in committee any member of this house should be permitted to bring a public opinion before a board of directors of a crown corporation, something which in my judgment
May 30, 1966

is now lacking in light of some of the decisions which have been made.
One of the problems created by the policies of crown corporations is that inevitably, if the policies are good, parliament does not get any credit for them. However, if they are bad policies, parliament and the government, whether it be formed by those on the opposition benches or by us on this side, get the blame.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is pretty galling to me when as a member of parliament I return to my riding to be blamed and criticized by taxpayers for some decision taken by a crown corporation over which I or this parliament have no control and no opportunity at the policy-making level at least to present a point of view. I see no danger in one lone member of parliament ruling a crown corporation.


Mr. Whelan:: Do not forget the I.D.B.


James Edgar Walker: My hon. friend from Essex South suggests that the I.D.B. might well use the services of a member of parliament. I do not exempt the I.D.B. or any crown corporation or board from having the benefit of an hon. member serving with it, without pay.
[DOT] (6:20 pm.)
My next point has to do with raising the status of members of parliament. There has been a move in the last few years around here, not just by public relations and press releases but by making possible new areas of opportunity, to raise the status of the member of parliament and to attempt to employ more of his experience. We have a tremendous amount of experience in this house springing from the municipal level, the legal and engineering fields and other fields. There has been quite a move to try to raise the status of members of parliament. I suggest one of the best ways this can be done is for a member of parliament to have an opportunity, on behalf of parliament and the taxpayers, of becoming involved at the director's level in the operation of some of our crown corporations. I do not see any objection to this sort of thing.
One of the problems that the backbencher or member of parliament has to face is that he has to try to cover a whole field of knowledge and try to know a little about everything. My own view is that a parliamentarian could carve out a career for himself by becoming expert in one or two fields, thus being of great assistance to this house. If we
Crown Corporations
had hon. members from any side of the house who in debate could give us facts that we do not always get now, it would be to the benefit of this house. Sometimes when a minister has to report to the house he is only reporting information that in my judgment could be called hearsay, although such report is often written and comes from a crown corporation.
May I mention another thing that may not be generally known. Many crown corporations do not come under the control of the Auditor General. I understand that many crown corporations, especially the ones running at a deficit, do not use the services or come under the aegis of the Auditor General. The Auditor General of Canada does not have the same authority with respect to crown corporations in the examining of their books as he has with government departments. In that regard the crown corporations are doubly cut off, so to speak, from public scrutiny in the expenditure of money.
Some other countries do not employ the techniques I have suggested and I am sure that other speakers will mention this fact. I can only tell hon. members of one country where they go much farther in these matters than my suggestion. Members of the two chambers of the Swedish parliament are elected by parliament as members of the boards of directors of two institutions in Sweden which are placed directly under parliamentary control, namely, the Bank of Sweden and the National Debt Office. The members of parliament are elected for a period of three years. They represent all the democratic political parties represented in the Riksdag and are members of considerable experience in parliamentary life. Members of parliament are appointed by the government to the boards of directors of more important government-owned corporations in Sweden as, for instance, the Ore Mining Company of Kiruna, the Tobacco Monopoly, the Kredit-banken which is the state bank for commercial transactions, the Scandinavian Airlines System, and the like. Members of parliament are also elected by the government to the boards of directors of privately-owned insurance companies in Sweden. I do not suggest that we in this country go as far as this.
I believe that a careful reading of my resolution will allay any fears on the part of those people who think that what I propose would go this far. I suggest that my resolution would return to the members of this parliament one of the basic rights and basic responsibilities that we have, which is the

May 30, 1366
Crown Corporations
right of knowing what is going on before we are faced with a fait accompli.
I do not suppose in this one hour this afternoon we are going to make any decisions about this matter. I think that the house, by leave-and I know what Beauchesne, citation 202 (6), says about moving motions-might do certain things. I think that the house might allow this resolution to be considered by a new standing committee that we have set up, the crown corporations committee. I see no danger in this, and the matter could be gone into more fully. The dangers that some people think exist in this resolution could be examined, as could some of the advantages.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis), who I understand is here, that:
The standing committee on crown corporations be empowered to consider private members notice of motion No. 17 and report back to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member himself has pointed out, there is a requirement for unanimous agreement before the motion can be considered in the house. There is also a procedural flaw in that the hon. member having proposed the original motion cannot propose the amendment. Nevertheless hon. members may want to indicate their views in connection with the amendment now moved by the hon. member.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to enter this debate until I first considered who was moving the motion. However, after listening to the very interesting comments of the hon. member who has just spoken I think I should say a word or two. At the outset I cannot think of any reason why this matter could not be referred to the committee that the hon. member suggests. There would be greater opportunity for considering his proposal in committee because our time is limited here.
I throw out just a few ideas with regard to the motion. It is attractive at first glance. How practical it is is something that would have to be considered.
I think the hon. member is quite right when he says that the main function of parliament, which still subsists, is to determine how much money shall be exacted from the people by taxation and then to scrutinize very carefully how that money shall be spent. Although that purpose still lies with parliament and although we try to exercise it, we all know it is very difficult to maintain that

supervision over taxation and expenditure that we should like. On the other hand, I do not think it is quite right to suggest that many of these crown corporations are not subjected to rather careful scrutiny. I had a fair bit of experience with this in days gone by, particularly with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for which I reported to this house for about six years.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is not a profit-making organization; it is one of those in which we invest money year after year. We have done so regularly with general approval, as well as with great success judging by the results that have been achieved. My point in this connection is that as the minister responsible for this corporation I was obliged, after meeting with the directors and hearing their views as to their requirements, to put their suggestions before treasury board and before the cabinet. So an examination of the expenditure contemplated by the organization was carried out by channels competent to consider the matter.
Treasury board, which is a committee of ministers of the crown assisted by officials, is very well qualified to examine requests for money. From my own experience, sometimes treasury board can be ruthless in rejecting even the soundest arguments for utilizing tax money in certain directions. My recollection is that a careful examination of requirements was made by treasury board and by cabinet before the government consented to present to parliament a request for an allocation of money to be made to Atomic Energy of Canada.
I believe this applies to all the crown corporations the hon. member mentioned. So although members of parliament are not sitting on the boards of these corporations numerous members of parliament, particularly those in the cabinet, are directly concerned. They, treasury board and finally the whole cabinet have a chance to look carefully at the proposed expenditure. In this way there is a review of expenditure.
On the other hand, it is true that parliament as a whole does not have the same opportunity for detailed study as is given to members of the cabinet. Whether or not the hon. member's suggestion would result in an improvement, I do not know. If members of parliament were appointed to these boards it would certainly provide opportunities for them to become more or less expert in the operation of some of these organizations. This
May 30, 1966

would obviously be an advantage. However, at the moment I do not consider that parliament as a whole would gain appreciably. One or two members might learn a lot about the operation of Atomic Energy of Canada or Polymer or C.N.R. or the National Capital Commission but I am not sure whether their contribution in the house would be greater than that made by those members of the cabinet who have responsibility for these organizations. And we all know that opportunity to discuss such matters, whether in committee or not, is limited.
I ask the hon. member this question. How does one guard against the involvement of a member of parliament sitting on a board of directors which is spending money and letting contracts in respect of which decisions have to be made by the board? Would the member of parliament have a vote in connection, say, with the letting of substantial contracts to some firm? And if he were involved to such an extent, would this be wise? Suppose some difficulty arose in a corporation- fortunately, we have been free from this and I hope we shall continue to be free from it-because of a mistake being made or because funds were misappropriated. If, following some quite innocent action or ignorance or inertia on his part, something went wrong with the affairs of the corporation, he might be very much embarrassed. I put this forward for the hon. member's consideration.


James Edgar Walker: Is that a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would you like to answer it now?


James Edgar Walker: Without closing the debate, may I simply say I think these are the very questions which might be discussed in detail in the committee if the subject of this resolution is sent to a committee for consideration. It might well be that an hon. member should not vote on such a board, that he should simply put forward his view. As I say, these are questions which it seems to me might best be put forward and answered in committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is why I am raising them, as a guide for committee study. I was interested in what the hon. member had to say in regard to the status of members of parliament, particularly the status of so-called backbenchers. This is often mentioned; people talk about raising the status of members of parliament. I confess that this is one problem which has never worried me. It
Crown Corporations
never bothered me when I first came to this house and sat against the curtains at the back, a position in the house which I found much more agreeable than any other place I have occupied because you are not under the same amount of observation and you can ease yourself out of the chamber without being noticed, whereas when you get to the first or second rows it is noticeable when you rise and leave.
I have never been bothered by this question of the status of a member of parliament. When I was a backbencher it did not bother me. I do not know why it should bother anybody. As all of us here know that it is a considerable achievement to get elected. Not only has a member of this house to be selected by the people in his area but he has to win a nominating convention, which is often more difficult than winning an election. After that he has to win an election. So it appears to me his status is fairly well established simply by belonging to this institution for which I have such a high regard.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
It is not necessary to raise the status of members of the house by putting them on the boards of crown corporations. Status depends on the individual, on the contribution he makes here. A member who makes himself an expert in any field generally gets the ear of the House of Commons. In my experience it is up to the individual member to do the work, get the information and acquire the knowledge so that he is listened to by his colleagues in the house.
I am not at all certain that raising the status of a member of the house is one of the factors that should be considered in this otherwise interesting proposition. Status rests with the member himself. Members who are diligent in attendance and competent in their work acquire a status at least within their own party, though not necessarily in the eyes of the people who sit opposite them.
When a matter comes up in the house upon which a member is recognized as somewhat of an expert he is immediately called upon to represent his party and participate in the debate. I would not use the matter of status as an argument in connection with the motion before us. I have thrown out these suggestions as points that should be considered before the motion is pursued further. As I said in my opening remarks, if it is advisable to send the motion to a committee for further study then I see no great objection to

May 30, 1966
Crown Corporations
that, but I think it should not be passed in the house without that step being taken.


Mr. Grani Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I listened sympathetically to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) because I realize the growing problem of giving adequate scrutiny to the work of government. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) referred to the necessity for scrutinizing the expenditures of government, a task which falls to members of parliament. It is a difficult task to perform adequately, and it is because of that that the hon. member for York Centre has moved this motion seeking to place parliamentarians on the boards of crown corporations which perform various tasks on behalf of the crown.
To give hon. members some idea of the increase in the size of the task which falls to a house which has not enlarged its own size very much, we might note that the whole central services of government, including par-1 ament, were contained in the three buildings on this hill in 1867. Of course the three buildings of that time were not as big as they are now. The old parliament building itself had one storey less than at present. It contained its own heating system.
The east and west blocks were about half their present size and these three buildings represented parliament and the whole central civil service of the Canadian government of that day. It was not until about 1885 that the first building containing government offices was built off the hill. That was the Langevin block on Wellington at the corner of Elgin street. The only other off the hill building for the civil service before world war I was the Connaught building on Mackenzie avenue. The museum, mint and archives had been built but did not contain departments of government.
Let us compare that with what is contained in some of the notes on the size of government in the opening paragraphs of volume I of the Glassco report, page 19, describing the scope of modern-day government. At the time of its publication it identified a total of 116 departments and agencies, the armed forces, 21 statutory boards, 42 corporations and 29 miscellaneous statutory officers, commissions and councils. It said that the government in 1960, occupied 180 million square feet of building space, the equivalent of over 100 buildings each the size of a football field and 28 storeys in height, with the value of real
IMr. Churchill.)
estate holdings estimated at $4 billion. That is the size of government and crown corporations which members must cope with when examining expenditures which today are between $6 billion and $7 billion per year.
If we were to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for York Centre of sending parliamentarians to serve on the boards of crown corporations we would be breaking new ground among commonwealth parliaments because this is not a practice which is followed in the parliaments of the old dominions. I am grateful to the hon. member foi giving me an opportunity to look at some of the material which he collected on this subject over the course of some two years during which he was waiting for his motion to creep forward on the order paper and take first place for discussion today.
I want to refer first to a letter from the office of the High Commissioner for the Commonwealth of Australia which reads in part as follows:
The Postmaster General's department has advised that In no case is there provision for a member of parliament to be an official or an ex officio member of any of the boards or commissions which come within the province of the department.
The Attorney General's department has advised us that there are two bodies on which members of the commonwealth parliament may serve, such provision being made in the legislation which established them. These two bodies are the National Library of Australia and the Australian National University ....
In the case of the Australian National University, the act provides that the council shall include two members of the Senate elected by the Senate and two members of the House of Representatives elected by the house. No member of the council is paid any remuneration for his services on the council.
Then there is correspondence from the British High Commissioner which reads:
-the membership of almost all such public boards, or boards of directors of government-owned companies, automatically disqualifies a member of the House of Commons from continuing as a member of the house. He could not normally escape disqualification by declining to be paid a salary, since in general the offices which disqualify a member from membership of the House of Commons are those for which salaries either will or might be paid.
This was the view of Sir Henry Lintott on the subject. There is further correspondence on the subject from the High Commissioner of New Zealand. He writes:
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
-it has not been the practice to appoint serving members of the House of Representatives to serve as unpaid directors of crown corporations. I would think that possibly the State Advances Corporation
May 30, 1966

