1966-05-25

TABLING OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF INTERNAL ECONOMY COMMISSION

Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask leave to lay before the house an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the commissioners of internal economy held on April 28, 1966, relating to salary revisions, reclassifications and other changes affecting a number of positions on the establishment of the House of Commons.



JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) moved: that the second report of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, presented to the house on Thursday, May 19, be concurred in.


Mr. Gregoire:: On division.

Motion agreed to on division.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Brewin: 1.	Has the Royal Canadian Air Force agreed to purchase or is it negotiating for or contemplating the purchase of aircraft produced by Dussault, known as Mystere or Fanjet Falcon?
2.	What is the price or contemplated price of each aircraft?
3.	How many have been purchased or is it contemplated will be purchased?
4.	What are the contemplated uses or types of use of such aircraft?
5.	Do they include the transportation of cabinet ministers or other distinguished individuals?
6.	Has the government contemplated the purchase of other aircraft for this purpose, including (a) the D.H. 125 or the H.S. 125 or (b) the Learjet aircraft?
7.	What are the respective advantages or disadvantages in terms of speed, accommodation, economy of operation or otherwise of the three types of aircraft namely (a) Mystere (b) D.H. 125 (c) Lear.iet?
8.	Has the government given consideration to the possibility that the needs to be met by the Fanjet Falcons might be adequately in whole or in part met by purchasing either the D,H. 125 or the Learjet at a lesser expenditure, with lower operating costs and substantial savings to the taxpayer?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes.
2.	Approximately $1,353,000 each.
3.	Seven.
4.	and 5. The Canadian forces have a service requirement for an aircraft capable of providing faster and more economical transportation, to replace Cosmopolitan and Dakota aircraft being withdrawn from service. It is not being acquired for use by cabinet ministers or other distinguished individuals.
6.	Yes.
7.	and 8. The general performance of the aircraft evaluated is similar. However, the lower operating and maintenance costs of the Falcon with savings in manpower especially aircrew, is advantageous and the capabilities of the Falcon more closely meet the Canadian forces' requirements.


COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Faulkner: 1.	Has the government considered the question of appointing a commission, composed of members of the legal profession and others, to make recommendations to the Minister of Justice respecting appointments of judges to the superior district and county courts of Canada?
2.	If so, what decision has been reached in this regard?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The government has decided not to make any changes for the present in the methods or procedures for the appointment of judges.

May 25, 1966
Questions


SUMMER EMPLOYMENT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Caron: 1.	How many extra employees were hired for summer positions by the Department of Agriculture (a) at the head office (b) in other offices in Ottawa and Hull, during the summer of 1965?
2.	Who recommended these employees?
3.	Do they have relatives-father, mother, brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts-who work for the department?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	(a) 20; (b) 173.
2.	The Civil Service Commission, the National Employment Service, members of parliament and other individuals.
3.	No records are maintained which indicate the specific relationship of extra employees hired for summer employment.


CARVINGS IN HOUSES OP PARLIAMENT
Mr. Enns: 1.	Is a pamphlet about the carvings in the Houses of Parliament under preparation for distribution during the centennial year?
2.	Will the various carvings in these buildings be described in such a publication?
3.	Will future carvings be defined in this pamphlet?
4.	By what method are the many themes and subjects of sculpture decided?
5.	What are the guide lines determining such themes and subjects?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):: I am informed by the Department of Public Printing and Stationery and the National Film Board as follows:
1.	There is no book or pamphlet under preparation primarily concerned with the carvings in the houses of parliament. However, there is a prestige book entitled "Canada's Parliament Buildings" in preparation jointly by the National Film Board and the Department of Public Printing and Stationery. It will contain some reproductions of photographs of carvings.
2.	This publication will illustrate the seat of the government of Canada. The character of the book will be to highlight the character of the parliament buildings through its architecture. It will contain numerous photographs illustrating heraldic motifs and significant architectural details.
3.	No.
4.	The selection of photographs to be reproduced has not yet been made, it will be done on the basis of the historical and architectural aspects of the buildings.
5.	See answer to question 4 above.


TELEVISION APPEARANCE OF VICTOR SPENCER
Mr. McCleave: Was Victor Spencer paid for his appearance on "This Hour Has Seven Days'' Sunday night, March 6 and, if so, in what amount?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
The C.B.C. purchased the television rights to the interview with Victor Spencer from Jack Webster Productions Limited of Vancouver. Any fee paid Mr. Spencer for the interview would have been negotiated by Mr. Webster and the corporation has no official knowledge of any such transaction.


C.B.C. INTERVIEW WITH GERDA MUNSINGER
Mr. Allard: 1.	How much did the C.B.C. spend in order to obtain and produce a filmed interview in Munich with Mrs. Gerda Munsinger?
2.	What was the amount of additional and special costs, either in salaries or travel expenses, that the C.B.C. paid to its regular or special employees, in order to reach this person and to interview her?
3.	For what purpose was it decided to authorize these expenditures?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	$5,000 was paid to Mrs. Munsinger's agent and $3,000 was paid to the Toronto Daily Star. The C.B.C. recovered $2,000 through sale of the program material to the N.B.C. network in the United States.
2.	The combined cost for transportation, staff expenses, etc., for coverage in Germany was $3,050 for providing coverage on four networks, English and French, radio and television.
3.	This had become a news story of the first importance, and a primary consideration was the Canadian people's right and need to be informed in the most direct way possible.
[English1


FURNITURE PROJECT, CAPE CROKER INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. Loney: What is the cost to date expended on the Indian experimental furniture making project at Cape Croker Indian reserve?
May 25. 1966


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Citizenship and Immigration and Northern Affairs and National Resources as follows:
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration's total cost to date is $45,667.86.
Subject to final audit in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources expenditures totalling $85,077.25 have been made on the project to March 31, 1966. This includes expenditures from a revolving fund loan, Indian affairs branch appropriations, and shared cost expenditures under the Canadian Vocational Training Act.


C.B.C. RECORD MAKING FACILITIES
Mr. Macaluso: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation record-making facilities available?
2.	If so, could they be made available to the R.C.M.P. band in order to produce records of its performance at Expo '67 as a cultural project?
3.	If not, why can such facilities not be made available for such a project?


Albert Béchard: The answer is as follows:
1.	The C.B.C. has recording facilities, but not record making facilities in the commercial sense.
2.	The corporation's facilities in Montreal could be made available for purposes of recording a broadcast performance by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police band with co-operation of the musicians' union. Reproduction of a broadcast recording for commercial distribution would require co-operation between the musicians' union and a recording company. An agreement between the union and an interested recording company would also be required in the case of a performance not primarily intended for broadcast, in which case C.B.C. participation would not be necessary.


RECORDING OF R.C.M.P. BAND AT EXPO '67
Mr. Macaluso: Will the Secretary of State approach the C.B.C. and the centennial commission to make recording facilities available to record the R.C.M.P. band at Expo '67 as a cultural contribution to Canada's centennial year?


Albert Béchard: The answer to this question is yes.
Questions


C.B.C. FEE TO GERDA MUNSINGER
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	What fee did Gerda Munsinger receive from the C.B.C. when she appeared on television recently?
2.	How many people-artists, comedians, commentators. authors, professors, politicians, visitors, specialists, scholars, or other persons-have received more than $5,000 for a half-hour program on the networks of the C.B.C. during the last five years?
3.	Who were these people and for what programs did they receive this amount?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	$5,000 was paid to Mrs. Munsinger's agent.
2.	None.
3.	N/A.
{English]



COST OF ANSWERING QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

['1. No. The regional administration of the elements that now make up the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is divided between Halifax and Moncton. Before and after March 1, careful consideration was given to the extent of re-division which would best improve the efficiency of the co-ordinated service.\n2.\tNo.\n3.\tOn April 20 the consideration referred to in (1) was completed and a decision made.\n4.\tNo. In all of the regions except the Atlantic region, existing regional organizations are located entirely in one city and no change is contemplated.\n5.\tThe regional office at Halifax will consist of the regional director, immigration and his staff; the director, manpower, for the region and his specialist staff concerned with counselling, training, the manpower consultative service, etc.; administrative staff for personnel and financial management. The regional office at Moncton will consist of the director of operations, manpower, for the region, his assistants and staff specializing in industrial requirements.\n6.\tThe director, manpower, and the regional director, immigration, will be at Halifax; the director of operations, manpower, will be at Moncton.']
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	and 2. Questions on the order paper may generally be placed in various categories depending on whether: (a) information is required from one government department or agency, or (b) information is required from more than one government department or agency, or (c) information is required from all government departments and agencies, or (d) information is required from a crown corporation, or (e) information is required from more than one government department or agency and a crown corporation, or (f) information is required from all government departments, agencies and crown corporations.
In the circumstances, it is not possible to estimate the average cost of answering a question on the order paper or to determine on the average, how many people are employed in research involved in answering these questions. This varies considerably with each question. All departments have an official assigned to deal with parliamentary inquiries and to direct the subject matter of the question to the appropriate division or divisions of the department and/or the crown corporation. In most cases, this is not their only function. On the other hand, answering some questions

May 25. 1966
Questions
may involve a large number of people representing many man days of labour. Furthermore, in many cases the information requested is not available at the departmental headquarters in Ottawa and it is necessary to dispatch the request to a regional office or centre in any one or all of the ten provinces, or even to a departmental office located outside of Canada.
Because of these factors, it is virtually impossible to provide any meaningful or accurate statistics as to "average" costs or persons involved.



Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Does the government plan to provide adequate television service to the communities of Pleasant Bay, Red River, Capstick, Bay St. Lawrence, St. Margaret's Village, Dingwall, North Harbour, South Harbour, Sunrise, Big Intervale, Cape North, Aspy Bay, Sugar Loaf, White Point, Smelt Brook and Bay Road Valley in northern Cape Breton island, N.S.?
2.	Has the government, through any of its ministers, received representation in this regard and, if so (a) what reply was given (b) what action, if any, is contemplated?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.1 am informed by the C.B.C. that the corporation has no immediate plans for a television installation in northern Cape Breton island due to the small population and relatively high cost per capita. However, this and other areas without adequate service will warrant further study after new 1966 census data become available.
2.	As far as the Secretary of State is concerned, a letter was received (dated October 31, 1964), from Mr. Walter C. Moore, Red River post office, Inverness county, N.S., regarding television service in the community of Pleasant Bay. The executive assistant, corporate affairs, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, wrote directly to Mr. Moore on November 25, 1964, as follows:
We are attempting to extend the service as funds and facilities for the purpose are available, by dealing first with those areas where the per capita cost involved enables us to benefit the largest number of people at the lowest cost. In that way the corporation is expending the public funds involved in an economical way.


'APPEARANCE OF MYSTERIOUS FLYING OBJECTS
Mr. Allard: 1.	Has the government investigated, or does it intend to investigate, the alleged appearance of unusual objects, commonly called flying saucers, in the sky over Toronto, Montreal and elsewhere in Canada?
2.	Does the government intend to ask other countries whether they produce such objects and allow them to fly over Canada?
3.	Has the government any information on such objects?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. The reports concerning the appearance of mysterious flying objects in the sky have been looked into by the Department of National Defence. All such information received during recent weeks indicates that the objects were: (a) Meteorites;
(b)	Satellites; (c) Airplanes; (d) Reflection of light, flame, etc. on low clouds.
2.	No.
3.	No.


INCOME TAX DEADLINE ADVERTISING
Mr. Knowles: 1.	How much was spent (a) in 1964 (b) in 1965
(c)	in 1966, advertising April 30 as the deadline for filing personal income tax returns?
2.	What forms or methods of advertising were used for this purpose and how much was spent on each?
3.	Has any assessment been obtained on the value of such advertising?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. (a) In 1964, nil; (b) In 1965, $19,218; (c) In 1966, $28,930.50.
2.	(a) In 1964, n/a; (b) In 1965, daily newspaper advertising, $19,218; (c) In 1966, newspaper advertising, $18,629.50; Radio commercials, $10,301.00; Total: $28,930.50.
3.	Yes.


HOLIDAY ON FEAST OF YOM KIPPUR
Mr. Thompson: Has consideration been given to including the feast of Yom Kippur in the days that have been declared official holidays for the civil service throughout Canada, pursuant to section 62 of the Civil Service Act, or in the days on which reasonable latitude is authorized for civil servants in hours of attendance, pursuant to paragraph (d) of section 62 of the Civil Service Act?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have been given the following information by the Civil Service Commission:
May 25. 1966

In so far as the commission is concerned, the answer to both parts of the question is no. However, it is pointed out that (a) the holidays mentioned in section 62 of the Civil Service Act were authorized by parliament; (b) Time off on religious holidays was authorized by the cabinet.


R.C.A.F. NAVIGATORS AND RADIO OPERATORS
Mr. Enns: 1.	How many navigators and radio officers are there in the R.C.A.F.?
2.	What does it cost to fully train a navigator and a radio officer in 1966?
3.	Have any navigators and radio officers resigned since February 1. 1966 and, if so, how many?
4.	Have any more navigators and radio officers Indicated their intention to resign in 1966 and, if so. how many?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. 1,497.
2.	To wings standard-navigator, approximately $78,000-radio officer, approximately $64,000.
3.	Yes, nine.
4.	Yes, 70 have stated they may wish to resign in 1966 but only nine since 1 April, 1966, have actually requested their release.


CF-104 AIRCRAFT
Mr. Allard: 1.	Have any CF-104 Starflghter aircraft crashed since their acquisition by Canada and, if so (a) how many (b) does the government intend to investigate the causes of the crashing of such aircraft (c) will the government publish a report or statement about such crashes?
2.	How many CF-104 aircraft does Canada still have?
3.	What was the cost of production or purchase of each aircraft of this type?
4.	To date, how many of them has Canada produced or purchased?
5.	Will Canada produce or purchase any more?
6.	Where are such aircraft stationed at the present time?
7.	Since such aircraft were acquired, have they been substantially altered?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Yes. (a) 35; (b) all aircraft crashes are investigated; (c) a statement is made as soon as possible after each crash giving the circumstances in so far as they are known.
2.	166 CF104, 37 CF104D.
3.	The average flyaway cost of CF104's was approximately $1,055,000 and CF104D's $1,200,000.
Questions
4.	200 CF104's were produced in Canada for the R.C.A.F. and 140 CF104G's for a joint Canada/United States mutual aid program; 38 CF104D's were purchased from the Lockheed Aircraft Company for the R.C.A.F.
5.	No.
6.	Cold Lake, Alberta; France and Germany.
7.	No, several modifications to improve engine reliability and ejection seat performance have been incorporated but the aircraft performance has not been altered substantially. In addition a major modification to the navigational system was made to improve aircraft operational capability.


UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS- REPORTS TO R.C.A.F.
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Does the R.C.A.F. accept reports of unidentified flying objects and, if so. are these (a) investigated by Canadian authorities (b) reported to United States authorities?
2.	Does the United States conduct investigations into the R.C.A.F. reports and, if so, are the results of such studies made available to Canadian authorities?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Yes; (a) Yes; (b) Yes, if circumstances warrant the onward transmission of such information.
2. Yes, if circumstances warrant investigation. The results are made available to Canadian authorities.


