1967-11-27

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for the Minister of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-18 (from the Senate), to amend the Publication of Statutes Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Caouelle: 1.	Are Canadian diplomatic or consular agents empowered to marry Canadian citizens abroad?
2.	Can Canadian citizens be married abroad by diplomatic or consular agents of the United Kingdom and, if so, under what statutory provision or agreement can this occur?
3.	Since the Statute of Westminster of 1931, has the government of Canada requested the government of the United Kingdom to continue to allow its agents to marry Canadian citizens outside Canada?
4.	Does the government of Canada intend to allow this practice to continue?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: 1. The Canadian diplomatic or consular agents do not have the power to solemnize abroad the marriage of Canadian citizens.
2.	Canadian citizens are able to marry abroad in accordance with the provisions of local law. As an additional facility, by virtue of the United Kingdom Foreign Marriage Act of 1892-1947 and the Foreign Marriages Order 1964, which empowered certain official British representatives abroad to perform marriages abroad, Canadian citizens can, if they wish it and provided they meet the requirements involved, be married abroad by such officials.
3.	Canada has not made such request to the Government of the United Kingdom.
4.	The British legislation in this field has been useful to those Canadians desiring to take advantage of it. The question as to whether this procedure should be maintained is, however, under study.
Legislative authority in relation to marriage is divided between the provinces and parliament. The provinces have jurisdiction in relation to "solemnization of marriage in the province" and parliament has jurisdiction in relation to "marriage and divorce". As a consequence, while parliament could authorize Canadian consuls abroad to perform marriages, it would be necessary for the provinces also to pass legislation validating such marriages.
Federal legislation would be required since such marriages would not relate to a solemnization of marriages in the provinces and therefore would not be within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. Jurisdiction on this question would be vested in the parliament of Canada. However, provincial legislation would also be required so as to ensure that marriages solemnized outside the provinces would be valid within the provinces. Only the legislature of the province could enact a law declaring that a marriage solemnized outside the province is a valid marriage within the province. It will be realized that the concurrence of the province would therefore be required in order to change the actual practice. The question is presently under study.


SECOND HARBOUR BRIDGE, HALIFAX
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	What consideration has been given, if any, by the federal government in regard to the construction of a second harbour bridge between Halifax and Dartmouth?
2.	Is the federal government engaged in studies or discussions with other governments concerned in this matter?
3.	If so, what is the present status of these discussions?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. A second toll

November 27, 1967
Questions
bridge between Halifax and Dartmouth is currently under construction by the Halifax-Dartmouth bridge commission. No federal government consideration of this project was requested.
2.	No.
3.	See answer to 2.


R.C.M.P. BARRACKS CONSTRUCTION, ELBOW, SASK.
Mr. McLelland: 1.	Has the government awarded a contract to construct a new R.C.M.P. barracks at Elbow, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so (a) who was the contract awarded to (b) by what date is the construction to be completed (c) what is the total amount of the completed contract?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1.
Yes.
2.	(a) Shoquist Construction Company,
Limited of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; (b) February, 1968; (c) $70,260.


PRODUCTION OF NATIONAL DEFENCE EXPERIMENTAL PROTOTYPES
Mr. Winch: 1.	What was the total federal government expenditure on the development of the Avro Arrow plane and how many were test flown before cancellation of the program?
2.	What was the total federal government expenditure on research and production on the armoured carrier known as the Bob-Cat?
3.	What has been the cost to the federal government of endeavouring to produce a hydrofoil craft suitable for defence and anti-submarine purposes?
4.	With reference to parts 1, 2 and 3, on a particularized answer, was work stopped for the reason of (a) lack of funds (b) failure of prototype tests (c) a country, or other countries, overcoming and surpassing Canada in its experimentation and results (d) failure to obtain overseas interest and sales in the event of successful completion of experimentation and production of a prototype?
5.	With reference to the federal expenditures on the Avro Arrow, Bob-Cat and hydrofoil craft, did the government have prior consultation with any other government, or have a joint working and financial agreement and, if so, with what country and on what research and production endeavour?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. $397,212,000 based on Department of National Defence records; five.
2.	$9,252,908.
3.	As of 1 October, 1967, $40,117,000 which includes the sum of $517,000 spent by the

Department of Defence Production for a hydrofoil design study.
4.	Re part 1, see House of Commons Debates, February 20, 1959, pages 1221-2.
Re part 2, see House of Commons Debates, December 5, 1963, pages 5454-5 and minutes of special committee on defence No. 21, November 19, 1964, page 879.
Re part 3-Not applicable.
5.	No.


DUTY ON CELERY IMPORTS
Mr. Caouette: 1.	What was the duty on celery from the United States over the past two years?
2.	Has the government received representations concerning the duty on this market product?


Hon. Mifchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1.	Fresh celery is classified under tariff item 8709-1. Celery imported from the United States is subject to a seasonal duty of 2 cents per pound for a period of up to 24 weeks annually. For the balance of the year celery comes in free of duty. These rates have been in effect since 1959.
2.	Representations were received in 1965 in connection with the Kennedy round negotiations requesting that the tariff not be reduced.


EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Mr. Caouette: How much has each province received in equalization payments under federal-provincial agreements since their inauguration?


Mitchell William Sharp: Equalization payments-Period April 1, 1957 to March 31, 1967: Newfoundland, $245,242,000; Prince Edward Island, $68,465,000; Nova Scotia, $317,383,000; New Brunswick, $275,990,000; Quebec, $863,477,000; Ontario, -; Manitoba, $174,446,000; Saskatchewan, $239,548,000; Alberta, $90,586,000; British Columbia, $29,735,000.
Included in the totals shown above for the four Atlantic provinces are the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants which these provinces received during the fiscal years 1958-59 to 1966-67. These amounts are: Newfoundland, $82,500,000; Prince Edward Island, $27,500,000; Nova Scotia, $82,500,000; New Brunswick, $82,500,000.
November 27, 1967


PAYMENTS TO FAMILY OF DEAD INDIAN GIRL
Mr. Thompson: 1.	What amount did the Peigan band pay the parents of the 14-month old Peigan reserve Indian girl who died of malnutrition, during the period September 1, 1966, to September 1, 1967?
2.	What amount of family allowances was paid to this family during the same period?
3.	What other known payments other than federal government, did this family receive during this period?
4.	What amount was paid in welfare or other payments to this family by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development since September 1, 1956?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. $18
in December 1966.
2.	$672.
3.	$2,323 from workmen's compensation and approximately $600 from wages in beet fields.
4.	$841.72 in the period September 1, 1966 to September 1, 1967.


KINGSCLEAR INDIAN RESERVE, N.B.-PAYMENT FOR LAND FLOODED
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Are the Indians of the Kingsclear reservation of New Brunswick to be compensated for their land which is being flooded by the Mactaquac power project?
2.	If so, what is the total amount of compensation to be paid?


Arthur Laing: 1. According to the records of the department, there is no land which has been or is being flooded on the Kingsclear reserve No. 6.
2.	Not applicable.


AIR POLLUTION STUDIES
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	What were the total expenditures of the Department of National Health and Welfare in 1965-1966 and 1966-1967 for measures to study and control air pollution (a) what is the proposed budget for such measures for the year 1967-1968 (b) how many people and what specific positions in the Department of National Health and Welfare have been active in carrying out air pollution studies during the last three years?
2.	Have any monitoring stations been established to determine air pollution and, if so (a) how many (b) where are they situated?
3.	What specific air pollutants are now being measured?
4.	What specific sources of air pollutants are being studied?
Questions
5.	What health studies have been carried out and what other studies are being carried out to determine the effects and diseases produced by air pollution?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. 1965-1966,
$352,794*; 1966-1967, $279,500**. (a) 19671968, $507,440**
* Prorating is approximate.
** Estimated final expenditures not available.
(b) The air pollution program of National Health and Welfare is conducted by the occupational health division. The following professional and technical staff of this division are engaged either full time or part time in air pollution activities: Medical officers, 2; Research scientists, 5; Chemists, 5; Engineers, 4; Technical officers and technicians, 22; Total, 38.
The chief of the division of occupational health and the consultant in charge of air pollution and industrial hygiene, of that division, are responsible for directing the air pollution program.
2.	(a) 19; (b) As part of the monitoring program being developed in Canada, the following cities provide measurements: Vancouver, Port Alberni, Chilliwack, Prince George, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, London, Windsor, Sarnia, Saint John, Sydney and Glace Bay.
3.	The following pollutants are being measured, not all pollutants are measured at each sampling site: Smoke density or haze, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, ozone or oxidant, nitrogen oxides.
4.	Specific sources of pollution being investigated in co-operation with provincial authorities: (a) Industries on both sides of the international boundary at Detroit-Windsor and Port Huron-Sarnia; (b) Heavy water plant (Deuterium Limited), Grace Bay, and proposed heavy water plant in Canso Strait area; (c) Pulp and paper industry, Saint John, New Brunswick; (d) Forest aerial pesticide spraying in New Brunswick; (e) Pulp and paper mills in Alberta and British Columbia; (f) Automobile exhaust emission and industrial sources of pollution. National Capital Commission area.
5.	Public health grant funds have been used to support health studies related to air pollution in British Columbia and in Montreal, Quebec. In addition to these studies, laboratory research projects have also been supported in several Canadian universities.

November 27, 1967
Questions
The occupational health division of the Department of National Health and Welfare has conducted community health studies in Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories with respect to specific environmental contaminants.
In 1966, the Department of National Health and Welfare developed a health effects committee which has designed a program of community health study and review of existing health data to be correlated with air pollution findings. The members of this committee, consisting of a representative from the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Health, province of Ontario, and the University of British Columbia, also serve as the Canadian representatives on the Effects Subcommittee advising the International Joint Commission on the studies being undertaken in the Windsor-Detroit and Sar-nia-Port Huron area.


GRANTS IN LIEU OF TAXATION, CUMBERLAND CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Coates: 1.	What will be the amount of the grant in lieu of taxation that will be available to the town of Springhill from the federal government for the young offender's penal institution?
2.	What was the total amount received by the towns and municipalities in Cumberland in grants in lieu of taxation from the federal government for the year 1966, and what is the estimated grant that will be available to these bodies in 1967?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	Estimated to be $90,000 for the year 1967.
2.	For the year 1966, $134,004. For the year 1967 (estimated), $141,200.


YOUNG OFFENDERS INSTITUTION, SPRINGHILL, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date will the young offenders penal institution at Springhill be fully operational and have a full complement of inmates?
2.	How many inmates are presently housed in this institution?
3.	What is the anticipated total staff requirement when the institution is in full operation?
4.	What is the estimated annual payroll when the institution is in full operation?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. It
is not possible to specify the exact date by which this institution will be fully operational and have a full complement of inmates, as inmates will be phased in over approximately a two year period, which commenced with the [Mr. MacEachen.l
admission of the first inmates in September 1967.
2. 60.
3.	241.
4.	Approximately $1,500,000.


RECONSTRUCTION OF HOT POOL, KOOTENAY NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	In reference to a reconstruction contract for the hot pool at Radium Hot Springs in Kootenay national park, B.C., how much larger will the new pool be than the former one?
2.	How many people used the pool in 1965 and 1966?
3.	What are the names of the directors of the firm which was awarded the tender, namely Inspiration Limited of Calgary?
4.	How many tenders were submitted, and what were the costs submitted by the tenderers?


Mr. Sianley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the length and the technical factors involved in the answer to this question, may I ask for the consent of the house to have the answer printed as read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer referred to above is as follows.]
1.	The new pool will be 95 per cent larger than the former one, 7020 square feet vs. 3600 square feet.
2.	Admissions from April 1, 1965 to March
31,	1966 were 293,059; admissions from
April 1, 1966 to March 31, 1967 were 329,172. This is an increase by 36,113 admissions or 12 per cent.
3.	Inspiration Limited is a company with headquarters in Montreal and 12 regional offices in Canada; Calgary is one of the regional offices. The company has in addition two offices in England and three offices in Africa. The directors are: W. I. M. Turner, Jr., Chairman; W. F. Dawson, President; F. E. Blanc, J. D. Campbell, K. Graber, P. B. Hall, D. N. Kendall, H. S. Millican, P. N. Thompson, W. Howard Wert, C.A., John R. Yarnell.
4.	Four tenders were submitted and the
costs tendered were: $328,400, Bennett and White, Burnaby, B.C.;	$290,134, Granby
Installation, Castlegar, B.C.; $222,000, Burns and Dutton, Calgary, Alberta; $218,700, Inspiration Limited, Calgary, Alberta.
November 27, 1967


RAIN MAKING MACHINES, PORTNEUF CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Godin: 1.	How many rainmaking machines were in operation in the constituency of Portneuf during the summer of 1967?
2.	How many technicians employed by the federal government were assigned to the maintenance of these machines?
3.	How many of these machines are to be installed in the next few months?
4.	How many employees are working on the project?
5.	What type of conveyance (a) truck (b) helicopter, is used by these workers travelling, in particular, around St. Raymond mountains?
6.	What will be the total cost of the project when completed?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by several departments as follows: 1. None.
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Not applicable.


ASSISTANCE TO FEED COMPANIES, PREECEVILLE, SASK.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has Producers Feeds (Sask.) Company Limited of Preeceville, Saskatchewan, or Premier Feeds Company Limited of Preeceville, Saskatchewan, applied for financial assistance under the area development program?
2.	If so (a) has approval been given for such financial assistance and (b) what payments have been made to date and on what dates were such payments made?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1. Producers Feeds (Sask.) Company Limited, Preeceville, Saskatchewan, has applied to the area development agency for assistance under the Area Development Incentives Act. Premier Feeds Company Limited has not made an application for assistance.
2. (a) Yes. (b) May 10, 1966, $21,959.19; April 5, 1967, $9,048.94.


MAILING OF SAVINGS BOND INCOME TAX FORM
Mr. Harkness: 1.	When Canada savings bonds interest payments
were sent out on November 1, why was a notice Included stating that the T5 form would be mailed not later than February 28,	1968, rather than
including this form with the interest payment as has been done previously?
2.	What is the estimated cost of making this second mailing to all registered bond holders?
Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Because holders of fully registered Canada savings bonds who redeem their bonds up to August 31 in each year receive accrued interest to date of redemption from the bank branch which redeems them, the records at Ottawa must be adjusted to allow for these transactions before any cheques can be prepared. By the time all such bonds reach Ottawa from bank branches coast to coast and have been processed, the time remaining for cheque preparation is limited. The number of holders of fully registered Canada savings bonds is now so great that if the cheques and forms T5 were both to be prepared in time for all of them to reach bond holders by November 1st, expensive additional equipment, which would only be used for a short time each year, and more staff would have been required. Of total production time, about two thirds is needed on forms T5 and one third on cheques, whether they are produced in one operation or two.
2. By delaying production of forms T5 until after the cheques are prepared additional costs have been avoided which would be much larger than the stationery mailing and other costs involved in the present separate despatch of T5 forms.