corresponds in some measure to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, while possibly the Bank of New Zealand may be similar to the Bank of Canada. The boards of these institutions however do not comprise serving members of parliament. A somewhat similar position obtains in respect of producer organizations, though of course on occasions persons who have been past members of the house have been appointed. It is correct that the Minister of Works is chairman of the National Roads Board but this is a statutory body of a somewhat different character and the work of the roads board is of course carried out by officers of the Ministry of Works.
Finally, 1 should like to make reference to a letter which comes from the office of the embassy of the United States. They express a somewhat similar view. They make reference to the case of Springer v. Philippine Islands of 1928 in respect of which the United States Supreme Court ruled, six justices to three, that a statute of a territorial legislature which authorized the president of the senate and the speaker of the house of the said legislature to serve, without compensation, on a committee of three empowered to vote the stock owned by the territorial government in a bank and in a coal' company chartered by the legislature was void by reason of conflict with the principle of the separation of powers. This is the stand of the government of Great Britain and Canada and is the parliamentary philosophy to which we adhere. Nevertheless the balance of the case which is cited perhaps is of interest to the house:
Consistently with that principle, according to the court, ''members of the legislature . . . (cannot be) charged with the performance of" non-legislative functions. "Assuming, for present purposes, that the duty of managing this property ... is not sovereign but proprietary in its nature, the conclusion must be the same."
I think this is the argument the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was making, that is, that there is a proprietary interest here even in a crown corporation.
"The property is owned by the government, and the government in dealing with it whether in its quasi-sovereign or its proprietary capacity nevertheless acts in its governmental capacity. There is nothing ... to suggest that the legislature in acting In respect of proprietary rights of the government may disregard the limitation that it must exercise legislative and not executive functions.
Whether the members of the committee are public officers in a strict sense we do not find it necessary to determine. They are public agents at least, charged with the exercise of executive functions, and, therefore, beyond the appointive power of the legislature."
I do not know whether such a decision would apply to the House of Commons of Canada if this matter were referred to a
committee of the house, but in any event one sees that to work out such a procedure certainly is not an easy thing for this house to do. There is no deep precedent in Australian, British or United States parliamentary practice and undoubtedly we would find difficulty in setting up such a procedure here. Nevertheless I should like to repeat what I started out by saying, that there is great difficulty for the parliamentarian to scrutinize the work of a growing number of crown corporations. Any member of parliament who has served, for example, on the committee on transport and communications has seen how difficult it is to come to grips with any comprehensive examination of the Canadian National Railways. He knows precisely how difficult it is to find out what goes on within the heart of a crown corporation. When Donald Gordon and the officials of the Canadian National Railways appear before the committee on transport and communications, so often we are told that it is not in the interest of that crown corporation for us to probe into the matter of the rates and the trucking aspects of Canadian National Railways because this would put them at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis their various competitors.
If we begin to examine the corporation to find out what it does on behalf of the people of Canada, administered as it is on behalf of the crown, we find that the pullman curtain is pulled shut and only the bare tiptoes of Donald Gordon's slippers slip out from beneath the pullman curtain and, try as we will, we cannot see what is behind it. So we see removed from us, as explained by the hon. member for York Centre, a growing number of crown corporations and members do not have an opportunity to give close scrutiny to the expenditures and actions of a large section of the crown and the government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, and I appreciate the suggestion of the hon. member for Ros-thern that it is not quite seven o'clock, but I interrupt the hon. member who now has the floor so that I may refer to the purported amendment moved by the hon. member for York Centre. There are a number of difficulties concerning this amendment. For one thing we would need another mover of the amendment. Has the hon. member thought of this difficulty? Does he propose to have the amendment moved by someone else?
May 30, 1966

Government Organization


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would rather have the bill go down because of an incorrect
amendment than have it talked out.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure this is the reason it is not being put to a vote but in any event the hour assigned to the consideration of this matter has expired.


Mr. Irvine:: Mr. Speaker, could we invite some other hon. member to move the amendment, because it is an interesting one?


Mr. Speaker:: I was going to suggest that even if it were moved by someone else we would have difficulty because it would be a substantive motion to have it referred to a standing committee and would require 48 hours' notice. The difficulty might be surmounted if there were unanimous consent, but in any event the hour reserved for private members' business now has expired.



GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-178, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Pearson-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 6-Department of the Registrar General established.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to take up much of the time of the committee tonight. However, I should like to make two points regarding the formation of a consumers department. Some question has been raised regarding the constitutionality of such a department and the role of the federal government in the affairs of consumers. I for one would be the last to minimize the difficulties involved in the establishment of such a department. However, I think there are many things that could be done by the federal government in this area and I want briefly to indicate some of them.
I introduced a private members bill calling for the establishment of a prices review board in which I asked for an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act which would give the administration the power to cause an inquiry to be made in respect of any increase in the price of a commodity, with a view to determining whether the increase in the cost of materials and labour warranted the imposition of such a price increase on the public.

I believe such an amendment would be in order, but I am not sure that one would be necessary in view of the powers now contained in the Combines Investigation Act. The MacQuarrie committee report of 1951 recommended that the department be divided into two sections. It specifically recommended that the powers of investigation and research be strenghtened in order to get rid of the cops and robbers attitude, and to provide more information to the public and the government in terms of the economic implications of what is taking place in Canada.
In consideration of what a consumers department might do, I think the most important function would be that of supplying information after investigation. I am not sure that the envisaged department should have the power of enforcement, because I think if the consumer is sufficiently informed after an extensive investigation into economic situations he will probably be in a position to take the situation in hand.
One of the greatest difficulties in obtaining justice for consumers relates to the dispensing of publicity, keeping the consumer informed. Some very good moves have been made in this direction, but a consumers bureau could do much more to ensure that this type of information is made available to the public. In this regard I should like to quote from Hansard of May 8, 1923 at page 2605. At that time Mr. Mackenzie King was dealing with the question of providing information to the public, and pointed out the importance of keeping the public informed. He said:
What is the power of the Criminal Code to prosecute some particular person or group of persons in comparison with the power of spreading broadcast throughout the land accurate and true information with regard to a situation which is inimical to the public interest, and which the people themselves are certain to be concerned in remedying.
That statement was made quite some time ago and I think there has been a tendency since then to forget this great truth. If the public is to make intelligent decisions it must have information at its disposal, and it is our hope that a consumers bureau could supply this kind of information.
Some work of this nature is being done at this time. Just recently I saw a booklet published by the food and drug directorate. That was an excellent booklet and is a step in the right direction, but we need far more of this sort of thing. We must have a department to make sure that information of this kind is published in respect of consumer
May 30. 1966	COMMONS
goods generally, rather than in an isolated and spasmodic manner.
The Consumers Association of Canada has approached the government on many occasions to indicate its point of view. This is a voluntary group which has tried to help the consumer by making certain information available to the consuming public. It is significant to note that that association feels it cannot do the job by itself, but requires the co-operation of the government.
I should like to read from a letter on the letterhead of the Consumers Association of Canada over the signature of Beryl A. Plumptre, national president, dated April 12, 1966. In part she says:
Our association feels strongly that there should be one minister of the government whose chief responsibility should be to safeguard the economic position of consumers and to ensure that in discussion of government policy due consideration will be given to the effects of this policy on consumers.
Perhaps the name of this department is not important and if we were just talking about a name this discussion would be academic. The debate raised today and the amendment that has been moved concerns far more than a name, but rather the emphasis that should be placed on the proposed department. If the government wants to do a good job in respect of consumers affairs there is no reason why such a department could not be named in the suggested fashion and made directly responsible for things relating to consumers, under the head of one minister, rather than as an adjunct to another department with other duties.
The suggested reorganization with the responsibilities that have been drawn together are, with a few exceptions, satisfactory and relevant to the entire question of consumer protection. I listened with interest and admiration to my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway the other night when she spoke about four particular needs of consumers. Many consumer needs have been enunciated by other members who have participated in this debate and I should like to refer specifically to one, that the consumer must have the right to be heard. We do not feel that the consumer's voice is heard loud enough in the councils of the cabinet. I do not attach blame to anyone particularly in this regard, but by the very nature of cabinet organization the voice of the consumer becomes submerged.
Theoretically everyone is interested in the consumer because all of us are consumers.
DEBATES	5713
Government Organization Theoretically everyone is speaking as a consumer and for the consumer, but in practice cabinet ministers have specific responsibilities in respect of specific elements of our society. As has been pointed out, we have a Department of Industry the chief concern of which is, and certainly should be, the efficient operation and encouragement of industry in Canada. We have a Department of Trade and Commerce with its responsibilities. We have a Department of Labour with its responsibilities. We could go on in this particular fashion. We also need a department of consumer affairs because the consumer has an important role to play in the deliberations that take place in the cabinet. We could resolve many of our problems connected with tariffs and taxes if the voice of the consumer could be heard.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
I should like to give the committee one indication in this regard. In Canada we have a national oil policy that has been devised over a number of years. It is a policy shrouded in vagueness. Even the person responsible for its administration has to admit on occasion that it is difficult to define and not easy to understand. There may be nothing wrong with the oil policy for Canada; I am not prepared to say. What I am prepared to say, though, is that when the national oil policy for Canada was set up, it was set up at the urging of certain interests and I question whether the implications to the consumer were fully understood, fully appreciated or fully taken into consideration.
I have received a copy of a letter that was sent to Hon. Mitchell Sharp, Minister of Finance, in connection with the national oil policy, in which the writer indicates the effect this policy is having on consumers in Canada. He is asking for a repeal of some of the orders in council that established fair market value for oil and gasoline products coming into Canada. He says:
The order only increases profits for the integrated companies in Canada, it withdraws more than $1 million from the Canadian income tax volume, it eliminates market competition and only helps to strengthen the oil and price monopoly of the integrated companies, and punishes the Canadian consumer with excessive prices. We have made computations which show that the Canadian economy would save approximately $500 million per year for motor gasoline, if the market would be freed from the price control of the integrated companies which at the present time is supported by your government-
It is also clear that the "fair market value" in the U.K., Aden, Germany, Italy-and even Venezuela-is around 7 cents per gallon. The difference
May 30. 1966

Government Organization to the protected U.S.A. price is roughly 10 cents (and Canada has the same level due to the tact that the oil market is controlled by and geared to the U.S.A. market). Multiplying these 10 cents per gallon with the Canadian motor gasoline volume (not counting aviation gasoline) ot approximately five billion gallons per year gives the staggering overpricing of the Canadian customer in the range of $500 million per year. The only way to bring that figure down is restoring competition in the Canadian oil industry by exposing it without any protection to the world market.
He goes on to quote prices and other stat'stical details. Then he says:
The assumed reason for setting the price of imported motor gasoline at 10.5 or 12.5 cents per gallon was according to the order in council for an import at fair market values "that it affected the interests of Canadian producers or manufacturers prejudicially or injuriously".
In other words, the interests of Canadian producers or manufacturers were taken into consideration, according to what this gentleman writes in his letter, rather than the interests of the Canadian consumer. I am not prepared to say whether the national oil policy that we have in Canada is good or bad for Canada generally; I just do not know. But I do think that if there had been a cabinet minister responsible to consumers and concerned about the interests of consumers, the results might have been different.
They are very serious charges that are made in this letter to the minister. They have not been answered. I understand that these charges are provable and that the man involved is quite prepared to back them up in any way that he is asked. It may be that $500 million out of the consumers' pocket is the price we have to pay for national identity; but if this is so, the consumer should know and it should be his or her decision to make, rather than the decision of others acting in what they think is the best interests of the consumer. When we talk about tariff policies in Canada, when we talk about import duties in Canada, the voice of the consumer should be heard as a countervailing force against the other interests that call for these considerations.
I hope the government will seriously consider the suggestions we have made with respect to establishing a department of consumer affairs, with a minister responsible to parliament and the Canadian people for the operation of the department. Like many other things, this will also come to pass. I only hope that it will not go to the last minute and we do not become involved in cliff-hanging decisions. This is a propitious time, when the [Mr. Saltsman.l
legislation in respect of government reorganization is being dealt with, to deal with this suggestion also. We are not asking for fullblown powers, research projects and disclosure projects immediately. We are asking that a start be made, that this responsibility be assumed, that the importance of the role of the consumer in our society and the importance of the right of the consumer to be heard in the cabinet council be recognized.


Mr. Fawcett:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words-and I will be very brief, as I usually am-in support of the amendment proposed by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I am gravely concerned, as are many hon. members, about the fact that there does not appear to be any department whose authority it is to investigate and take the necessary action to protect the rights of the consumer. But if I am mistaken and some department has been delegated such authority, I can only say that it has been entirely remiss in its duties. However, taking into account the very obvious fact that the consumers' interests have been so completely neglected, I feel it is substantially correct to say that there is not at the present time any government authority established which is designed to take the long overdue steps necessary to protect the consumer from misleading and exaggerated advertising, unrealistic costs of financing-which in some cases is out and out robbery-deceptive packaging, inferior quality goods and all the gimmicks now being used to influence and dupe consumers into thinking that they are getting something for nothing, while in reality they are paying exorbitant prices for necessary goods, mainly because of such expensive and exaggerated advertising as well as the outlandish gimmicks to which I have referred.
May I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the prevalent rash of strikes which are seriously affecting our economy, the very alarming increase in cases of mental illness and the general feeling of unrest that appears to prevail, are all directly related to the insecurity and frustrations of people who find they have become entangled in a situation over which they have no control and over which no government department seems to have any jurisdiction.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
May I further submit, Mr. Chairman, that the incidence of strikes, legal or illegal, will continue as long as our citizens are compelled to remain in this area of ever spiralling prices,
May 30, 1966

of trying to stretch the pay cheque to cover the cost of every day living requirements. I do not even need to mention the thousands of our citizens who are on fixed incomes, such as meagre and insufficient pensions, old age security, and so on.
Citizens as a whole do not relish strikes, whether or not they are directly involved. Strikes, however, are about the only method of protest the average wage earner has to bring his plight to the attention of the authorities. They are caused chiefly by the fact that the wage earner, who is also the prime consumer, finds that the requirements of a decent mode of living are getting beyond the reach of his or her income.
Let me direct the attention of hon. members to the heading of an editorial which appeared in the Gazette under date of May 30, 1966. The heading is, "Completely Out of Hand", and the editorial deals with the unsatisfactory and alarming situation now prevailing across our country with respect to strikes in general and the so-called illegal strikes in particular. I cannot say that I agree with all that is contained in the editorial I have mentioned, however, I do agree with the emphasis that has been placed on the increasing seriousness of the incidence of strikes in general.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but I feel he should restrict his remarks to the amendment now before the house.