EMIGRATION OF PRINTERS FROM HONG KONG
Mr. Dinsdale: Has the Department of Citizenship and Immigration received any requests to permit printers to emigrate from Hong Kong to Canada and, if so (a) what is the source of these requests (b) has approval been given to them and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Yes, requests have been received from (a) the publisher of the Shing Wah Daily News, Toronto, and the president of the Sun Publishing Company Limited, Edmonton, (b) The immigrant applied for by the Shing Wah Daily News was refused when an independent trade testing board established that he possessed no practical knowledge of the work at which he was to be employed in Canada. The president of the Sun Publishing Company made a general request for workers

May 25, 1966
Questions
from abroad and this is being discussed with him by immigration officials. He also submitted a request for two specific workers from Hong Kong. One of these persons has not yet appeared for an interview and the other has asked the Hong Kong immigration office to defer action on his application.


POST OFFICE, MACCAN, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date will the post office at Maecan, Cumberland county, Nova Scotia, be opened to the public?
2.	From whom was the site oi the Maccan post office purchased, what was the size of the lot and the amount paid?
3.	Were any alternate sites considered and, if so, what was the cost of the alternate sites and what was the reason for their not being purchased?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The post office was opened on May 24, 1966.
2.	The site was expropriated. Two lots were involved: one was owned by Mr. C. Willis Loring, having a frontage of 60 feet by a depth of 116.5 feet; and the other, which included a warehouse building, was owned by Mr. Vaughan N. Hoeg, having a frontage of 75 feet by a depth of 103 feet. Amounts paid were $250 to Mr. Loring and $1,500 to Mr. Hoeg.
3.	No alternative sites were considered. This was the only site which had sufficient area to meet the requirements of the provincial government relating to the septic tank, well and drainage field installations.


FOREST ACCESS ROADS, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Flemming: 1.	Has the federal participation in the cost of building access forest roads in the province of New Brunswick been approved for the current fiscal year?
2.	If so, what is the total estimated expenditure under this heading?
3.	What are the approximate details of routing to be followed?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1.	Yes.
2.	$105,000.
3.	Project 16, to McKendrick Fire Tower, from road between Plaster Rock and Renous. Project 21, Holtville,-to join Plaster Rock- Renous Road to Highway #8 near Boisetown. Project 22,-to extend road running northeast from Chipman toward Coal Branch Station.

Project 35, Day Brook,-to extend road from Dungarvon River north toward Plaster Rock -Renous Road. Project 55, Canaan Reserve, -to extend road running northeast from Highway #9 near Coles Island. Project 57,- to Sinclair Fire Tower (Southesk, Northumberland County). Project 59, Blue Mountain Tower,-from Highway #11 near Benjamin River southwestward to Blue Mountain Tower.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES IN VIET NAM
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Have any members of Canada's armed forces been sent to South Viet Nam since January 1,
1963?
2.	If so (a) how many members of Canada's armed forces were involved (b) on what dates did they arrive in South Viet Nam (c) on what dates did they return to Canada (d) what duties did they perform while in South Viet Nam?
3.	Were any members of Canada's armed forces attached to any units of the United States armed forces in South Viet Nam since January 1, 1963?
4.	If so (a) what function did they serve while serving with the United States armed forces (b) were they equipped with United States uniforms (c) were they paid a bonus by the United States government?
5.	As of April 30, 1966, what members of Canada's armed forces were in Viet Nam, and what is their function there?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Yes, to the international commission for supervision and control.
2.	The international commission for supervision and control made up of Canada, India and Poland carries out the terms of the 1954 Geneva agreements. Under the control and direction of the civilian component of the Canadian delegation Saigon, Canadian military personnel are formed into inspection teams with Indian and Polish military personnel. The overall establishment of the military component Canadian delegation Viet Nam was 60 on 1 January, 1963, but was decreased to 52 on 1 November, 1965. Strength was maintained at approximately 90 per cent throughout this period. Canadian military personnel serve an unaccompanied tour of one year except for servicemen employed as security guards who serve six months.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	45. Their function is as outlined in (2) above.
May 25. 1966


RURAL MAIL CONTRACTS, MEGANTIC COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Langlois (Megantic): 1,	In the parishes of Kinnear's Mills, Leeds, and St-Antoine-de-Pontbriand, in Mfigantic county, who has knowledge about the names, the tenders and
Questions
the duration of the contracts for the delivery of rural mail?
2.	What are those names, the amounts of such tenders, and the duration of such contracts?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1. Post Office Department.
2. Name of Service Leeds Village R.R. No. 1 Leeds Village R.R. No. 2
Leeds Village R.R. No. 3 Pontbriand R.R. No. 1 Pontbriand R.R. No. 2 and Kinnear's Mills R.R. No. 1 (combined) Pontbriand & Robertsonville
Annual
Contractor	rate
Jean Marie Lapointe	$1760.00
Majorique Bolduc	774.47
Armand Guay	1957.14
Aurele Morin	2188.60
Expiry date of contract June 30, 1968 June 30, 1968 (renewed for another 4 years) September 30, 1968 September 30, 1968
Robert Prevost Aurele Morin
2150.00 March 31, 1970 840.00 September 30, 1969
[English1


FARM SAFETY
Mr. Noble: 1.	Has the Minister of Agriculture made contact with the provinces on the matter of farm safety?
2.	If so, what was the response from the various provinces?


John James Greene: 1. This matter has been discussed with representatives of provincial departments.
2. Several provinces already have well developed farm safety programs to which the provincial governments give financial assistance, but indications are they would be prepared to consider using any appropriate promotional material issued by a national organization in conjunction with their own programs.


LAMPREY CONTROL, LAKE HURON AND GEORGIAN BAY
Mr. Noble: 1.	What progress has been made in controlling lamprey in lake Huron and Georgian bay?
2.	What has been done to this date in 1966 on the lamprey problems in lake Huron and Georgian
bay?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1. The majority of the necessary
preparatory studies and installations for initiation of lamprey control in lake Huron and Georgian bay have been completed. Eleven 23033-348
streams tributary to lake Huron and Georgian bay will be chemically treated in 1966.
2. Preparatory studies in lake Huron and Georgian bay to date include: an extensive survey program of tributary streams; 13 bioassay and stream water analysis studies; construction of eleven electrical assessment barriers.


MEDICAL TREATMENT OF FOREIGN SAILORS
Mr. Mongrain: Is there an international agreement under which the federal government defrays the medical expenses of foreign sailors who fall ill while in Canada's territorial waters and receive treatment in Canada and, if so (a) has the government appointed doctors to answer calls under this agreement (b) are any doctors authorized to do so in Trois-Rivieres and, if so, who are they (c) is there a druggist in Trois-Rivieres authorized to receive all these doctors' prescriptions intended for foreign sailors under this agreement?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: There is no international agreement as referred to in the question, but under Part V of the Canada Shipping Act foreign seamen who fall ill in Canadian territorial waters receive treatment under the conditions therein specified, (a) Yes. (b) Yes, Doctor L. Berlinguet. Others on referral, (c) No, prescriptions may be filled at any pharmacy.
Questions

May 25, 1966


REGIONAL MANPOWER OFFICE, ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Was it the intention of the government prior to March 1, 1966, to establish the regional manpower office for the Atlantic provinces in Halifax?
2.	Was Moncton, New Brunswick, chosen at a later date as an area where part of this service would be located?
3.	If so, on what date was Moncton chosen, and on what date was it decided to divide the services of this regional office between Halifax and Moncton?
4.	Will the regional offices at Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver be broken down in a similar manner and, if so, when?
5.	What will be the capacity of each office at Halifax and Moncton?
6.	Will there be one or two directors and, if one regional director only, where will he be located?


John Carr Munro: 1. No. The regional administration of the elements that now make up the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is divided between Halifax and Moncton. Before and after March 1, careful consideration was given to the extent of re-division which would best improve the efficiency of the co-ordinated service.
2.	No.
3.	On April 20 the consideration referred to in (1) was completed and a decision made.
4.	No. In all of the regions except the Atlantic region, existing regional organizations are located entirely in one city and no change is contemplated.
5.	The regional office at Halifax will consist of the regional director, immigration and his staff; the director, manpower, for the region and his specialist staff concerned with counselling, training, the manpower consultative service, etc.; administrative staff for personnel and financial management. The regional office at Moncton will consist of the director of operations, manpower, for the region, his assistants and staff specializing in industrial requirements.
6.	The director, manpower, and the regional director, immigration, will be at Halifax; the director of operations, manpower, will be at Moncton.



REPRESENTATIONS TO U.S. RESPECTING COPYRIGHT ACT

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,446
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government of Canada made representations to the government of the United States, at any time since April, 1963, requesting that steps be taken to abolish the manufacturing clause of the United States copyright act or to exempt Canada from its provisions?
2.	If so, what has been the results of any such representations?
3.	If not, is the matter now under consideration?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: 1. Yes.
2. The views of the Canadian government have been made known to the United States authorities. The Canadian government continues to follow this matter closely.



OIL AIR LIFT TO ZAMBIA

Mr. Monteith: 1. How many aircraft were involved in the Zambian oil airlift from its inception to its completion?
2.	How many servicemen were involved during the same period?
3.	What were the out-of-pocket expenses of the Government of Canada for the entire airlift?
4.	What was deemed to be the total cost to Canada of the entire operation, including salaries and wages of those involved?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. From inception to 28 February, 1966, four Hercules aircraft were employed in transporting oil products from Leopoldville to Lusaka and Ndola. From 1 March to 30 April, only two were used for this purpose. In addition, one Yukon and one Hercules each made one flight to deploy and redeploy personnel in Leopoldville. One Yukon flight was made early in February to transport Hercules engines to the detachment, and approximately every two weeks throughout the duration of the operation a logistic support flight departed Canada for Leopoldville.
2.	316.
3.	Approximately $1,240,000.
4.	Approximately $1,426,000.



EUROPEAN TOUR BY WEEKLY NEWSPAPER EDITORS

Mr. Herridge: What cost was incurred by the government of Canada, directly or indirectly, for the two week tour to the headquarters of major international agencies in Europe by 20 editors of the weekly newspapers in Canada during March, 1966?
May 25, 1966


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned there is no record of 20 editors of the weekly newspapers making a two week tour to the headquarters of major international agencies in Europe during March 1966.



TRIP TO NORAD BY WEEKLY NEWSPAPER EDITORS

Mr. Herridge: What was the total cost to any department of the government of Canada for the transportation, hotel accommodation, meals, and other expenses of the editors of weekly newspapers in Canada to NORAD headquarters in the United States, for briefings on nuclear weapons and other matters during the years 1963 and 1964?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. 1963, $3,115; 1964, $4,700.



POST OFFICE, PARRSBORO, N.S.

Mr. Coales: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works determined the cost of modernizing the post office at Parrsboro, Nova Scotia and, if so, what is the estimated cost of modernization?
2.	Will investigations continue by the department to secure an alternate site for a new federal building at Parrsboro?


George James McIlraith: 1. No. Because of the age, design, size and construction of the present building modernization is not feasible.
2. Yes.



TACONITE PRODUCTION

Mr. Isabelle: 1.	Where are the principal deposits of taconite in Canada located?
2.	What American or Canadian companies operate these mines?
3.	Are there any taconite reduction plants in Canada and, if so (a) how many are there (b) who operates them?
4.	How many tons of concentrated or pelletized taconite are exported annually and to what countries are they exported?
5.	How many tons are used annually by Canadian steel mills?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. If by the term "taconite" is meant an iron bearing deposit from which the mined material must be finely ground (under 100 mesh) to free the iron mineral then the principal taconite deposits in Canada are in northern Ontario and Quebec.
Questions
2.	Accepting the above definition there are four taconite mining operations in Canada, three in Ontario and one in Quebec. Two additional ones are being developed in Ontario for production in 1967-68. The three mines in Ontario are owned and operated by American companies; fifty per cent of the Quebec operation is held by a Canadian company; the two Ontario mines being developed are optioned by Canadian companies. Optionees of the deposits being mined are Bethlehem Steel Company, National Steel Company, Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation (U.S. companies) and the Steel Company of Canada, Limited. The latter company and Dominion Foundries and Steel, Limited (Can. companies) have optioned the two deposits being developed for production.
3.	Each of the facilities in (2) above consists of a mine, a concentrator and a pelletizing plant. Therefore, at present there are four taconite pelletizing plants in Canada operated in conjunction with mines and concentrators of the companies in (2) above. In addition, there are six other operations in Canada that ship iron ore pellets from beneficiating-grade iron ore by-product material and others that ship concentrates; none of the deposits from which these pellets and concentrates are produced are termed taconites.
4.	Of taconite pellet production by the companies in (2) above in 1965, amounting to 3 million long tons, 2.1 million tons were exported to the United States.
5.	Shipments of pellets from taconites in 1965 to Canadian steel mills were 900,000 tons. Small shipments of concentrate are included in this total.



MOSS RESEARCH STATION, MIMINEGASH, P.E.I.

Mr. MacDonald (Prince): Is a research station having to do with the Irish moss industry being built at Miminegash, P.E.I. and, if so (a) when did construction begin on this plant (b) what buildings are involved (c) what tenders were submitted and to whom were the contracts awarded (d) what will be the main functions of this plant (e) when is it expected to be in operation (f) how many men will be employed (g) what kind of training or experience will be needed by these men (h) what local service contracts will be awarded and when will the tenders be called?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes: an experimental seaweed processing plant, (a) Contract was let in October 1965. (b) (i) A processing and storage building (ii) a manager's residence, (c) For the

May 25. 1966
Questions
processing and storage building one only tender was received from Schurman Construction Ltd., of Summerside, for $168,500.
Tenders for construction of the residence were as follows: Bryan and Milligan, How-lan, $17,168.00; Campbell Industries Inc., Central Bedeque, $20,450.00; Fitzgerald & Snow Building Contractors Ltd., Summerside, $24,789.75; Princeway Enterprises Ltd., Summerside, $27,995.00; Schurman Construction Ltd., Summerside, $32,200.00.
A contract was awarded to Bryan and Milligan. In both cases, contracts were arranged by the Department of Public Works, (d) To experiment in drying, grinding, classifying and packaging of Irish moss, and to develop more efficient harvesting methods in hope of stimulating growth in the seaweed industry, (e) Plant will be in limited operation this year, and will be fully operational at beginning of harvesting season next year, (f) and (g) A manager and assistant manager will be employed. It is anticipated four seasonal positions will be needed, one incumbent of which should have some supervisory capacity and familiarity in operation of machinery. Others will be trained in duties required, (h) Need for local service contracts not foreseeable; however, local facilities will be availed of where feasible.



SUFFIELD EXPERIMENTAL STATION-USE AS PASTURE

Mr. Horner (Acadia): Has the Department of Agriculture or the P.F.R.A. requested from the department of defence permission to once again use part of the Suffield experimental station as a cattle pasture operated under the P.F.R.A.?


John James Greene: No.



POST OFFICE, VICTORIAVILLE, QUE.

Mr. Caouette: Does the government intend to build a post office at Victoriaville (Drummond-Arthabaska) and, if so (a) has a building site been bought (b) when will this project be started?