DESIGNATED AREA ASSISTANCE, OWEN SOUND-COLLINGWOOD-MIDLAND
Mr. Noble: 1.	What are the names of the 31 industries in the Owen Sound area that received benefits from designated area assistance?
2.	How many new industries went into the Owen Sound area under designation?
3.	How many new industries went into the Col-lingwood area under designation?
4.	How many new industries went into the Midland area under designation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. In the Owen Sound Canada manpower centre area, 22 new industries and expansions to existing industries are now in production or in the process of being established and have received, or are expected to receive, assistance under the area development program. The names of the industries are: Amerock Ltd., Backhaus Brothers Furniture Industries, Barton Feeders Company Limited, Black Clawson-Kennedy Ltd., Bow-Mar Assemblies, George Stanley Brown, Canadian Pittsburgh Industries, Continental Brick & Tile Co. Limited, Globe Mills Limited, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company of Canada Limited, The Hobart Manufacturing Company

November 27, 1967
Questions
Limited, Parker-Hannifin (Canada) Ltd., Port Elgin Cabinetmakers Limited, RCA Victor Company, Ltd., Reliance-Reeves-Master Limited, Richardson, Bond & Wright Limited, Armin E. M. Starke, Stevens-Hepner Company Limited, Thomson Beverages Limited, Trimfoot Company Limited, Vandestadt & McGruer, Wardrop and Buckley.
Applications for assistance have been received by the area development agency covering nine additional projects which are still in the planning stage or are lacking formal decisions. It is not in the public interest to disclose, at this time, the names of the applicants.
2.	Twelve new industries are expected to locate in the Owen Sound Canada manpower centre area and to qualify for assistance under the area development program. Nineteen additional projects involving significant expansions to existing industries in the area are also expected to qualify for assistance under the area development program.
3.	Twelve new industries are expected to locate in the Collingwood Canada manpower centre area and to qualify for assistance under the area development program. Six additional projects involving significant expansions to existing industries in the area are also expected to qualify for assistance under the area development program.
4.	Eight new industries are expected to locate in the Midland Canada manpower centre area and to qualify for assistance under the area development program. Eleven additional projects involving significant expansions to existing industries in the area are also expected to qualify for assistance under the area development program.


NEW DESIGNATED AREAS, ONTARIO
Mr. Noble: What new areas in Ontario will be designated for government assistance?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There are no current plans to designate additional areas in Ontario for purposes of the area development program. The next general review of unemployment and under employment conditions in all areas in Canada is expected to take place in 1968.


CANADIAN WEAPONS USED IN VIET NAM
Mr. Allard: 1. Has Canada supplied any weapons to the United States for the war in Viet Nam?
CMr. Drury.J
2. If so (a) what Canadian government agency has been awarded contracts by the United States defence department since	the beginning	of	thewar in Viet Nam (b) what individuals or Canadian industries have been chosen by the Canadian government agency to	fill these contracts (c)	what isthe total amount	Canada	has received	for	theweapons supplied	to the	United States	in	this
manner since the beginning of the war in Viet Nam (d) what sort of weapons has Canada supplied (e) was the Canadian government agency informed that these weapons would be used for the war in Viet Nam (f) was the government of Canada informed that these weapons would be used for the war in Viet Nam (g) did the Canadian government agency or the government of Canada put any restrictions on the ultimate use of these weapons?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In
so far as the Department of Defence Production is concerned: 1. Defence equipments and supplies sold by Canada to the United States under the aegis of the Canada-United States Production Sharing Program are for the general use of the United States and are not earmarked for any specific purpose. Such defence equipments and supplies are exported directly to the United States and are absorbed into the general inventory of the U.S. Military Services just as U.S. defence equipment purchased by Canada goes into the general inventory of the Canadian Armed Forces. Ultimate disposition and destination of these defence equipments is a matter for decision by the authorities of the recipient nation.
2. Not applicable.


GRAIN ELEVATOR, QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Hamilton: 1.	What was the date of construction of the government grain elevator at Quebec city?
2.	What was the accumulated capital cost of this elevator as of March 31, 1966?
3.	What was the amount of accumulated surplus or deficit as of March 31, 1966?
4.	Did the government offer this elevator for sale or was the government approached and an offer made?
5.	If the government offered the elevator for sale, to whom was it offered, and if the government was approached, which company made the approach?
6.	Was there any tender call issued?
7.	What is the name of the company to which the elevator has been leased and what are the terms?
8.	Has the lease been signed as of November 9, 1967?
November 27. 1967


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Originally constructed in 1914 and subsequently improved and enlarged.
2.	On December 31, 1966, the end of the board's fiscal year, the capital cost of the grain elevator system was $12,281,825.
3.	The National Harbours Board administration of the Quebec elevator commenced in 1936. From that date to December 31, 1966, the accumulated deficit amounted to $1,719,326.00.
4.	The National Harbours Board offered the Quebec grain elevator for sale or lease through advertisements in the public press on January 27, 1967.
5.	See answer to part 4.
6.	See answer to part 4.
7.	Bunge Corporation Limited, which will be required under the lease to operate the facility as a public elevator under a licence from the board of grain commissioners for Canada, to provide for adequate space for grain for domestic consumption, and to construct additional storage for such grain when required by the demand. The initial period of the lease is for 10 years and the lease provides for two renewal options at rental rates to be determined by the National Harbours Board. As proposals for the lease of the elevator were invited by advertisement in the public press, and because of the widespread interest in the lease, a departure from the usual practice is being made by giving the rental figure which is $915,959 per year.
8.	No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. More: 1.	Who is chairman of the unemployment insurance advisory committee?
2.	What salary, honorarium or other remuneration is paid to him?
3.	How many meetings of the advisory committee have been held since January 1, 1937?
4.	What was the duration of each meeting?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1. Dr. Lloyd Francis.
2.	$1,000 honorarium yearly to cover attendance at meetings of committee and in preparation of advisory committee report to the governor in council.
3.	One.
Questions
4.	One full day plus several more days preparing agenda for meeting, sitting dates and preparing the report.


ENGLISH AND FRENCH RADIO AND TELEVISION NETWORKS
Mr. Caouefte: Does the government intend to bring into existence a radio and television network in French and English across the whole country?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Bill C-163, now being considered by the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, declares in subsections 2(e) and 2(g)(ii) that all Canadians are entitled to broadcasting service in English and French, and to the national broadcasting service, as public funds become available.


WESTERN QUEBEC-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ASSISTANCE
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	How many firms in western Quebec were helped financially by the Industrial Development Bank?
2.	What are these industries?
3.	What amounts were supplied?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1, 2 and 3. The annual report of the Industrial Development Bank for the year ended September 30, 1966, contains information regarding the number and amount of loans by size, by province and by type of business. A further breakdown of the information is not a matter of public record.


* DISPOSITION OF GREAT RING OF CANADA
Mr. Smallwood: 1.	Has the government come to any decision regarding the disposition of the centennial gift of the American people to the Canadian people, namely the Great Ring of Canada?
2.	Would the government consider placing this munificent gift in the halls of the Houses of Parliament?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale):: 1. No decision has been reached about the ultimate disposition of the Great Ring of Canada, but arrangements are being made for its temporary display in the National Library where it can be seen by the public.

November 27, 1967
Questions
2. The Houses of Parliament are under the control of the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons, with whom discussions are proceeding about the permanent display of this splendid gift from the people of the United States of America.


OLD AGE ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
Mr. Clermont: 1.	What was the total outlay for old age assistance allowances for the following fiscal years 1962-1963, 1963-1964, 1964-1965, 1965-1966, 1966-1967 (a) in Canada (b) in the province of Quebec (c) in the federal constituency of Labelle?
2.	What was the percentage of the federal contribution to these allowances?
3.	How many persons received such allowances (a) in Canada (b) in the province of Quebec (c) in the federal constituency of Labelle?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Old Age
Assistance Payments (Total outlay)
1962-	1963
1963-	1964
1964-	1965
1965-	1966
1966-	1967
(a)
Canada

(b)
Quebec

(c) Figures are not available.
2. The federal contribution is fifty per cent of the total outlay. Since April 1, 1965, federal contributions have been made to Quebec under the Established rangements) Act.	Programs	(Interim	Ar-
3. Number of persons receiving old assistance at the end of each fiscal year:			age
	(a)	(b)	
	Canada	Quebec	
March 31,1963	103,159	37,086	" " 1964	105,241	38,206	" " 1965	107,354	39,239	" " 1966	84,959	31,971	" " 1967	58,363	22,817	
(c) See 1 (c) above.
[E nglish]


CANADIAN FOREIGN ASSETS NATIONALIZED
Mr. Caouette: 1. Has the government any record showing the number of claims Canadians have made in connection with their assets in other countries which have been nationalized without compensation and, if so, what are such claims and in what countries?

2.	Is the government of Canada negotiating with those countries so that the Canadians concerned will receive fair compensation?
3.	Has the Cuban government nationalization program affected Canadian industries or capital and, if so, has the government of Canada taken any steps to protect Canadian interests?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slale for External Affairs: 1. Yes. Pursuant to understandings reached with the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia, the Department of External Affairs has requested and received from Canadian citizens details concerning property in these countries which has been nationalized, expropriated or otherwise taken without compensation. In addition, the Department has on record a number of nationalization claims which have arisen in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia, Cuba, the United Arab Republic and Communist China, as well as in the Eastern zone of Germany. These claims have resulted, generally speaking, from the nationalization or other taking of urban real property, residential property, farm land, industries, bank accounts and other debts, bonds, mortgages, etc. However, pursuant to a well-established principle of international law, the Canadian Government can advance only those claims which belonged to the Canadian citizens at the time of loss and continuously thereafter until the presentation of the claims to the foreign governments.
2. A settlement of Canadian claims against Bulgaria in respect of nationalized property was reached on June 30, 1966. Under an Anglo-Yugoslav agreement signed on December 23, 1948, a former owner of expropriated property in Yugoslavia, who had Canadian citizenship or other British subject status at the time and who gave due notice of claim, could have obtained limited compensation. Canadian officials have held to date three rounds of negotiations with Hungarian authorities in an attempt to reach a lump-sum settlement of Canadian claims against Hungary. A fourth round will begin on November 27. Negotiations toward a lump-sum settlement of claims against Poland are expected to begin early next year and it is hoped that it will be possible to start negotiations next year as well with Romania and Czechoslovakia. Consideration is being given to raising with certain other governments the claims of Canadian citizens in respect of property which has been nationalized or otherwise taken.
November 27, 1967

3.	Yes. The Canadian Government has succeeded in obtaining payment of certain commercial debts owing to Canadian companies. Other such commercial debts are currently under discussion with the Cuban authorities, as is the question of nationalizations.


I.D.B. ASSISTANCE IN PORTNEUF AND CHAMPLAIN CONSTITUENCIES
Mr. Godin: 1.	How many businesses in the constituencies of Portneuf and Champlain have received financial assistance from the Industrial Development Bank?
2.	What are the industries that have received assistance?
3.	What sums have they received?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1, 2 and 3: The annual report of the Industrial Development Bank for the year ended September 30, 1966 contains information regarding the number and amount of loans by size, by province and by type of business. A further breakdown of the information is not a matter of public record.


SALES TAX ON FENCE TRANSFORMERS
Mr. Godin: Does the government intend to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on regulating devices (transformers) for electrical fences used by farmers?


Mitchell William Sharp: This question concerns budget policy. If the government proposes any additional exemptions from sales tax it will be announced at the appropriate time.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMS BY YUKON RESIDENTS
Mr. Nielsen: How many Yukon residents claimed unemployment insurance benefits for each of the months October, November and December in 1966 and for each of the months of January to October inclusive in 1967 through the office of the unemployment insurance commission in Prince George, British Columbia?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am informed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission that no statistics are available with respect to the number of Yukon residents who claim unemployment insurance
Questions
benefits through the commission's office at Prince George, British Columbia.


OLD AGE SECURITY PAYMENTS
Mr. Davis: In respect of old age security (a) how much was paid out to individual Canadians in 1966 (b) what is the estimated amount that would have been paid out had old age security been available at age 65 (c) what amounts were collected in 1966 from (i) 3 per cent tax on corporate incomes (ii) 3 per cent tax on sales (iii) 4 per cent tax on individual incomes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: (a) $1,006,329,265; (b) $1,385,593,200; (c)(i) $152,800,000; (ii) $547,500,000; (iii) $539,000,000.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to bring to the attention of the Acting Prime Minister that 181 questions are listed on the order paper of which 29 were answered today, leaving a total of 152. I raised this matter previously and asked the ministers to try to answer these questions as promptly as possible. However, no attention has been paid to my request, as is evidenced by the growing number of questions on the order paper. The last time I believe there were 135 questions; now there are 152. We are continuously being asked to put questions on the order paper. We do so in the hope we may get answers within a reasonable time. Therefore I ask the Acting Prime Minister if he would try to get some co-operation from the ministers in answering these questions.


Hon. Paul  Marfin@Acting Prime Minister: As my hon. friend has remarked, he has raised this question before. He will recall that in reply the Prime Minister pointed out that we were most anxious to co-operate and see that questions were answered as quickly as possible. When the Prime Minister made this reply he also observed that an analysis revealed the record of responses by this government to questions is very good.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: should like to protest very strongly the fact that question No. 426 standing in my name has been on the order paper for some two months. It is a straightforward question, and I can think of no reason why the government has not answered it long ago.

November 27, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


REFERENCE TO EXCHANGE BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT DE GAULLE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister about the public exchange of criticism between the Prime Minister of Canada and the president of France which took place earlier today. I think I may be permitted to say, quite apart from the merits or demerits of what was said on either side, that this is an extraordinary way to carry on international relations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should ask his question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My question is, could the Acting Prime Minister give the house any helpful information on the background and circumstances of this exchange, and in particular could he tell us whether the remarks of the Prime Minister preceded those of General de Gaulle, were contemporaneous, or were made subsequently, and was this exchange entirely accidental or was it in any way planned?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, my belief is that the speech made by the Prime Minister this morning in London when he received the freedom of the city was completely unrelated to the remarks made by the president during the course of a press conference. As a matter of fact I have been advised that when the Prime Minister was about to take his plane he was advised that observations had been made by the president of the French Republic. The Prime Minister's reply was that he would not make any comment until he had seen the text. My own examination of the Prime Minister's speech bears out the view that the two statements were completely unrelated.
While I am on my feet, I should like to answer another part of the question and this I shall do in French.

We have just received the first reports of the press conference given by the president of France. However, there seems to be certain doubts about his exact statement about Quebec.
Of course, before deciding, the government will have to consider carefully the statement of the president of the French Republic. But I can add even now that the government, in considering these texts, will keep in mind two main considerations: On the one hand, our

traditional and steadfast friendship for France and, on the other hand, our obligation, as a government representing the whole country on the international level, to exercise our rights and to allow no interference in our domestic affairs.