Norman Edward Fawcett: With deference to you, Mr. Chairman, I hope to show you that these remarks are relevant to the general subject. It is my humble opinion that the situation will become more alarming each successive week and each successive month, unless concrete action is taken by some authoritative body to investigate the apparent gouging of the consumer and to take some effective action to provide the kind of protection that is so urgently needed.
My colleague, the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway, when speaking to her notice of motion on a subject which is directly related to the amendment, quoted a resolution which was adopted by the town council of Espanola, requesting just such a department of government as is suggested in the amendment. In this regard may I suggest that a great number of northern Ontario municipalities and town councils endorsed that Espanola resolution. I received a copy of the resolution, as well as a great number of letters from municipalities and town councils endorsing it.
Government Organization Every time I return to my riding I am faced with a barrage of questions about what has been done by the government to cope with the increasing costs of the necessities of life. This seems to be the main concern of all.
In addition, I receive numerous letters of complaint regarding the lack of action on this matter. I can be reasonably sure that many hon. members on the opposite side of the house also receive letters of this sort. Until some authority of government is directly charged with the responsibility of protecting the consumer, Mr. Chairman, I humbly submit that the grave situation with regard to strikes will worsen and could ultimately result in complete economic chaos. Surely, if we are to give human values the consideration they justly deserve we cannot deny the necessity of supporting this amendment. Let me say in conclusion that I welcome just such an opportunity tonight.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mrs. Maclnnis) negatived: Yeas, 8; nays, 28.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 6 carry?
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-Duties of Registrar General.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, clause 8 sets out the duties, powers and functions of the registrar general of Canada. The house has rejected our suggestion that the name of this department should be changed, but I think it is not being unfair for me to say that some of those who spoke against our amendment to clause 6 were not unalterably opposed to the idea of the department of the registrar general including amongst its functions some concern about matters of interest to consumers. We have made our position clear. We would prefer a department whose major responsibility was with respect to consumer affairs, but we are accepting the decision of the house on that count.
However, we do feel that at least a bit of consideration might be given to our point of view and that the committee might be willing to amend the duties, powers and functions of the registrar general so as to include some of the things about which we have been talking. We have spelled out our position in a number of speeches that have been made, so it is not
May 30, 1966

Government Organization necessary for me to repeat what has been said. Therefore, I move:
That clause 8 of Bill No. C-178 be amended by inserting therein immediately after subparagraph
(a)	, the following new subparagraph:
"(b) Review of prices and matters of concern to consumers",
and by relettering the subsequent subparagraphs
(b)	, (c) and (d) as subparagraphs (c), (d) and (e).
I have copies of this amendment in both English and French, and I hope that it will commend itself to members in all parties. As hon. members will note, our suggestion is with reference to a review of prices and matters of concern to consumers, and we feel it would more logically come immediately after subparagraph (a) which deals with combines, mergers, monopolies and restraint of trade.
This is the reason for putting this new subparagraph in right after subparagraph (a), and then suggesting that the other subparagraphs (b), (c) and (d) might be relettered (c), (d) and (e). As I say, the arguments for this position were made when we contended that the department as a whole should be geared to this important function. This idea was not accepted, but surely even those who spoke against our previous amendment will agree that there ought to be in the statute some provision making it clear that the department of the registrar general is the ministry in the government to be concerned about such things as the review of prices and matters of concern to consumers.


Edgar John Benson: I presume I can obtain the support of five members, but I should like to defer the vote on this matter until eight o'clock.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The Chair has some doubt whether it can really put this amendment to the committee. First, I would say that it does not appear to be relevant to the clause before the committee. Second, I would refer hon. members to May's seventeenth edition, page 549, paragraph (2), which reads as follows:
An amendment cannot be admitted, if it is governed or dependent upon amendments which have already been negatived.
Paragraph (3) on page 549 reads as follows:
An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contrary to, the bill as so far agreed to by the committee, nor must it be inconsistent with a decision of the committee upon a former amendment.
IMr. Knowles.]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, are you ruling before listening to argument?


Herman Maxwell Batten: I will hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, sir. May I suggest that there is an answer to each of the points Your Honour has been presenting to us. First, may I suggest that the subject matter of this amendment is certainly relevant to the whole function of the registrar general. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister himself when he spoke on second reading of the bill referred to consumer affairs as something which, if dealt with anywhere, might be dealt with by an extension of the powers of the registrar general.
Likewise, the President of the Privy Council, in speaking to the amendment proposed today by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, dealt on his own initiative with the whole question of consumer affairs and with what might be done for the people under this heading. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is not introducing something brand new into this area; this is simply expanding a concept which, in the words of the Prime Minister and in the words of the President of the Privy Council, is already there.
The second argument Your Honour has tossed at us is the suggestion that we cannot move as another amendment a subject which has already been the subject of an amendment which has been negatived by a previous vote, or by a vote under some other heading. 1 suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the vote on the amendment to clause 6 was merely a vote on the change of the name of the department. There is no reference in clause 6 to the functions of the department of the registrar general. Clause 6 of the bill merely gives a name to the department. I submit that an amendment that sought to change the name, having been defeated, is not a decision on the part of the committee as to what should be the funtions of the department.
Then Your Honour suggested that an amendment of this kind should be consistent with the provisions of the bill which have already been agreed to. 1 suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in line with the statements made by the Prime Minister on second reading and in line with the statements made today by the President of the Privy Council, this amendment is certainly consistent with the provision of the bill.
May 30, 1366	COMMONS
I should also remind you that on an earlier point of order Mr. Speaker gave a very interesting ruling which is pretty close to the point with which we are now dealing. Hon. members to my right in the Progressive Conservative party raised a point of order as to whether the bill was in good form in view of the fact that it had something in it which had not been mentioned in the resolution. After considerable study of this matter, Mr. Speaker ruled that the resolution need only give the general intent of the bill, making sure of course to cover any of its financial provisions. I read again today that ruling of Mr. Speaker, in preparation for anything which might arise on this occasion, and I found it a most interesting ruling in that it seemed to make it clear that so long as the bill was in line with the general intent as set out in the resolution the bill was all right.
If it is all right for the government to bring in a bill which has in it some things which are not named in the resolution because they are in line with the intent of the resolution, then I submit that that same right should be extended to the opposition or to members in any part of the house who seek to move amendments.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, because this amendment is relevant to the bill, is consistent with it, and has not in itself been previously decided on but simply seeks to expand the concept that is in the bill, I contend that Your Honour should allow it as in order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I recognize the validity of some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I recognize too that during the debate on this particular bill on second reading reference was made by other members of the house to this particular problem. However the Chair is guided not by what was said on the other occasion but by the contents of the bill and the rules governing amendments thereto.
I think we would be going a little far if we were to consider the debate on the amendment to clause 6 as dealing with only a change of name. During the debate there was considerable discussion of matters concerning consumer prices. I would read again the citation which appears at page 549 of May's Parliamentary Practice, seventeenth edition:
An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contrary to, the bill as so far agreed to by the committee, nor must it be inconsistent with a decision of the committee upon a former amendment.
DEBATES	5717
Government Organization
I recognize that the previous amendment had to do with a change of name, but the debate surrounding the amendment had to do with consumer prices. I would therefore consider the amendment out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, with great respect, but because I feel I must do so, I appeal your decision to Mr. Speaker under the terms of provisional standing order 59(4).
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, with the support of five other members, knowing that a vote must be taken in this regard, under the new rules I would object to this vote taking place.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the Minister of National Revenue is under one of his misapprehensions. We have the right of appeal to Mr. Speaker. We have no right to vote with regard to the decision.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre has appealed the ruling of the Chair. I think it is now the duty of the committee to go through the regular procedure.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
Mr. Speaker, the question is an appeal to you, under the terms of Standing Order 59(4). In the committee of the whole when clause 8 of Bill C-178, respecting the reorganization of the Government of Canada, was being considered the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre proposed the following amendment: that clause 8 of Bill C-178 be amended by inserting therein immediately after subparagraph (a) a following and new subparagraph (b) reading: "prices, and matters of concern to consumers", and by relettering the subsequent subparagraphs as (c), (d) and (e).
Using paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) page 549 of May's 17th edition the Chairman ruled the amendment out of order on the following grounds:
(a)	that the substance of the amendment was not relevant to the clauses of the bill,
(b)	that in substance the amendment was in reality the same as one which was negatived earlier in the committee proceedings, and further
(c)	that the amendment was inconsistent with a decision of the committee upon a former amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure that we have employed this new rule very often. I was not sure whether one would
5718	COMMONS
Government Organization have the opportunity of presenting argument to Your Honour, but I believe we do have that right and I am glad that Your Honour sees it the same way.
It is quite clear that under standing order 59(4) it is in order for an hon. member to appeal a ruling from the Chairman to Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless once Your Honour has ruled, that ruling cannot be appealed to the house. I should therefore like Your Honour to give consideration to the arguments which I advanced when we were in committee of the whole, in response to the points raised by the Chairman of the committee of the whole.
It was suggested that the amendment I moved, which seeks to enlarge the written powers of the department of the registrar general, was not relevant to the clause. I argued, Mr. Speaker, that clause 8 spells out the duties, powers and functions of the department of the registrar general. There is already in the bill as drafted reference to such things as combines, mergers, monopolies and restraint of trade, not forgetting such things as patents, copyrights and trade marks, all of which have a bearing on consumer affairs.
I also sought to point out when we were in committee of the whole that the Prime Minister in h's speech on second reading, and the President of the Privy Council today in committee of the whole, alleged and even claimed that there is at least some provision in the composition of this department for dealing with consumer affairs.
I suggest therefore that far from this matter being irrelevant to the clause, it is highly relevant to pin down the duties, powers and functions of the registrar general, and to make it clear that these duties, powers and functions include the possibility of reviewing prices and looking at all matters of interest to consumers.
The second point that the Chairman drew to our attention was a very well known rule with which I am very familiar and which I have often quoted, to the effect that one cannot by an amendment reopen a matter on which a decision has been taken.
The Chairman was of the opinion that an amendment we moved to clause 6 of the bill, which had been voted down not many minutes before, was the same in substance as the amendment that I proposed to clause 8.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
I submit this is not the case. The chairman said that whatever the wording of the