George James McIlraith: Yes. (a) No. (b) Tentatively scheduled for 1967-68 fiscal year.
[Mr. Robichaud.l
[English1



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Allard: 1.	How many French speaking and English speaking research officers were employed by the Lauren-deau-Dunton Commission since September 1, 1965, and what are their names, professions and places of residence?
2.	Is there a dispute between the various teams of research officers and between these teams and the commissioners?
3.	Are French speaking research officers afforded the same privileges and facilities as others?
4.	Who is the director or who are the directors of these research officers?
5.	Has a French speaking director or co-director been appointed and, if not, for what reason?
6.	Have complaints been made by French speaking research officers either to the commissioners, to the department concerned, or to the press?
7.	What are the nature and the grounds of these complaints?
8.	What is the intended remedial action to this situation?
Return tabled.



AIRCRAFT FLIGHT FROM OTTAWA, APRIL 24, 1966

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,395
Mr. Hales:: Did a Department of Transport Viscount CF-TGP depart from Uplands airport, Ottawa, on Sunday, April 24 at approximately 11:45 a.m., E.D.S.T. and, if so (a) what was its destination (b) what were the names of the passengers in this flight (c) in what department of government are they employed (d) what was the purpose or reason for flight (e) when was the flight scheduled to return to Ottawa (f) what is the estimated cost of the return flight?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for papers Nos. 129 and 130 are acceptable to the government and the papers concerning notice of motion No. 129 are tabled immediately.
Would Your Honor be kind enough to call notices of motions Nos. 94, 121 and 128?
Mr. Speaker, I ask that other notices of motions be allowed to stand.
May 25. 1966

HALIFAX, N.S.-DEATH OF WILLIAM SCUDDER Motion No. 94-Mr. Douglas:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any report covering the investigation into the death of William Scudder while he was employed on ship refit work on H.M.C.S. Provider at Halifax in 1965.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The hon. member agrees to withdraw the notice of motion.


Mr. Douglas:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask permission to withdraw this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



HEARINGS OF ALBERTA ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 121-Mr. Woolliams:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all reports, records or documents indicating the places, dates, and times of public hearings held by the electoral boundaries commission for Alberta and the members of the commission and staff attending each hearing; for a copy of the transcript of the proceedings of each hearing; for a return of the record of each hearing if no transcript was made; for the memorandum provided to members of the commission who were absent from any meeting; and for the resume or other document prepared by the commission or any of its members setting out the reasons for changes made in the electoral boundaries for Alberta.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, with respect to this motion, it has already been explained to the house that the Secretary of State's department is not responsible for any of the hearings which were held by, or for the matters which took place before, the boundaries commissions. I am informed by the chief representation officer that in his opinion there is no way in which the boundaries commissions can be asked to produce such information. In some cases no records of any kind in the form of transcripts and whatnot were kept. It is therefore not within the power of the government to produce for the house the kind of documentation which is requested.
This matter was raised by my hon. friend the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) while the boundaries question was being discussed in the house, and the position was made clear to him at the time. I am afraid my hon. friend did not agree with me, and I understand that he has asked his hon. friend to place this motion on the order 23033-349
Motions for Papers
paper. However, the government is not in a position to answer the motion even if the house were to make an order for a return. Therefore under the circumstances I would entreat the hon. member who placed the matter on the order paper to withdraw it.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the Secretary of State may I say, as I indicated some weeks ago when discussing this particular problem, that the order is an order of the house. It is conceivable that there is no responsibility on the government with regard to the matter, but the Secretary of State is the only channel through which the house can direct its wishes in this regard.
I am sure every member of this house agrees that no boundaries redistribution commission of any province has been sent off into orbit beyond recall from this house. Therefore, with the greatest respect to the chief redistribution officer, this house is still the master of these matters. If this house makes an order directing the production of these papers, then the boundaries commission must produce the papers.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, then in order to give an opportunity for all members to express themselves on the point, may I ask that the matter be transferred for debate.


Mr. Woolliams:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may not be quite a point of order, but I would mention to the minister that it may be a little late getting down to debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 47 this motion is transferred for debate.
SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION Motion No. 128-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any communication exchanged between the maritime trustees, or other organizations and other persons, and the Minister of Labour or any official of the Department of Labour, with respect to the Seafarers International Union.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I had moved this the other day, and I was just not sure of the procedure by which it could be revived. In commenting about this matter perhaps I should refer to last week's Hansard, where at page 5267 I am reported to have said in response to a statement by the minister,

May 25. 1966
Motions for Papers
which was just prior to the interruption that took place:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the unique reply of the minister as compared to what he has said-
What I said was:
-in view of the unique reply of the minister as compared with what has been said-
In any event, I have considered the matter very carefully, and I think the only solution is to transfer this matter for debate.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I think I mentioned last week just before the disturbance to which reference has been made occurred, a very similar motion has already been debated in this house. I wonder if this could not be put to a vote at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a request that this be transferred. Pursuant to standing order 47 this motion is transferred for debate.



SHAREHOLDINGS OF CABLE TELEVISION COMPANIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 129-Mr. Munro:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of a return showing the shareholdings of all cable television companies at present licensed by the Department of Transport to operate in Canada.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 130-Mr. Keays:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Forestry and Dyname Corporation relating to an economic study and a program of development for a tourist resort area at Mount Logan or Mount Albert.
Motion agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask a question with regard to notice of motion for production of papers No. 72, in my name. I have had a private conversation with the Minister of Finance about this motion, but in view of the fact that it has been on the order paper since January 31 I wonder if the minister is now in a position to indicate to the house when the government might be prepared to agree to this motion, and to have the documents tabled.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, when this notice of motion for the production of papers first appeared I asked my department to let me see the

papers that would be producible. Some of these papers indicated the table of contents or the proposed contents of the report of the Carter royal commission. I therefore asked the hon. member whether he would not allow this matter to stand until the report of the royal commission has been tabled, at which time I should have no objection whatever to the tabling of the papers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the minister indicate when that might be?


Mitchell William Sharp: My traditional answer is
"soon". I understand it will be in two or three weeks' time.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Siarr (Oniario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him, in view of the report that the proposal put forward by Judge Lippe in the longshoremen's strike in Montreal has been turned down, the strike having occasioned an economic loss of close to $15 million, what steps is the government going to take and how soon will it take those steps to end this dispute?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be made clear that the suggestion or proposal put forward by the mediator, Judge Lippe, was an interim proposal in the hope that he could get the longshoremen back to work at the beginning of this week. His attempts to accomplish that end have failed. However, the mediator is back in session today with other proposals, which it is hoped will meet with a more favourable response. The other proposal covered an interim settlement only, which would have covered a period of roughly five months, and the unions concerned felt this period was much too short. I believe the parties are now in session, and I am hoping to get a report later today.


Michael Starr: Since this strike has been prolonged, is the Minister of Labour now getting reports from Judge Lippe at regular intervals as to the progress of the negotiations?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
May 25, 1966	COMMONS



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has he received an application for a loan from a syndicate headed by J. C. Sproule and Associates Limited of Calgary for exploration work in the Canadian Arctic? I wonder whether the minister would be prepared, either now or later, to give the house a statement indicating the amount of money involved and the terms on which such a loan would be made. I am particularly interested in knowing whether the government would acquire some equity interest in the project by way of fixed net royalty should a loan be granted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt very much that this is a matter of real urgency or that the question should be allowed at this time, although the minister responsible for the matter raised by the hon. member may wish to indicate whether he proposes to make a statement on motions at some later date.


Hon. Arihur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: That is so.
We have not yet completed the draft regulations pertaining to this particular exploration grant. When we have done so I expect to make a statement in the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since this would be setting a precedent for other loans in the Canadian Arctic I would appreciate knowing whether the minister contemplates making a statement before the deal is completed or after the loan has been made.


Arthur Laing: I can assure the hon. member it would be before the loan is made.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
For four years the Minister of Public Works, the present one as well as those who came before him, have always told us that they paid much attention to the city of Hull
DEBATES	5505
Inquiries of the Ministry
with regard to the construction of federal public buildings.
Is the Minister of Public Works in a position to tell us today whether or not his department is considering the construction of new federal buildings in the city of Hull?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is of a very general nature and is not in order right now.


David Réal Caouette: My question deals with the city of Hull. It is a very precise question; it does not concern Canada in general but only the city of Hull.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It relates to Uganda where the situation has reached the point of civil war. Can the minister reassure us as to the safety of Canadians there, and does he have any further comments to make on the situation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the hon. member knows, there has been a serious disturbance in Uganda. The situation there has, however, been fully covered by the news media in this country. I cannot add anything at this stage to what has already been reported. There are some 300 Canadians in Uganda. I have no reason to believe that their safety is in any way prejudiced at the moment as a result of this situation. We are following events closely.


RETIREMENT OF CANADIAN MINISTER TO GREECE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg Soulh Cenire):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether Mr. Barrette, the Canadian ambassador in Athens, has been relieved of his post by order of the minister or of the government.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slaie for External Affairs: In answer to this question I would say that about a year ago, on June 8 last, Mr. Barrette informed the undersecretary of state for external affairs of his intention to publish a book in which he would describe certain events in which he took part
5506	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry during his 25 years as member of the legislative assembly, minister and Prime Minister of the province of Quebec. Later he sent his manuscript to the department.
Mr. Barrette was then advised that the publication of his memoirs, which were bound to give rise to controversy, was not compatible with his functions as Canadian ambassador to Greece and would conflict with departmental regulations which prevent any member of the Canadian diplomatic service from publicly expressing an opinion on controversial domestic political questions.
Mr. Barrette replied that he was most anxious to publish the book and consequently, on April 25 last, in all the circumstances he asked to be relieved of his duties. On May 5 I granted his request.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As a supplementary question, do I understand that there are rules and regulations regarding the publication of articles or books by people who are employed as Canadian ambassadors, and do these same rules or regulations apply to ministers of external affairs?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the last part of the question, of course, is quite academic. There are rules with regard to ambassadors and officers of the Department of External Affairs. Mr. Barrette was aware of these rules and has not questioned them.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Charlevoix.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has answered my question.


HIGHWAY SAFETY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct this question to the Minister of Industry since he is in charge of research matters for the government. In view of the record slaughter on our highways over the May 24 week end will the government seriously consider the establishment of a national accident research centre, as recommended in a bipartisan brief presented to the right hon. Prime Minister over 10 months ago?

DEBATES	May 25, 1966


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, we are giving study to this question.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether the revision in the Bank Act will be known as the Walter Sharp formula.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can she identify the Mr. Gordon whom Premier Thatcher cautioned the Canadian people about last evening in a national television broadcast?


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Labour said he would take as notice the question I asked him arising out of the fact that the longshoremen of B.C. have been under harassment by their employers over the matter of the May 23 holiday as provided in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. I wonder if the minister has an answer for me today.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday and Friday of last week the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam inquired concerning a controversy that developed on the west coast with regard to the employment of longshoremen on May 23, Victoria day, which is specified as a general holiday in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. The complaint arose with regard to the rates of pay which the employees claim are incompatible with the code.
I would reply that I was aware of the controversy because representatives of the international longshoremen's and warehousemen's union had discussed it some time ago in Ottawa with my departmental officials who administer the code. It would appear that so far the union has made only general allegations with regard to alleged violation of the code. Before any interpretation or ruling can be given by the department there would have to be a specific case cited where an employee had not received holiday pay or pay in the proper amount, whether it would be double pay or otherwise.
May 25. 1966

The hon. member also asked concerning the advisability of an inquiry into this matter under section 35 of the code, and I would say that a formal inquiry would not appear to be necessary at this time. If and when a specific complaint is made it will be dealt with in the usual way and an interpretation and ruling made with respect to the rights of employees under the code.
Coming now to the question asked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, which was put as a supplementary question yesterday, it does not appear, on the basis of the information we have, that an amendment to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code is needed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether the Pacific coast dispute was not due to the contention of the employers that the collective bargaining agreement took precedence over the Canada Labour (Standards) Code? Has any ruling been handed down, or is it the minister's intention to have an inquiry into this aspect of the dispute?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: This question was raised by the employers in the Supreme Court of British Columbia before Mr. Justice Ruttan. I have asked for a report as to His Lordship's reasons in the decision he rendered, but I might say I still do not think it will be necessary to hold an inquiry. If the union gives us the facts of a specific case, then in my humble opinion it probably can be dealt with under the act as it stands, but I would like to have Mr. Justice Ruttan's reasons for judgment before making a final statement.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Springfield asked a question regarding an outbreak of disease among cattle herds in Manitoba, to which I replied that I had not received any comunication but would check with the office of the minister.
There was an outbreak in early April of Salmonellosis affecting some 20 herds. This is not a named or reportable disease under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and regulations. The outbreak was dealt with by the provincial authorities assisted by officials of
Inquiries of the Ministry the health of animals division of the Canadian Department of Agriculture, in their investigations. I am advised that there have been no further cases reported since that time, but our officials are continuing to co-operate with the provincial authorities in further investigation of the cause.


WINTER WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the future minister of manpower?
As concerns the question I had asked him some time ago about Notre-Dame-de-la-Guadeloupe, winter works and certain charges of fraud and swindle in this field, the minister had promised to hold an inquiry. Can the minister inform the house as to the results of this inquiry, if completed?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Megantic knows that the inquiry he has asked for must be handled through the provincial government. The steps have been taken and as soon as I know the results, I will be glad to advise him accordingly.


FARM MACHINERY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in view of his absence today and I believe also his absence yesterday, I shall put it to the Prime Minister. In answer to a question which I put some days ago the Minister of Agriculture promised that an inquiry would be set up into the high cost of farm machinery. In view of the report that Massey Harris has shown a 160 per cent increase in its profits, has the government taken a decision to set up that inquiry now?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration. I expect to be able to make an announcement, or that the minister will do soi, within a day or two.
May 25, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry MANPOWER


USE OF NAME BY PRIVATE ORGANIZATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Could the minister inform the house whether he has received representations from Man Power Service Ltd. regarding the proposed use of the name "manpower service office" by the department of manpower; and could he indicate whether he is taking steps to ensure that the rights and privileges of this company will not be infringed by government action?


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


INQUIRY AS TO FINAL DELIVERY QUOTAS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as reporting for the Canadian Wheat Board. As of today at most delivery points in Saskatchewan there remain only 46 days on which elevators will be open to receive grain from the farmers, and as quotas at the present time range from 5 bushels to 10 bushels per specified acre, can the minister give the house any assurance that the Canadian Wheat Board will try to equalize these quotas in the remaining 46 days as the deliveries for this crop year will be closed off at the end of that period?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly give the hon. member every assurance that the wheat board has that as its objective. I think the hon. member is aware, as I have been, of the remarkable progress that has been made in recent months in the equalization of quotas.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forresfall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that it is now late May, and that on April 19 he advised the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich that he was not as yet prepared to release Mr. Justice Wood's report

on the Canadian pension commission, can he now advise the house about the present status of that report?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: If I may return to my seat, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Order. You cannot answer from there.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: If I may return to my seat I will answer the question, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, if I may now answer the question asked a moment ago, I should like to repeat the answer I gave to a similar question yesterday at a meeting of the standing committee. It is expected now that this report will be received in about August.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and arises out of the answer he gave to the hon. member for Halifax a moment ago. In view of the fact that the Wood commission report will not reach his hands until August, will the minister reconsider the answer he gave to a previous question to the effect that he will not introduce any veterans legislation in this house until after he receives that report? It seems to me it will take-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has completed his question.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, my question is this. Will the minister introduce veterans legislation at this session?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to add anything to what I said in answer to the earlier question. If the hon. member will be specific as to what he has in mind perhaps I can give a more definitive answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. minister that the hon. member has been specific, and that when the minister states he cannot reply to the question the matter should end there.