Mr. Fulion:: May I ask a supplementary question. Could the Acting Prime Minister obtain for the house an official text of the remarks made by our Prime Minister in London at the Mansion House luncheon, and could the Acting Prime Minister use the offices of the Department of External Affairs to obtain an official transcript from France of what the president of France said there so the two texts could then be made available to the house?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: I would be glad to do so.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the many significant discussions regarding the future of Canadian confederation which have taken place this past week end I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government would be prepared to change its attitude, even at this late date, toward the Confederation of Tomorrow conference and send members of the cabinet to that conference, even if only as observers.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Aciing Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows there are four observers at the conference. The matter referred to in my hon. friend's question has already been anticipated in an earlier reply of the Prime Minister.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement in the letter of the premier of Alberta, tabled a few days ago, rejecting the idea of a constitutional guarantee of the equality of language rights wherever practicable in Canada, would the Acting Prime Minister assure the house that the federal government will remain firm on this point at the projected federal-provincial conference?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, federal-provincial conferences are not formally constituted
November 27, 1967

bodies. Those who participate do not vote, and there is no right of veto. We do propose, of course, to discuss basic issues and basic rights. Premier Manning's preliminary position represents his own point of view, but it seems to me it must be borne in mind that such views as he entertains may not be typical of those of the majority of English speaking Canadians, who I believe are prepared to take a more flexible attitude in order to promote the unity of Canada.


BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, could the Acting Prime Minister tell us when the report of the Laurendeau-Dun-ton commission on bilingualism will be tabled and put at the disposal of hon. members?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a definite answer, but the Prime Minister is expected back tonight. According to something I received last week, I am under the impression that it is quite likely that the commission will submit its report to the Prime Minister towards the end of this week perhaps, but I am not sure.


SHIPPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. B. Pallerson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can he report any progress toward a settlement of the port of Montreal dispute?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I cannot report any real progress. As I intimated in my remarks on Friday last, there is a serious question before the courts, in proceedings, which I had hoped might have been instituted some two weeks ago. The parties are now involved in litigation seeking an interpretation as to their rights. The judge who heard the application said he would deal with the matter with dispatch. When the judgment is known-today, tomorrow or whenever it is-the government will be watching the
Inquiries of the Ministry situation carefully, and we will be guided to some extent by the decision in that case.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Is the government contemplating any direct action or initiative to bring these parties together and reach some understanding on their disagreement?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: My department is constantly in touch with both sides and the situation is being followed closely. Should the situation warrant further direct action by me or by the government, it will be taken. We are certainly not contemplating any further action unless there is undue delay in the decision in the case that is now pending in the courts.


Michael Starr: A further supplementary question, and I direct it to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour. Since the minister is reluctant to take action, and since I am aware of the keener appreciation of the parliamentary secretary of what is involved in this dispute-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot ask a question in this way. I suggest that he is reviving the emergency debate which went on for many hours on Friday.


Michael Starr: I am asking the parliamentary secretary to take all steps possible to bring the parties together.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Turner:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, when the minister is in the house a question having to do with the administration of his department quite properly ought to be directed to him.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question about this; I was merely waiting for the hon. member to complete asking his question. He knows that is so.


Michael Starr: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand that the rules say no member may ask a parliamentary secretary a question if his minister is in the house? Is that correct?


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: May I
direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Since Friday last has one of the parties in the dispute asked for the minister to intervene personally?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, Mr. Speaker.

November 27, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE


FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE-ASSISTANCE TO U.K.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: My
question is for the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence may I direct it to the acting minister. Has the federal government any specific plans to assist the United Kingdom government in their efforts to clear up foot and mouth disease in that country? Clearing up the disease over there would help prevent the spread of that disease to Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My recollection is that this question was asked last week.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: My
question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics over the week end that during the first seven months of the year federal government expenditures increased by 15 per cent over the same period last year, does the minister intend to announce to the house this week the reductions he intends to bring about in the estimates for 1967-68?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall be dealing with this year's expenditures as well as next year's in my statement on Thursday.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to assure the house that no supplementary estimates will be brought down this year save in respect of emergencies and errors, to which this government is susceptible? If he cannot give that assurance, can he advise us what will be the total amount of any estimates it is proposed to bring in by way of supplementary estimates for this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the further supplementary estimates will be brought down in due course. I can assure the house that the statement I made about our budgetary limitations this year will be observed, and that any supplementaries have already been taken into account in our estimates of expenditures.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has Greece as yet begun to reduce its armed forces in Cyprus? If so, by how much? At the same time may I ask whether Turkey has commenced to reduce its armed forces in the ports adjacent to Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the question of reduction of forces and withdrawal of forces is the issue that is now being discussed, and until agreement is reached I cannot answer the question. My hon. friend will remember that on Friday last the security council reached a consensus that called on the parties to refrain from any action. Mr. Vance, the emissary of the president of the United States and Mr. Rolz-Bennet, the representative of the Secretary General, are now in the Mediterranean area discussing, in the capitals of Turkey and Greece, the matter involved in my hon. friend's question together with other questions which could bring about a settlement.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since I gather from the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that no reduction of armed forces has yet taken place, may I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Has a decision as yet been reached about whether Canada will increase her armed forces under United Nations command in Cyprus?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: We have had no request to do so, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is part of the normal rotation of the Canadian troops in Cyprus, which I believe should take place in December, being proceeded with, or in view of the situation on that island at the present time is this rotation being delayed?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: This rotation took place six weeks ago, Mr. Speaker.
November 27, 19S7



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address what might be considered a more or less philosophical question to the Minister of Finance. Urgency is attached to it, inasmuch as more than 172,000 war veterans disability pensioners are now on tenterhooks, and this information is now required in connection with several forthcoming national conventions.
Has the minister or members of the government received representations from the Royal Canadian Legion or other veterans organizations which outline their views with respect to the principles of income taxation as related to disability pensions and allowances? If so, what was the government's response to these representations?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have received representations such as the hon. gentleman has referred to, and I can assure him that these representations will certainly be given the most sympathetic consideration.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: have a question for the Minister of Transport, whom I should like to welcome back on his safe return from his trip to the mari-times over the week end. I should like to ask the minister where we stand now on this question of the Digby-Saint John ferry. Are we to take it, from his very disappointing statement, that this is now to be left to the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: We are two days closer to a solution than we were on Saturday, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: Can the minister indicate a time limit, bearing in mind that his predecessor gave many time limits, all of which were passed by?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will say this; from conversations in Saint John I understand that this was also true of previous governments. As an experienced politician I am sure the hon. member will agree with me when I say it is better to pursue a matter diligently than to
Inquiries of the Ministry set a date which we might not be able to meet by a few days.



REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF REPORT ON ATLANTIC PROBLEMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: My
question too is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the minister to refer the special study on transportation in the Atlantic provinces to the committee on transportation and have that committee hold public hearings in the Atlantic provinces, so that all problems related to transportation might be considered on site as was done by the committee in western Canada recently?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is a comprehensive policy question and I will take it under advisement.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Minister of Transport. Did the minister have an opportunity to meet with the Atlantic premiers in Toronto over the week end to discuss transportation problems? If not, when does the minister intend to meet with the premiers, as was promised by Premier Robichaud at a meeting which I attended recently in Halifax?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I was not able during the week end to meet with them, but I shall be glad to do so at their convenience. I think we can work out a mutually agreeable arrangement.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: Mr. Speaker, this question arises from the answer given by the Minister of Transport. When the minister was asked whether the transportation committee would conduct meetings in the maritimes his reply was that this was a very comprehensive question. What is the difference between the transportation committee conducting meetings on the east coast or the west coast?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize himself that the question is argumentative.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Would the minister check the remarks made by the former minister of transport during the debate in the house, when he promised members from the Atlantic provinces-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

November 27, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS



INQUIRY AS TO INCREASES IN PENSIONS AND DISABILITY ALLOWANCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I have a question to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Bearing in mind the approach of the Christmas season, can the minister now say when we may expect legislation to increase veterans allowances and disability pensions?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I am not at present in a position to answer that question directly.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, on November 17 last I put a question to the Minister of Transport which could be summarized as follows: Can the minister confirm whether there will be winter navigation on the Saguenay river? If so, will his department provide icebreaker service to keep the channel open on the river this winter?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What we did last year, as I understand it, was to make some probes into the river to determine the feasibility of maintaining navigation. The proposal is to repeat the process this year in order to gain additional information. It would be the intention of the department to attempt these probes at a time when the operation might be most beneficial to the ships which would like to use these waters during the winter months. There seems to be insufficient traffic at the moment to require that continuous icebreaking facilities be made available. However, we shall certainly pursue the investigations which were begun last year, and try to do so in a manner which would be of the greatest assistance to any shippers who would like to use the river ports.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: As a
supplementary question arising out of the minister's answer, Mr. Speaker, does he or the government think if this waterway were kept open throughout the winter there would be a gradual pickup in new traffic using it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is argumentative.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Minister of Transport tell the house whether his department has determined the costs involved to keep Montreal harbour open and permit navigation on the St. Lawrence throughout the year?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I could not say, Mr. Speaker, but as my hon. friend knows additional icebreaking facilities are being built to prevent flooding on the St. Lawrence river. This also will tend to keep the channel more open than previously for shippers who desire to use those facilities during the winter months.


Georges-J. Valade: As a further supplementary question, would the minister consider informing the house that such a study would be to the advantage of the people in general, to see what is the difference between the cost for icebreaking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's supplementary question is argumentative.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker,
in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister what action the government is taking to safeguard Canada's competitive position in the British market in light of the fact that a number of our competitors, especially those supplying agricultural products, have improved their competitive position relative to Canada's by devaluing their currencies.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend with his great experience would agree that this is a question of which I should take notice.
November 27, 1967



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques-Carfier-Lasalle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the Department of National Defence laying off employees at the naval depot situated in the city of La Salle, giving only two day's notice to its employees'. If so, is this the department's normal procedure with respect to such notice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made a representation to the government which I am sure has been noted.


Raymond Rock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Since the railway employees receive two weeks notice before lay-offs, does he not feel that defence employees should receive equal treatment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that the question is argumentative.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and ask him whether the government is contemplating introducing amendments during the current session of parliament to correct the injustice which occurs through old age pensioners' supplementary payments, in respect of changes in their income status during the current year.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have under consideration within the department certain changes that might be made to improve the administration of the guaranteed income supplement. I cannot say with certainty when it will be possible to bring in these amendments, but I doubt very much whether it will be possible this session.


Michael Starr: As a supplementary question, in planning these amendments is the minister contemplating making their effect retroactive in order to correct the situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, all aspects of the matter will be given consideration, including retroactivity.
Inquiries of the Ministry



REQUEST THAT DECEMBER CHEQUES BE ISSUED BEFORE CHRISTMAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I put this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare while there is yet time for him to do something about the matter. Would it be possible for the December old age security pension cheques to be sent out to our old age pensioners so they might receive them a few days before Christmas rather than a few days afterward?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this question comes up almost every year. It has been the policy of the department not to make any change in the date for sending out these cheques for the reason that if the cheques were sent out before Christmas, as many of us would like, there would be a considerably longer gap between those cheques and the following ones, and most pensioners are accustomed to budget on a particular time schedule. This particular gesture, I think, might be more harmful than helpful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, how did the minister make out when he spoke to the Minister of Finance about the possibility of a Christmas bonus?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has he consulted with the Minister of Finance with regard to a centennial bonus of $100 for each of our senior citizens?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not think the question is very urgent. In any event it was asked previously by the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it wasn't answered.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I point out that when I originally asked this question the minister said he would consult with the Minister of Finance. I would now like to know whether he has consulted with the Minister of Finance, and what is the result?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member thinks there is urgency to the matter he might give notice that the question be debated at the time of adjournment.

November 27, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



WHEAT-REPORTED REDUCTION IN EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but since he is not in the house I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. It has to do with a very serious problem, namely the export of wheat. During the first two months of the last crop year there were 116 million bushels of wheat exported. This year only 52 million bushels have been exported. Would the minister look into this serious problem and see to it that the farmers are able to export more wheat in order to pay their expenses?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is some time since my hon. friend and I were jointly associated in the active pursuit of the welfare of the agricultural community. The question my hon. friend asks gives me an opportunity to say that perhaps no administration has been more active in this regard than the present one.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the rapid reduction of skilled staff on the railways, such as telegraphers, and the hardships being created by lay-offs as the result of automation and technological change, will the government in the near future be bringing forward legislation to implement the recommendations of the Freedman commission?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, no legislation is contemplated for introduction at this session to implement any such recommendations.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Due to the fact that there is some apprehension in the country over the imminent increase in taxes, can the minister tell the house whether medicare will be delayed

beyond the date set for it to become operable?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid this question was asked many times last week.


George Robson Muir: It has never been
answered.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to address to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs, or maybe I should address it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. Having in mind the move which I understand has been made by France at the United Nations, calling for the United Nations to oust nationalist China and seat the People's Republic of China, what is Canada's position on this issue?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, Canada's position is that we believe mainland China should be seated in the United Nations. We also believe that Formosa should continue to be a member of that organization, and for that reason we will abstain on a resolution that seeks both to seat mainland China and to expel Formosa. The only way which we can give legitimate expression to our one China-one Formosa policy is in the manner we followed last year.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: As a supplementary question, in view of the remarks made from time to time by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in supporting this one China-one Formosa policy as expressed a moment ago, will the Canadian delegation be presenting its own resolution to the United Nations this fall?


Mr.   Marfin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I have stated what our position is and what procedure we intend to follow.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As a further supplementary question, is it the intention of Canada to support this year's Albanian resolution at the United Nations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker, I said we would abstain.
November 27, 1967



MANPOWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but in his absence I should like to direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the serious breakdown in the government's manpower retraining program as reported in today's Globe and Mail, what steps does the government intend to take to rectify this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that his question is much too wide and should not be asked in this form at this time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as house leader. A few days ago I asked him whether he would consult with the other members of the government and bring forward to the agriculture committee the recent report of the Economic Council of Canada on the economic impact of ARDA, P.F.R.A. and M.M.R.A. Is the minister now in a position to report to the house in respect of what action has been taken?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the matter of a reference to the committee is one for the respective ministers, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, in consultation with the chairman of the committee. I have begun this process of consultation to determine whether there is any desirability of making a reference to the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development. If so I would be quite happy to do my part.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Economic Council of Canada reports to the Minister of Finance, and in view of the fact that he has now received a copy of this report, will the minister table this report in the house in order to facilitate its reference to the appropriate committee?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the question of the hon. gentleman is based on a false assumption. The Economic Council of Canada does not report to me.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the Minister of Finance was good enough to remind me it is the Minister of National Revenue who is responsible for the Economic Council of Canada. Since I believe he is waiting to answer my question as to whether he will table this report in the house in order to facilitate its reference to the appropriate committee, perhaps he might be given an opportunity to do so at this time.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: It is a wrong guess again. The Economic Council of Canada reports to the Prime Minister.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. It is based on a news report which appeared in a west coast paper recently. I should like to ask the minister whether any negotiations are being carried on between the federal government and the province of British Columbia regarding the development of a super port at Roberts bank on the west coast.


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



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Earlier the minister indicated that there is a postponement until December 5 of the new rates applicable to the shipment of cream by rail. Will the railways now be permitted to implement these new rates on December 5, or are there further developments in the matter?
4718	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There has been a further postponement, Mr. Speaker, in order to give interested parties an opportunity to get together to discuss the situation further.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question. Could the minister indicate for how long the further postponement is?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am
informed it is for 60 days from December 5.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barneit (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should like to ask the minister whether we are any closer to having a national clean air act for Canada than we were when we discussed this matter in the house a month ago.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Recently the whole question of pollution was dealt with at a meeting of the dominion council of health, which is composed of representatives of all the provinces. At this meeting considerable progress was made in outlining what could be an appropriate federal role in this whole field. This role is very close to the point of view I had expressed in the house. This has been very helpful, and at the present time we are preparing further material in the department for consideration by the government.