DEBATES	May 30, 1986
amendment to clause 6 may have been the discussion ranged all round it. Well, Your Honour knows this often happens-discussion gets all over the waterfront. But when it came to a vote, what we were voting on was a very clear and limited proposition, namely that the name of the department be changed to the department of consumer affairs and that the title of the minister be changed to minister of consumer affairs. There was no suggestion in the amendment to clause 6 as to what the functions of the renamed department might be. We had no right to do so on clause 6. The only thing we could do was to deal with the name. And this is all that was done in the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Vancouver-Kingsway. I suggest that however far afield the discussion may have ranged, the decision with regard to clause 6 was to turn down a suggestion for a change of name.
The third point the Chair used in ruling my amendment out of order was that it was inconsistent with a decision already taken. It seems to me that in this respect it is worth while looking at the ruling Your Honour gave on May 24 with respect to the way in which this whole piece of legislation was brought before us.
Your Honour will recall, because you indicated it took a great deal of study to reach this decision, that it was your opinion that so long as a resolution gave the intent of the bill which was to follow, and no new financial obligations were imposed, it was appropriate for the government, in the wording of the bill, to bring in anything which was consistent with that purpose. The particular case in point was that no reference had been made in the resolution to the department of forestry and rural development, whereas in the bill itself a number of clauses referred to this department. Your Honour suggested this was only a change in name and that it was not out of line with the intent or purpose set out in the resolution.
I submit to you very strongly-indeed I put it to you as an appeal-that if the government had the right in the bill to include things which were not mentioned in the resolution but which were in line with the intent of the resolution, this right ought to extend to other members of the house whether on the government side or on the opposition side.
What we have proposed is in keeping with the intent of the resolution and the intent of the legislation, namely the reorganization of the departments of the government and the
May 30, 1966	COMMONS
recasting of their functions. If the government, without mentioning the department of forestry and rural development, had the right to put in several clauses on that aspect, I suggest that we have the right to ask that the several functions of the department of the registrar general be enlarged so as to include a review of prices and other matters of interest to consumers.
I submit that the case is a clear one on our side. Indeed, I confess to some amazement that the Chair found difficulty in accepting this amendment. I hope Your Honour will consider the arguments I have advanced and that you will find that this amendment, is, in fact, in order.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I will just say a few words to support the arguments raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about the validity of the proposed amendment.
It is true that an amendment to clause 6 was presented but that amendment dealt only with the title and not with the duties of the new minister.
Those are therefore two separate things since the amendment to clause 6 dealt only with the form of the bill whereas this proposal deals rather with the substance of the bill, which is quite another matter.
Clause 6 was meant only to change the name. It would probably have been a good thing because I think that a complete lack of imagination was shown in giving that title to the new minister.
I think that whoever suggested to call it the department of the registrar general showed a lack of imagination; his vocabulary is limited and he is not familiar with the dictionary or something like that. I can see myself asking a question to the minister of the solicitor general; it does not sound right. He is not called the minister of the solicitor general but the Solicitor General.
It seems to me that whoever drafted the bill should have a better vocabulary and know the dictionary better, or that the President of the Privy Council should change the name of that department, especially if he is to be its first head. I wonder how he would like to be called Mr. Registrar General? He would not be a minister but only a registrar. But the government did not want to accept that change.
DEBATES	5719
Government Organization But there is no mention of the name in the new amendment; it deals only with the substance of the bill, that is to say it proposes to add another duty. And now I would like to support also the second argument after supporting the first one.
It is that the proposed new role to be given to the minister does not contradict the one that is to be given to him under clause 8, as it stands now, since it is said in subparagraph (a):
Combines, mergers, monopolies and restraint of trade;
The amendment seeks to add:
(b) Review of prices and matters of concern to consumers.
Well, there is a direct link between the matter of combines, monopolies, restrictive practices, and the review of prices which interest the consumers.
Therefore the amendment does not go against the provisions of the clause of the bill. On the contrary, it completes it. The amendment only makes things clearer and I wonder why it should not be accepted, not only from the point of view of the rules but also because it adds something important to the bill.
Clause 8 is intended to prevent combines and monopolies. The consumer should not be overlooked. That is precisely the object of the amendment and I wonder how anyone could object to it.
Third, why the amendment should be in order? The government now submits to us for discussion a bill to set up a new department that of the registrar general. If, at any point a member realizes something is lacking and makes a suggestion with a view to improving the new department, I fail to see how this could be out of order. It behooves the members to amend bills so as to perfect them. That is the business of the members of the opposition.
I feel the amendment proposed by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is intended to improve the new department we are asked to institute today. We are not dealing here with a mere question of title but with the study of prices and questions of consumer interest. This would not only improve the role of the department or its contribution, but our whole legislation as well.
That is why we feel the amendment is in order and that the arguments brought forward previously did not take into account all
May 30, 1966

Government Organization that happened when the first amendment was moved. We therefore ask the house to pass it. I would ask the President of the Privy Council, if he is going to be appointed registrar, to change the title. Surely a better title than that can be found.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words on the question of the admissibility of the amendment because, with respect, it seems to me that instead of the amendment's being inconsistent with anything, it was the Chairman who was inconsistent with himself-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that these words are entirely uncalled for.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, without hesitation or reservation. I meant no offence whatsoever to the Chairman and if my language was offensive I apologize to you, and to the house, and to the chairman of the committee of the whole.
What I meant to say was that there are two kinds of reasons given for this amendment's being out of order. One was the question of whether it was relevant to the bill and inconsistent with some earlier decision that was made, and the second was whether it was contrary to the first amendment, which was defeated.
It is my submission on the first two points that the fact that the first amendment was accepted admitted the relevance of the subject matter and its consistency with an earlier decision by the house, because the earlier amendment to clause 6 of the bill dealt with the subject matter of consumer affairs. It seems to me that once that was admitted as a valid amendment, then the subject matter becomes valid for all other propositions respecting amendments to the bill.
The second point I want to make is that the first amendment which was defeated dealt, as has been said, only with the name of the department. It seems to me it is not entirely logical to suggest that because the committee defeated an attempt to create a department of consumer affairs it necessarily meant the committee was opposed to adding consumer affairs as one subject, among many others, with which the department may deal. For those reasons I urge you to accept the amendment.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I submit that if the proposed paragraph (b) is not redundant to paragraph (a), then it is out of order on the basis that a decision of the house has already been taken with respect to the question of consumer affairs. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was inconsistent when he suggested that in an earlier ruling you indicated that all related matters had been covered by resolution.
The earlier amendment was to change the name of the department of the registrar general to that of the department of consumer affairs. If that were done surely it would mean that the department would be dealing with matters of concern to consumers. Otherwise the amendment had no meaning whatsoever. It was naive of the hon. member to suggest that the proposed department of consumer affairs would not concern itself with matters of concern to consumers. The house has already registered its disapproval of a change in name to consumer affairs, and I suggest on this ground alone the amendment is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I might say that when we had a similar appeal last year in the last parliament the Speaker was in a much stronger position because he was ruling on his own judgment, and perhaps I should not have answered the call but allowed my associate, the Deputy Speaker, to rule on his own decision.
I would like to comment briefly on the different points raised by hon. members in the course of the very interesting arguments that have been submitted. I might say that very strong argument has been advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), supported by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), to the effect that adopting this amendment would not be inconsistent with the previous decision of the house or of the committee of the whole. There might be some question as to whether there is inconsistency between the two matters. I am impressed by that argument, but I shall not rule on that basis.
I shall go to the second argument advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, where he refers to the second and third reasons for judgment proposed by the Chairman of Committees. I might say I am not as impressed by the hon. member's suggestion that if the government has the right to include something in a bill that is not specifically in the prior resolution, this means
May 30, 1966	COMMONS
that a member has the same right as the government. I have very serious doubts about this proposition. In other words, what the hon. member is suggesting, if I understand his argument correctly, is that if the government has the right to include certain detail in a bill, then a private member should have the same right.
I cannot agree with this, because a resolution cannot be expected to include everything that is in a bill. A resolution is always of a very general nature and invariably there are a number of clauses and matters that appear later in a bill that do not appear in a resolution.
The fact that the government has the power to do that does not give a member of the house the right to move an amendment -which might otherwise be out of order -simply because the government has this power. To my mind the position taken by the Chairman of Committees in the first objection he has to the proposed amendment, in which he refers to the question of relevancy, is very sound.
Hon. members know by experience, much longer experience than I have-and this applies particularly to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-that it is not easy to move an amendment of consequence that is relevant to a clause of a bill. In this case I do feel that the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is beyond the scope of the clause or article of the bill which he seeks to amend, and I refer him, as did the Chairman of Committees, to paragraph 1 at page 549 of May's seventeenth edition.
It is my belief that the amendment advanced by the hon. member goes beyond the scope of the clause, that the amendment adds substantially to what is being proposed in the government's bill, and for this reason I must agree with the Chairman of Committees that this amendment is irrelevant and cannot be considered. I therefore confirm the decision of the Chairman of Committees.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-178, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Pearson-Mr. Batten in the chair.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee was discussing clause 8, and an amendment was made thereto which the Chairman ruled out of order. Mr. Speaker confirmed the ruling of the Chairman. The committee now is on clause 8.
DEBATES	5721
Government Organization
On clause 8-Duties oj Registrar General.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to either the Minister of National Revenue or the President of the Privy Council, depending on who is in charge of this clause in the bill. In considering the functions of this department, did the government give any thought to including among its functions a review of prices or consumer affairs and, whether it did or not, will the government now consider moving, itself, the appropriate amendment to enlarge the functions of this department?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) spoke on the second reading of this bill-and I refer to page 5431 of the English version of Hansard for May 24, 1966-he made quite clear that the government intended to explore as widely and as deeply as possible the jurisdiction of federal authorities in the consumer field with regard to those areas in which such jurisdiction has not been defined up to now. He added that the government also intended to ask-and such request has already been made to the Economic Council-for a study in the areas or spheres where federal intervention would be justified or necessary.
I said in my own remarks that the very wording of the legislation clearly reflects or indicates the government's intention to regroup under a single administration or within a single department, the statutes and organizations dealing with business matters and also with the interests of consumers.
This intention, as reflected in the present bill, indicates beyond doubt the interest taken by the government in consumers as such. Furthermore any additional piece of legislation likely to affect the consumer field shall have to be passed in the light of the recommendations made by the Economic Council, and any regulations to this effect or any regrouping of additional jurisdiction or responsibility, will have to be made after the views of the Economic Council have been submitted to the government.
On the other hand, there is something specific which has never been included in a piece of legislation up to now: the Prime Minister made clear that since there will be a minister, it will be one of his duties to speak on behalf of consumers and to protect their interests.
I repeat that in order to introduce a more precise wording of the act to the house, if
May 30, 1966

Government Organization necessary, the views or recommendations of the Economic Council will have to be taken into consideration.
There are other areas-and some have been considered during the debate-many areas where federal jurisdiction is being applied in the interest of the consumer. I believe, and I say this as strongly as I can, that the present act, by regrouping under the authority of a single department or a single minister, all the legislation concerning the economy and such important acts as combines investigation, bankruptcy, patents, copyright, trade marks and companies, will allow for a constant supervision of the consumer's interest and the application of the present act will allow to co-ordinate them all with a single economic policy. As a result, an immense step forward is being taken as far as the interest of the consumer is concerned.
When we object to changing the name of the department, such objection should not, directly or indirectly be construed as government objection to legislation favouring the interest of the consumer. We have simply tried to avoid a misrepresentation of the true powers, of the actual powers if you will, vested upon the new registrar general or the minister in charge of the new department.
It is clear that if, from several angles, in some of those important areas, the responsibilities of this department are directly related to the interests of consumers, the interests of corporations and commercial and industrial concerns are also involved. Consequently, I believe that simply to call this department the department of consumer affairs, would be to a certain extent, misrepresenting the facts and the departmental jurisdiction. We thought it was simpler and more appropriate to give it a traditional name, as I say, namely that of the registrar general of Canada, who already carries out extremely important responsibilities in the administration of the nation's business.
But I do want to emphasize that the important point is to see what powers and what jurisdiction are conferred by this statute. That is where one realizes, by looking at the facts, that, to a very large extent, the government is concerned with preparing and maintaining for the future, the continued protection of the consumers' interests.
This argument applies to the change in name and it must also be used to assure everyone that, by refusing to amend clause 8 of the bill, as proposed, the government does not have, as I say, any intention which is,

even indirectly, inimical to the interests of the consumers.
Besides, one of the dangers of the proposed amendment was, among others, this reference to the question of prices. One realizes how dangerous this may be from the constitutional point of view.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I apologize for interrupting the minister, but he is commenting on a decision that has been made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I must say that the minister's reply represents Liberalism at its best. He is trying to tell the committee how concerned he is about consumers, and that the reason the government cannot accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is not because the government is not interested, not because it is hostile toward the consumers, not because it is hostile toward doing something for them, but because three things stand in its way.
He tells us that a study must be made. This government has been in office for three years and I have noted that almost every major issue that has confronted it has been postponed because a study was under way. It has told us that it is waiting for reports, for white papers, for the results of inquiries: We are always waiting. This is a government of tomorrow; it is always going to do something tomorrow when it receives a report, completes a survey or when somebody makes up his mind as to what should be done and passes it on. It will do something, but now is never the time: Always put off till tomorrow what is facing you today. That apparently has become the slogan of this government.
The minister tells us that the Economic Council of Canada must make a report before action is taken. Surely he is aware of the fact that the Economic Council of Canada is not making a study on this question of prices but simply going to make a long-term projection as to the relationship between wages and prices. It is doing nothing by way of a thorough and definitive study into price rises and whether or not they are justified. I invite any minister here to stand up and tell me that this council is making a study into the justification of price increases.
The hon. member for Outremont-Saint Jean shakes his head.


An hon. Member:: You are wrong.
May 30. 1966


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I happen to know that I am right. I have a letter from the Prime Minister in which he states that the Economic Council of Canada is not making a study as to whether or not price increases are justified, and that their special reference does not cover such a study. The government should make up its mind as to where it is going. I do not know whether by moving far to the left the hon. member's lines of communication with the government have been cut off, but the information I have from the Prime Minister himself is to the effect that that is not the purpose of the study being made by the council.
I asked the Prime Minister a question on the orders of the day, and he wrote me a letter to make it clear that there was no study being made by the Economic Council as to whether or not price increases are justified or whether they are the result of excessive profiteering. What the government is doing in this regard, as in regard to everything else, is merely stalling, using another commission of inquiry or agency to put off the day of reckoning. The day of reckoning is getting closer every time another strike occurs or a labour dispute erupts. We are kept waiting for everything, just as we are kept waiting for the Secretary of State's white paper on broadcasting.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is not June yet.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The second excuse for not accepting the request made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre relates to the legal aspects. There is no constitutional obstacle to the government's studying prices with a view to determining whether or not increases are justified. If the government were going to endeavour to roll back prices or control them, then concurrent legislation with the provinces would be required. However, to conduct a review of prices and price increases to see whether or not they are justified, and to make those who are increasing prices come before the bar of public opinion to justify their actions, does not require any power which the federal government does not possess.
The fact is that this government has been hiding behind the constitution for as long as I can remember. Whenever it does not want to do anything it finds a constitutional difficulty-the constitution always stands in the way of anything that needs to be done-except, of course, during election campaigns, at which
5723
Government Organization time the government is prepared to do everything. Whenever the government comes back and sits in this house, the good old constitution is trotted out again to provide an excuse for continuing the policy of inertia and inaction.
Finally the President of the Privy Council tells us not to be too disappointed about the fact that the government is not prepared to change clause 8 to give the new department wider powers to assist the consumers. He says there is a good deal of power and legislation which will give new administrative authority to this new department which will be of great benefit to the consumers.
The minister has referred to the anti-combines legislation. This legislation has been in existence for a long time, and for a long time it was under the jurisdiction of the minister who is now talking about it. Fairly soon it will probably come under his jurisdiction again. I should like to ask him how much good that has done the consumers over the last quarter of a century. The combines legislation has not helped the consumers. Investigations have been conducted into a score of commodities in respect of which the consumers of this country have been exploited, yet the consumers have not been protected. The minister tells us that we should be of good cheer because legislation will be forthcoming which will help the poor down-trodden consumers of this country. I say to him that if this legislation is not any better in the future than it has been in the past, heaven help the consumers. If the minister is not able to take any more aggressive action on the basis of this legislation over the next few years than has been the case in the past three years, the consumers are going to be no better off.
Mr. Chairman, the consumers of this country will not be fooled by the oral tributes which are being paid to the government today, nor by the lip service which is being foisted upon them. The consumers of this country want action, and all we are asking is that clause 8 be changed to give the minister some authority to do something for the them. We are not asking for legislation at this time, but simply that the minister be given authority when he takes office to do something under the provisions of whatever legislation the government will introduce. It is quite clear that the government is not prepared to take this simple but forward step. With friends like those in the government, the consumers do not need enemies.