HAMILTON, ONT.-REPORTED SHORTAGE OF HOSPITAL BEDS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a
May 25. 1966	COMMONS
question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that there is a critical shortage of beds in veterans' hospitals, which fact was responsible for the death of at least one veteran in Hamilton, and that there are 200 veterans in Hamilton with the same medical condition awaiting admission to Sunnybrook hospital, is the government taking any steps to alleviate this situation?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept, of course, the premise on which the question was based. If the hon. member will supply me with specific details of the case to which he is referring, I will have it looked into.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in his absence I should like to direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the reported seizure of a large quantity of the drug LSD in Toronto, is the Prime Minister prepared to announce legislation covering the possession of this dangerous drug?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss this with the minister on his return later this afternoon.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour?
Is it true that tomorrow or the day after tomorrow a meeting of the special committee of the federal cabinet will be held to study the litigation between the C.N.T.U. and the C.L.C. in connection with C.B.C. employees?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that this question is acceptable.
DEBATES	5509
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Labour.
Can he tell us if the Canadian Labour Congress refused to participate in a joint meeting of the C.L.C. and the C.N.T.U. to deal with the current C.B.C. union dispute, which meeting the minister had announced to the house some time ago?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, there is no truth in that suggestion. A meeting had been tentatively arranged for Friday morning of this week at the request of the railway brotherhoods. The Canadian Congress of Labour intimated that it would like to participate in any such discussions. I might say that at least one other labour organization, which is not associated with either the C.N.T.U. or C.L.C., has expressed a similar desire. It may be necessary for us to arrange another date, and we are now waiting a decision as to date from the ad hoc committee. I am awaiting the return of the chairman of this committee, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to discuss the date with him.
I might say that I personally was inclined to agree to a short adjournment of the meeting, providing it could be held not later than around the middle of June, but I will have to discuss the date with the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he returns, and proceed with arrangements for the next meeting.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it may be that interpretation is wanting, but my question to the hon. Minister of Labour deals with the C.B.C. dispute and not the railways.
[English1


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, that is the very matter to which I was referring. The railway unions, like any other nation-wide organizations, have an interest in the matter that was dealt with by the national labour relations board and is being considered by the ad hoc committee. The government would like to have all aspects of this matter before it, not just the aspects pertaining to the C.B.C.
5510	COMMONS DEBATES	May 25, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry
INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF MEDIATOR On the orders of the day:


Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a report from Mr. Stuart Keate in respect of the dispute between the C.B.C. and its producers. If so, is the Prime Minister prepared to inform the house as to its contents?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this report was delivered to my office a few minutes before I came into the house. I hope to be able to read it this evening and forward it to the two parties concerned, after which it will be made public.


AIR CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. John N. Turner (Member of the Administration):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport undertook to provide an answer to the hon. member for New Westminster regarding a dispute which exists between the Canadian Airline Employees Association and Air Canada. I am advised by Air Canada that at a conciliation board meeting with negotiating committees of the union and Air Canada there was unanimous agreement as to the terms of a new contract, but that to date the membership of the union has failed to accept their recommendation. Officials of the union are understood to be meeting today to determine the position of that group.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have not sent him notice of it, but it is about a subject with which I know he is familiar and will not be embarrassed. Has the minister noted the urgent appeal of the secretary general of the United Nations yesterday at the convention in Atlantic City of the amalgamated clothing workers, urging that both sides in the war in Viet Nam should now scale down military operations and take the initiative in direct negotiation; and will the government give its support to Mr. U Thant's plea?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I did note what the secretary general said yesterday. What he said was precisely the same as what he said the other day in London. The Canadian government's actions with respect to the role of the commission are not inconsistent with this plea.


COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has sent a message to the prime minister of Zambia advising him that Canada will not support Zambia's proposal to expel Great Britain from the commonwealth?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, all I have seen about this proposed action, which it is reported may be taken by President Kaunda, is what I have read in the press. The other day we had an opportunity of exchanging views with his minister of foreign affairs here in Ottawa, and I think the government of Zambia is aware of the views of the Canadian government in this regard.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, how can the government be aware of the situation unless something has been said by the minister? In the interests of maintaining a united commonwealth, and in view of the support we have been giving Zambia recently, should we not take some step to strengthen the commonwealth rather than permit a country like this to suggest the expulsion of the senior member?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with my hon. friend that we should take every step we can to strengthen the commonwealth. As I said, we did have a discussion here the other day with the foreign minister of Zambia. I think my hon. friend will be able to conclude, from what I said before the external affairs committee on this subject, that we are very anxious to see to it that action taken with regard to the problem in Rhodesia is not designed in any way to destroy the unity of the commonwealth, that indispensable organism for international harmony at the present time.
May 25. 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	5511
Government Organization
LABOUR CONDITIONS	content in the flag so that some of the
inquiry AS to introduction of labour embarrasssing emblems now flying can be safety code	eliminated?
On the orders of the day:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can he now tell us when it is intended to bring the proposed Canada labour safety code before the house?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: At a very early date, Mr. Speaker; I would say within the next 15 days, or so.


INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. As it was indicated by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys that Dr. Donald had dotted his "i's" and crossed his "t's" over three weeks ago, when does the minister expect to receive the Donald report?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am expecting it at any time, Mr. Speaker. I am not absolutely sure but I understand Dr. Donald has now completed it and that it is on its way to me.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance would be a little more specific, as was suggested by the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon).


Mitchell William Sharp: I have never been more specific in my life, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN FLAG
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, notice of which I have sent him. In view of the continuing use in Canada of Canadian flags containing' inferior content, both in colour and texture, which results in an undesirable presentation of the flag, can the Prime Minister assure the house that the government will shortly bring in regulations governing the quality of material and colour


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


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My question is to the Minister of Defence Production, Mr. Speaker. The other day I asked the Minister of National Defence a question with regard to the discussions and the stage in which they may be respecting the Mystere aircraft. He was not able to answer the question, saying that this matter lay within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Defence Production. Is that minister in a position to tell us the stage discussions have reached with regard to the acquisition by Canada of some Mystere aircraft?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: very advanced stage, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In this new lexicon of government replies, what is an "advanced stage"? Is it almost at the hatching stage?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Almost at the hatching stage, Mr. Speaker.


GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson for the second reading of Bill No. C-178, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Complon-Fronfenac):: Mr. Speaker, last night I was saying that the facts are not conformable to the present situation, that the departments cannot discharge their responsibilities, because something is not functioning properly from an economic point of view. They cannot meet the needs of the population.
Mr. Speaker, we now have a certain number of departments and the government wishes to create more. We had 26 departments, and I
May 25, 1966

Government Organization believe it is intended that we have 30. But all those departments cannot operate properly because something is lacking.
Government legislation and the standing orders of the house-I agree with the other members who have said so-do not conform to facts and realities, they are not adapted to present needs. I say much should be reformed, not especially within the departments but rather in the administration of the house.
I am positive that even though we set up about a hundred departments, we could not go far because, as I said, the departments do not have what is needed to work well. It is well known that every department works on the basis of financial means and not on the jasis of physical potentials of the country. Instead of assuming our responsibilities, we shift them to other agencies. Besides, departments already existing and those we are now setting up, we institute independent commissions to carry out responsibilities incumbent on us. Responsibilities are devolved upon various commissions which are not responsible to the people. They are responsible to the government, but they carry out their investigation and make reports which last for years and all this time, the people wait, the people have nothing. Members of parliament and the administrators of the country do nothing; no progress is made; things are at a standstill.
We discuss old methods, old financial means and old formulas. We discuss these old formulas without thinking of new ones. If commissions think of new formulas, it takes years before a report is made and when the reports are tabled, for the information of the administrators and members of parliament, three quarters of the latter do not have time to read the bulky reports made by various associations, various economists, various technicians.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Quite often, those reports fail to take into account the needs of the people. They are offered things they have no need for. Hon. members are expected to study those reports. Some are concrete, positive reports and others are useless. Therefore, I ask hon. members and the agencies coming under the house to assume their responsibilities. I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to stop creating commissions and departments here and there, when the existing ones cannot even operate. As a result, we have a number of reports which hon. members do not even have time to study. But the one who is mainly responsible for all that is the Minister of Finance
[Mr. Latulippe.)

(Mr. Sharp). If he does not face reality, none of those departments can operate. Departments cannot operate without money.
When the Minister of Finance restricts credit, investments, why create new departments? We are not even able to finance the existing ones. I do not agree with the Prime Minister about the creation of new departments.
Many other things should also be mentioned. The Minister of Finance does not assume his responsibilities. He allows the people in general to be exploited and parliament itself is exploited by the Minister of Finance. For instance, interest rates are usurious, encroaching, and no one inside the Department of Finance worries about it. Everything appears normal to them. Excessive rates make life very hard, cruel, merciless for Canadians, discourage any initiative from those who work and build. It is not by creating new departments without money that we will put in order our economy which is sold out, in debt, paralysed by a basically false system.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice also has huge responsibilities but does not always assume them. That department should expose the reasons for the present evil and punish those who commit crimes. It is good to punish the guilty ones, but the reasons for such crimes are hidden, covered up. They are never brought to light.
Our diabolic system has led a great number of citizens to become dishonest, to commit crimes. But a government in office has never disturbed anyone to put some order in our anti-human, antisocial system. New departments or a parliamentary reform will not give back to the people their rights and prerogatives, if our financial structures are not changed.
A single department would be necessary, Mr. Speaker. I think that if we wanted to establish new departments, one department would be essential, namely the department of consumption. Consumption is insufficient. Production has been created to be distributed, but it is not. It remains in warehouses and stores. Citizens are waiting to have the means to purchase that production. This is why there should be a department to co-operate with the Department of Finance and find the means to distribute that production. The people, on the contrary, are deprived through taxes and funds of all kinds, and inspectors who often have wonderful diplomas and no
May 25, 1966	COMMONS
talent nationalize the taxpayers' money with their socialistic legislation.
What progress has been made up to now? Under the present system, nobody will have to try very hard to provide for his old age. There will be no need to figure out how to spend our money. The government will see to everything in our stead. Citizens will only have to work, that is all. The government will keep their pay and spend it for them. The government will look after us and see to it that our children are educated. In the future, the ministers will replace fathers and mothers in every respect. It will be the planning state, the wage, inheritance and freedom stealing state.
To maintain the present system will lead us shortly to the conscription of salaries by insurance, clans of all kinds, union contributions, arbitration boards and income tax.
Conscription of inheritance by death duties; conscription of savings by the pension plan; conscription of the sick by hospitals; and in the future, conscription of churches by taxes on vestry-boards.
Let the government mind its own business and first of all, let it remove the financial obstacle put by the banking system between goods and families, between shop-windows and kitchens.
Let the government set up a financial system-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I am
sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I wonder what connection he is trying to establish between the banking and the financial systems which come under the government, when we are considering the reorganization of the government and the various responsibilities to devolve upon each department.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, the reorganization of the government is effected through various departments. The economy of banks, the whole country is controlled by the various departments. Since I am dealing with the Department of Finance, I am speaking about finance. It seems to me I am in order, because the Department of Finance is the major culprit. From it proceeds everything we can do in this respect, everything we can finance and operate. The Minister of Finance is the person responsible. There are many other measures which cannot be applied without the consent of the Minister of Finance. What I am trying to show is the influence which the Minister of Finance should have on the other government departments and the say he
DEBATES	5513
Government Organization should have in the creation of the proposed new departments.
Let the government institute for each citizen a dividend, a discount compensated on prices, instead of the taxes which are bleeding us to pay Caesar.
And all the socialist plans and projects can go to a museum, from where they should never have been taken out.
Everybody will be better off. As for those with diplomas who are looking for a way to do nothing, they will always be able to live on their social dividend, which is precisely free money for those who do nothing, with the difference that each and everyone would receive this free social dividend.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The state's intervention in the economy must regularize and moralize the action of the economic forces without going to the extremes of economic planning by striving to associate professional organizations to that intervention. A good deal of our organic laws have to be redrafted in that respect. A new viewpoint, a new ideal is necessary if we really are to reorganize our economic system. If we really want our various departments to function well, all the responsible heads have to assume their responsibilities, each responsible person must find means to finance a country, its production, its development, its investments, in short the whole Canadian economy, as long as there are workers, builders, physical potentials-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Order.


Henry P. Latulippe: There is no reason why we should accept as barbaric a system as the one we have now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I thank the hon. member for his argument on economy but I should just like to remind him that we are now considering the sections of the bill which deal with the responsibilities of various departments.