Stanley Haidasz: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he would refer this matter to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons, as well as Bill No. C-25, an act to control air pollution, standing in my name.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the relevant standing committee is the standing committee on health and welfare. At present this committee is fully occupied with consideration of another important subject matter. Following that we are considering having the matter of cigarette advertising sent to that committee. In view of these circumstances it might not

DEBATES	November 27, 1967
be helpful at this time to send the subject matter of pollution to this committee, but I assure my hon. friend that action is being taken and consideration is being given along the lines of my answer.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the chairman of the committee on northern affairs and national resources. Would the chairman convene the committee to consider the entirely reasonable request from the western parks to have the leasehold question referred by the government to the courts for adjudication?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very pleased to call a meeting of the committee, but we must have the authority of the house first. No business has been referred to the committee as yet.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the statement last week by the minister that he had discussed with the Secretary of State for External Affairs the advisability of holding a joint meeting of the two House of Commons committees, the committee on national defence and the committee on external affairs, may I ask whether there is now any possibility that this joint meeting will be held before the Christmas recess in order to discuss NATO and NORAD problems.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this matter is now being taken up by the chairmen of the committees.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of
November 27, 19G7

Trade and Commerce. Will the devaluation of the British pound accelerate the recent sharp increase in the importation of flue cured tobacco from South Africa and Rhodesia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that this is the type of information which should be given to the house at the time of motions by way of a general statement.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nofre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Since there is a certain shortage of housing in Montreal, and since Habitat '67 is almost completely vacant, will the minister state whether C.M.H.C. intend to take over Habitat '67 or whether they would consider making it available to low and middle income families at least on a part time basis?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I would have to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister now in a position to say whether legislation will be presented at this session to provide for raising the ceiling and increasing the benefit rates under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have said several times that it has been my hope that such legislation would be introduced this year. In view of the progress we have made with the legislative timetable it looks extremely doubtful that we will be able to deal with it before Christmas.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the legislation not be put on the order paper, even if it cannot be reached in the house?
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



OTTAWA-INQUIRY AS TO CONSTRUCTION TENDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Desmond Code (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport and ask whether Canadian National Railways have entered into the construction business; and are they given special consideration when they tender on certain jobs here in the city of Ottawa?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This somewhat mysterious question might be placed on the order paper.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice, or in their absence anybody in the cabinet who can might answer it. Since Reginald John Colpitts, who killed a penitentiary guard in Dorchester, New Brunswick, has hanged himself in the British Columbia penitentiary, I would like to ask this question. Had he completed his rehabilitation course, or had he just heard the murderers of prison guards might be hanged in the future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Hasiings-Fronfenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and ask whether he would confer with his counterpart in France, and request that the president of France be committed to an institution before he further damages international relations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's comments are unparliamentary. If the hon. member will consult our precedents and rules he will know that it is not in order to comment upon or refer to the head of a friendly state in that type of language.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for
4720	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs the Registrar General. I should like to ask whether he had referred to him the question I asked last Friday; and if so, is the minister prepared to answer it now?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in view of the position already taken by the Minister of Finance I think the question should properly be directed to him.


Colin Cameron: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On Friday last I asked whether the minister would consider recalling the committee on consumer prices in order that the effect on the whole economy of these increases in the price of copper could be investigated by that committee. My question did not refer merely to the price of copper. Is the minister in a position to do that now?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am on record as being in favour of having that committee reconvened. With regard to the terms of reference, I am currently discussing them with the two co-chairmen and the Prime Minister.



CORPORATE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 17, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-161, to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs-Mr. Turner-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-161, to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs. When the committee rose on Friday, November 17, clause 6 of the bill was under consideration. On that day the Chair was given notice of four amendments to clause 6 of the bill. The first amendment was by the hon. member for Yukon.
On clause 6-Duties re consumer affairs.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I have reread what happened on Friday, November 17-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt on a point of order just to have a matter made clear. When these various amendments were suggested a week ago Friday, I raised the question whether it would be possible for us to make amendments to subclause 1 after subclause 2 had been dealt with. We are quite prepared for subclause 2 to be dealt with first provided our rights are protected. Is that the understanding of the Chair?
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) .1
DEBATES	November 27, 1967


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, our standing orders provide that there shall be clause by clause consideration of a bill in committee of the whole. We are now engaged in discussing and dealing with clause 6 of the bill. I assume, therefore, we can deal with any part of clause 6 and amend any part of it.
The amendment put forward by the hon. member for Yukon, which I propose to move now if it is necessary to move it formally, is one that to some extent deals with matters raised in amendments put forward by other hon. members. I suggest that we deal with them all at the same time. I suggest that we deal with clause 6, subclauses 1 and 2, and when the Chair comes to put the amendments I assume those to subclause 1 will be put first followed by the amendment to subclause 2.
I assume there will be no objection to this course being followed if the Chair feels so disposed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I think it is the usual practice to consider the clause before the committee as one question. At the moment there is just one question before the committee, which is clause 6 of the bill. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yukon was in respect of subclause 2 of clause 6. There would be no objection by the Chair to having that amendment considered. On the other hand, if it is the wish of the committee to proceed subclause by subclause, that is a matter for the committee to decide. However, I should point out that if the amendment which is to be proposed by the hon. member for Peace River were carried it might necessitate a redrafting of the amendments proposed by other hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is quite satisfactory, Mr. Chairman. We are not asking to deal with subclause 1 before we deal with subclause 2. We just want to make sure that we still have the right to deal with subclause 1 provided the situation is not altered by the adoption of the proposed amendment to subclause 2.


John Napier Turner: On the same point of order Mr. Chairman, we intend to argue the admissibility of two of the four amendments. Those two amendments relate to subclause 1. I refer to the one having to do with a prices review board and the other having to do with a corporation empowered to deal with drugs. I leave it to the discretion of the Chair, but I want to reserve my right to argue the admissibility of those amendments when they are put before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is par for the course.
November 27, 1967	COMMONS


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I would suggest to the committee that we deal with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River. If hon. members wish to make a contribution regarding the validity of these amendments, perhaps we should have those contributions in the order in which the amendments are placed before the committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: In that event, Mr. Chairman,
I shall restrict my remarks to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Yukon which I assume I must now formally move. I would call the attention of the Chair to the fact that the amendment was not actually put. Is it the view of the Chair that this should be done now or should I wait until the conclusion of my remarks? I want to make sure that the amendment is in fact put. This comment was made by the Chairman with regard to the matter, as recorded on page 4428 of Hansard:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Perhaps I should point out to the committee that the suggested amendment by the hon. member for Yukon has been read but has not been officially put by the Chair.
I move this particular amendment now.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The amendment as moved by the hon. member for Yukon was read by the Chair. If the hon. member wishes me to put it formally now, I shall do so. It was moved by the hon. member for Yukon:
That subclause (2) of clause 6 of Bill C-161 be amended by deleting the said clause and substituting in its place the following:
Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, the agreement which we have made will make it simpler for me to deal with this matter now. I do not intend to address any of my remarks to the amendments moved by members of the New Democratic party. I will wait until they are dealt with by the Registrar General. With respect to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yukon, I think the arguments in its favour have been well put. I will simply summarize them and leave the matter there in view of the length of time which has already been taken in dealing with this measure.
It is the view of this party that this bill is innocuous, that there is no need for it to be brought forward, that all the powers which are purported to be given to the minister and
27053-298*
DEBATES	4721
Corporate and Consumer Affairs the government are contained in other legislative proposals, that it is merely windowdressing and that it will simply serve as a peg upon which will be hung excessive expenditures. But in order to try to make something out of the bill, an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Yukon. It provides that the minister will have the right not only to engage in research but also in investigation.
Particular reference is made to price increases. It is our view that the primary interest of the consumers lies in the increases in prices which have taken place all across the country. We doubt very much that the federal government has sufficient authority in this regard, and we have made this plain during the course of speeches we have already made. It is our view that the government laboured mightily to produce a misshapen, distorted and twisted mouse with its head where the tail should be and its tail where the head should be. The hon. member for Essex West attempted to reform that distortion by an amendment which put consumer affairs at the head and corporate affairs at the tail. However, this did not have more appeal to us so far as the bill is concerned. We are simply asking that the minister pursue the right of investigation in order to try to determine to what extent the federal government may be able to help the sorely pressed consumer at the present time.
We have made particular reference to price increases in our amendment and in the concluding part have suggested that the minister should report to parliament with his recommendations with regard to this matter. We feel that the government is insinuating through this measure that it may be able to work its way into fields in which it has no jurisdiction.
The problem of fraud has been mentioned. Every sale of an article is a question of civil rights. Every province has legislation dealing with the sale of goods and every province has statutes dealing with fraud. Unless these frauds amount to criminal acts they lie exclusively in the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. Restrictive trade practices lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Consumer credit is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments and advertising, unless it is of a misleading nature, can be the subject of criminal proceedings. Unless the government is prepared to declare that certain acts are criminal in their nature and will provide penalties for them, it has no jurisdiction in that field.
November 27, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs
Under this amendment we propose that the government examine this issue to see to what extent it can, within the framework of the legislation and of clause 6 of the bill, discover whether there is any possibility in conjunction with the provinces of dealing with the very serious problem of price increases. We recognize that the problem of price increases lies within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance and not within that of the Registrar General. As a result of a motion made not so long ago by the Leader of the Opposition we are forbidden to comment on the bad management of the government which has brought about price increases. It was obvious by the vote which was taken at the time that the majority of the supporters of the government, including the Registrar General, accept the fact that the government has managed the finances of this country in a most efficient, economic and careful way and that if price increases have taken place it is someone else's fault and not that of the government.
This being the case, I cannot touch on that matter, but I can say that with the spiral of inflationary price increases which is going on, both because of the government's actions as well as in spite of them, people may take advantage of the situation to establish wage and price increases which are not consistent with the requirements of the time. This may be an area where the government, after suitable investigation in the closest co-operation with the provincial governments, might delegate to some board sufficient responsibility to deal with this issue in cases where there have been glaring and flagrant abuses leading to an inflationary spiral of costs of goods, services and wages.
We move this amendment with that in mind. If the government really intends to do something, then I suggest that the minister can well lend his support to the amendment, and I ask members of the committee to support it.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, we have looked at this amendment with the care which its author indicated it deserves. I want to say at the outset that we reject completely the initial remarks of the hon. member for Peace River which were of course merely an echo of those made by his colleague, the hon. member for Yukon, when he presented the case of the official opposition at the second reading stage, namely, that the department will have no teeth.
I said in closing the debate on second reading-and with your consent, sir, I think I


should answer the argument advanced again today-that this bill does not set forth the entire consumer program of the government. It does not elaborate or describe the powers which will be made available to the department to enforce a consumer program. It empowers the minister and the department to protect consumer interests. It empowers the minister and the department to initiate new measures having to do with consumer interests. The teeth are already in legislation on the statute books of Canada, and this legislation spans the authority of several government departments. The purpose of this bill is to co-ordinate government policy which affects the consumer, to render this legislation more enforceable, to ensure that enforcement is applied on a more uniform basis and to ensure that the legislation is observed and enforced from the point of view of the consumer, a (3:40 p.m.)
There is a good deal of legislation already on the books, Mr. Chairman. I mention section 306 of the Criminal Code relating to misleading advertising, section 33 (c) of the Combines Investigation Act involving the same subject, and the food and drug regulations. There are the series of measures relating to the misleading description of agricultural and fisheries products and legislation under the Canada Corporations Act relating to the disclosure to the public of information in the hands of financial institutions. This and other legislation which we would propose as the department assumes its authority will constitute the teeth in favour of the consumer in so far as this bill is concerned.
This bill gives the department the muscle to exercise and to clamp down with those teeth. So any argument suggesting that the bill does not contain teeth flows from a misreading of the nature of the bill and what it is attempting to do, namely, to co-ordinate and enforce on a uniform basis the existing legislation on the books and give it a perspective, an orientation which is, primarily, the protection of the Canadian consumer.
Turning to the wording of the amendment itself, I may say that what the amendment purports to do is add the power of investigation to clause 6, subclause (2) concerning the power of research. I suggest that what the amendment purports to do, if accepted by this committee, is completely illusory. The minister already has the power of investigation under the provisions of clause 5 of the bill relating to combines and bankruptcy. These powers of investigation are found
November 27, 1967	COMMONS
within the Bankruptcy Act and the Combines Investigation Act. The difficulty here is that this clause would attempt to add new powers of investigation without in any way indicating how these powers would be co-ordinated with the powers that already exist.
I want to say as well that the great difficulty with this amendment is that it purports to give the power of investigation without in reality conferring any power to investigate because any power to investigate should provide the terms of reference and the consequences of such an investigation. Where is the power to compel witnesses? Where is the power to limit the nature and extent of the investigation or inquiry? Where are the limits placed upon the invasion of private rights? In every statute setting forth specific powers of investigation, the limits of the investigation are carefully set forth. Thus, in section 3(a) of the Bankruptcy Act the powers are indicated in clear terms relating to the conduct, dealings and transactions of the bankrupt concerned, the causes of the bankruptcy and the disposition of the property. The powers of inquiry are specifically set forth in that section. There are no powers contemplated in this amendment to implement the investigation.
In the Combines Investigation Act section 8 gives the director of research and investigation power of inquiry but the limits of that inquiry are carefully set forth in part V of that statute as the subject matter of the investigation-offences in relation to trade, conspiracy, mergers and monopolies, price fixing, resale price maintenance, refusal to sell or supply goods. In other words, the terms of reference protect the subject from undue encroachment by anyone launching an inquiry. I want to suggest to the committee in the strongest terms that this amendment is toothless because while it sets forth an assumed power of investigation, in fact it confers no power upon the minister at all, no power to compel witnesses, no power to compel attendance, no power to compel the production of documents. On the other side, and even more important, it does not set limits on the terms of reference which would protect the individual from undue encroachment by an inquiry.
I want to say that when we were discussing this bill amongst ourselves we discussed whether or not it should have a power of inquiry. One of the difficult aspects was how to limit that power of inquiry in strict terms of reference, how to define the subject matter over which the inquiry would be conducted
DEBATES	4723
Corporate and Consumer Affairs without invading severely the rights of people and institutions to resist an inquiry that might be an unwarranted encroachment upon those rights by one minister granted this power within a statute. I want to say that the power of inquiry already exists in the government under the Inquiries Act, and should matters arise of sufficient importance in the opinion of the government to cause such an inquiry to be launched, then the government would do that. However, one must be very careful, I submit to the committee, how one confers the power of inquiry upon a single minister, and it should be done only under a provision which carefully restricts and defines the terms of reference.
Another point of disturbance was the constitutional limitation of such an inquiry power. The hon. member for Peace River quite properly outlined to the committee some areas that lie within provincial jurisdiction and some areas that are shared between the federal and provincial authorities. The consumer interest is shared by both federal and provincial authorities. The purpose of this bill is to confer upon one minister the authority to co-ordinate federal policy relating: to consumer interests with those authorities: having the same jurisdiction within provincial governments. I want to say that an unlimited power of investigation might well provoke constitutional problems. If a minister were unilaterally to embark upon an inquiry which transgressed upon the constitutional field of the provinces, and this amendment makes no reference to limiting the scope of an inquiry, this might well involve challenges in the courts.
In rejecting this amendment, therefore, I want to say that we have not yet fully explored the scope of the existing legislation or its administration and if it should happen, after we become more aware of the responsibilities conferred upon this department, that a specific inquiry power should be lodged in one minister, at that time we would come back to parliament to ask for it. However, we would ask for it in terms that would give the minister power to investigate, power to compel attendance, power to produce documents, power to swear witnesses, and even more important from a civil rights point of view, with definite limits to the scope of the power of inquiry.
Our primary objection, then, to this amendment is that it tends to give the department or the minister the illusion of having an investigatory power, because it uses the word "investigation", without the
4724	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs authority to implement that power. If "investigation" is to have the same meaning as "research", then the addition of the word is unnecessary. But if the word "investigation" is to have the meaning of the word "inquiry", then it is insufficiently defined either in terms of supplementing that power with statutory authority or, more importantly, from the point of view of limiting that power as it relates to the civil rights of citizens. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we would have to reject the amendment.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I have just one comment to make. The minister has referred to illusions. I do not think one more illusion would hurt the bill because it is full of illusions. I would point out that the wording of the amendment is:
For the purpose of carrying out his duties and functions under this act, the minister may undertake research and investigation into matters to which the powers, duties and functions of the minister extend-
The wording of the amendment follows the same wording the minister has in the bill. Clause 5 says:
The duties, powers and functions of the minister 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-
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the wording of the amendment follows that of the bill. We contend that the power the minister has, which is limited to the matters that are his by jurisdiction and by law and are within the limits of the parliament of Canada, shall simply include the power of investigation.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I can see there is a half-hearted response on the part of my hon. friend from Peace River, but the basis of our objection is that this would constitute misrepresentation to the consumer. If "investigation" were equivalent to "research", then its inclusion would add nothing. "Investigation" might give the people of Canada the idea that the minister had the power of inquiry, and there is no such power in the bill or the amendment.