May 30, 1966

Government Organization [DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the minister a few minutes ago I could not help coming to the conclusion that the government is really interested in the consumer, and consumer affairs in this country. Looking at the clause that is before us, I cannot help feeling that if the government wanted to translate their thoughts into something tangible, a paragraph "(e) consumer affairs" could be added to the clause, which would leave the matter quite wide open. I ask the minister whether the government would be willing to add to this clause, "(e) consumer affairs."


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I was
eagerly waiting for us to proceed to consideration of clause 8, that is the clause dealing with the duties of the registrar general, as mentioned in the margin, because I thought that according to clause 6, a new department was being established.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I was quite surprised when I referred to the Larousse dictionary. On the other hand, I was not surprised, because there was something wrong. When I consulted the Larousse dictionary, I realzied that the word "registraire" did not even exist.
I wonder what the President of the Privy Council thinks about that? He should listen, since the name to be given to the new department is not even mentioned in the French dictionary.
Therefore, we would like to know if the government wants to create a new word. When I refer to the English dictionary, I find the word "registrar". That word exists.
But the government has the habit of translating literally without checking if a word exists. Are we going to translate "registrar" by 'registraire" when this last word is not even mentioned in the Larousse dictionary?
What will we do then? Is a new word being created? This word does not exist.
When I found that the word did not appear in Larousse, I consulted another dictionary, the unabridged Littre in several volumes, and found the word "registraire", but it is an old word, fallen into disuse, which meant:
Formerly, public keeper of registers.
And when I see the definition of the word "register"-at the time when it was being

heard long ago and this should be the function of the new registrar, well, it was:
A device provided in the outlets, for smoke, gas, ovens or fire-places, to set the draught and control combustion by regulating the opening.
Well, Mr. Chairman, someone has just been appointed to the job. But the word "register" has another meaning, because the registrar is the keeper of the register. What was it in the administrative sense? It is:
A registry of large fruits.
These are large fruits.


An hon. Member:: The big shots.


Gilles Grégoire: Well, now. Are we to establish a department of agriculture or a department of fruits? Mr. Chairman, what will the person appointed as registrar have to do apart from being the keeper of the registry? There is another definition. In the archaeological sense, it is:
Each of the areas in which is sometimes divided the surface of a bas-relief, a stele, a painting, a vase.
So that is what he would be the keeper of? I have all the definitions here. And it is dutifully explained that the word is obsolete, that it was used long ago. And in the new Larousse dictionary, it does not appear. The word no longer exists.
What are we to do, now? That reminds me of the words Solicitor General. It was translated from the English Solicitor. Go and see what it means in French. It does not mean the same thing at all.
And then, they come up with such words. French words are made up and translated from the English by sound, even completely meaningless, even more non-existent.
Just wait; here is the definition of "solicitor general", according to the French dictionary:
Solicitor: a person who applies for a job, who begs for a favour, a service.
Hence, the man appointed there, is the man who has begged a favour, a service, in short who has applied for a job. This proves, Mr. Chairman, that when the government comes to us with legislation, or with the names of ministers, translation is made by ear, by sound; it sounds the same, doesn't it? "Solicitor", solliciteur"; "registrar", is simply translated by "registraire". It is not even in the dictionary; that does not matter, let us go ahead.
What shall we do, Mr. Chairman? Shall we agree to the creation of a new word simply to create a new department. I am against it.
May 30, 1966
572S

Something is wrong somewhere. The government will have to take a decision. Has the Canadian government decided to create other words? Will they invent a new dictionary? And there, we are told that the registrar-even though we accept what it is, the word is not in the dictionary-is the man who will look after combines, mergers, monopolies and restraint of trade.
Now, formerly in Latin texts the word "registraire" was used. The word "register" exists and it is correct. But, the "registre", in the past, was a collection of books where were kept the memoirs and letters of various Popes. They were books and letters where the memories of Popes were recorded. It used to be French. They have done away with all that.
The Registrar is asked to deal with monopolies, patents, bankruptcies. The Pope is mixed up in bankruptcies and insolvency.
Mr. Chairman, I tell you very frankly, I ask the President of the Privy Council to change the name at least. We are told that he will be in charge of corporations, combines and that he will bear the title of "registraire". Those who bore it before him were dealing with equipment used in furnace flues or gas apparatus. The President of the Privy Council is going to take this very title.
Mr. Chairman, it seems that I should leave it at that. The President of the Privy Council should perhaps ask the committee to adjourn its business so as to find another name that exists really instead of being satisfied with an obsolete name.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am at present Registrar of Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: You are going to be registrar?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1 am at present.


Gilles Grégoire: It is a name that does not exist, that is where the difficulty lies; you do not find it in the dictionary.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the President of the Privy Council is ready to make up his mind, and have the name changed. I feel that it is time to stop translating English words in French consonant words. A "solicitor" is called in French a "solliciteur". We know quite well that both words have not the same meaning. "Registrar" appears in the English dictionary, it is true, but not in the French dictionary. Another word should therefore be substituted and new names which cannot be
23033-363J
Government Organization found in French should not be used. This is not bilinguism, rather it is an attempt to create words, and this is prejudicial to the French language. I do not think that such is the wish of the President of the Privy Council and this is why I am asking him to move an amendment in order to change the name of the new Department and give it a more proper one.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I wonder if I could ask the hon. member whether the word "separatist" appears in his dictionary?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps we could have this dictionary placed in Hansard.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am ready to answer that question.
Separatism: a desire of the inhabitants of a territory to secede from the State to which it belongs.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, may I
point out that the use the hon. member for Lapointe is making of the dictionary is less successful than the marvellous applications he has been known to make in the house, of quotations from Pascal.
I could say this to him, which might not be based on precedent but could still be put forward as a precedent. In reply to an interlocutor who blamed him for having used in one of his works a word which, according to that man was not French, Victor Hugo replied: "If it was not, I have used it and so it has become French."


Gilles Grégoire: If the minister will allow me, the word already exists in English and it is being gallicized. That is not the same thing. French words are being created. The French language is beautiful enough, colourful enough, to create new words without having to borrow English words and Frenchifying them.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, seriously
speaking, the expression "Registrar General" has been accepted for decades among French speaking Canadians. The role of the Registrar General is in Canada a traditional one; it is now part of the functions of the Secretary of State, as the Registrar General of Canada pointed out a while ago. I do not feel that maintaining it in our own vocabulary is an affront to the French language in Canada, for we too have a right to our own

May 30, 1966
Government Organization expressions; this one has already been sanctioned by usage in this particular meaning.


Mr. Habel:: Mr. Chairman, I have here a copy of "Le Dictionnaire Canadien" (The Canadian Dictionary), published by Messrs. Jean-Paul Vinay, Pierre Daviault and Henry Alexander who co-operated in its preparation. I could read a complete list of three pages of professors of universities who have also co-operated in the preparation of this dictionary in which the word "registraire" is defined as follows:

Registraire general du Canada-Registrar General of Canada-to keep a record of-minutes-trade registrar.

Then, the expression "Registraire du Canada" is quite Canadian, and I prefer to rely on the opinion of those who prepared this dictionary than on that of the member for Lapointe; so I hope the latter will bow to the Canadian Dictionary.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Cochrane has just said confirms precisely what I put forward some time ago. The new department will be called the department of the registrar general of Canada. Care is being taken to say "Registrar General of Canada" and to define the thing in English. The English words are being translated into French. Nobody seeks to find some typically French expression. People rather wish to Frenchify some English expressions. This is what the hon. member for Cochrane proves through the definition he has just quoted from the dictionary. It is quite evident that, at the present time, the Secretary of State, who is actually the Registrar of Canada, at least according to the expression used, will not object if some current expression as "go-go girls" is chosen and translated into French, but this does not mean that the expression has a French character.
I object to the idea of people picking up an English word that they try afterwards to Frenchify. Let us choose some French word that we shall apply according to the true tradition.


Auguste Choquette: May I ask a question to the hon. member for Cochrane? Is he aware that the word "creditiste" is an Anglicism and that it tends to disappear?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Chairman, I was not aware that the word "creditiste" was an English word, but I know perfectly well that the hon.
[Mr. Favreau.l
member for Lapointe accepts gladly to travel in a "yacht" and that such word is not a French word.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps it is about time the committee got back to clause 8.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I do not wish to imply that the purity of the French language is not important, but it seems to me that while we are fiddling here with the translatability of the words "registrar general", the problem of inflation in this country is slowly becoming more and more acute. Perhaps I should not have used the word "slowly", the problem is a burning one across the country.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I should like to ask the hon. member for Springfield if he is going to relate the remarks which he is making now to clause 8?


Edward Richard Schreyer: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to relate my remarks to clause 8. I was about to say that in the course of the last few days I have had the opportunity of returning to the constituency which I represent and of speaking to a good many people there. I was able to determine, as I am sure many other hon. members here have, that there is mounting concern about the rising cost of living. So far nothing in the way of tangible, effective action has been taken or even suggested by the government.
I do not believe it was too much to expect that the government would have seen fit to include in the powers and functions given to the registrar general under clause 8 the responsibility for looking into matters affecting prices in this country. I do not believe I would serve any useful purpose if I were to speak at length on this matter of the proper powers and functions of the registrar general. If there is any place in the organization of government in this country for responsibility for consumer affairs and matters relating to prices, then logically that place is in this new department being set up under the authority of clauses 6 to 10 of the bill before us.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
If there is any sincere desire on the part of the government to translate into action the good intentions expressed a few minutes ago by the President of the Privy Council, then possibly the government will introduce ancillary legislation some time during the course of this session. The people of this country are getting fed up with the steady increase in the cost of living, and with their continual abuse in the marketplace in the form of improper
May 30, 1966	COMMONS
packaging and advertising practices which merely perplex and confuse them. They are now expecting concrete action and will not put up with constitutional excuses for much longer.
If the government sitting across the way find themselves losing touch with, and the sympathy of, the Canadian electorate, it is because in the course of the last few months the cost of living has been surging upward, with no sincere demonstration on the part of the government that they intend to do anything about it. The government have had their opportunity in this bill to show that they mean action. Obviously they are not prepared to accept the good suggestions they have been given.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council could answer the question I asked him a minute or two ago.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the question which has been put I repeat what I said before. It is not the intention at this time to modify the clause. Any consideration as far as the government is concerned that might be given to changing the text of the bill, if it is enacted, will be given once the report of the Economic Council has been received.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council a question about the speech made on Saturday by the former secretary of state, the hon. member for Outremont-Saint-Jean, in which, among other things, he said during a question period that several federal departments should disappear and new ones, such as science, and consumer and family affairs, be formed. He said that there must be a major overhaul, much more than has been done in the last few months; that changes must be made in the organization of the cabinet; and that the economy needs a major overhaul. I am wondering whether the President of the Privy Council associates himself with these remarks and is prepared to make the necessary changes in line with the thinking among the left wing of his party?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, every member of this house has the right to express himself in his own words both inside and outside this house. I know my hon. friend who made these statements-at least I presume he made them in Toronto-is writing a book, and undoubtedly in his book he will outline all his
DEBATES	5727
Government Organization ideas. We will all be able to give them consideration in due course.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council a question in light of his remarks a few moments ago. Since the beginning of the session I and a number of others have received letters from people across the country in which they ask various questions about prices, the elements which go into price increases and the justification or otherwise for them. We have been asked questions in regard to protection along various lines, such as advertising, packaging and so on.
When we have put these questions to the government before orders of the day are called we have been sloughed off, usually without any answer being given, or we are told there will be investigations made later on in the year. More recently I have had questions sent back to me with the statement that no department of the government is responsible for answering such questions, or words to that effect.
I should like to ask the minister whether I would be justified in assuming from the remarks he has just made that when I receive letters and inquiries of this kind his department is now a suitable department with which to take up these matters, and that he will be the suitable person to answer such questions.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I cannot say whether I am the suitable person, but I can say it is correct to assume both from the statement made by the Prime Minister and by the statement I made in the name of the government that the registrar general will be the minister with jurisdiction in this regard in the future. I think both the statement of the Prime Minister and my own can be interpreted as meaning that, to the extent there is federal jurisdiction and responsibility, this will be the department which will be concerned with these matters.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
On clause 11-Department of Manpower -Department established.
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, at the resolution stage I stated emphatic opposition to the marriage of the department of immigration and the major portion of the Department of Labour. In my view it will be
May 30, 1966