Henry P. Latulippe: I had concluded my remarks, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-178 now before us provides an opportunity to make a few remarks on the reorganization of the government of Canada.
I have only a few remarks to make. This legislation provides for the establishment of a department of the registrar general, the duties
5514	COMMONS
Government Organization oi which will be more particularly to ensure a closer study of combines, monopolies and bankruptcy.
With this in mind, I want to make a few remarks at this stage in order to point out certain things to the man who will be responsible for administering this new department.
Some time ago I had the occasion of forwarding to a friend of mine, who is the manager of a company of pre-mixed concrete the report on restrictive trade practises covering the operations of four pre-mixed concrete companies.
My friend, who heads one of the most flourishing industries of this type in operation in the region of St. Hyacinthe, went through this report with great care, and then sent his remarks to me. In those remarks, that I shall do my best to paraphrase my correspondent said that the way the government deals with the matter of combines is a farce and a tragedy detrimental to our citizens.
In his letter, my friend refers to four companies which agreed to fix the prices of their products.
He says to me: "You see, the commission works unceasingly at gathering evidence against those four small companies which are interested in their work and want to keep afloat, while the same commission pays no attention to large combines."
For instance, he says: "At this time, there are four cement plants in this country: the Miron company, the St. Lawrence Cement Company, the Canada Cement Company and the Quebec cement plant. When we ask them to quote on our cement supplies, each and everyone of them puts in the same price; there is no difference; they agreed to quote identical prices." It is absolutely impossible for those who have to buy such products to get a better price from one given company.
Further, in his letter this citizen of the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot says that the same situation exists among oil refineries: "If you ask for a quotation from British American, Imperial Oil, Fina, or Shell, for asphalt cement, you will get only one price."
Mr. Speaker, I make these remarks in order to bring to the attention of the minister who will be responsible for the administration of this new department the fact that the legislation will have to be applied unilaterally, that is to every company regardless of their business status or importance.
You can understand as I do that some companies which are not as sound financially

DEBATES	May 25, 1966
as others in the field of pre-mixed cement might be subject to very inconvenient effects, which will prevent them from facing up to existing competitors, much less scrupulous and law-abiding.
I should like to add that the incumbent of this new department will certainly have the opportunity to implement a request made to him some time ago by the minister of justice of the province of Quebec, with regard to the setting-up of an inquiry into fraudulent bankruptcies and organized crime.
However, when the department is in operation, the person who asked for that inquiry will certainly not be responsible for the administration of justice in Quebec, since another government will have been elected by the people of that province. It is appropriate, however, to support the request made by Mr. Claude Wagner, because many things could be learned, if such an inquiry were instituted.
I agree with the federal Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) when he states that here, in Ottawa, we do not have only spineless people.
I am convinced that the creation of this new department will prove this to those who try to represent everyone connected with parliament in Ottawa as second-class citizens, fearful of responsibilities.
Just like the Minister of Justice, I am somewhat annoyed at people calling us fearful and spineless. According to them, it is always helpful to call on Ottawa to get some money, but they always strive to show that under an unfavorable light.
We have here citizens who come from the province of Quebec and are most anxious to be worthy of the confidence placed in them by the citizens of their own constituency.
The sooner we succeed in eliminating the disparagement-the word must be uttered- being carried on towards representatives of the people in Ottawa, the sooner the common good will be served.
We have responsibilities and obligations, and I think we all want to discharge them for the good of our constituents.
I see in the creation of this new department, an opportunity for another member of my province to be useful, not only to his compatriots and his constituents, but to the citizens of Quebec and Canada as a whole.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
[English1


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the ground with respect to this bill has been pretty well covered
May 25, 1966

in the debate on second reading and I shall not repeat any of the arguments which have been made. However, there is one point that concerns me, and I am glad to have within hearing not only the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson), who I gather is more or less responsible for the legislation, but also the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin). If I may invite their attention to the problem perhaps it may be solved quickly.
As matters now stand, if a person wants to look at the basic law regarding any department of government all he has to do is consult the index to the statutes and he will And there the Department of Justice Act, the Department of Labour Act, the Department of Agriculture Act, the Department of National Health and Welfare Act, and so on.
In the case of the present bill, for reasons which the Prime Minister gave and which carry some weight, several departments are having their basic structure comprised within one bill. It seems to me this will make things a bit confusing in future. I wonder whether the revision of the statutes now in process could cover this point? In other words, what I am asking is in two parts. First, would it be automatic that the commission revising the statutes would take this bill, if we get it through in time, and break it into its component parts so that the general picture I have outlined would still obtain?
Second, if that is not automatic, would there be any impropriety if the minister to whom this commission reports were to make the suggestion to the commission that this be done? I really do not think it is improper because in my own experience I once found an error in the revised statutes and wrote to a minister about it. It was suggested that I pass this information on to the commission.
This matter may be dealt with by a minister rising now in this debate or perhaps it could be dealt with later. I know it is only a small point. Indeed, it is only a technical point, but I suggest it is an important one since the whole purpose of this bill is to make things a bit more efficient. For heaven's sake let us not go in the other direction and find that some of our departmental statutes, which were easily found in the index, have been lost somewhere in an omnibus piece of legislation. I am glad to have the attention of three or four ministers with respect to this point and I would be quite happy to receive an answer from any one of them.
Government Organization


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we would certainly be glad to pass along the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If what he suggests can possibly be done we shall certainly see that it is done.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will be brief. I put on the order paper on May 16 question No. 1,499 with regard to the proposal of the new department of manpower to establish manpower offices across the country. It is this proposal that prompted the question. I think the minister is well aware of the point I have raised. I know that it could just as simply be raised at the committee stage in discussion on the relevant clause, but I want to raise formally the matter inherent in the question I have put.
My question referred to the existence of a national organization of some years standing in 19 communities across the country known as Manpower Services Limited. If the department of manpower opens its manpower offices there will obviously be a great deal of confusion generated as a result of the similarity of names. Whether this was done per incuriam I do not know. I do feel there ought to be some form of negotiation or perhaps change with respect to this name because I do not believe that anybody in government, whether the department is big, medium or small, can afford to trample on the rights of the individual.
This matter affects the fundamental rights of individuals who have had some interest and will continue to have an interest in the name "Manpower Services Limited". To have the government come along and say they are going to open manpower offices for related purposes will cause a great deal of confusion. After all, the services of the department of manpower and the functions of Manpower Services Limited are related to the employment field.
There are a number of other things with regard to this bill that I could discuss relating to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to other functions. Hon. members generally have canvassed this bill on second reading. May I also point out that, with the greatest of respect, I have found some little difficulty with regard to Mr. Speaker's ruling yesterday concerning the department of forestry and rural development. If it was not necessary for that department to appear in the resolution why was it necessary for the department of Indian affairs and northern development to
May 25, 1966

Government Organization appear? There is nothing new in that department. It embodies merely a collection of functions that already exist in various places elsewhere.
This is a point to ponder, as is also the fact that a wholesale reorganization could perhaps be effected, by the nomination of merely two or three departments in a resolution. I think there is a difficulty here. The resolution was bad on the face of it and it entrained the Chair unfortunately in a difficult decision about which there can be some doubt.
In this resolution I must say that I think an effort was being made and condoned to do something rather smart. This was perhaps the slick and professional way of doing it. As so often happens, things of this sort fall flat on their faces. It would have been far better to have been overly cautious-perhaps this point is arguable-and to have included the sixth department in the resolution.
With these few remarks I shall resume my seat and continue the discussion clause by clause as the occasion may arise.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak for very long. I rise with two points in mind concerning the department of manpower and possibly also the Solicitor General's department. There may be other points that I should like to bring up at this time since we are discussing the reorganization of the government.
I agree with the reorganization as set out in this bill. Manpower will in future be treated on a more definitive basis. The problems concerning manpower are not unique in my constituency but prevail pretty well across the board. This is probably due to the fact that the former minister of labour could not follow through on all governmental projects. Possibly he did not have the watchful eye over governmental administration that he should have had, which again was due possibly to being overburdened with work.
I refer, for example to the scandalous procedures that have obtained particularly in the winter works program. If there were one man responsible for the labour and another paying for it there might be some chance of abolishing these scandalous procedures. This should have been done some time ago. By subdividing the tasks which ministers now have we might have got better results in places such as Notre Dame de la Guadeloupe where $194,000 has been spent by the municipality without anything to show for it. There

is something terribly wrong here. This situation has been in existence for three or four years but apparently nothing can be done except wait for the province to make inquiries.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Yet under the Solicitor General's department we have a force, the R.C.M.P., which is concerned with justice. I say there is injustice here and in spite of the fact that there are provincial and municipal boundaries I still think the R.C.M.P. has the power to look into such procedures as I have mentioned, especially when the federal government is putting up funds derived from Canadian taxpayers. I ask the minister to look into this situation and not to wait until everything has been covered up. A provincial organization in Sherbrooke, trying to find out whether people had been receiving the basic salaries to which they were entitled, got access to the books during the past three or four years and has publicly stated that the situation amounts to a complete mess.
And this is only one case. There are many others across this country where the federal government must rely on action being taken by the provinces. While we are discussing the reorganization of the government we should at least concede that when the federal government is spending money in different parts of the country it should be entitled to find out by means of its own where that money is going. I am not concerned now with provincial funds. They are the responsibility of the province alone. But I do think it is our responsibility to know where federal money is being spent.
If the minister had been given the power I suggest two or three years ago he would have found out by now through his assistants that people were not being paid although their names were on the list in connection with winter works projects. In other cases they received cheques, endorsed them and sent them back although they were not doing any work in connection with the projects. This has been going on for four years.
Let me tell hon. members something about this municipality which might open their eyes. Within a year and a half there have been seven suicidal hangings. There is something wrong there, and if the provincial government does not look into the situation then the R.C.M.P. should. The Criminal Code is involved to the extent that there is fraud. The federal government is concerned because
May 25, 1966

its funds are being spent. I do not see why we should wait for the provincial solicitor general to open an inquiry. I do not even know whether he wants to do so. Mr. Wagner makes a lot of statements but he does not seem to be moving. I do not think he is very interested. In any case, he is engaged in an election at the moment.
Another subject which deserves our attention concerns the committees of this house. We have had a lot of trouble lately with the committees. It is all very well to subdivide the work of cabinet ministers but members of this house are here to do a job too. On many occasions the reports of committees are not even considered in the house despite all the work that has gone into their preparation. This must not be allowed to continue. Are we here only to ask questions and bring in recommendations which very often are not considered at all?
Not everything done south of the border is deserving of blame. Sometimes we must congratulate our neighbours on the way they arrange their affairs. Committee work under the United States' system of government is much more efficient than anything we have here. Committees, properly employed and given wider powers, can be of great help to each and every one of our cabinet ministers. But their reports must be considered and acted upon and the committees must be given the authority necessary to inquire into such cases as the one I have cited. Their reports would be of great help in the preparation of legislation. Committees could recommend changes in legislation and such recommendations should be seriously considered by the government.
I should like to hear one of the hon. gentlemen opposite express an opinion on this matter. In the United States a senator is paid a salary of approximately $30,000. In addition he receives an expense budget of $80,000 to help him get organized. It is true we are paid $18,000 here but that is still far from what they are getting. I was talking to an hon. member of this house who had come back from Washington. He said, "Good God, they know more about Canada there than we do here".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I must remind the hon. member that we are dealing with the reorganization of departments. His remarks are most interesting but I do not think they are relevant to the bill now under consideration.

Government Organization


Raymond Langlois: I humbly submit that each one of these committees is subject to one of the cabinet ministers. We are proposing to subdivide the ministries in order to lessen the work of ministers. If we did not adopt the attitude of the ostrich by hiding our heads in the sand and waiting for someone to kick us in the bottom, we would consider how things are being done in committees of this house.


An hon. Member:: Order.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Raymond Langlois: There are many things that are in order with which I do not agree. Maybe they are not sensible but we have to follow the rules. Rules are to be followed but sometimes we should put them aside and apply common sense. I agree I may be reaching the very boundary of the subject under discussion but I think I am still within the line. It may be a very thin line but if we stretch it outward a little farther we may help the government solve the country's problems, its own problems and our problems. I should like to conclude on that note and I hope I will have the opportunity to return to it when dealing with specific clauses of the bill.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, when dealing with the subject of reorganization of the government one cannot help realize that three years after this government took office the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has acknowledged the fact that it is unable to cope with the problems facing Canada under the rules and regulations that have been in effect over a long period of time. Many in the house will recall that during the government's first year or two in office it constantly came back to the house with the admonition that it was the rules of the house which prevented the cabinet from giving the country the kind of administration it required. But now, following amendment of the rules on a provisional basis, the Prime Minister comes into the house with a proposal to reorganize the government itself.
I cannot help but feel it would have been much easier for the Prime Minister to reorganize his cabinet by placing in control of the departments of government that have existed for a long time members within his own party who could make the necessary decisions within the framework of those departments. To take departments such as agriculture, justice and labour, divide them into two or
5518	COMMONS
Government Organization three parts and split up their functions does not fulfil the responsibilities of a Prime Minister in this age of advanced automation.
Furthermore, I cannot help but think that a great deal of the problem which has faced us in parliament has stemmed from the organization of the business of the House of Commons. If we as members are given a bill of fare which has been carefully thought out before being presented to us we can do an effective job. Without a carefully thought-out program, to change the rules is futile, and it is also futile to reorganize the departments of government. What we in parliament need more than anything else is leadership from the government benches, leadership that will improve and protect the image of parliament, that will improve the effectiveness of this institution and provide us with proposals into which we can really sink our teeth and come up with something worthwhile for the Canadian people.
The Canada Development Corporation proposal has been before the cabinet for many months. Perhaps it will eventually be introduced here again but in a revised form. In this connection one can think of the Canada Pension plan and other pieces of legislation that were revised, revised and revised before parliament was able to deal with them, with the result that much time was lost. The image of this institution was destroyed and in the interval the enthusiasm of members was lessened.
The hon. member who preceded me referred to the committee structure of the house and said that committee decisions are ignored by the government. This is a fertile field for the reorganization of the business of the house. Committees should be given something worthwhile to do. Members who serve on them should know that their decisions will be acted upon. Committees can take some of the pressure off this chamber and even off cabinet ministers.
Ministers who have been unable to cope with the problems of long-established departments will, I feel, have the same difficulty with the proposed new departments. I take a very dim view of the fact that the Department of Agriculture is going to be split in three, because when we ask questions on agricultural matters in the house one minister will be able to slough them off on another and no one will give us answers. I also take a dim view of the fact that the Department of Labour is being mutilated.

DEBATES	May 25, 1966
One serious omission from the proposed reorganization is a proposal to establish a department of urban affairs. Now that Canada is emerging as an industrial nation, urban problems are becoming greater and greater. All across the country people are leaving agricultural employment, going to the cities to look for jobs and trying to become part of new communities. This is a problem that has been increasing for several years but we in the Canadian parliament in 1966 are failing utterly to do anything about the problems of these people not only in metropolitan areas such as Toronto and Montreal but in smaller communities.
Another problem with which we are faced is the multiplicity of parties in this house. I do not know whether the Prime Minister thought last fall that he could do something about that when he called the election or whether he thought he would be able to reorganize the government as a result of the election, but as I look at this legislation I cannot help but think it is an exercise in futility, and unless we get the leadership we need from the treasury benches parliament cannot help but continue to cast the poor image across the country that it casts today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


Mr. Macaluso:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you have allowed three members of the opposition to speak and I think it is time a member on this side of the house had the opportunity to participate in the debate. I do not care if you are following a list, sir, but I know there is no list so far as this side is concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the hon. member wish to speak?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I stood up twice for that purpose.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I regret I did not see the hon. member. I hope he will accept my apologies. I recognized the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi but the hon. member will have his turn in due course.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and with all due deference to you, I think it has been the rule to proceed in a circuit around the house in calling on members to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. The hon. member's point of order was well put and I think he has enlightened the Chair,
May 25. 1966

but I have recognized the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make only a few remarks at this stage. First of all I should like to state that I am sure most hon. members on both sides of the house are going to support the general purport of this bill which is to adapt government techniques to modern times. I hope that this general reorganization of cabinet responsibilities will help us to do one thing, namely, to co-operate with the provinces in order to plan priorities. I know that in many ways this is a difficult thing to do, but when we are giving increased responsibilities to a minister who will represent the Treasury Board in this house I hope that either he or some other designated minister will take it upon himself, with government support, to do everything possible to bring about the improvement in this field which is needed so badly. In 1966 I think we have learned a lesson on both sides of this house, namely, that in a country like Canada we can make no real progress in an economic, social or political sense unless we do everything possible to unite our country and to improve federal-provincial relations.

I am perfectly aware that the government has made some progress in that field and has improved its relations with the provinces, because we note in each corner of the house that it is now impossible in 1966 to make some progress in the social, political or economic fields without endeavouring to improve relations between Ottawa and the provinces.
I do not entirely agree-and I say this without any feeling of partisanship-on the policy laid down by the ministers, but we have made some progress in that field.

If we are going to do everything we can to improve federal-provincial relations in a modern state like Canada and really adopt our new ministerial procedures to modern times we will have to make a greater effort in a bipartisan way to plan priorities with the provinces. I hope that this governmental reorganization will mean two things basically: First, improved and permanent consultative machinery as between Ottawa and the provinces and, second, the development of an ability under federal direction to plan priorities with the provinces in the social and economic fields.
Government Organization
In general I hope that the reorganization of cabinet responsibilities in a very general way and, in another sense, in a very definite way will restore federal leadership to the position that belongs to it in a country like Canada. Let us face the facts. This is the first nation in the modern western world which has attempted to make a parliamentary system of government work with a federal system of government.