Mr. Sallsman:: Mr. Chairman, I am rather disappointed at the minister's reply and his comments on the amendment. I appreciate the difficulty he raises regarding powers that are not spelled out. I had hoped that in the spirit of trying to get all-party agreement on a department of consumer affairs he would have made some effort to acknowledge that
(Mr. Turner.]
DEBATES	November 27, 1967
this is a good principle, that it is advisable to adopt it, and that he would consider the amendment if the powers were more specifically spelled out. But simply to say that the amendment confers no powers though the idea has some merit is not a suitable answer.
The minister's interest and concern in the field of advertising are well known and we have been watching to see what the minister's attitude would be as hon. members introduced these amendments attempting to put more teeth into the legislation. We have been waiting to see whether he would accept them in order to implement the purpose he has expressed in some of his speeches.
I should like to thank the minister for sending me a copy of his speech at the annual general meeting of the Institute of Canadian Advertising on September 22 last and I should like to read an excerpt. The minister had this to say:
We intend to analyse the advertising process and its effect upon the economy and consumer. We intend to pursue the question of the role of advertising in Canada. What I say today are some tentative and preliminary ideas-
That is fine, Mr. Chairman; the minister has not committed himself too far. But what I want to know is, does he intend to do anything about these ideas? The minister goes on to say:
The power of advertising is undisputed. But power must be balanced by responsibility.
How does the minister intend to effect this responsibility? How does he intend to ensure that advertising will be responsible when he is not willing to put powers of that type into this legislation? I would have expected that he would be the first to insist that the legislation have as many powers as possible so as to assist him in the work he has indicated he wants to do.
There is a disappointment with this legislation, Mr. Chairman, but not for the reason given by the minister. In effect, what the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yukon tries to do is to set up what is essentially a prices review board but in an emasculated form. I hope that when our amendment to establish a prices review board is brought forward the government will have the courage to go all the way and set up a board which will offer reasonable prospects of accomplishing some of the objectives that are listed in this amendment.
We intend to support the principle of a prices review board as it relates to research and investigation at every available opportunity during the course of this debate and
November 27, 1967	COMMONS
for that reason, Mr. Chairman, we will support the amendment.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I want to comment briefly on the statement of the minister with reference to the amendment that is before the committee. I have not taken part in the discussion up to the present time but I agree heartily with the spokesmen of this party who in their various statements have suggested that the legislation we are considering at the moment is what one might call a snare and a delusion. It presents a proposition to the house, and through the house to the people of Canada, that something effective is going to be done in the interest of consumer affairs. Yet, Mr. Chairman, as we examine the legislation we discover it does not include any powers that make it possible to deal effectively with the consumers' problems that have become increasingly obvious across the nation, particularly since the housewives of Canada began protesting so vociferously.
The minister in his remarks this afternoon has confirmed the viewpoint that clause 6 is merely enabling. As the minister himself says, its function is to co-ordinate. If this is true, it seems to me that he would welcome any amendments that would make it possible to overcome this obvious deficiency in the legislation and assist in putting some teeth into the bill. The minister has indicated that it lacks teeth, that it really has no powers to deal with the problems confronting consumers at the moment. As I look through clause 6 that is certainly the impression I get.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I did not say that the bill lacked teeth. I said the purpose of the bill was to put all the teeth in one mouth.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I listened very carefully to the minister's comments, Mr. Chairman. He said he was going to put all his eggs in one basket or, if I might change the expression, that he is going to put all the teeth into one mouth. At the same time he talked out of the other side of the mouth and criticized the amendment, which was put forward with the sole purpose of providing something other than a study group approach to the problem. Looking at clause 6 (1) one sees that it has four paragraphs which piously express the hope that the minister will:
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
(a)	initiate, recommend or undertake programs designed to promote the interests of the Canadian consumer:
DEBATES	4725
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
That is extremely vague language:
(b)	co-ordinate programs ... designed to promote the interests of the Canadian consumer;
(c)	promote and encourage the institution of practices or conduct tending to the better protection of the Canadian consumer-
By enacting paragraph (c) the government obviously hopes to improve the ethics of business in this nation. That is the interpretation I place on the wording. Paragraph (d) reads:
(d)	undertake, recommend or assist in programs to assist the Canadian consumer to be more fully informed about goods and services offered-[DOT]
And so on. These are all pious platitudes and do nothing in a legislative form to resolve the problem that the minister professes the legislation is put forward to deal with. It seems to me that the new department of consumer and corporate affairs is to be a study group much along the lines of the Economic Council of Canada. That body studies the basic economic questions and makes recommendations to parliament and to the government in the form of an annual report. The government, as regularly as the reports are made, does not accept the recommendations of those reports.
Though the minister has committed himself and has said that he rejects the amendment of the official opposition, I hope that he will change his mind and at least permit a gesture toward putting some teeth into the legislation. Co-operation and study are not good enough; those activities do not deal with the real problems. When the minister referred to having all the teeth in one mouth no doubt he was referring to the existing legislation which deals with combines, mergers, monopolies and restraint of trade. Presumably the minister thinks that the existing legislation which deals with these problems of consumer affairs is adequate.
Speaking from my experience in this house over the past 16 years, it seems to me that one of the great difficulties in protecting the consumer arises because the legislation designed to deal with combines, mergers, monopolies and restraint of trade, lacks teeth. I remember that one of the first debates in which I participated in this house had to do with the abolition of resale price maintenance. That was in the fall of 1951. The measure was put forward by the Liberal government of the day. It was thought that the measure would resolve all consumer problems with respect to constantly rising prices. Actually the legislation has been instrumental in eliminating more and more
November 27. 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs smaller merchants and wholesalers in the field, leaving the larger operators to range freely in this important area of the business community. Prices, instead of coming down, have constantly soared upward and onward. Anyone who has taken the trouble to read the various reports on the extensive investigations into purported monopolies, combines and restraint of trade activities in Canada is forced to conclude that these investigations also amount to little more than studies in depth. Existing legislation has no teeth.
If this legislation establishing a new department is to be more than a snare and delusion it must have teeth. There are no teeth in the existing legislation which is designed to deal with monopolies, mergers, combines and so on. Admittedly, the amendment before the house will not solve all problems. It is, however, an attempt to make clause 6 more effective.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Would the hon. member permit a question? Under the present Combines Investigation Act the financial penalties are unlimited in amount. Injunctions may be obtained to prevent further breaches. What additional teeth would the hon. member propose?


An hon. Member:: Well done.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I will not debate the Combines Investigation Act at the moment. I merely indicate that during all the years I have been in this house that act has not been effective. Though the hon. member has been here but a short time, he must be fully aware of its ineffectiveness. If the government is purporting to put teeth into the legislation it is bringing forward which, it is hoped, will rectify the obvious ineffectiveness of existing legislation, I think the government ought to write the appropriate wording into the bill. It should not be satisfied merely with the pious platitutes I have referred to already.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Otherwise they are false teeth.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: What penalty can be higher than an unlimited penalty? What additional sanctions would he propose?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: False teeth.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, though the amendment of the official opposition is weak I rise to support it. The minister, by rejecting this amendment and by refusing to say-and so far he has refused to say-what specific steps the government is prepared to take when this department is established, has
[Mr. Pinsdale.l

confirmed something that we have been claiming which has been borne out by recent events. This department is nothing but a promotional gimmick and is as false as most of the advertising gimmicks that are used to sell soap. The only real purpose of establishing this department is to give the minister, as I have said before, a forum in which he may promote his candidacy for the leadership of the Liberal party.
During the last week we have seen what has been going on in this country. Noranda Mines increased its copper prices. We have been lectured by ministers of the crown such as the Minister of Finance, by editorial writers of large newspapers, by financial analysts in our daily newspapers and by others about the danger of inflation and about the danger of pricing ourselves out of the world market. We have been told to use restraint. I am disturbed that most of these lectures seem to be directed at one group in our country, the ordinary citizens, the ordinary workers. Essentially, the workers are being told: For goodness sake, make sure that your union does not demand too much because the economy cannot afford it. Such exhortations would have a good deal more force if those making them would say something when business increases its prices and profits, particularly when there is no justification for price increases.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
On November 21, six days ago, the Toronto Globe and Mail reported that Noranda Mines proposed to increase the price of copper from 47 cents to 51 cents a pound. From that day to this, questions have been asked in this house almost daily in an attempt to find out what the government proposes to do. We received the ingenuous answer a few days ago that Noranda was being very generous in raising its price by only 10 per cent and not to 60 cents a pound. I suppose we could say "Thank God for small mercies".
Why has this increase been decided upon? There is a simple answer. There is at the present time, and there has been for some five months, a strike directly affecting all the copper mines in the United States, and as a result of the tremendous demand for copper brought about by prosperity in the United States and the war in Viet Nam there is an acute shortage of that metal. There is a demand for copper almost regardless of price. So Noranda and other producers such as Hudson Bay Mining and International Nickel can charge any price they wish.
November 27, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES
What are the effects of this increase likely to be? In the issue of the Globe and Mail to which I have already referred, that of November 21, the reactions of some of the users of copper are reported. We find Mr. James Thomas, vice president of Phillips Cables of Brockville, saying that the increase is "definitely inflationary." He is reported as commenting:
The increase and subsequent additions will mean a 20 to 30 per cent increase in the cost of wire and cable.
He went on to say that an addition in the cost of primary metals would obviously be felt in the prices of finished goods. Mr. E. W. Darby, secretary of Pioneer Electric which manufactures transformers and switchgear apparatus, said he was shocked by the news. The increase would force the company into an increasing use of aluminum.
Copper is used in almost every manufacturing and industrial process in this country. One thinks immediately of power generators and the lines which carry power, of refrigerators and other appliances. It is hard to mention an item in which copper is not used. One might think that this price increase was forced upon the company, and upon others which will undoubtedly follow suit, by falling profits or higher costs. But the figures which appear in the Financial Post surveys do not indicate this to be the case. We find that Noranda Mines made a profit of around $31 million in 1964. In 1965 it had risen to $36 million and in 1966 to $43 million, an increase of almost 50 per cent in three years.
Here are similar figures with respect to the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company. In 1963 net profits amounted to $11 million. In 1964 the profit amounted to $13 million and in 1965 to just under $16 million. Take Sherritt Gordon which has a mine at Lynn Lake in my own province. In 1963 profits amounted to $2,710,000, in 1964 to $5 million and in 1965 to $5,400,000. Again, this represents an increase of just over 50 per cent in three years. Increases in prices imposed by these companies and similar increases on the part of every other copper company in Canada are bound to have an effect on the cost of living about which every minister has been talking. If the hon. gentleman and the new department cannot do something about this situation either through direct legal means or through his powers of persuasion, if he cannot somehow induce these companies to stop robbing the public, he might as well forget all the pious speeches made by the Minister of Finance and others about restraint for the
4727
Corporate and Consumer Affairs sake of holding down the cost of living, because if the working people of this country are faced by price increases such as those which will be brought about by this increase in the price of copper they will demand increases in wages to offset the increases in prices and the increases in the profits of these large companies.
It is not enough for the minister to reject the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yukon. I think he should tell us what he proposes to do about the highway robbery which is being perpetrated by the copper companies of this country.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
want to say a few words in connection with the amendment proposed by the official opposition. We in this comer were very disappointed to hear it so quickly rejected by the minister. The amendment makes only a mild proposal. The minister has indicated all along that he is not yet thoroughly muscled, that the law needs teeth, that he will come out as the champion of the consumer as much as he is able. Yet even when an amendment with rather weak teeth is presented to him today we find that far from being glad to have it he rapidly backs away from it. He does not want these teeth and he has made it abundantly clear that when it is our turn in this comer to try to put genuine teeth in this legislation he will reject our proposals as well. If the minister is backing away from any kind of teeth in the legislation, it is a very peculiar thing.
Why is he backing away from amendments of this type? The amendment proposed by the official opposition is, after all, not mandatory. It is permissive. If the minister backs away from an amendment which merely suggests that he may have certain powers, there is something very wrong about this situation. We suspect that the minister wishes every vestige of doubt removed with regard to whether he even has teeth in the legislation. In these circumstances I, along with all the consumers of this country, am led to believe that the minister really does not want teeth in the law that he can use. The minister does not want the legislation to have teeth in it. Why not? Some hint may be found in a statement which appeared in the press last spring when this department was first mooted, to the effect that the minister was very anxious not to frighten business. I do not think that business is that tender and shrinking a violet. If the minister is going to champion the consumers he should realize that he needs some kind of armament, some teeth, if
4728	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs there is to be any control exercised over the cost of living.
[DOT] (4:20 p.ra.)
If the minister is going to back away from this mild amendment moved by the official opposition he will simply be saying to the consumers, "Sure, I want to be called minister of corporate and consumer-I beg your pardon-consumer and corporate affairs, but for goodness sake don't give me any power. I would be embarrassed because I don't intend to use that power." The minister cannot have it both ways. If he is going to champion the consumers the legislation must have the necessary teeth. If he refuses to accept those teeth then he is backing away before the fight starts. There is no alternative.
This is a very mild amendment from the official opposition. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Brandon-Souris referred to it as merely a gesture. I agree that it does not contain anything more than the beginning of teeth, but we are going to support it because any teeth are better than none.
The minister has indicated that under the rules he will contest the validity of the amendment which we will be moving, but I suggest to him that either on the present amendment or later on our amendment he should indicate what kind of teeth he will accept. If he rejects this amendment and later argues against the admissibility of ours, without indicating what he himself will do to put teeth into what somebody has called this namby-pamby collection of pious platitudes, then the warning signals will be up for the consumers throughout this country. I earnestly urge him not to reject our amendment which we believe will infinitely strengthen the armament at his disposal.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a specific question in connection with the matter which I raised earlier. Is it his intention to meet with the officials of Noranda Mines to discuss with them last week's announced four cents per pound increase in the price of copper? If not, has he other plans to deal with this announced increase?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance has already indicated that he has been making inquiries into this price increase. Since it relates to the general economic policy of the government the matter is properly in his hands. Of course I am very concerned about the subject matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, but in
[Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1
DEBATES	November 27. 19S7
this particular instance the government is being represented by the Minister of Finance.