Government Organization detrimental to immigration policy and, perhaps even worse, to the labour policy of this country. Based upon my experience, sir, as a minister of citizenship and immigration, and upon detailed observations in other countries where labour and immigration departments have been married, I believe this proposed department of manpower will be a department warring within itself. In such circumstances and within such a framework Canada cannot achieve a rational, balanced, aggressive immigration policy, and I predict that immigration will suffer, and suffer greatly, with consequent grave disadvantage to our economy.
These are views, sir, which I asserted on the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and on the resolution stage of the bill, without apparently being able to convince the Prime Minister. I do not propose tonight to pursue the arguments further, except to reiterate that I am convinced that this is a grave error of national policy which will deprive this country of a consistent, expanded, long-range immigration policy, a policy urgently needed at this very time.
I add tonight that it would have been very helpful indeed to the committee to have had before it the white paper on immigration. I urge the minister to end the lead swinging that has been going on in this respect, and to bring forward the white paper on immigration which has been delayed now since it was first promised by the Prime Minister in December 1963.
There is the further fact that the Prime Minister's proposals leave the old Department of Labour so completely emasculated as really not to be a department at all. Except for the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has retained his responsibility, which he had in other portfolios, for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, he would be, at least during periods of industrial peace, virtually unemployed. He would have the smallest, the most attenuated department of government of all.
In my view, Mr. Chairman, this is turning back the clock. How it must disturb the celestial peace of Mr. Mackenzie King. For sir, it was he, under the aegis of Sir William Mulock, who established the Department of Labour, and that department was always his special pride and joy. Mulock, Lemieux and King himself were the first ministers of the Department of Labour and established, in my view, competent, imaginative leadership in that portfolio. Parliamentarians of distinction

and prestige of Gideon Robertson, Wesley Gordon and Norman Rogers added lustre to the ministry till the hon. member for Ontario, one of the greatest ministers of labour of all time, brought it to its highest authority within the government and within the cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Richard Albert Bell: All this tradition has been thrown away.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: He had more people out of work than anybody.


Richard Albert Bell: I am sorry; I do not hear what the hon. lady is muttering at this time.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the hon. gentleman might agree with me that the hon. member for Ontario probably had more people out of work, to work with, than any other member of this house ever had.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Richard Albert Bell: I want to say to the hon. lady that there were fewer strikes when the hon. member for Ontario was in charge than at any other period in the last 15 years, and that there are many workers who owe a great deal as a result of the vocational training plan-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Richard Albert Bell: There are a great many young people in the city of Niagara Falls and in other parts of the country who have a great obligation to the hon. member for Ontario.
Perhaps the hon. lady would hold her peace. She will have plenty of opportunity to speak later on. Her colleagues have been giving her a wonderful example of how to talk out government legislation. They have done that all day. They are experts. I suggest that the hon. lady should not join with them in that.
I want to say that this Department of Labour is the department which bore the brunt of the struggle against the depression in the 1930's. This is the department which initiated so many of the policies which overcame the recession in the 1950's. This is the department which has been especially chosen by the Prime Minister for the guillotine. What is the reason for this? Let us be frank about it. It was simply to tailor a department for the hon. member for Quebec West, and for Mr. Tom Kent.
May 30, 1966	COMMONS


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Richard Albert Bell: The Prime Minister of Canada believed that because of the background of the hon. member for Quebec West, the hon. member could not be charged with responsibility for industrial relations, conciliation services, and for the other services retained in the Department of Labour.
I think the Prime Minister took very much too seriously the hon. gentleman's background as a union leader in one phase of Canadian unionism, and apparently believed that other unions and employees would not accord him full respect as Minister of Labour.
Sir, I have no desire to be the devil's advocate for the hon. member for Quebec West, whose considerable oratorial talents have become known to us. I think the Prime Minister did for the hon. member for Quebec West much less than justice. As a cabinet minister, I believe the hon. member could achieve an objectivity and impartiality equal at least to that of the hon. gentleman for Vancouver Centre, who has always been an executive of businesses which are not insubstantial.
Far be it for me, sir, to advise the Prime Minister on his choice of colleagues. It would have been far better, I say, to make the hon. gentleman for Quebec West Minister of Labour in the old Department of Labour and to return the hon. gentleman for Vancouver Centre to the portfolio of citizenship and immigration, or even to reverse the matter, than to bastardize both departments and to create two political orphans to be known as the departments of manpower and labour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Richard Albert Bell: Yes, and to choke immigration in the process. That, sir, is what I believe will happen.
Sir, the attenuation, the almost total diminution of the Department of Labour, coupled with the placing of immigration in a secondary policy role, induces me to plead tonight with the government. I wish the Prime Minister were here, so that I might plead especially with him tonight for a restoration of the status quo ante.
I believe that this committee should strike out the provisions for the department of manpower which are contained in clauses 11 to 14 inclusive, and when we reach clause 34 dealing with the Department of the Secretary of State, the committee should strike out subclause 1(a). Thereupon the old and generally satisfactory status would be restored.
DEBATES	5729
Government Organization
As I can only move one amendment at a time to one clause, I intend, sir, to move that clause 11 be struck out, and if this motion should be carried, I will move subsequently to strike out clauses 12 to 14 inclusive, and later to amend all dependent and consequential clauses. The net result would be to restore the old Department of Labour, and I would hope to have it strengthened into a genuine department of manpower. I would hope to establish the Department of Citizenship and Immigration into a department freed from the responsibility of Indian affairs, so that the minister and his officers could establish and continue a long range immigration policy coupled with a real program of citizenship education and evaluation, which I do not believe will happen under the Secretary of State.
Therefore, sir, as a start to this general proposal, I move.
That Clause 11 be deleted and all clauses thereafter be renumbered accordingly.
This is the only motion that I have ever moved or ever expect to move in the chamber which would have made the Right Hon. Mackenzie King happy.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that this motion is out of order. The principle of the bill which includes the creation of the department of manpower was approved by the house at second reading. Therefore this motion which has been introduced by the hon. member for Carleton is directed to the principle of the bill, and therefore, I submit, out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to the point of order. I agree with the Minister of National Revenue that the amendment is out of order, but not for the reasons the minister gave.
I submit that it would be quite within the power of the committee to vote down a clause, or several clauses, even though they were supported in principle on second reading. Where this amendment fails is that it is what is sometimes called an expanded negative. All that is necessary, for the Conservatives to strike out clause 11, is to muster enough votes against it. You cannot by an amendment move to strike out something that you can resolve by voting one way or another.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
May 30, 1966

Government Organization


The Deputy Chairman:: May I draw hon. members' attention to Citation 398 in Beau-chesne's fourth edition:
An amendment which would produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negatived is out of order.
I declare the amendment in this form is out of order. It will serve the same purpose to vote against clause 11, as such, instead of bringing forward an amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I think there is more than one way to conceive of government organization. I am not mistaking this for a metaphysical proposition, but I feel that different propositions could be made, possibly all sensible, and the only defence I have to offer is based upon reason and chances of success.
It was indicated that the Department of Labour had been stripped of all meaning and that the new department, as it would be set up, could not fulfil the role that should normally be expected of it.
I should like to point out to the house that in the field of labour, there are two different realities. One is concerned with employers-employees relations, which we call industrial relations and which are basically different from manpower, manpower training, manpower classification and all other services that may be offered to workers and industry in the field of technical training.
This is so true, Mr. Chairman, that when the federal government set up or created, if you wish, what we have called the Labour-Management Co-operation Committee, it was taken out of collective labour agreements. They did not want the two to be mixed together. That is to say, there was a special committee to discuss with management questions of productivity, questions of production, questions of manpower training, and those committees were never incorporated into what was called the industrial relations setup in the company.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is a sacrilege. One may very well think that it should be otherwise, but to go as far as to indicate that this takes all meaning out of what was established by Right Hon. Mackenzie King or hon. Mr. Lemieux appears to me as pushing conservatism to the point of placing it in jeopardy.
[Mr. Knowles.)
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to talk too long on this subject. I might have the opportunity to come back to it when particular legislation is considered, but let us say that, independently of government measures, it remains that manpower in Canada is our main resource and we should all agree to try and improve it, to make it more productive and particularly to help the workers to develop fully as far as technical skills are concerned.
A few years ago in the United States a great economist tried to establish what could be the value of the human capital, of the workers. He set the economic value of the work of men in a society at over $1,000 billion, whereas the financial capital barely reached $700 or $800 billion, which means that the value of the men in strict economic terms exceeded by $500 billion that of the financial capital.
Everyone knows that the increase in production since the beginning of the century is due to a large extent-I would say 85 or 87 per cent-to the improvement of industrial technology which is based itself on the work of men.
Therefore, it is important that we should give special attention to the training of our manpower, to enable it to meet the needs of the enterprise and at the same time to enable the men to develop, to improve normally.
Now, I could answer questions if hon. members deem it advisable to ask some about the constitution of the department. But before resuming my seat, I would like to talk about immigration.
Some fear that immigration will suffer because it comes under the Minister of Manpower. There is no basis for that. It will depend on the government and probably on the Minister of Immigration. It is quite possible to have a department concerned exclusively with immigration and the government through its policy, or the minister, make immigration difficult. There is no relationship between the two.
Here is proof of what I say, Mr. Chairman. I am in favour of having immigration with manpower and I see that last year 140,000 immigrants came to Canada, whereas this year there will be almost 200,000 of them. There has been an increase of 30 per cent in each of the first four months this year, whereas when immigration came under the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), only 75,000 immigrants came to Canada that year.
May 30, 1966


Richard Albert Bell: The member for
Carleton put into effect the policies which are now bearing fruit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean Marchand: Now, if this were actually the case, I hope the member for Carleton will wait a few years in order to ascertain the results of the immigration policy we are now implementing.
At any rate, immigration must surely, but not exclusively, be related in some way to the requirements of the labour market.
Besides, when we ask immigrants to come to Canada, we are dealing with men who have relatives here and who want to make a living in our country. I feel that to restrict immigration exclusively to the requirements of the labour market in Canada would make for an inhuman and unacceptable policy. It is not our intention, therefore, to restrict immigration in this manner. Besides, I hope we shall be in a position very shortly to introduce in the house amendments which will no doubt enable the member for Carleton to sleep peacefully and to feel reassured about Canada's future.
Now, Mr. Chairman, a few members made remarks; first, the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), who is not here-


Gilles Grégoire: No, I am here.


Jean Marchand: No, he has not gone. We did not have too many translation problems. We thought, of course, of translating "manpower" by "puissance de l'homme," but this could have created some confusion, or would have constituted a misrepresentation.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if the future minister of manpower allows me, throughout his statement, he used a very appropriate term which he chose himself and which, 1 feel, would enhance even more the part he has to play. It is human capital. It is capital rather than manpower. Manpower designates something more finished, whereas human capital indicates a power. Since the minister used the term "human capital" all the time, I think that term might have been properly used.


Jean Marchand: I thank the hon. member, but there is something else that is more important. Anyway, sir, that is not what I want to undertake.
Government Organization
It was indicated during the debate that the word "immigration" was removed from the title of the department. I listened with attention to those who spoke about it, including the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) and several others. I was impressed, not because I think that the name can change the policy or structure, but this emphasizes a reality which we all follow very intently.
Since there is no point in having useless discussions simply to win an argument or imagining that because something was done once, it would be wrong to amend it and to weaken our position. I am ready to move that the new department be named "the Department of Manpower and Immigration".


Mr. Fulion:: Has the Prime Minister appointed you ex officio?


Jean Marchand: I will see him early tomorrow morning, before you advise him.
I therefore move:
That the words "Department of Manpower" In subsection (1) of clause 11 be replaced by the words "Department of Manpower and Immigration" and "new Minister of Manpower", in the same clause, be replaced and that the same amendment be made wherever the words "Department of Manpower", "Minister of Manpower and Deputy Minister" are found, more particularly in subsection (2) of clause 11, as well as in clauses 12, 13, 14, 33, 35, in paragraph (d) of clause 36, in subsections (1) and (2) of clause 39, in Schedule A and Schedule B.


Mr. Winters:: Mr. Chairman, I second the amendment in question.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, was it necessary that some other minister move the amendment? After all, the bill is in the name of the Prime Minister and it is perfectly in order for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to move the amendment. The second point of order I wish to raise is whether this is a proper form in which to amend several clauses of a bill. After all, we have only clause 11 before us at the moment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: By unanimous consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If it is done by unanimous consent I am willing to join in that consent. But there is another point. Should the amendment not have in its earlier lines some reference to the heading that appears in the bill preceding clause 11? Let us change not only the language of the bill but the heading which precedes clause 11. I suggest this could be done by altering the amendment at the beginning to read, that the heading preceding
5732
May 30, 1966

Government Organization clause 11 be amended to read "Department of The Deputy Chairman: Yes, and we thank Manpower and Immigration" and that this the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre name be used in the following clauses. I for the new title and for its inclusion in the suggest that this be done either by unanimous following clauses and subclauses, consent or by someone moving a subamendmenj-	Mr. Knowles: In both languages.