But if we do our best to improve relations between Ottawa and the provinces, if we do our very best in that direction, I am convinced that we will have done great things to consolidate Canadian federalism.

Those are the few remarks I wanted to make at this time. I believe that the listing of priorities and improving federal-provincial relations are the questions that are foremost in the minds of members in every corner of this house. It is my hope that the reorganization of the cabinet will be at least a first step forward in attaining this goal.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not find that the procedure of allowing six or seven opposition members to speak consecutively is very funny.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: In fact, I think it is discriminatory.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member for Hamilton West that he address the Chair and proceed to make his speech in relation to the bill now before the house.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I will be very happy to do so if hon. members will give me the opportunity. I am particularly interested in the reorganization bill as it relates to the new department of manpower. I hope the minister will return to his seat shortly after taking the telephone call to which he has been summoned.
It is proposed in clause 11(1) of the bill to name the new department the department of manpower. Clause 13 defines the duties, powers and functions of this department with relation to the development and utilization of manpower resources in Canada, employment
5520	COMMONS
Government Organization services and immigration. I have been concerned, as have many other members, because of the fact that the department is not being called manpower and immigration. For many years in this country we have had a Department of Citizenship and Immigration and I know of no country which has been more dependent on immigration.
Recently provincial governments, notably those of Quebec and Ontario, have organized drives to attract skilled workers to Canada. This is taking place because of the great need in this country for skilled immigrants. It is dismaying to find that the new department does not have as part of its name the word "immigration".
I fear that a very heavy load will be placed on the minister in regard to his work in the field of manpower, to say nothing of the duties he will be required to carry out in respect of immigration. I hope that his shoulders are broad and strong. During the short time I have been a member of this house the duties of at least one minister of citizenship and immigration have been onerous. For these reasons I am inclined to believe that there should be two separate departments, one to look after manpower resources and the other to look after immigration.
Manpower and immigration have some associated facets but I fear, as has been expressed privately by members on this side of the house, that the immigration branch in the new department will become more redundant than ever. Perhaps the civil service will assume a greater role in respect of immigration while the minister and his deputy devote their efforts to utilization of manpower resources and employment services.
I certainly hope that the new system of organization will work efficiently but, as I say, there is some basis for the fear that the civil service will take an even stronger part in the operation of the immigration branch. I do not understand how a man on the street is going to be able to get in touch with officials of the immigration branch because I assume it will be listed as a branch of the department of manpower. To whom will individuals direct correspondence and applications? I expect the government will advertise the fact that immigration is a branch of the department of manpower, but I think it might have been easier for all concerned if the name of the new department had been the department of manpower and immigration.
Before we reach consideration of clause 11 of the bill during the committee stage, I

DEBATES	May 25, 1986
seriously hope that the government will propose a change in the name of this department. Canada is a country made up of descendants of immigrants. This fact should be given due consideration. I know the situation will not change because of the policy the government proposes to bring forward.
Those are the points I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister and the government before we reach consideration of clause 11 of the bill, and I hope that consideration will be given to the suggestion I have made regarding the name.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Does he not think it would be appropriate for him to propose an amendment to the bill along the lines he has suggested during its consideration at the committee stage? I can assure the hon. member that some of us would consider such an amendment with a good deal of sympathy.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: That may very well be what I will do.


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


Michael Starr: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
On clause 2-Department established.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, clause 2 is the first of the various clauses up to No. 10 which are designed to accomplish the dismemberment of the Department of Justice. At the resolution stage preceding the bill I stated my objections to the emasculation of that historic department. Without repetition, I want to submit again as vigorously as I can that the proposal to divide the department into three separate ministries is a major error which may well have calamitous effects upon the administration of justice in Canada.
This legislation would never have been proposed had it not been for the problems encountered in the portfolio of justice by the hon. gentleman from Papineau. That is selfevident. But such problems as he encountered in that portfolio resulted from a lack of consultation and a lack of co-ordination. This trifurcation of the department must inevitably intensify rather than cure those problems. I put it to the committee that one ministry of justice with an experienced, competent counsel at its head, such as the hon. member for
May 25, 1966	COMMONS
Brant-Haldimand, can administer justice in this country more effectively, more expeditiously and more evenly than three separate departments. I protest this unwarranted truncation, this wholly unjustified wrecking of the great and historic portfolio of justice and I say that the mistakes being made in this chamber this afternoon will soon be apparent even to the Prime Minister and will have to be corrected in the future.
This proposal runs directly counter to the report and recommendations of the Glassco commission. While I do not necessarily worship at the feet of that commission report, I do point out that it very strongly recommended that "the Department of Justice assume responsibility for an integrated legal service embracing all legal staffs of departments and agencies." How could this be achieved without one minister at the head? By its action today the government is foreclosing this important part of the Glassco report.
Personally I do not believe that the office of Solicitor General should be a cabinet portfolio. It should be filled only when there is in this or the other chamber a counsel of unusual distinction who might plead Crown causes in the courts. In the United Kingdom, of course, both the Attorney General and the Solicitor General regularly appear in the courts at trials and on appeals. Recently, for example, the present distinguished Attorney General, Sir Elwyn Jones, prosecuted the sensational murder on the moors case. We who are privileged by his acquaintance know with what distinction a leader of the bar acts as Attorney General in the United Kingdom.
In my view, only when we have a member of this or the other place so qualified and not otherwise engaged in another portfolio should the office of Solicitor General be filled. It was vacant from the year 1935 to the year 1945 when two strong, dynamic men held the portfolio of minister of justice and attorney general, Ernest Lapointe and Louis St. Laurent, and the administration of justice did not noticeably suffer as a result of the vacancy.
It is true that many of our great parliamentarians have been solicitor general without being members of the cabinet since the office was created in the year 1892. I mention Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, Rodolphe Lemieux, Jacques Bureau and Arthur Meighen. Actually it was only the latter's personal parliamentary brilliance which caused the office to be raised to cabinet rank. He was the first
DEBATES	5521
Government Organization solicitor general to attain cabinet rank, and since his incumbency only two, Guthrie and Fauteux, have held the office as a non-cabinet appointment.
This historical excursion is intended merely to emphasize my point that the office has utility only when an especially distinguished counsel may fill it. In what I am saying, of course, I mean no reflection at all upon the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand. I have already expressed to him my feeling of regard and my belief as to the distinction which he might bring to another office. The existence of the office of solicitor general should never be used, I suggest, as an excuse for undermining the status and the authority of the person who must be the senior law officer of the crown, the Minister of Justice.
I realize that the Prime Minister is adamant now in his proposals and doubtless they will carry. Frankly, I hope the many sound and experienced lawyers in the other place, including perhaps the distinguished government leader there, will have another look at this whole proposal. I am morally certain that within five years we shall revert in this country to a single ministry of justice and this excursion into tailoring portfolios to men will be completely abandoned.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Duties of Solicitor General of Canada.
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, on second reading of this bill I expressed my views in respect of this clause. Instead of repeating what I said I will now confine myself to moving a simple motion. My motion, of which I have copies here, is to strike out subparagraph (c) of clause 4.
It is a simple amendment. Clause 4 provides as follows:
The duties, powers and functions of the Solicitor General of Canada extend to and include all matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, branch or agency of the government of Canada, relating to
(a)	reformatories, prisons and penitentiaries;
(b)	parole and remissions; and
(c)	the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The effect of the amendment if carried will be to restore control over the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, their administration, training and all matters relating to that organization, to the Department of Justice and the supervision of the Minister of Justice. As I said on
May 25. 1966

Government Organization second reading, my amendment bears no relation whatever to the personalities of the present Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General.
The point I made before-and 1 make it again only in case some hon. members were not in the house last night when I dealt with this matter-is that in this era of organized crime, of complicated relationships across provincial and international boundaries, the person who deals with the only police force available in the federal sphere, the force that is responsible for security, should be the first law officer of the crown, namely, the Minister of Justice. To separate the function of controlling, training and dealing with the force from the function of dealing with all these other jurisdictions in the field of the enforcement of law may in the long run lead to conflict between these two departments, to the lack of proper liaison between the police force available, the only federal police force there is, and the administration of the law. In my submission it would be a very grave error, and for that reason I move, seconded by -I am told I do not need a seconder:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
That section 4 be amended by striking out subparagraph (c) thereof.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the amendment and to ask members of the committee to take a serious look at it instead of just shouting for this thing to be rammed through by calling for the question to be put before somebody in the government ranks gets up and tells us the reason for this transfer. We have really heard nothing to justify it. Members on this side of the house have tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to point out the dangers inherent, in our view, in this transfer of jurisdiction. I would have hoped that the Minister of Justice would give us the benefit of his views and experience in so far as the proposal the government is now making is concerned. We would have had an opportunity then to hear the reasons behind the proposed transfer of the police. Such reasons might be very intriguing if they were laid before the committee.
My colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood, has outlined briefly the qualms that we feel at what is taking place here. He has tried to emphasize the tremendous need not for decentralization of the police force but for greater and greater co-ordination. I can recall that in 1962 the hon. member for Greenwood and I appeared as counsel for our

party before the Ontario royal commission on organized crime. At the outset we thought the commission was embarking on a two-week investigation. However, the more we went into the problems of syndicated crime, international crime, and the extent of its infiltration into Canada, the longer the commission sat and the greater the lessons we learned as a result.
We had the advantage of hearing from Mr. Robert Kennedy, then Attorney General of the United States. He did not appear in person but submitted a very powerful and forceful brief in which he outlined the great problems that had developed in the United States of America in attempting to deal with various types of organized and syndicated crime. The major lesson that ran through this presentation was the danger inherent in an inefficient police administration, the very condition which the government intends to create here.
He pointed out the difficulties in the United States where an entire city apparatus was corrupted by the forces of organized crime. He pointed out that once organized crime gets a toehold it is virtually impossible to wipe it out. Every possible degree of co-ordination is required between our police forces and yet here we seem to be moving in exactly the opposite direction. The other lesson we learned from the royal commission in Ontario was that within Ontario itself one of the big problems in dealing with crime was the lack of co-ordination between police forces in our small towns and cities. This condition extends right across the country.
All of us remember the criticism, perhaps some of it unfair, to which the R.C.M.P. were subjected at the time of the famous Rivard case. Again, this case showed lack of communication, lack of co-ordination and the need to strengthen substantially this type of liaison between the police. However, it seems to us that the government is proposing a fantastic idea in that the Minister of Justice, who is charged with the carrying out of our laws and the preservation of justice throughout the country, is going to be divorced from the training, administration and functioning of the mounted police. How are they going to work together? Are they going to write each other letters, and that sort of thing? How is co-ordination going to take place at a time when all of us are aware that the forces of crime are attempting to extend their influence into Canada? No one is assessing blame for this, but the fact is still undeniable that this is
May 25, 1966	COMMONS
taking place. I do not believe it has really been denied by anybody. The only thing about which we disagree is the means or methods by which to combat it successfully.
Before allowing the section to pass we should like to hear, if we may, from the Minister of Justice and from the Solicitor General how they propose to work. How will the two offices be drawn together in the carrying out of the functions of the Minister of Justice if there is to be a lack of co-ordination with the force by placing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under this separate jurisdiction? This is a very important matter if we are going to make a serious attempt to deal with organized crime. I am not talking about syndicated crime which is a far more difficult and dangerous problem. In so far as organized crime in Canada is concerned, we can bring in police commission reports to show its existence and the extent of its influence. If you are going to make a serious attempt to deal with organized crime, how are you going to be successful by separating the Minister of Justice from the very agency he needs to investigate, to collect evidence and to carry out this important function?
It seems to me that the step being taken is so serious we cannot and will not allow the clause to pass without some extended comments by the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General telling us why this method has been chosen and what it is hoped to accomplish by it. I hope the members of the government, even though we want the bill to pass and do not intend to hold it up, will not start shouting "question, question", because this is an extremely important and, to us, dangerous step. Before we consent we want to hear at some length the reason for it.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Chairman, before referring to the arguments raised by the hon. member for Danforth I wish to acknowledge with gratitude the generous remarks of the hon. member for Carleton. I can assure the committee that I harbour no false hopes in my breast that I could even approach, much less match, the achievements of a former solicitor general, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen.
It is my respectful submission, Mr. Chairman, that the divisions proposed in this bill are both reasonable and necessary. From time to time, my hon. friends across the floor, in a critical sense, have used the phrase, "the trifurcation of the department". This plausible catch-phrase really conceals the realities of the situation. I want to point out the basic fact that the Department of Justice is not
DEBATES	5523
Government Organization really being divided by the allocation of duties. The Department of Justice has dealt, and still will, with the problems relating to legislative draftsmanship, the conduct of government litigation, criminal prosecutions and the preparation of legal opinions for the government and departments of government. These have always been the main functions of the Department of Justice. In other words, the Department of Justice will remain the law firm for the government of Canada.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The various other agencies, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the penitentiaries service and the parole board, have from time to time become attached to the Department of Justice. They are, of course, obviously involved in the general area of the Department of Justice but they are removed in function from the department itself. They are, I would remind the house, branches which are for the most part self-administering. They have their own experts and come under the direction of the deputy minister of justice only in a very loose and general way. So that the Department of Justice, if this bill carries, will still remain a department which requires the services of lawyers practising law in the traditional sense.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that the decisions which have been brought about are ones which we feel the circumstances demand. The war against crime and also the penitentiaries and parole services demand and deserve the attention of a separate and special ministry. I might remind the house of the fact that since the duties were transferred on January 1 to the office of the Solicitor General, steps have been taken to step up the efficiency of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. With respect, Mr. Chairman, I would bring to the attention of the committee that in the year 1955 the total budget for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was $35.6 million. For the current fiscal year, under representations made by the office of the Solicitor General, the figure has risen to a new high of $86.6 million, which is substantially more than double the figure ten years ago.
May I also say that a related reason for the removal of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from the direction of the Minister of Justice is the fact that there has been an enormous increase in the duties of the Minister of Justice. This has seemed to escape the attention of many members of the house. I would put before you, Mr. Chairman, the fact
May 25. 1968

Government Organization that the annual statutes of Canada for the year 1956, for example, comprised a relatively slim volume of 400 pages. In 1964 it had grown to more than 800 pages. The same observation is applicable to various statutory orders and regulations of the government of Canada which for the year 1965 filled a volume of almost 2,000 pages. Each of these must be passed upon within the Department of Justice before enactment. In a growing country like Canada, as the legal structure of government becomes more complicated increased demands are made on the Minister of Justice. There is an increased demand for more legal opinions and, of course, there are increasing demands in the field of litigation.
I turn now, Mr. Chairman, to the third reason, and while it has been put forth as a criticism of the bill I advance it in argument in support of the bill. I refer, of course, to the removal of the R.C.M.P. from the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. Under the new bill there will now be a separation of the investigative functions of the police from the process of prosecution in the courts. It seems to me that to vest the authority for the investigative functions of government in the same person who is going to conduct the criminal process is foreign to the spirit of justice.
Under the proposals set forth in this bill the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will carry out its investigations under the authority of the Solicitor General. But, Mr. Chairman, the decision whether or not the facts disclosed by the investigation merit the commencement of a criminal prosecution will continue to be taken by the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Attorney General. Thus two sets of minds and two sets of responsibilities will be involved. It is my hope and my belief that the efficiency of the criminal law process will be improved as a result.
I believe that the merit in this separation of policemen and prosecutor will commend itself to the judgment of the house. I had the privilege recently of visiting the United Kingdom and made a special point of discussing this problem with officials in the home office. I would point out that the separation of the police and the attorney general has for some time been and continues to be the practice in the United Kingdom. There the home secretary is the minister responsible for the police, but the public enforcement of the criminal law in the courts remains the responsibility of the attorney general.