David Orlikow: Is the minister aware of when the Minister of Finance intends to meet with the officials of this company, in the same manner as President Johnson and the late President Kennedy in similar situations urged, indeed demanded that such price increases be restrained? Is this going to be the kind of inquiry we heard about in the past, more particularly with respect to the recent steel price increase, an inquiry which goes on for months and months and with respect to which we do not get an answer until the next price increase is announced?


John Napier Turner: I am sure that since the Minister of Finance took the house into his confidence he will report in due course on what action he was able to take.


Max Saltsman: Will the minister use his influence to see that the consumer prices committee is immediately reconvened so that it can call witnesses and look into the copper price situation? Since the minister seems determined not to accept any teeth in this legislation that he could use, I would point out that that committee would have the power to call witnesses and hear argument with respect to the copper price increase. I ask him to consider my suggestion seriously and give a favourable reply so that the committee on consumer prices can get to work immediately.


John Napier Turner: I have already said in an answer on orders of the day that we are working out terms of reference for a committee on consumer affairs. I want to add that the reason this amendment is being rejected is because it would add no teeth at all. It mentions a power of investigation but really it does not accord any real power and does not put any constitutional limits on the power mentioned in it. The amendment has no teeth.


Colin Cameron: In that case is it the minister's intention to introduce an amendment which has teeth in it before this bill goes through committee? If this is his sole reason for rejecting this amendment and if the implication is that he wants something with teeth in it, then we hope he will introduce such an amendment.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member was not here when I replied initially to the hon. member for Peace River that our concept of
November 27. 1967	COMMONS
the bill was that it does not set out the entire consumer program or entire legislative enforcement of that program. It is a bill whereby the policy and the program of the government can be administered by one department and one minister. The teeth are there. The bill itself does not contain the complete range of teeth. I repeat that the teeth are there, and it is a question of coordinating and administering the law in a uniform fashion.


Max Saltsman: While the establishment of a committee on consumer affairs might be very desirable, it is quite evident from what the minister has said that this will take some time. The copper situation is an immediate problem. It can have serious effects in an inflationary situation. If the minister could get the consumer prices committee established immediately it could look into the matter. Why does he not consider this an appropriate action to take at this time?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Nielsen) negatived: Yeas, 33; nays, 41.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 6 carry?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, we are now about to attempt again to provide teeth for a very reluctant St. Lawrence-St. George as he goes out to battle for the consumers. He says that the teeth are there, but it is a little like the story of the Emperor's Clothes. The emperor and his whole entourage know that the clothes are on them, but to the people on the street they look naked at the present time. We do not know that the teeth are there or that the minister is prepared to have real teeth given to him. The minister recently painted another of his very glowing portraits of poverty when speaking to the Ottawa-Carleton Liberal Association. He made exactly the kind of speech most of us would like very much to make.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The Registrar General on a point of order.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the hon. member would indicate to which amendment she is speaking.
DEBATES	4729
Corporate and Consumer Affairs


Winona Grace MacInnis: It
has to do with the prices review board, the one with teeth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has not moved an amendment yet. She is speaking to clause 6 of the bill.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
said that it is the one with teeth. I hope I do not have to explain that. As I said, the minister made the kind of speech the other evening which many of us would very much like to make if we had the same number of information diggers and ghost writers at our command, because he gave a very effective summary of the poverty in this country and the terrible deprivation it works upon the low income people. He quoted the following from an article by Alan Philip which appeared in Maclean's magazine:
If a family cannot afford the kind of housing, clothing, food, medical care and pleasure that the rest of us take for granted, then by our Canadian standards that family is poor.
Then he went on to say:
Poverty in this country is curable. There is a remedy. I don't say this merely as an act of faith but as a clear prescription for action. The task of our new century is to learn how to solve difficult problems and to put our best efforts in service of building a decent, open society.
An attack on poverty is the only choice an affluent society has if it is to honour at all the basic ^ ethic of social responsibility and humanism that is part of our western tradition.
We can very well endorse those sentiments, Mr. Chairman. These are the sort of things to which all of us give adherence. I should like to suggest, however, that if the minister thinks he is going to get away in his present job with this sort of tea and sympathy, he is not. What the people in this country want is protection against profiteering. Unless the minister is prepared to accept the power, the teeth and the muscle necessary to give him a chance to bring about these things, he is not getting down to business and is deceiving the people of this country if he tells them he is getting down to business. He is not going to get down to business unless he has the armament necessary to do so.
The minister said that poverty is curable. We want to get down to the business of driving the dragon of poverty out of this country. The amendment I am about to propose is designed to put the sort of teeth in this legislation that it requires. We do not say that it will be all that is required; it is only a start. I do not need to labour this point, but
November 27, 1367

Corporate and Consumer Affairs we are saying that we must start by giving publicity to the unconscionable price rises in respect of basic commodities in this country. We must build a climate of public opinion which will make it possible later to bring in legislation against such unconscionable profiteering. Instead of saying that this sort of thing is not possible under the existing powers, I think the minister should be bending every effort to take advantage of what would be possible and to see exactly how far he can go. I do not believe he should hide behind a constitutional excuse. I believe he should come up with a reasonable program. If he did so I do not believe there would be a provincial premier-not excepting mine in British Columbia-who would dare to stand in his way in protecting the public against profiteering in prices.
Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment on behalf of this party:
That subclause (1) of clause 6 of Bill C-161 be amended by adding thereto the following new paragraph:
(e) establish a prices review board with authority to inquire into complaints of price increases in essential commodities, to make its findings public and to take joint action with any of the provinces to deal with price increases that cannot be justified.
I may say that we have already distributed copies in both English and French.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak briefly to this amendment, first in respect to its substance and, second, on the ground of admissibility. On second reading we engaged in a debate involving a prices review board. I outlined to the house then, and would ask the indulgence of the committee to underline now, the fact that the movement of prices is due to many complex factors, many of which are beyond the control of the federal government and many of which are beyond the jurisdiction of any of the governments of Canada. A good many of them, of course, are related to international economic factors, particularly in our vulnerable economy which depends, as it does, on foreign trade for one-quarter of every dollar earned. The movement of prices depends, within the private sector, on wage settlements, on rising costs in other areas and on the production process. In so far as it relates to government spending it depends in large measure not only on spending at the federal level but also on spending at the provincial and municipal levels.

In 1966, for instance, the federal government spent $6.7 billion on goods and services and at the same time the provincial and municipal governments spent $12.6 billion. Two thirds of every tax dollar spent by governments in Canada on goods and services was spent at the provincial and municipal levels. Despite the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway as to the constitutional limitations upon our ability to control prices, those limitations do exist. In times other than those of emergency or of war the responsibility for the control of prices and wages rests with provincial authority. As I said before, at the federal level we can influence prices in the sense of ensuring that competitive forces are at play. The department has the responsibility for the administration of the Combines Investigation Act, the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and other legislation which can inject competition, particularly at the manufacturers' level.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
If the purpose of the prices review board is to control prices, which is often indicated by members of the New Democratic party at the hustings level although they would have us believe in the house that its purpose is only to review prices, it would be constitutionally invalid. Such a prices review board would be toothless. As drafted the amendment purports to require the minister to set up a board with the authority to inquire. But the minister cannot give any board real powers of investigation because those powers would have to be spelled out in the Act. But there are no powers in the amendment to compel the attendance of witnesses, to compel the production of documents, to compel testimony to be given. So here again, as I said with respect to the amendment presented by the hon. member for Yukon, the amendment is illusory in this respect.
The proposed amendment envisages board authority to make inquiries but it sets no limits on such inquiries; in other words, it does not set out within its terms what the limits are upon the infringement of civil rights by any such board. It does not set out the limits of any inquiry. It does not tell us just what protection would be given to the average citizen in this country with respect to the powers of inquiry or the invasion of civil rights contemplated here.
The amendment speaks of joint action with the provinces, but joint action of an undetermined kind. What kind of joint action is envisaged? What is meant by the words
November 27, 1967	COMMONS
"deal with price increases"? Are the provinces to be asked to pass complementary-legislation? I remember that when dealing with this matter on second reading the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the leader of his party, suggested that a prices review board would have to be supplemented by complementary, simultaneous legislation passed by all the provincial governments.
The hon. member thereby admitted that there was a constitutional limitation upon this type of board and that the authority over price control lay with the provinces. Would such a prices review board have a role to play with respect to the major determinants of prices, namely, wages and other incomes? If not, these inquiries would be meaningless. Unless the proposed board is to be purely advisory, it is doubtful that parliament is competent to legislate in this field, and if it is purely advisory the amendment is unnecessary because clause 7 of the bill provides authority to establish advisory boards.
I am not yet convinced that a prices review board would be a practical measure. Do the advantages of such a board outweigh the costs, both monetary and social? Do the actual money costs of setting up such a board, together with the social costs of the delay and the red tape, really justify it?
I wonder whether hon. members of the New Democratic party have thoroughly thought out some of the consequences that might flow from the establishment of such a board. It might cause the setting of artificial prices based on a substantial rise in cost. It might allow any manufacturer to justify a price increase if he could substantiate an increase in cost, without having at the same time to show that he had done everything possible to improve his product, to improve the distribution process, to improve unit productivity, research, and so on.
Since an increase in cost will be primarily,
I suppose, a result of an increase in the cost of labour, it might be that a union, knowing a wage increase would justify a price increase before such a prices review board and knowing that this increase in cost would be passed on to the consumer whether or not it was justified by productivity, would be tempted to press for that wage increase. As Professor Beach of McGill University said in a recent speech in Montreal to the Consumer Association of Quebec, there is in a prices review
DEBATES	4731
Corporate and Consumer Affairs board "a strong built-in tendency to inflation." I want to quote some of his words:
It may come as a shock to some here when I say that a cost increase is not an adequate justification for a price increase. If costs increase and squeeze profits the industrialist should attempt to improve his product or his process, and only as a last resort will prices be raised-the last resort which may well imply losses and bankruptcy for some.
The inability to pass on cost increases is a great social control-even uncertainties about the abilities to pass on such costs is important. Thus I am not in favour of a price review board. It has more dangers than promises of success.
It is the opinion of Professor Beach that it has inherent in it as many dangers as it has promises for success. I have grave doubts as to the admissibility of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The minister has discussed at some length the merits of the amendment. I suggest to him that before he opens a procedural argument as to its admissibility he should in courtesy-and I know him to be courteous- give other members an opportunity to discuss the merits of the amendment, particularly those of us who support it. ,He ought to give us the opportunity to reply to the circuitous argument which he has presented. I suggest that this should take priority over the procedural discussion which the minister is about to introduce. I would like the floor, Mr. Chairman, assuming someone else does not have it, to deal with the merits of the amendment.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I dealt with the merits at some short length in reply to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At some length.


John Napier Turner: I intended, of course, at the outset to object to the admissibility of the amendment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: But you got carried away by your own eloquence.


John Napier Turner: I got carried away, perhaps, in replying to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I should like to present my argument on the admissibility of the amendment, if that is the wish of the Chair, but I do not wish to limit the discussion.


David Lewis: Why cannot we have a discussion on the merits? Some of us will not be any longer than the minister was. If he
November 27, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs wants to attack the admissibility of the amendment, he can do it then.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, if a point of order is being raised surely it must be disposed of before we can go on with any further discussion.


John Napier Turner: I should like to attack the admissibility of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.


David Lewis: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that is precisely the point that made me rise. I put it to the minister and other members: Is it fair that the minister should make a speech attacking the amendment and making what in my view were entirely wild, irrelevant and indefensible statements about it, including quoting the remarks of Professor Beach, and then enter into a procedural argument? Should the Chair hold with the minister that the amendment is not in order, the opportunity to reply to him on the amendment itself goes by the board.
I appreciate that one might drag in the argument with relation to the amendment on some other clause, but that is not a good way to deal with it. I know I cannot do anything to stop the minister and I cannot ask you, Mr. Chairman, to stop him; but I am saying to him that if he really wants to be fair to the consumer and to the subject matter before this committee, he ought not to take advantage of his position as minister, make the kind of speech he did and having made it then say, "Really, all of this is out of order because the amendment is out of order."


John Napier Turner: I make it quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that I was going to attack the admissibility of this amendment.


David Lewis: You wanted it to be on record.