Richard Albert Bell: I would submit it can only be done by unanimous consent, and certainly we on this side would be most happy to extend unanimous consent. If the hon. minister had not moved this amendment we on this side would have done so, and had intended to do so. I think the hon. member for Hamilton West is to be congratulated and I wish the government had given him a chance to move the amendment. He was one of a number of people who had the same idea. I hope the inclusion of the words "and immigration" in this portfolio title will mean something more than lip service to immigration. I hope it will mean that this department is going out specifically and definitely to promote immigration and establish a proper policy. I hope the minister will get rid of the lead swinging he has been guilty of since last December in keeping the white paper under wraps.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, when the minister moved his amendment, I was wondering whether that was necessary because, according to the bill as it is drafted, the minister holds his office during pleasure. He could have been taken from one department and placed in another without having to change the whole act. This way, the act will have to be changed if part of the department is to be transferred to the Department of Labour or another one. I think that is useless.
If the member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) said he would move that amendment, it is proof that we would make a mistake in moving it. I submit that basically it is unnecessary.
I will not object further. I do not understand the reason of such a change which is not absolutely necessary and which could well have been made without this amendment since the minister holds his office during pleasure and could readily have been transferred from one department to another without the house having to change the act.


Maurice Rinfret: Is there unanimous consent that this amendment be carried?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, provided there is a reference to the heading preceding clause 11.


Richard Albert Bell: Before clause 11 carries may I ask the minister if he has given consideration to the problem that I know has been raised with him by the organization known as Manpower Services Limited? I think many hon. members have had communications from this private and long established corporation. I agree that national interest must always be predominant, but I do not think we should suddenly go in and take over what has been a very long established name, I believe of international reputation. Before we proceed further I would like the minister to comment on this, and we might wish to pursue the matter further if his comment is not satisfactory.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, we have of course taken that point into consideration. We do not have any interest in creating more confusion than is necessary, and so I hope we will find a name that will avoid this confusion and respect the rights of those who have rights in Canada.


Mr.   Nielson@: Will the minister also make a recommendation to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to the effect that he pass on an alternate name to the city of Edmonton?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, there is a point on which the minister-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the hon. member dealing with clause 11 or clause 12?


Gilles Grégoire: Clause 11, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member still has something to say concerning clause 11?
Then clause 11 is not agreed to.


Gilles Grégoire: 
Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I do not see how I could be compelled to speak about constitutional problems while discussing the alteration of the name of a department. This question could be directly put to me and I do not think that I can be accused of trying to avoid the subject.
Anyway, we know that in that field, there is undoubtedly a provincial jurisdiction, that is all matters concerning vocational training such as the establishment of programs, of lectures come under provincial jurisdiction and are related to education. We do not intend to encroach upon that field.
There is the entire field of employment offices which has been under the federal jurisdiction for many years, namely for 25 years, and which the province in its turn would like to invade.
Therefore in this case, Mr. Chairman, I submit we do not face the threat of federal encroachment upon provincial jurisdiction, but that of provincial ipso facto encroachment upon a field which has been under federal government jurisdiction for 25 years.
Anyway, this is not a constitutional argument, but merely a field which has been occupied, and it does not necessarily mean that the government has exclusive jurisdiction in this field. This is a field in which we are really ready to co-operate with the provinces, taking into account the fact that Canada is a country united under a consitu-tion and that, for the common good, the Canadian population, the workers, have the right to be protected and to receive the best possible service, in any province.
23033-364 J
DEBATES	5733
Government Organization
There has been talk about manpower mobility. Neither the minister of manpower nor the government has ever intended to move Canadians without reason from Halifax to Vancouver or from Quebec to Toronto. These policies of manpower mobility obviously apply within a certain natural region where people have roots and want to stay.
I think we will respect this wish of the population and this holds true not only for Quebec, but for people living in Newfoundland or British Columbia; in other words, as far as possible, everyone will be able to go on living in his own town, village, region or province.
A manpower mobility program which would not take this fact into account would be a failure, and we intend to consider it; we are ready to co-operate with all the provinces, and particularly with Quebec.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to deal with this matter later on when we reached clause 13, but since it has been raised I might as well deal with it now. I think it can be related to this clause 11. I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I agree with what already has been said on second reading with regard to these subclauses. Most of this bill simply is window dressing, and as a matter of fact I think the government could have been prosecuted successfully under the Criminal Code for misleading advertising. There is however one exception. They attribute to the new department of manpower the development and utilization of manpower resources in Canada. I was going to ask the minister precisely the same question which has been asked. Is this to be taken, in its ordinary meaning and interpretation, as conveying to the government in the fullest sense the powers which are indicated by implication in that particular phrase?
We cannot look at that without having some regard for the history of that particular aspect of federal jurisdiction and the attempt by the Bennett government in 1934 to pass good legislation which subsequently was declared invalid by the Supreme Court and confirmed by the Privy Council and the amendment of the British North America Act in 1940 which simply was giving to the federal government and to parliament the right to deal with the matter of unemployment insurance. The passage of the Unemployment Insurance Act that year contained reference to an employment service and dealt
May 30, 1966

Government Organization with the principle of unemployment insurance itself. Today we come to the proposal that parliament vest in the government the right to deal with the development and utilization of manpower resources in Canada. This having been passed, parliament then has occupied the field.
I believe, and have said so in this house, that in order for this parliament and this government to function properly in areas such as this, there can be uncontestably only one authority, and that authority should be the federal parliament. If these words are taken in their ordinary everyday meaning, the federal government and parliament having occupied the field there can be no question of provincial jurisdiction. True enough, the minister and the government will have to consult with the provincial governments. This is only proper and right, but I would discard all the rest of the legislation. However, I would be prepared to support the government in this one particular aspect of its plans in connection with this bill. One tries very hard to find something to praise the government about, and no matter how hard he tries very seldom is he able to do it.


An hon. Member:: Don't try too hard.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have been trying to do so for three years and always have come up with a zero.


An hon. Member:: All miserable failures.


Gerald William Baldwin: How this happened to creep into it I do not know. The law officers of the crown who chose these words are to be commended, because in my opinion, in this area where juisdiction must be established essentially in the federal government, it is about time this government moved, and in this one particular aspect it seems to have done so. I understand from the reply just made by the minister to the hon. member for Lapointe that it is the government's intention to give this phrase the very widest possible meaning.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
On clause 13-Duties of minister.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should first of all like to say that I support this bill whole heartedly, as I think it represents a good move on the part of the government in putting manpower and immigration together.

I should like to ask the minister one or two questions in respect of clause 13. What reorganization will be required in local offices throughout the country in order to give effect to this change, if it is adopted?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, we intend to co-ordinate all the services related to manpower, including retraining, mobility allowances, placement and special services for youth, women and handicapped. I do not know what the name of the new service will be, but we will find an appropriate one. In any event, all these services will be under the one head.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have one more question I should like to ask. Will this move necessitate the recruitment of specialized staff trained to do certain work not previously done by the department?


Jean Marchand: Are you referring to
trained personnel for the department or for employers?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I refer to personnel for the department.


Jean Marchand: There is no doubt that we will have to train new personnel, and we are carrying out that training program at this time.


Michael Starr: When the original transfer of the national employment service from the Department of Labour to the department of manpower was made, examinations were given to the employees transferred. They were advised that those examinations were void and had no meaning. Will the minister explain what happened in this regard.


Jean Marchand: The results of the examinations held are not void or without meaning. They are still in existence and valid, but are not being used in themselves to evaluate the abilities of each employee. Many other criteria are being used in this regard. The results of these examinations are not being used exclusively in evaluating the abilities of these people.


Michael Starr: Will the minister indicate what other criteria are being used, in addition to these civil service examinations?


Jean Marchand: The other criteria being used include the known competence of employees, their experience in the department and other qualities which do not show up as a result of the examinations.
May 30. 1966


Michael Starr: Does that mean that the deputy minister in charge of administration will select these people for future positions?


Jean Marchand: No. A committee will be formed to deal with selections. I do not know exactly the composition of this committee, but I am sure the Civil Service Commission, the national employment service and the department will be represented. If you wish further information in this regard I will let you know tomorrow exactly how this committee is to be formed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
On clause 16-Deputy minister.
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, this clause provides for a deputy minister of Indian affairs and northern development. I should like to take one minute to say that for some years I have been strongly of the belief that there should be a separate deputy minister for Indian affairs whose jurisdiction would be related exclusively to Indian affairs. I doubt that one deputy minister can give appropriate time to both Indian affairs and northern development. I believe that in the past the detailed administration of immigration has robbed the deputy minister of citizenship and immigration of an opportunity to give as much time to Indian affairs as the importance of this subject deserves. I urge the government to amend clause 16, perhaps not tonight, but during this session, so that there can be a deputy minister of northern development as well as a deputy superintendent general of Indian affairs. If it were within my rights as a private member I would move such an amendment myself.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 26 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 27-Department of energy, mines and resources-Department established.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the minister designate of this department is not here so I do not know whether it is the desire of the committee that the clauses under this heading stand until he is in the house, or whether we should move on to something else. Perhaps we should proceed now, in which case I have some observations and amendments to put forward. I am not sure this would be appropriate in the absence of the minister, but perhaps some spokesman for the government could give me an indication in this regard.
Government Organization


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I think that we should proceed at this time in view of the fact that while the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is unfortunately but unavoidably absent, his parliamentary secretary is in attendance, as is the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I am sure both hon. members would be pleased to deal with these matters in view of the fact there is some disposition to get on with this legislation this evening.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the amendment I wish to propose relates primarily to clause 29. I shall be glad to comply with the suggestion of the hon. minister, and I will confine my remarks to the applicable clause.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
On clause 29-Duties, powers and functions of the minister.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, in considering the constitution of the new department of energy, mines and resources, I should like to remind the committee that the view of the official opposition was expressed by us when the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys for 1965-66 were under consideration. We approve wholeheartedly the concept of co-ordinating policy in the field of energy and resources under one department and one minister. At that time I expressed the reservation in respect of the proposal as it was reflected in order in council 1965-2281, to the effect there should be exempted from the jurisdiction of the minister certain main areas, but primarily the areas of planning and co-ordinating of policy regarding the north and the whole of the continental shelf, which has been allocated to Canada in accordance with an international agreement arrived at in Geneva in 1958.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I should say that nothing that has developed or has been said since has caused us to change our views. Indeed the statement of the Prime Minister on second reading of this bill, especially as contained in pages 5431 and 5432 of Hansard, have very seriously heightened our apprehensions regarding the serious consequences of the omissions from the powers and jurisdictions of this proposed department. We were so concerned about the matter that I took the trouble, on the discussion of the estimates, of raising with the minister expressly the basis of our concern. He was

May 30, 1966
Government Organization kind enough to write me on March 25, 1966, as follows:
When the 1965-66 estimates for my department were being debated in the house on March 3 last, you asked my colleagues, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Minister without Portfolio whether one of them proposed to make an opening statement with respect to the work of the department "and particularly with respect to the policies which will guide the government as it sets up and administers the new department of energy, mines and resources."
He went on to say:
My colleagues and I are having regular discussions on the concept of the new department of energy, mines and resources, and senior officers of my present department are also intensively engaged. The enabling legislation is being drafted and it is our hope that, within the not too distant future, we shall be able to present our proposals to parliament.
I replied as follows by letter of April 5:
Thank you very much indeed for your letter of March 25th-
-etc. Then I said:
I appreciate your keeping me informed. I hope 1 may be permitted to make reference again to my feeling that in setting up the department, it would be a pity if responsibility for development and co-ordination of resources policy in an area of utmost importance to Canada and within the Jurisdiction of the federal government, namely the Territories, was not entrusted to the new department. It seems to me that, if it were not, this would create a most conspicuous and lamentable gap in what I am sure will otherwise be generally supported as an admirable and progressive step forward by way of co-ordination of policies in these fields.
As I say, I should have added to that general observation or reservation the expression of concern with regard to-


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Ves.


Arthur Laing: Might I ask from what correspondence the hon. member was quoting?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was quoting from a letter to me from the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I thought I had identified the correspondence, and I am sorry if I did not. I also quoted my reply to him in that capacity.