It may be interesting to note in passing, Mr. Chairman, that only last week the home secretary announced new plans for consolidating the 80,000 policemen in the United Kingdom under the office of the home secretary and not under the office of the attorney general.
It is also interesting to note in reviewing the practice in Great Britain that there has been from time to time a suggestion put forth that they set up a ministry of justice. But on no occasion has anyone suggested, if and when they do set up a ministry of justice, that the responsibility for the police be taken from the home secretary and placed under either the minister of justice or the attorney general. It has always been thought in the United Kingdom that there ought to be an officer other than the attorney general who is responsible for what they call preserving the Queen's peace within the realm, and that in general he should discharge the responsibility for the internal safety of the country, including security. It is on this basis that the home secretary has been responsible for the police since 1829.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that by removing the police from the Department of Justice and placing them, together with the penitentiaries service and the parole board, under the office of the Solicitor General we can set up an office of crime and correction which can work effectively for this country. We live in an age of change and challenge, and it is my respectful submission in closing that this change will enable us to meet the challenge of our times.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the minister for his contribution to the debate and for his helpful explanations. I will read them in Hansard and continue the discussion tomorrow after I have had the opportunity of reading his remarks in detail. He will, of course, appreciate that it is not possible to review them on the spot. We will read them and give them the consideration they no doubt deserve.
Perhaps in the minute remaining the minister could tell me what he is actually going to do when an investigation is ordered. He says that he will conduct investigations under his jurisdiction but that the Minister of Justice will decide whether prosecution will take place. Does the Solicitor General exercise no discretion at all in this matter? Does he just collect the material and send it over to justice? Just how does this work from his point of view?
May 25, 1966


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, may I say that we will continue to operate in the way we have been operating since January 1 of this year whereby the Solicitor General will have responsibility for the administration of the police. They will collect the facts and will report back. Their reports will be delivered to the Department of Justice. If the Department of Justice feels there ought to be further investigation or if they request further information, then further investigation will be carried out under the authority of the Solicitor General in much the same fashion that investigations are carried out in the United Kingdom where 80,000 policemen under the direction of the home secretary work,
I might say with respect, very effectively.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock? I have several questions I should like to ask.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. In order for the house to proceed to private members' business it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Progress reported, tTranslation]
It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


CONSUMERS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the establishing of a department of consumers affairs.
She said: Mr. Speaker, on May 13 I tried to place the following questions on the order paper:
1.	Are producers of basic foods such as milk, bread, eggs, meat, butter and margarine sharing in the margin of profit derived from recent rises in the price of such foods to the consumer?
2.	If so, what is the percentage of profit margin going to
(a)	the producer,
(b)	the wholesaler, and
(c)	the retailer in the case of (1) milk; (2) bread; (3) eggs; (4) meat; (5) butter; (6) margarine?
DEBATES	5525
Proposed Consumers Affairs Department
Three days later I received a letter from the Assistant Clerk as follows:
I am returning your proposed question for the order paper, which I have discussed with His Honour the Speaker.
It is Mr. Speaker's view and, as you know, mine that this question in its present form is not acceptable in that it contravenes the rule that a question must relate to the administrative responsibilities of the government, and it is our opinion that your question does not.
I regret the necessity of giving you this opinion.
As matters stand, Mr. Speaker, the consumers of this country at the present time have no department protecting their interests, no minister of the government to speak for them or to answer their questions. As I interpret this reply, there is at the present no one in the government in charge of a department to whom questions can be directed and who could answer them.
Questions about such matters are being asked by Canadian consumers from coast to coast. With the exception of questions relating to war and peace, the matter I now raise is exercising the minds of people from coast to coast more than any other as the cost of living rises. Consumers need protection. It is precisely because these questions cannot be answered, and because no government department exists which can answer them, that I have brought forward this resolution today on behalf of our party.
This is not something new. As a matter of fact, my colleague the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) brought up this question in 1964. My colleague the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) brought it up in 1965, and the Canadian association of consumers has been bringing it up in its own way for the past six years. Today we are being flooded with mail from people across the country who are desperate and want to know what the government is going to do about the cost of living which is getting beyond their incomes. Nothing in this regard is being done by the government front benches.
From a host of other communications I select one dated March 15, 1966, that came to me indirectly from the town of Espanola, Ontario, which happens to be in the riding of the Prime Minister. It reads:
Whereas, the council of the corporation of the town of Espanola is concerned over the seemingly large increase in the price of goods and services over the last six to twelve months, and whereas these price increases will have serious effects upon people living on fixed incomes and hourly wage earners whose union contracts will not be negotiated within the next year or two;
May 25, 1966

Proposed Consumers Affairs Department
Therefore the council of the corporation of the town of Espanola urgently request that our senior governments create a select committee to investigate the reasons behind the inflationary rise in prices and that this committee be prepared to submit recommendations for controlling inflation and insuring the standard of living in Canada.
That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to all Ontario municipalities, the Canadian Labour Congress and Mayors and Reeves Association for their endorsement and ask that they strongly urge their members of parliament both federal and provincial to support this resolution.
It is signed by the mayor of the town of Espanola. This communication, Mr. Speaker, could be duplicated many, many times across Canada. That is why we are asking at this time that there be created a full department of consumers affairs with a minister in full time charge.
This government has been accused of many colourful sins of commission. However, I believe the majority of the people of Canada are far more concerned with its sins of omission. One of the gravest of those sins has been the failure of the government to devote a single department to the protection of the consumers of this country.
It is becoming increasingly evident that the consumer needs protection. We live in a society where well organized groups of manufacturers, processors and advertisers, driven by the fierce competition of the market, use all the techniques of modern processing, packaging and advertising to sell their wares to the consumer. And the consumer is fair game. Consumers are badly organized and poorly informed, are conned, gulled, deceived and robbed, and there is neither protection nor redress. In fact, conning the consumer has become the avenue to affluence for a great many business concerns today.
I must say that certain things have been done to protect the consumer. Bodies within the government exist for consumers' protection. For instance, the Department of Trade and Commerce has its division of weights and measures. The Department of Agriculture has its branch dealing with consumer information and also its meat inspection section. The Department of Fisheries has its consumer branch and also an information section. The Department of National Health and Welfare has a food and drug directorate. The Department of Justice has its anti-combines legislation. These activities scattered throughout various departments of government, Mr. Speaker, should be brought together and put under one department as we have suggested.

We want to see the creation of a prices review board and a consumers' bureau where representations and complaints by consumers may be made to one department coming under one minister who, alone among the other ministers heading departments of government, will speak for the consumers of this country. At the moment they have no spokesman.
It is interesting to note in passing that in the United States at this time a New York Democrat is introducing a bill embodying exactly similar concepts to those I have outlined. In the United States government 33 agencies devoted to bits and pieces of consumer protection have grown like an undersized Topsy. The new legislation seeks to place those agencies under one department. In the United States as in Great Britain they are far ahead of Canada in this field. President Johnson has been sending messages to Congress regarding consumer protection and the tightening up of legislation for several years now.
In Great Britain a housewives' charter was introduced earlier this year. Its passage into legislation was interrupted by the recent election over there but it will be proceeded with again. It seeks to protect the consumers. We need a consumers' bill of rights in Canada. If I were to summarize very briefly what I think those rights should be they could be brought under four headings: First, the right to safety and quality; second, the right to truthful information; third, the right to a dollar of stable purchasing power and, fourth, the right to be heard.
I will not say very much about the first right, the right to safety and quality, because in the main I think our government departments are doing fairly well in that regard. Also, information is available from voluntary associations such as the Consumers Association of Canada. We have not too many complaints regarding such things as safe toys for children, inflammable goods and so on. However, we are concerned about the second right.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
First, we need more truthful packaging. We have already dealt in this house with the bacon striptease where the manufacturers proved very prudish indeed when it came to letting enough of the bacon be seen for the housewife to tell whether she was buying meat or fat. I believe we have now reached the bikini stage but there is still something to be desired.
May 25. 1966


An hon. Member:: Complete disclosure.


Winona Grace MacInnis: 
Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that all citizens realize the imperative need to protect the Canadian consumer, and government intervention on a federal and provincial level is absolutely necessary to achieve this end. It is a truism that government with its powers and resources to investigate, regulate and advise, with its legitimate concern for the welfare of our people, has enacted legislation to protect them in many spheres such as labour, pensions, transport and medicare. The realm of consumer protection is one which most certainly cannot be ignored and it should be obtaining increasing governmental attention. The quality and price of what we wear, what we eat, what we drink, all our material needs, are of prime concern to the federal government and rightly so.
The intent of the motion before the house is a most laudable one and the mover is to be congratulated for her concern about matters which affect the daily lives of our people. 

However, though not opposing the well-intentioned spirit of the motion may I say that I support the principle advocated but not the means spelled out in the wording of the motion. I do not feel the government-I emphasize "at this time"-is justified in setting up a complete department of consumers' affairs and I oppose the proposal on a number of grounds.
There is a growing tendency to form departments for new areas of interest such as education, and at the present time the government is in the process of creating several new ministries. My opposition to the proposal arises because of my aversion to the compounding of bureaucracy. If a department were created, all the attendant expense of the creation of a new ministry and staff, though initially relatively modest, would follow the alarming habit of ballooning to a much greater degree than originally contemplated.
There is not only the expense involved and the draining of personnel from other departments. I feel there is a real and growing danger of an ever-increasing multiplicity of departments with ever-growing duplication and overlapping which militate against the efficient handling of the problems for which they were created. I submit that another cabinet post with all the necessary related machinery simply does not appear justified under the present circumstances.
Furthermore, the Consumers Association of Canada has done a great deal of good work. Through the imposition of grading systems and its testing procedure and in many other ways it has protected the consumer. With the formation of a federal department the completely detached work of this association might be impaired. One reason it has been so effective stems from the fact that it has operated independently of all external pressures.
The contemporary tendency is to impose ever-widening responsibilities upon government departments which in turn are more susceptible to lobbies and influences from without. There is no assurance that a government portfolio would strengthen the consumer association's very important and valuable program which has contributed so much to the protection and welfare of Canadian citizens.
The argument against a separate department at this time does not mean that I feel no further action in regard to consumers' affairs should be taken. Quite to the contrary. I submit there is a drastic need for a much
May 25. 1966	COMMONS
intensified campaign to protect our consumers, but I submit this can be done within the existing framework of government by strengthening our present consumer protection services, amending legislation such as the Criminal Code or the Income Tax Act as required and implementing new laws and regulations regarding consumer credit.
I would suggest that this could be done by the creation of a bureau in an existing department, such as the Department of National Health and Welfare, which would have jurisdiction over consumers' affairs and be especially empowered to speak on their behalf and co-ordinate the activities of departments such as trade and commerce, agriculture, justice, and health and welfare, which now have services protecting consumers. This idea does not preclude the possibility of ultimately creating a department with its own minister if the problems and complexities of consumer matters warrant it.
Such a bureau would have the responsibility of improving and updating the consumer protection agencies of other departments, providing facilities for research and investigation into consumer protection, providing a current statistical record of consumer information and providing facilities for consumer complaints to be heard and properly and promptly analysed for remedial action.
This agency would have the responsibility of examining present legislation which protects the consumer against abuses and, in addition, could suggest the enactment of new legislation to prevent deceptive and fraudulent business practices. For example, something could be done in regard to truth in packaging legislation, improved testing procedures on products, more rigid laws protecting the consumer against the marketing of goods hazardous to health of life, laws providing that the consumer is to be rightfully informed and protected against fraudulent, deceitful or grossly exaggerated and misleading advertising or labelling.
This agency could delve into the entire question of consumer credit. Evidence shows that the ordinary consumer in most cases has no idea whatsoever as to the interest rate he is paying and there is conclusive evidence that in many instances the consumer is paying an exorbitant interest rate which is concealed through lack of disclosure, hidden bonuses, discounts and special charges.
The whole question of credit for the consumer is of paramount importance and the
DEBATES	5529
Proposed Consumers Affairs Department government quite properly set up a joint committee of the house and Senate on consumer credit. Easy credit without any real indication of harshness of terms and the rate of interest does a real disservice to our citizens and to our country. The economic hardship and domestic dissention caused by the beguiling allure of "Buy now and pay later" cannot be estimated.
The evil is not in the availability of credit but in the degree of access to credit and the lack of appreciation of many people as to the actual eventual cost of the article purchased. This bureau would have the duty of sifting proposed legislation which would have the effect of preserving the rightful place of credit buying but at the same time would correct flagrant abuses now existing.
I feel that the question of consumer protection is very apropos under present circumstances of creeping inflation. Economists differ as to the degree of inflation and methods to combat it but not on the proposition that there are inflationary trends. I suggest that one does not have to be a learned economist to realize that there is some measure of inflation. Any housewife who has to buy the staples of life, bread, milk and vegetables, knows that prices are becoming alarmingly high. I personally, and I am sure other members of the house, have received strong representations in regard to the high cost of living and I submit that the time has come when a commission on prices should be established.
I am not for a moment suggesting that price control should be introduced which, of course, involves wage control, but I strongly contend that a price commission or board set up by the federal government to investigate price increases would be a real safeguard to the consumer and a guardian for our entire economy.
The duty of this commission would be to maintain a rigid scrutiny on the general rise in prices, with particular attention to any drastic upsurge in the price of any particular commodity. Its function would be chiefly that of a watchdog and information obtained could be made available to the government which in turn, if it believed it to be in the national interest, could take the necessary corrective action. This commission would not have the power of enforcement but as a source of information for the government it could be of great value.
This is no novel departure, and a form of such price vigilance is now being practised in
May 25, 1966

Proposed Consumers Affairs Department the United States of America. It seems to me to be only prudent to have price information available in this period of inflationary trends. It is a precautionary method. It is a preventative measure and not a cure in itself. When this country is threatened with the spectre of inflation, surely any measure to assist in gauging its imminence and thus providing an opportunity for immediate remedial steps is worthy of consideration.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In summary, as I stated at the outset I agree with the motion in principle but at the present time I suggest that a section of an existing department could be utilized to perform the functions that the mover envisages for the new department and over which it might have jurisdiction. In this way the same results could be achieved without the considerable expense and work that the creation of a new department would entail. If after the creation of such a bureau its work warranted a separate department, then the next logical step would be its creation.
The government shares the concern of the entire country and the members of this house in regard to the plight of the consumer who in effect is buyer and producer alike. Augmenting the considerable work done by the joint committee on consumer credit, the establishment of a consumer bureau within an existing department and the creation of a price commission as a sentinel for the Canadian people on constant vigil, guarding against inordinate and dangerous price rises in any segment of our economy, would, I feel, be a wise move in the government's continual concern for the welfare of our people.