John Napier Turner: Had I been called to order I would, of course, have abided by the ruling of the Chair. I made it quite clear at the outset of my remarks that I intended to attack the admissibility of this amendment and X would like your permission to do so, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The first ground is that the amendment is moved to a money bill, which has been preceded by a resolution necessary for the introduction of a money bill, and that the amendment would tend to add to the expenditure of money within the precedents recognized by the house. I refer Your Honour first

of all to citation 246, paragraph 3, page 207 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, which reads as follows:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge. And this standard is binding not only on private members but also on ministers whose only advantage is that, as advisors of the Crown, they can present new or supplementary estimates or secure the royal recommendation to new or supplementary resolutions.
I submit to you, sir, as chairman of the committee that in attempting to add a subclause establishing a prices review board the amendment goes not only beyond the scope of the resolution which preceded the introduction of the bill but also extends the scope, object and purposes of the bill by adding the creation of a new board.
I want to refer Your Honour also to citation 249 (1) found on page 214 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, which reads as follows:
No cases can be found of any private member in the Canadian Commons receiving the authority of the Crown, through a minister, to propose a motion involving the expenditure of public money. No principle is better understood than the constitutional obligation that rests upon the executive government, of alone initiating measures imposing charges upon the public exchequer. On one occasion, in the English Commons, the consent of the Crown was given to certain formal resolutions proposed by a private member with reference to charges in courts of law to be defrayed out of the consolidated fund. It was thought, however, that any resolution placing a charge on the consolidated fund should be moved by a minister of the Crown, and the more regular procedure was thereupon carried out. It was distinctly affirmed, however, that the member who proposed the motion involving the charge was within his right when he had the sanction of the Crown, but it was generally admitted at the same time that it was better, as a matter of policy, that the proposition should emanate from a responsible adviser of the sovereign.
The responsibility of recommending applications for pecuniary redress or relief to the consideration of parliament should rest solely upon the executive government, who are strictly accountable for every item of public expenditure, whose especial duty it is, in the interest of the taxpayers, to oppose all unnecessary outlay, and who possess peculiar facilities for investigating into the merits of all pecuniary claims.
November 27, 1967

The seventeenth edition of May's Parliamentary Practice, dealing with the rules and practices of the British House of Commons, contains citations to the same effect. At page 803 the following sentence is to be found under the heading "Amendments in Committee (or on Report)":
It is, however, necessary to consider the additional restriction resulting from the relation between a bill and its financial resolution, the effect of which is, as stated above, that no amendment may be moved in committee on a bill which would increase the charge beyond the limits authorized by the relevant money resolution, as recommended by the Crown and agreed to in committee and on report.
And at page 805 May states the following:
As explained above (p. 781), it is unnecessary to set out the various ways in which amendments may impose fresh charges. The different kinds of expenditure which are regarded as charges have been tabulated in pp. 781-9. The rules there stated are generally the same for amendments as they are for bills, with the substitution of the relevant money resolution for the existing law as the standard in relation to which the increase of a charge is ascertained. Reference should accordingly be made to the classification of charges contained in pp. 781-9.
Example No. 8 given by May refers to an increase of charge by extension of the purposes of the bill and it reads as follows:
When a bill contains provisions extending the purposes of expenditure already authorized by statute, such provisions may require the Queen's recommendation. The following examples may be given:
The examples are bills in which amendments were attempted extending the scope and object of the bill.
May I say as guidance to Your Honour that a ruling was made by Mr. Speaker as late as November 30, 1966, and is to be found at page 1080 of Votes and Proceedings for November 30, 1966. An amendment in committee was proposed to the medicare bill which, attempted to extend the definition of "medical practitioner". The Chair referred to citation 246 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, and to paragraph 13 of May, seventeenth edition. He ruled the proposed amendment out of order on two grounds, mainly that it extended the purpose and objective of the resolution adopted by the house on July 12. In other words, the ruling was to the effect that the amendment was out of order in that in a bill effecting charges upon the Crown it extended the scope, object, purposes, conditions and qualifications, because the resolution and the bill must be considered as having set once and for all those objectives,
Corporate and Consumer Affairs conditions, qualifications and principles of the bill.
I should like to refer to one further citation which is to be found in the Journals of the house for November 29, 1949 at page 306. At that time Bill No. 194, an act to encourage and to assist in the construction of a trans-Canada highway, was being considered in committee of the whole. Objection was taken in committee to the decision of the Chairman on a point of order and an appeal was made to the whole house. The Speaker resumed the chair and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
When Bill No. 194 was under consideration in committee of the whole, Mr. Argue moved that clause 4, subclause 2, be amended by deleting therefrom the words "fifty per centum" and by substituting therefor the words "seventy-five per centum".
The chairman ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it increased the financial responsibility of the government. Whereupon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre appealed the ruling of the chairman, and the question being put by Mr. Speaker, "shall the ruling of the Chairman be confirmed", it was decided in the affirmative.
Therefore I wish to submit to Your Honour that the amendment is out of order on the ground that it increases the scope, objects and purposes of a financial bill which was preceded by a resolution. In accordance with the customs of the house, and since the amendment involves an expenditure of money and is beyond the scope of the resolution or of the bill, it is therefore inadmissible.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, before saying a word on the procedural point which the minister has raised I should like your indulgence to deal with some of the remarks he made with regard to the amendment now before the committee, and in doing so I hope to lay a foundation for my suggestion to you on the very simple basis that the minister's lengthy procedural argument should not be accepted in view of some simple words in the resolution to which I shall refer later.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Let me say first, Mr. Chairman, that the minister's extremely circuitous, almost incomprehensible argument, against the amendment now before the committee ignored completely what my colleagues have suggested on a number of occasions is the purpose of our urgent suggestion for the establishment of a prices review board. I say
4734	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs to him that if we were not aware of the fact that the power to control prices is, under our present division of powers in Canada, under provincial jurisdiction, then our amendment would have been of a different type. Then I, for one, would have supported a provision in this legislation that would give some body the power to have selective price control. It is precisely because we know it is not within the jurisdiction of this parliament to impose price controls, in a period such as the present in Canada when we are not at war or in a particualr emergency, that we urge upon the committee and upon the minister, as we have done for some months, the establishment of a prices review board.
Surely it is not very difficult to see the value of such a board, even though it would not have the power to decree that a certain price be lowered or changed. I cannot imagine the minister does not realize the tremendous advantage it would be to the people of Canada if such a board had the authority to make an inquiry in response to complaints against price increases and to publish the evidence it received as well as the results of the inquiry along with some declaration whether or not the price increases were, in all the circumstances, justified. This course would bring public opinion to bear on the vendor, the employer or manufacturer or whoever it may be to lower the price below the unconscionable level which the prices review board might have found the price increases to reach. Surely there is nothing mysterious about this. Why is the minister running away from it? What possible harm could there be in that?
In order to justify his obvious refusal to do anything constructive for the consumers of Canada, in order to justify his obvious determination to clothe himself in raiment which glistens but has no value, he goes into all sorts of irrelevant avenues and talks about all sorts of things that have no relevance to the amendment before us. This is basically a very simple proposition, that this parliament ought to give the government and the minister authority to have some body to look into complaints about price increases, get all the evidence available, look at all the facts available and pronounce whether or not such price increases were justified. This would bring public opinion to bear on unjustified price increases.
The second reason we have urged for many months the suggestion contained in this amendment is precisely our realization that

DEBATES	November 27. 19B7
constitutionally this parliament cannot control prices, and our realization also that the federal government has a duty to give some leadership in this field as in any other field. If the government accepted the proposal to set up a prices review board, not to do the kind of nonsensical thing the minister talked about but to be in consultation with the relevant provincial authorities, then the leadership given by the setting up of this board would, in our view, lead to action by the provinces across the country so that you would eventually have a network of laws that would really protect the consumer of Canada.
What is wrong with that? In what way does this suggestion violate logic, the constitution or anything else? In what other way can this parliament give any leadership to end the unjustified price increases than by the establishment of the kind of body which it constitutionally has the authority to establish? The minister talked about there being no limits upon the incursion into the civil rights of a person. This is the second or third time I have heard him cry the common cry about this. Who is going to interfere with civil rights? Do not the people of Canada, does not this parliament, have the right to say to someone who sets out to gouge the consumer in Canada that the reason for his action ought to be made public? He is interfering not only with the civil rights but with the very livelihood of every person living in Canada. Is that not of importance? Does the minister always have to defend the right of corporations to refuse to make public the reasons for their actions when those actions are against the interests of the ordinary person in Canada? What lachrymose arguments; Mr. Chairman. What relevance has civil rights in defending the proposition that is now before the committee and to which the minister addressed himself?
Then the minister quoted as an authority Professor Beach, for whom I have great regard not only because he has the prefix "Professor" before his name but because I have had the privilege of knowing him. A good many people for whom I have the greatest respect, including the minister and Professor Beach, can be in error. The minister and Professor Beach are right if they assume you get a prices review board which is dumb, blind and deaf and does not understand what is happening to the economy of Canada or has not the courage to get advice from experts in the country or anything else that would make a prices review board work.
November 27, 1967


John Napier Turner: Would the hon. member permit a question at this stage?


David Lewis: Certainly.


John Napier Turner: Would the hon. member not admit what I think he has already admitted, that the words he read in the resolution are reflected in clause 7, and that the power to appoint advisory bodies is given to the governor in council? To attempt to set them up by statute in clause 6 would be going beyond the scope of the resolution.


David Lewis: As I said a minute ago, Mr. Chairman, I thought that was going to be the answer of the minister. However, with great respect, I do not see why logically it is necessary to say that the "other bodies" referred to in the resolution mean only the other bodies referred to in clause 7. Why cannot a prices review board, which is another body, be established in this legislation instead of established by the governor in council under clause 7?


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
John Napier Turner: Would the hon. member please refer to the page number ?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. Page 4165 of Hansard for Monday, November 13, 1967. Perhaps I might read a few of the interesting words of Mr. Speaker. He said:
My conclusion is that the present bill does not fall within that definition. May states that a charge must be new and distinct and that it must be effectively imposed. He adds: ''These tests have the effect of excluding from the category of charges a considerable number of matters which prima facie involve expenditure."
In the same vein, Mr. Chairman, I remind you that there are a number of citations in Beauchesne's fourth edition on the point. Your Honour is familiar with them because you have quoted them to us. They can be found in the index to Beauchesne under "Money resolutions, subsidiary charges." Examples are citations 251 and 277 and others. Many citations suggest that where something that a private member is asking for may necessitate a vote of parliament, or where what is being asked for is not a direct charge, then that matter falls within the category of the sort of thing which Mr. Speaker talked of on Monday, November 13.
DEBATES	4737
Corporate and Consumer Affairs The reliance which the Registrar General placed on citation 246(3) is partly faulty. He read that citation to us as though it stood by itself. He read the words, "The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown", and so on.
Subparagraph 3 must be read in conjunction with subparagraph 2, which makes clear that the amendment of a resolution is being discussed. We are not now amending a resolution. We understand the restrictions with respect to resolutions that precede bills. The point has now been reached where a money resolution that precedes a bill cannot be amended. I am prepared to accept that. But the Registrar General read this citation and left the impression that it applied to amendments, with respect to a bill. This is not so, for as Your Honour knows, citation 251(1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition says:
It may happen that the resolution sanctions some expenditure without fixing the maximum amount to be spent.
Your Honour is familiar with this citation. It goes on to point out that, if the situation envisioned in the first two lines of that citation exist, the committee on the bill may move amendments that may indirectly seem to involve the expenditure of money, but as they are covered in the general terms of the resolution they are not out of order so far as a private member is concerned. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that there is a case against the Registrar General's argument with respect to both points he has raised.


John Napier Turner: With respect to the recent judgment of Mr. Speaker on November 13 it is relevant to consider it at this time. He said in part:
If any expenditure is required following the adoption of this bill, it is already covered by section 16 of the Publication of Statutes Act-
And he added:
-the publication of the statutes, was introduced in the house on March 31, 1925, with the same wording as that contained in section 16 and without a resolution. In other words, if there is any expenditure in the bill proposed by the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier-Lasalle it is already covered by existing statutory authority.
In other words, Mr. Speaker's decision was that there was already statutory authority for any money which might be expended under the bill introduced by the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier-Lasalle.
4738	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs


Stanley Howard Knowles: By the same token, the minister's bill provides the statutory authority for any money which is to be spent under it, provided that the requests for expenditure come within the terms of the resolution, as I believe this one does.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I thank hon. members for their contribution on whether this amendment is valid. The Chair, of course, was interested in the constitutional argument but that is not a matter which the Chair must decide. The Chair must decide whether the amendment is procedurally acceptable and not whether it is constitutionally correct.
I refer hon. members to citation 71(5), to be found on page 61 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which states:
The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law, though the same may he raised on a point of order or privilege.
Next, the Chair must decide whether setting up a prices review board is outside the terms of the resolution. The resolution reads as follows:
-to provide for the appointment of a minister and a deputy minister and for their duties and powers; to provide that the governor in council may establish a consumer advisory council and other bodies to assist the minister and for the remuneration and expenses of the members thereof;
The Chair takes the view that a prices review board could well be included in the phrase "and other bodies".
With regard to that question I wish to refer hon. members of the committee to citation 251(1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition which has already been quoted and which states as follows:
It may happen that the resolution sanctions some expenditure without fixing the maximum amount to be spent. If, for instance, the resolution recommends that adequate salaries be paid a newly constituted body and the amounts of the salaries are fixed in the bill based on that resolution, the Committee on the bill has the right to increase those amounts, because, in doing so, it does not go beyond the scope of the royal recommendation.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Further, in paragraph 2 of citation 251 we read:
A motion that certain commissioners should be appointed to examine the feasibility of some public improvements and report the results of their investigations to the House is in order, as it is an abstract proposition that does not necessarily bind the House in any way.

DEBATES	November 27, 1967
May I refer members also to citation 278, paragraph 4, which is to be found on page 227 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. It reads as follows:
The committee is not bound by the terms of the provisions which the ministers have inserted in the bill; and, when no amount has been mentioned in the resolution, any member may propose to increase the grants specified in the bill or to extend the application of the provisions of the bill, whatever may be the cost resulting therefrom, so long as the power conferred by the royal recommendation is not exceeded.
It is the opinion of the Chair that the present amendment does not go beyond the royal recommendation, that it is within the scope of the resolution as passed by the committee on October 13, and the Chair therefore accepts the amendment.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May
I ask the minister a question? Would he like this amendment any better and would he accept it if instead of the word "take" in the third last line we were to put the word "advise"?


John Napier Turner: In our view, and I say this with the greatest of respect, I do not think the amendment could be cured by such a change.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I was
just trying to prevent the teeth from showing a little farther above the gum than the minister might like.


Max Saltsman: The minister indicated that he did not believe a prices review board would be of any great assistance in controlling the level of prices. Am I correct in this interpretation?


John Napier Turner: I suggested to the members of the N.D.P. that they ought to look at both sides of the question. What disturbs me about this amendment is that it purports to set up a prices review board which, even in its own terms, does not possess adequate powers. Only a skeleton is left. If a prices review board were to be set up it should in my view be set up by a separate statute giving it real power. This amendment gives the public the idea that a prices review board is to be constituted without setting out the powers necessary for the enforcement of the board's decisions.


Max Saltsman: I would be interested to hear the minister's position with regard to the establishment of a prices review board and to hear him tell us what kind of powers he has in mind. If he is thinking in terms of a prices review board which could help the
November 27, 1967	COMMONS
consumer, he might find us most co-operative in assisting him. Perhaps the minister could outline his thinking on this subject.


John Napier Turner: Not on this occasion. However, if a prices review board were to be established by parliament I think the appropriate motion should be introduced by the Minister of Finance who has direct responsibility for the general financial and economic policy of the government. The board would be set up with appropriate terms of reference and given such authority as would enable it to do the things the hon. member has been talking about.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Would the minister be prepared to recommend to his colleagues the establishment of a workable prices review board?


John Napier Turner: My mind is not closed on any subject.


Winona Grace MacInnis: That is not an answer. Would the minister put on paper the terms of a workable proposal for the setting up of a prices review board?