Arthur Laing: Of what date?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I gave the date. The letter to him was dated March 25 this year; my reply was dated April 5.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I should have added to that expression of concern the omission from the jurisdiction of this department

of jurisdiction over the territorial waters and the continental shelf, in so far as these waters have been assigned to and are under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. Our concern in this regard was, as I have said, heightened by the references to this subject made by the Prime Minister in his speech on May 24 on second reading of the bill. I refer particularly to the passages found in the last paragraph of the first column of page 5431 reading as follows:
We all contemplate that at some time in the future we shall have in this country one or more provinces in the north. That situation will come, however, only after there has been substantial growth in population and in resource development. The encouragement of that resource development will be the responsibility of the minister of northern development. In a sense the minister will be acting in that, as in many other respects, as a trustee for provinces of the future.
With that statement by itself we have no quarrel and to it we take no objection. But it is important in this context to realize that the role described for the minister of northern development is that of a trustee for future provincial governments, and that therefore there are indications of very serious and practical limitations upon his role in this field. The Prime Minister went on to say:
The minister of energy, mines and resources, on the other hand, will be exercising responsibilities that are essentially, if I may use that word, national in their character. By that I mean he will be responsible for the kind of things that do not relate to any particular province but rather involve elements of jurisdiction that are federal in nature and aspects of policy that affect the country as a whole.
Again, to that statement in isolation there can be no objection and with it we take no exception as a statement in isolation. The aspect of it to which we do take exception is that unfortunately there is a large area of resource policy and responsibility for planning resource programs which is national in nature, and which has not been entrusted to the new minister and the new department, but rather has been divided between the minister of northern development and the minister of energy, mines and resources. This can only create confusion, and because of the importance of the exception it creates a substantial and lamentable gap in the proposal to set up a new national policy and move forward with national programs and concepts of development and resource policy, and particularly a water use policy.
I see, Mr. Chairman, that it is ten o'clock. As I intend at this stage to go into the detail of our objections and reservations, perhaps I
May 30, 1966	COMMONS
might move the adjournment of this discussion.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the business for tomorrow, it would be our intention to continue with this legislation tomorrow until it is completed, and then immediately continue with the three bills dealing with collective bargaining in the civil service; that is, the collective bargaining act, the public service act and the amendments to the Financial Administration Act. Then we would proceed with the resolution preceding the omnibus bills to amend the civil service pension plans.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue whether following that we will be taking the second reading of the Yukon bill?


Edgar John Benson: I should like to defer a
decision on that matter, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisonal standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, on May 20 last, I asked the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Beer) whether the minister had examined the telegram sent by Messrs. Lionel Sorel and Ovila Lebel, president of the Catholic Farmers Union and president of the Quebec Federation of Egg Producers respectively, and in which they showed their concern about "strange importation of eggs into Canada".
I also asked him whether it was his intention to take steps to protect Canadian egg producers against such importation.
It is known, Mr. Speaker, that for several years prices for eggs have been subject to fluctuations that are always detrimental to both small and average producers, and even to big ones at times. Imports are very often the cause of losses suffered by egg producers in this country.
DEBATES	5737
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In its May 18 edition, La Terre de Chez Nows reports that:
Since the beginning of this year until May, egg imports in Canada totaled 23,548 cases of 30 dozen each, as compared to 1,687 cases for the corresponding period last year. These figures include inspected egg imports and may be found in the last weekly report on the poultry product market published in Ottawa.
These figures, Mr. Speaker, are really alarming and the producers are concerned. During a few months, egg prices remained at levels rather interesting for the producers, but the importers noticed it and the results are and will doubtless continue to be harmful to the Canadian producers.
The minister may tell me, as did the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys earlier last week, that these imports are necessary because production does not meet domestic consumption, or that these imports will be exported after processing. But, Mr. Speaker, our poultry producers are precisely able to increase their production considerably, especially in the province of Quebec, to meet the demand of the Canadian market, if they can be assured of being able to sell their produce at a worthwhile price.
It would also be interesting to know the decision of the Minister of Agriculture concerning the resolution passed last year by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which is requesting a royal inquiry into methods of establishing egg prices. We wish to know what the government intends to do for Canadian poultry producers.
[English1


John James Greene: With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), Mr. Speaker, my officials have had an opportunity of looking into this matter and advise the hon. member that, first of all, I did receive a telegram under date of May 10 from Mr. Sorel, President of the Catholic Farmers Union regarding importation of eggs into Canada.	.
During the past five or six months our egg production has been lower than our requirements, with the result that prices to producers for eggs have been at their highest for the corresponding period for the last seven or eight years. As a result, our egg requirements have been supplemented by an increased quantity of imported eggs. Practically all of these eggs are for the manufacturing trade and have not been in competition with domestic fresh eggs for table use. Despite
May 30, 1966
5738	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion these importations, the price for domestic eggs has continued well above that of previous years.
The department is, however, keeping a constant watch on any imports to insure that our import legislation is complied with and necessary measures will be taken should there be any evidence of improper importations.



TRADE-CANADA-WEST INDIES-STEPS TO BRING ABOUT IMPROVEMENT

["To round out what has been said by the hon. lady, I would add that between the 1962 and 1965 resolutions Canada was not called upon to vote or express an opinion on this question. However, as the hon. lady has said, in the spring of 1965, Canada, along with other members of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations approved a resolution permitting the United Nations to meet requests from developing countries for assistance in the field of population control. As a consequence of this the United Nations through its assistance program, to which Canada is contributing, has given technical aid to India on population problems.\nTherefore it can be said in a multilateral sense that the advice of the hon. lady has already been enacted in policy and that Canada, by her participation through the United Nations, has contributed to attempt to solve the population problems in countries which request this assistance. To the present time Canada has not received any request on a bilateral basis for any specific forms of assistance of this kind from any country.\nThe policy of the Canadian foreign aid program is to respond only to specific requests from the countries concerned, and of course there could be no question on our part of making a condition of any other aid that these practices be followed and that Canada's advice be taken in this regard. Therefore I think the first principle to be followed here is that we should act only in response to specific requests from the countries concerned. To the extent that a request has been sought through the United Nations agency, Canada, through her participation in the United Nations, has contributed.\nMotion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.24 p.m.", 'Tuesday, May 31, 1966']
Thomas Miller Bell: My intervention tonight refers back to the debate on Tuesday, May 24, with respect to this matter of the West Indies and the questions asked about the West Indies conference that was held in Halifax on May 20, particularly referring to the full summit meeting that is to be held here in July.
May I interject here that it is significant that I am mentioning this subject tonight because the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is now meeting. I have just come from the meeting where many members have put forward their ideas about the seriousness of the commonwealth situation. The Prime Minister on this occasion made reference to the conference that is to be held and said that an announcement is to be made. That I appreciate; but I do want to take a moment to refer to the conference that was held in Halifax; and I am pleased that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is here tonight because he attended that conference.
Different statements have emanated from the meeting held in Halifax. I would mention in particular the remarks made by a very well recognized authority on the subject of the West Indies, Acadia University political science Professor D.G.L. Fraser, who among other things said that there has been altogether too much waffling by the Canadian government with respect to the West Indies. He also referred to the fact that there have always been promises but that nothing has been forthcoming.
There has been general criticism of the lack of interest in Canada in the Caribbean, going back many years. I have in mind the statements that the Minister of Trade and Commerce made at that meeting. After arguing strenuously in his native province that, he was for anything which would benefit the maritimes, he made the type of general sweeping announcement that means nothing to me. His statement was that these West Indies meetings which are coming up in July
[Mr. Greene.)
were planned to foster more fruitful relations with the Caribbean in economic matters.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that we have once and for all to decide that our interests in the West Indies and the Caribbean area are serious interests. Trade is the big factor. It is the minister's responsibility to stand up and say that he is determined to do something at this conference. We have been having these conferences for a long while now. People in the West Indies are looking to us.
Many members have spoken on this matter, Mr. Speaker, and it has been a favourite subject of mine. The Minister of Public Works has sponsored resolutions many times in the past dealing with this matter. This is our last chance. If we fail this time to do something, the alternative is communism. I am only pointing out in advance the seriousness of this meeting. Something has to be done, and I should like to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce get up and say he is really determined to do something. This is a big challenge to him, now that he is back in politics in charge of trade and commerce, to do something for the maritimes, his native province, and to foster this relationship which means so much to the commonwealth.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I have been very interested indeed in the remarks I have just heard about the importance of relations between Canada and the Caribbean area. I doubt whether there is a member of this house who has had a closer association than I have had with the Caribbean area, in an economic sense or otherwise, or who has more reason to be interested in the welfare of the Caribbean area. Because as I said in Halifax, had it not been for the trade in fishery products between my native town of Lunenburg and the Caribbean area, my life would have been considerably different, if in fact I would have had one at all. So my sense of urgency in doing something both in the interest of Canada, particularly eastern Canada, and the Caribbean area runs very strong.
I am quite prepared to give the assurance, and I am dedicated to the proposition, that we must tackle this problem, as President Kennedy used to say, with vigour and do something more to add substance to the great many of the words that have been spoken.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I disagree vigorously with many of the remarks that were made at the conference by Professor Fraser. I did not attend all of it.
May 30. 1966	COMMONS
I did not hear all he said, but judging from reports it was negative. It is quite wrong to attribute nothing but words to what has been done, because there has been a great deal of substance as was pointed out in the speech I made at that time. For example, perhaps no area of the world has received more aid from the Canadian aid program, per capita, than has the Caribbean area. Countries in that area are, however, looking for trade and development.
Since the conference, and even before, I have had many discussions with the appropriate ministers and government officials from the area. I spent considerable time with Hon. Robert Lightbourne at Halifax and today for example I spent several hours in particular with the High Commissioner of Jamaica. This is just illustrative of the close co-operation between the two countries.
I share what I am sure is the fervent hope of the hon. member that the conference in July will actually put flesh on what he regards as the skeleton. It is the determination of this government, supported by my own resolve, to do something to our mutual advantage when the time comes. We are doing the development work to this end now.



Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the immediate matter which prompted me to ask this question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs was the statement made on May 26 by H. O. Moran, director general of the Canadian foreign aid program, that the most serious single problem facing developing countries is that of population growth.
From a long way back we have known that the population explosion is becoming more and more serious. For instance, I read the following in the February, 1966 edition of Canadian Hunger Foundation:
It is estimated that the present population of the world is about 3.4 billion, and that of this number at least half suffer from undernutrition or malnutrition. If world population continues to increase at its present rate, there will be 6 billion people, and some authorities now say 7 billion, by 2000 AD. This will occur within the working life-span of our young people now in high school.
The Commission of Churches on International Affairs at Geneva last year pointed out that along with this existing problem is another important factor contributing to the gravity of the situation, and that is the lag in
DEBATES	5739
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion agricultural development, and the resulting poor harvests. FAO figures for the 1960 to 1964 period indicate a virtual standstill in regard to rates of food production per capita in Asia and Africa, and a worsening situation in Latin America.
Indeed, a member of this house, at a meeting at which Mr. Moran who has returned from India spoke, suggested that there is no reasonable prospect for an end to starvation in some countries unless the rate of population growth is curbed.
I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs the other day as to the policy of the Canadian government in regard to assisting underdeveloped countries with population planning and family control. I feel that the Canadian government is moving slowly, yet none the less moving in the direction of support for the United Nations policies designed to grapple with world population problems. Prior to 1962 and in 1962 Canada abstained from voting at the United Nations General Assembly on questions having to do with birth control, and with population planning. At a meeting of the Economic and Social Council in Geneva, in July, 1965, Canada voted for a resolution which authorized the United Nations and its special agencies to increase its activities in the field of population control.
We note in passing that speaking in Rome last year at a meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organization, the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) seemed to be greatly impressed by the danger of the situation when he stated we were losing the battle against hunger.
I think it is time the Canadian government made it perfectly plain where it stands on this matter. I believe this country is moving forward in its thinking. Two or three years ago there was a definite reluctance to have anything to do with measures of population control. But today even within our own country those of us on the health and welfare committee have found there is a disposition to take the attitude that this should be a matter of conscience and that it should be possible to pass on information and make available contraceptive devices in order to help in family planning and control when help is requested, when this is not forbidden by religious or other beliefs, and when the use, of this assistance is in no way obligatory.
May 30, 1966
5740	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I think the Canadian government should adopt this attitude at the United Nations and make it clear that on the request oi governments which desire to have information and birth control devices we are ready to help any plans which might be put forward. There should be no attempt to press Canadian participation where help has not been requested. For example, UNICEF has now decided to defer action on family planning until next year, but it has given the go-ahead signal to its officials to consider limited family planning assistance at the request of governments.
I think it would help a great deal if the Canadian government were to declare its readiness to work through United Nations agencies to help solve problems of family planning and population control when requested by the governments concerned. We should do this through our foreign aid program.
Should we not do so, an unfortunate situation might well arise. Desirous as they are of giving external aid to underdeveloped countries, the people of Canada might well conclude, if they see the world population expanding faster than food production and economic development, that sending aid to these countries is like pouring water through a sieve. They might well be tempted to say: We shall not continue, unless we see there is a sound relationship between the resources available to a country and the population they are able to look after and feed properly. Thus, in the interest of building these countries on a sound economic and social foundation we should take this further step in external aid and stand ready to help in the work of population planning and control as requested by the governments of underdeveloped countries throughout the world.

[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: To round out what has been said by the hon. lady, I would add that between the 1962 and 1965 resolutions Canada was not called upon to vote or express an opinion on this question. However, as the hon. lady has said, in the spring of 1965, Canada, along with other members of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations approved a resolution permitting the United Nations to meet requests from developing countries for assistance in the field of population control. As a consequence of this the United Nations through its assistance program, to which Canada is contributing, has given technical aid to India on population problems.
Therefore it can be said in a multilateral sense that the advice of the hon. lady has already been enacted in policy and that Canada, by her participation through the United Nations, has contributed to attempt to solve the population problems in countries which request this assistance. To the present time Canada has not received any request on a bilateral basis for any specific forms of assistance of this kind from any country.
The policy of the Canadian foreign aid program is to respond only to specific requests from the countries concerned, and of course there could be no question on our part of making a condition of any other aid that these practices be followed and that Canada's advice be taken in this regard. Therefore I think the first principle to be followed here is that we should act only in response to specific requests from the countries concerned. To the extent that a request has been sought through the United Nations agency, Canada, through her participation in the United Nations, has contributed.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Tuesday, May 31, 1966