Mr, E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, the problem in relation to consumer affairs at this particular time in the history of Canada is, of course, one of the most important that this country faces today and one which concerns everyone here in the house and across the nation. The hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) should be commended for bringing forward this motion. Personally I feel it is not broad enough to meet the challenge that faces the people of this country today and particularly those who live in urban areas. I do not intend to go over the remarks that have been made by those who have referred to truth in advertising and consumer credit as these problems are recognized by all inside and outside the house as problems in respect of which action should
[Mr. Tolmie.l
have been taken earlier than it appears might be taken.
Rather than a department of consumer affairs I should like to see the establishment of a department of urban affairs to take care of problems not only in relation to consumer credit or credit as a whole but problems in relation to taxation, housing and recreation in the new urban areas that are emerging across this country. Everyone has heard or read the printed word about urban sprawl. While C.M.H.C. and the National Housing Act provide some leadership in the planning for these new communities there still remains a good deal to be done in regard to planning for the great expansion of urban communities.
I was intrigued by the remarks of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie) when he referred to creeping inflation. I do not think we have creeping inflation in Canada today but rather galloping inflation. Every time we turn around we see an increase in the cost of living largely brought about by the imposition of taxation by the government in the face of opposition by other parties in this parliament. I am sure the hon. member for Welland was sincere in his remarks.
If the government wants to do something about this situation it should remove the sales tax immediately. This would do a great deal to alleviate the difficult situation in which everyone finds himself because of the high cost of consumer goods. It is interesting to note that today members on the government side of the house refer to inflation. Not long ago they did not like to admit that as a result of the imposition of the sales tax there occurred a tremendous increase in the cost of almost everything that people have to buy during their daily lives.
While I want to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway on her motion I should like to reiterate the belief that what Canada needs and what this government needs is a department of urban affairs to deal with the much broader aspect of the problems which face people in urban areas.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of speaking on this motion and perhaps my first words should be an expression of my appreciation to the hon. lady for allowing this motion to stand much longer than she probably wanted in order that I would have such opportunity.
May 25. 1966

The question of consumer affairs is one that has interested me as a member of the committee on consumer credit. The first bill which I introduced in this house as a private member on the other side was with regard to the unconscionable transactions relief act.
I should like to put forward several observations, first about the remarks of the hon. lady regarding the establishment of a department of consumer affairs and at the same time to refer to a brief which was presented by the Consumers Association of Canada on April 12, 1966.
The hon. lady stated at one stage that there was not one single department devoted to consumer affairs in Canada. She thereafter, in part, denied her own observation by making the point that there were actually a great many different federal departments and laws concerned with consumer matters. She gave a partial enumeration of them and perhaps I can carry on the enumeration. There are the fair trading provisions as well as the monopoly provisions under the Combines Investigation Act. There is a false advertising section under the Criminal Code. There is, of course, a food and drug directorate, to which she made reference. There are Canada grade standards regulations maintained by the Department of Agriculture and, as the hon. lady stated, there is a Weights and Measures Act under the jurisdiction of and exercised by the Department of Trade and Commerce. There is, of course, legislation with regard to consumer lending and, more particularly, interest. I refer to the Interest Act in so far as it does provide protection, and the more comprehensive piece of legislative machinery, the Small Loans Act, both of which are administered by the Minister of Finance through the office of the Superintendent of Insurance.
I should acknowledge at once that there is great appeal to the argument that one should consolidate all these fairly diverse activities under one department, but I submit that while this argument does have appeal it makes more sense to continue to have particular functions carried out by the departments which have the expertise to deal with them. For example, under the Department of National Health and Welfare there is already assembled a body of expertise, comprising a groups of experts for the purpose of advising the government on health security measures. To move at least part of that group to a separate department of consumer affairs
DEBATES	5531
Proposed. Consumers Affairs Department could only involve in the long run, duplication of responsibilities in the two departments of government. This would happen in the same way with reference to the Combines Investigation Act if responsibility for it was given to such a department although this perhaps was not suggested by the hon. lady but rather by the consumers association. I would point out that fair trade practices legislation is not just related to consumers but also to other interests in the country such as retailers who may be in competition in the market with individuals who are engaged in unfair trading practices. It is of interest to other manufacturers who may be concerned about monopolistic or combines situations involving their competitors. And it is of general public interest that there be full competition between firms operating in Canada so as to reduce the Canadian cost of manufacturers products, placing them in a competitive position on foreign markets. In other words, there is real merit to making sure that the particular function of expertise should be kept in one place and that the broad area of responsibility should concern itself not just with consumer interests but with all interests at other levels of the economy and with persons other than in their capacity as consumers.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In the same way, with regard to the Canada grade standards regulations which are administered by the Department of Agriculture I think we should bear in mind that while the grade standards regulations do have the effect of benefiting consumers in the availability of better quality products, their initial purpose was not to benefit the consumer but rather to benefit the producer in stimulating the production of better quality products and thus maximizing returns to individual producers. Therefore my first argument against the particular modus which the hon. lady has put forward is that you would be taking from individual government departments at least some of the expert advice they have available and which inevitably they would have to replace. Also, as the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie) pointed out, what we would really be doing would be duplicating the bureaucracy. I think it is clear on the basis of past experience that problems do arise in this regard. There would be a conflict of jurisdiction as to the particular problem, whether it be a consumer problem or one, for example, concerning fair practices at the manufacturing level
May 25, 1966
5532	COMMONS DEBATES
Proposed Consumers Affairs Department
I would hate to leave the question on a purely negative note and would like to put forward my own proposal with respect to the matter of consumer protection, which differs from that put forward by the hon. lady and the hon. member for Welland. The hon. lady referred in her remarks to some of the difficulty caused by reason of the fact that jurisdiction over the matter of consumer affairs is divided between the two levels of government. I had the opportunity previously to observe, and would like to take the opportunity to say again, that there is no real logic in considering a consumer transaction on the basis of the jurisdiction between the two levels of government in Canada. For example, the hon. lady referred to a cooling off period. I would advance as my opinion that it is unquestionable that the question of a cooling off period on a door-to-door sale is one that falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces. In the same way the question of warranty as to the sound operation of a particular apparatus is clearly a matter for the provincial sale of goods acts and is so dealt with at the present time under their legislation.
If the consumer is buying a piece of hard goods on time, his initial rights and obligations are established under the conditional sales act or perhaps the chattel mortgages act of the particular province, and in either case his rights and obligations are determined by provincial law. One of the most serious problems and one which lawyers in the house will recognize, I am sure, as occurring most often and coming to their attention, is that raised by the exercise of rights in default, what steps must be taken in order to recover the particular piece of hard goods, the refrigerator, car or television set, and what is the obligation of the purchaser after that. This again falls under provincial jurisdiction.
On the other hand, some aspects of this problem-this matter has been referred to- now fall under federal jurisdiction. The question of the obligation to state interest under a contract, as already provided by the federal Interest Act, is a matter within federal jurisdiction and the federal government has with the consent of the provinces-I think we must recognize this-in the past exercised control in respect of small loans to people for "essentially consumer uses under the Small Loans Act, which again is federal law.
The suggestion I should like to make is that we should consider the establishment at

the federal level of a semi-autonomous body like the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, which would have the responsibility of carrying out at the federal level, and through delegation at the provincial level, surveillance over the field of consumer affairs.
My inspiration in this regard comes, of course, from the consumer council which is now in effect in the United Kingdom and was set up by the British government as a result of the Molony report, that is to say, the final report of the committee on consumer protection which was published in July, 1962. The operation of the consumer council can be best summarized by a brief reference to the annual report for the year 1964-65. I quote from the foreword by the chairman of the council:
Our aims are twofold: first, better self-protection by consumers through education and information; second, more safeguards for consumers through better codes of practice in industry and commerce or by legislation, where this will be the only effective way to provide protection against unscrupulous salesmen or manufacturers.
A little later the chairman referred to the Molony report as follows:
The Molony committee, in their report on consumer protection, said that it should be the duty of the council "to secure presentation of the consumer viewpoint at high national levels." We have found increasingly that government departments and others are consulting us on matters affecting consumers. We cannot pretend, of course, to represent the views and attitudes of all the consumers in the country. In some cases, however, we can base our comments on data which we have derived from special inquiries, such as field surveys; in others we present the collective view of a body of people who from various angles are informed about consumer matters and interests. The Molony committee in this context mentioned particularly the monopolies commission and the restrictive practices court.
I am suggesting that it would be possible to establish a federal entity of this kind to which the provincial governments, as a result of arrangements between the federal and provincial governments, could delegate the responsibility for carrying out such provincial legislation as may be related to consumer affairs. There are unquestioned difficulties, which the hon. lady inclined to make light of, in the division of jurisdiction between the two levels of government. But it is also clear that by a proper process of delegation to an entity of this kind, individual provincial governments could give the responsibility to this federal entity for the purpose, first, of carrying out education-that is, education of the buying public on these very important consumer questions-and, second, the purpose of
May 25, 1966	COMMONS
assuring the better carrying out of the objectives of consumer protection whether they be objectives as stated in existing law or statute or general objectives which the consumer council might recommend should be made law either at the federal or provincial level.
The Molony report went to some pains to make it clear that they were not recommending a kind of a consumers' complaints bureau. At page 280 of the Molony report they made this observation:
What we reject is the idea that a consumer council should be under duty to receive, consider or handle individual complaints or to attempt to adjust them.
Paragraph 855 of the report, briefly stated, indicated the following functions?
1.	Collecting information about consumer problems.
2.	Considering what, if any, action is required.
3.	Promoting that action.
I think it would be very useful for an entity of this kind to have the responsibility of surveying the consumer field generally in Canada and deciding what, if any, protection is necessary for consumers either by changes in the law or through the vehicle of prosecutions or other legal action under existing statutes.
One of the real difficulties involved in many of these consumer problems-and it is not unique to the consumer field; it applies to many other legal questions-is that the mere scale of the problem in the individual case may not justify legal action by the person involved. Therefore even the person who has had a bad deal in the purchase of an electric fan, television set or refrigerator is inclined to take the attitude that he should not throw good money after bad in trying to enforce the warranty and bring to justice the particular unscrupulous salesman or manufacturer who may have been responsible for selling the article.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
What a consumer council could do, where practices of a fraudulent nature were disclosed and certainly where there was a pattern of misleading sales practice, would be to take whatever legal action might be involved such as the rescinding of the contract in a number of particular cases. This action, of course, would be brought at the expense of the council in order to establish the kind of practices which would not be enforceable or, conversely, the kind of practices which could result in the contract being upset. In this way
DEBATES	5533
Proposed Consumers Affairs Department the consumer council could take the initiative to have the court declare standards where now so often in these consumer cases the consumer in question decides not to proceed with any particular action.
I have made reference already to the fact that I do not accept the hon. lady's suggestion with regard to the establishment of a separate department. I have suggested that perhaps a more effective way of achieving consumer protection would be a separate entity, a semi-autonomous entity, to which responsibility for enforcement of consumer legislation at the federal level could be given by this parliament and perhaps by delegation by the provincial governments.
I should like to express my approval of one suggestion in the brief of the Consumers Association of Canada. I am referring to page 3 of the brief where reference is made to the establishment of an interdepartmental committee of government departments which are responsible for enforcing various aspects of consumer legislation. For example, I have made reference to the fact in my earlier remarks that no less than six different parts of government are involved with the enforcement of consumer legislation. They are the Departments of Finance, Trade and Commerce, Agriculture, National Health and Welfare and the combines investigation branch which under the bill currently before parliament is to become the responsibility of the Registrar General in the general grouping of business matters under one department.
The sixth, of course, is the Criminal Code, the actual enforcement of which is not the responsibility of the federal government but the responsibility of the provinces. I say it would be very useful that there should be an interdepartmental committee on a continuing basis within the federal government in order that certain practices or patterns of practices which appear may be brought to the attention of the appropriate departments. For example, a problem might involve health and would be referred to the Department of National Health and Welfare, while any weights and measures aspect of the problem should be referred to the Department of Trade and Commerce. Merely because part of the problem came under another department we would not necessarily run the risk of its falling between two stools.
I hope the government will give serious consideration to the establishment of an interdepartmental committee on consumer affairs for the purpose of making sure that
May 25. 1966

Proposed, Consumers Affairs Department the attention of federal departments is directed in this way. I am not suggesting, however, that this is any substitute for the kind of tribunal, if you like, or semi-autonomous organization which could assume its own direction and assume responsibility for having a general regard for consumer affairs.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a general concern in Canada about consumer matters. We in Ontario have just had the benefit of the final report of a select committee of the Ontario legislature on consumer credit. The province of Manitoba over the past three or four years has been giving very close scrutiny to those aspects of its public law which affect consumers and business practices generally. The province of Nova Scotia has already carried out one of these studies and has received a report. This in turn is just a reflection of the concern of the elected representatives, a concern in turn communicated to them by their constituents that there should be a fresh look by government at the problems of consumer matters.
Perhaps I could close on a final, historical note. It is of interest to observe paragraph 892 of the Molony report:
Consumer protection is no new idea. The intervention by the state to restrain deceitful trading practices and promote honourable standards in commerce has a long history.
The Molony report goes on to quote a twelfth century example. It, therefore, is not a novel proposition we are putting forward. What we are really talking about today is not a general principle, that is, whether there should be intervention by the state to protect individual consumers; we are not here considering whether or not the maxim caveat emptor is now to be replaced with a new philosophy. We have already accepted the philosophy of state intervention to protect consumers. We are really talking about the formal organization to carry out those principles.


Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I do want to make a few remarks at this time but I shall be brief. I really want to deal with another aspect of the matter which has not been discussed here. I should like to deal with the health point of view rather than the economics of the situation which seem to have taken the time of most members of the
house. I noticed that in the brief presented by the Consumers Association of Canada there is reference to the fact that the main function of such a group would be safeguarding the economic tradition of consumers.
I only have one minute left so I will restrain myself to the discussion of one point, namely, labelling. During the last session of parliament a special committee on food and drugs went into this question, particularly the marking of insecticides, pesticides and drugs. One problem that has cropped up now has been the labelling of foods. We hear a great deal from people who suffer from allergies and who have to be on special diets, such as egg-free diets, gluten-free diets and sugar-free diets for diabetics. A great deal of material is being circulated to the end that such people will receive some assurance that the label on every food product will indicate the content of that product. I believe everyone in this house would agree with that principle.
I am pleased to see that the bakery products business, as the result of a voluntary approach by the food and drug directorate, is now labelling at least 50 per cent of the products now on the market by listing the total ingredients.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. The hour for private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, in the highly unusual circumstance of no minister being in the house to announce the business, I wonder which parliamentary secretary-I hope the most attractive one-will be announcing the business for tomorrow?


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to defer to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare but that the business I have to announce is mundane. Yesterday, as recorded at page 5489 of Hansard, the Minister of National Revenue set forth the program of business for today. It is the proposal of the government house leader, I understand, that we should continue this program of business tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.