Mr. Germa:: Listening to the minister's almost hysterical rejection of the proposal to set up a prices review board I felt it was indicative of the attitude he really takes toward controlling consumer prices. The hon. gentleman has already indicated he has no intention of controlling prices. So the bill as it stands is just another shade of pale so far as the consumers are concerned.
The minister has in the course of the past few years built up a picture of himself as an affable, nice fellow, a friend of everyone including the corporations. If he is to discharge his present job effectively as minister of corporate and consumer affairs I do not think it is possible for him to maintain this image in the community, especially among the creme de la creme of the corporate elite. He needs to buy himself a barbed wire overcoat and thump these people around a little. If he is not willing to do this, the bill becomes just one more piece of window dressing such as have been perpetrated on our people for the last 100 years.
Every time the question of prices comes up someone blames increases in wages right away. No one asks why it is that wages have increased. Look at the levels of corporation profits. It is these profits and their effect upon prices which have caused labour to rectify the situation by bringing back some of this money into their own pockets. What
DEBATES	4739
Corporate and Consumer Affairs the minister seems to have envisaged in connection with this bill is the appointment of a little debating society, a couple of ladies discussing the price of shoelaces while doing their knitting. We want something different. We want somebody with power to tell Noran-da Copper to prove its case for raising prices, to justify its demand for higher profits.
What is going on in this country is not even unbridled free enterprise because, as my hon. friend from York South has told us, we are really living today under a system of monopoly. There was no reason for the recent increase in steel prices with extra profits for the steel companies. Yet no justification was ever offered in defence of that action.
Almost every phase of this nation's industrial activities is controlled by two or three large corporations, mostly foreign owned, which do not care two hoots about the Canadian consumer and are entirely unconcerned about his welfare. Does anybody believe that General Motors could not run Ford and Chrysler off the market any time they saw fit? The only reason Ford and Chrysler are allowed in Canada is to maintain this patchwork system of so-called free enterprise. General Motors know that if they run Chrysler and Ford off the market the United States government would intervene. This is why they continue this pretence of competition which is not competition at all.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
We have to get control of the marketplace, Mr. Chairman, because the free enterprise system has been described as a rat race without control, and the rats are winning. These are the people over whom we have to get control. We have to get those rats by the tail and swing them around our heads a little bit.
If the minister does not know where to get a barbed wire overcoat I can tell him that I have a spare one. I will lend it to him and he can use it to go to Noranda Copper and deal with these people. There is no use hiding behind the constitutional issue and saying: We cannot do this and we cannot do that; we cannot control these people because of the constitution. The greatest force in this country is public opinion. That is where the minister will find the power.
A prices review board will expose to the Canadian people what has been going on. Once you tell the people the truth they will give you the backing you need and you will have more power than anybody else in the
4740	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs community. The minister's attitude will have to change. He will have to get that silver spoon out of his mouth and get the show rolling. We are trying to give him the power. We are asking him to take the power and go ahead and do the job.
I ask the minister to quit this namby-pam-bying and saying he cannot interfere with civil rights. That is all baloney. Let him interfere on behalf of my rights and the rights of the rest of the people who are consumers. The minister has to interfere on their behalf and not on behalf of the corporations. They have the strength to look after themselves. I wish the minister would not take this hysterical attitude. I wish he would accept this amendment because without it this whole Bill C-161 might as well go by the boards as absolutely useless.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Warren Allmand: Maybe I will not be so brief now. I feel there were a few points brought up by members of the N.D.P. that have to be met. I know that the minister has dealt with these things very well, but I wish to point out that the N.D.P. is a party which pretends it is against window dressing, that it is against sham, and that it likes things which are well thought out. But here we have an amendment that is nothing but window dressing, nothing but sham, and is not well thought out.
What does the N.D.P. amendment say? It calls for the establishment of a "prices review board with authority to inquire into complaints of price increases in essential commodities." It sets out no structure for such a board. It does not say how complaints are to be brought before the board or by whom, and it does not say what are the essential commodities. It calls for the board "to make its findings public and to take joint action." What kind of joint action? Is it action to control prices, to roll back prices or to set prices as was done by the wartime prices and trade board? It does not say. No, Mr. Chairman, this is sham, political window dressing, and it is poorly thought out.
I think the minister was quite correct in saying that even if we were to accept the principle of a prices review board, provision for it should be brought forward in a separate piece of legislation. If we are going to change the marketplace in a radical way and do something new, we have a duty to set
[Mr. Germa.l
DEBATES	November 27, 196T
forth such a proposal in a well thought-out manner detailing the method of procedure, particularly since it would be related to income policies and prices policies in general.
I suggest to the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway, who is so fond of talking about window dressing, that before she introduces any more amendments she should think them out better and think more of their effect on the legislation rather than of political gain. I think the only honest member in that party is the hon. member for Waterloo South. When he spoke during the debate on this legislation on November 17 he dealt with a prices review board, and in answer to several questions which I put to him he said that in his opinion a prices review board should not have the power to fix prices or roll back prices but should merely investigate and make recommendations to the government.
This is typical of the N.D.P. members. If you talked to ten of them about a prices review board they would have ten different definitions of it. Last year when the consumer prices committee was investigating prices I remember attending one particular meeting. I was with a member from the N.D.P. party and he told the people at the meeting that night that the N.D.P. wanted a prices review board that would fix prices. That is exactly what the people at the meeting wanted to hear and they thought he was a great fellow. But, as I say, we have an honest member like the hon. member for Waterloo South who takes another approach. Then we have the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway who takes a different approach, and several other members of that party take other approaches to the problem. I say that we must object to this amendment because it is poorly thought out and is merely political window dressing.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is absolutely unnecessary to introduce this amendment. All it would do is build up a greater bureaucracy than we have now. Everything this amendment seeks to do can now be done by the Department of Trade and Commerce through the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. If its reports are co-ordinated the public can be kept informed of what is taking place with regard to price increases. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics issues reports from time to time on the cost of living and on many other sectors of the economy. To establish a prices review board, with the additional employees that this would entail, would add a cost to government
November 27, 19G7	COMMONS
that is unjustified at this time. Therefore I intend to vote against the amendment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in some remarks the minister made in reference to the amendment. He suggested it set out only the skeleton of a prices review board, but comparing the amendment with the terms of the bill before us I would like to ask the minister just how much more than a skeleton does the bill give him? I had a vision of the minister as a skeleton painted in luminous paint when he was suggesting that our amendment had no more to it than that.
The hon. member for York South and others have made it clear that this amendment in just a few words sets forth something which could be given a very substantial body if the will were there to put it into effect as intended by its mover. Therefore I suggest to the minister that he take another look at his own bill when he starts talking about words being only skeletons.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace has called my character into question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Warren Allmand: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I said that the hon. member for Waterloo South was the only honest member in that party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Max Saltsman: Now that the rowdyism has settled down I think it is time to become serious. I might point out to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace that I have a very high opinion of him. He did an excellent job on the prices committee, as I pointed out on a previous occasion. I am somewhat surprised at his vehemence now when he rises and takes exception to the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way. I thought he would have risen to support it.
The hon. member talks about inconsistencies. I point out to him that the mover of this amendment is prepared to make a change in it which I am certain would satisfy him. We do not pretend that the amendment we have introduced is perfect in every detail. It is essentially an amendment of principle, a very important principle as we have tried to demonstrate. We are quite prepared to listen to any suggestion from the government side of the house.
DEBATES	4741
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
During the course of the debate we have asked the minister whether he would be prepared to bring in an amendment to establish a prices review board and have stated that we would support a prices review board of his suggestion if we felt that it met some of the qualifications for the protection of consumers. I do not believe there is any reason to be critical of a group which acts in this way when we have pointed out our willingness to be as co-operative as possible with the government provided the government has a position to place before the house. In the absence of the government having a position, we have introduced this amendment.
I should like to recall to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace the proceedings of the committee. He was a member of the committee and he will remember that during the time it was in session it in fact acted very much like a prices review board; it acted very much along the lines suggested by this amendment. During the course of those sittings it became quite obvious that prices were restrained. A number of statements were made by officials of some of the very large companies in this country to the effect that they had to restrain their prices during the time the committee was sitting because it would have been injudicious not to do so. We think the committee had a salutary effect at that time. We think that something of a more permanent nature than the committee should be established on behalf of the consumers of this country.
I do not really know what the objections are to this suggestion. After having listened to the polemics and the beating of the breasts on the other side of the house I really do not know what their objections are to a prices review board. We have indicated that the amendment does not raise any constitutional problem. We have also indicated that it would go a long way toward giving the consumers the kind of protection and civil liberties they really need. The consumers would know what was going on. Surely the consumers have a right to this knowledge. Again, before the taking of the vote we would ask those members who sincerely believe that the protection of the consumer in this country is important to ensure that this bill has incorporated within it a measure that will provide a positive opportunity for the protection of the consumer.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
November 27, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mrs. Maclnnis, Vancouver-Kingsway) negatived: Yeas 11; nays 49.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this is
experimental legislation. I, for one, regret that the minister did not accept the amendment. As the result of experience I believe a formula could be worked out whereby the Canadian people could be informed, wherever necessary, concerning the prices they pay. However, I must say that I have every respect for the minister and I am quite sure he would not deliberately deceive the consumers of Canada.
I must take exception to the remarks made by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace when he said there is only one honest man in this party.


An hon. Member:: Two.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think it would be quite fair to say that we are all honest men even though hon. members think we are misguided on occasion.
I should like to make a few remarks on clause 6 which deals with a problem of growing interest in Canada. I have knowledge of this as the result of correspondence I have had from people who are supporters of all parties in this house. They are very concerned about the increase in the cost of living over the past year or so. The debates in this house on this question and on other matters which affect consumers have even affected the government of British Columbia. That government has responded by establishing a new law for the protection of consumers which goes into effect on January 1, 1968. I should like to remind the house that in the first instance there was great reluctance on the part of the government of British Columbia to introduce this type of legislation. However, the particular attention which the matter has received to date has caused the provincial government to recognize public opinion in this regard at least to the extent of passing a bill which is largely related to the protection of the consumer who is seeking credit. Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being six o'clock and in order that the house may proceed to private members' business, I do now leave the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather), Consumer affairs- consideration of motion for inquiry into car insurance; the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-petition concerning a program shown on CKRN-TV; the hon. member for Lotbinie-re (Mr. Choquette), Assistance for Lepers- Africa.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.


Mr. McNulty:: Mr. Speaker, may we by unanimous consent stand notices of motions Nos. 15 and 16? The members sponsoring these motions should be back in the house this week. May we take notice of motion No. 19 in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?
e (6:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think there is already some understanding that items 15 and 16 will stand and retain their positions on the order paper. Shall we therefore proceed with item No. 19?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



OLD AGE SECURITY


Stanley Howard Knowles: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to amending the Old Age Security Act to provide for the full amount of the income supplement provided thereunder to be incorporated into the basic pension, and for the eligible age to be lowered immediately to 65, so that all persons in Canada 65 years of age or over who meet the residence requirements will receive the full pension of $105 per month without any income test, the full amount of the old age security pension thus being recognized as a matter of right.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the terms of the resolution which Your Honour has just read from the chair are quite clear. It is our view

November 27. 1987

that the full amount of the old age security-pension, which is $105 a month at the present time, should be paid to all our old age security pensioners without any income or means test on any portion of it. It is also our view that the provision for the old age security pension to be payable at age 65 should come into effect immediately, rather than on a year to year basis as is the case at the present time.
Obviously, the presenting of this resolution is an expression of opposition to the idea of an income or means test on any portion of the old age pension. In case anyone has forgotten it-and I find that hard to believe-we in this party took a very strong stand against the so-called income test which was put on the extra $30 that was added to the old age security pension by legislation enacted in 1966. We felt then that it was wrong in principle to take this retrograde step. We still feel it is wrong in principle and that parliament should call upon the government to take action to correct the mistake that was made in 1966.
When I think of the debates we had on this matter last year, I am aware of the fact that arguments were put forward both ways. I am also aware of the fact that it was felt in some quarters that we should try this method for a while to see how it would work out. But I suggest that the experience of our people has already demonstrated it was a retrograde step that the government asked parliament to take.
I have been actively interested in old age pensioners and old age pension legislation long enough now to have seen three phases of it so far as our people are concerned. I saw for a good many years the effects of the original old age pension act, with its means test, on our older people. I am talking about the pension that was initially $20 a month, which rose by stages to $40 a month, was payable only at age 70 and had a means test on it. I remember very well how in those days the people who drew that pension felt the stigma that went with it. They were not happy to say they were on the old age pension because it meant they had submitted to a means test and were in dire circumstances.
Then I lived through the period, as most of us in this house have, when we had an old age security pension the full amount of which was free of a means test of any kind. That was true from January, 1952, until the end of 1966. During that time it became a matter of pride for older people to be able to say they were on the old age pension. In the
Old Age Security
earlier years of that 14-year period the amount was a little more valuable to people than has been the case more recently, but even apart from the amount there was a definite change in the attitude of people toward the old age pension, both those who received it and those who did not, because it was completely a matter of right.
Now we are in a third period, the period of a means or income test on a portion of the pension. It has been in effect for only ten or 11 months and yet already my mail and my contacts tell of hundreds of people who are feeling the indignity of the income test to which they have to submit. I regret as strongly as I can the fact that parliament took this retrograde step. I also regret the fact that there seems to be a tendency to say in this place: Oh, we have dealt with the old age pension question. Why don't you leave it alone for a while?
To support the statement I have just made that there are people who are unhappy about the way in which the income or means test is affecting them, may I cite one particular kind of grievance to which, as a matter of fact, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) alluded in a question he put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) on the orders of the day this afternoon. I remind you, sir, that when we were debating the so-called guaranteed income supplement the theme, the insistence of the minister was that under this legislation people would be brought up to a minimum figure; no old age pensioner would have any less than a total of $105 a month. One of the guarantees the minister gave when we were debating this legislation was that if a person's income changed during the course of a year from what he had estimated it would now be, an adjustment could be made. This is not true for all our pensioners.
I have cases-and I have spoken to the hon. member for Ontario since he asked his question today and find he has precisely the same kind of cases in his experience-where this principle that the minister guaranteed is not being carried out. Let me boil it down to one instance. I will call this woman Mrs. M., because her story has been written up by a columnist in the Winnipeg Tribune. Mrs. M. is a woman who at the time her husband died in 1962 was awarded, by the company for which he had worked, a five-year pension. I am not commenting on the fairness or rightness of such a pension, but it is a fact that she was awarded a five-year pension which ran from the spring of 1962 until the

of age and who may be able to retire by accepting a slightly smaller pension than he could get if he continued to work until the age of 65. He has asked for my advice and I told him that amongst other things he should consider the future of our economy. 1 asked him whether he thought he could get by for the rest of his life on the pension which he will receive now at the age of 60. I said to him, "Look, my friend, you are in good health and you are only 60 years old. You have a good chance to live to the year 2000. Do you think that the pension you are now able to draw will be good enough for the conditions of life in the year 2000?" The answer is, no; some arrangement must be made for pensions to escalate.
I produce this argument with regard to retired civil servants at least once a week, but I think this will have to be done for all our people, and it is logical and sensible to accept the proposition that the over-all old age security pension without a means test must go up progressively as the years go by. It is not sufficient to grant a supplement on the basis of a means test. Ever since I put this resolution on the order paper on May 9 asking that the full pension of $105 a month be paid to everyone without a means or income test of any kind, conditions have changed to such an extent that now I would have to amend the figure of $105 a month to $125 a month because of the way in which costs have gone up since then and the way in which the living standard has gone up. I say to hon. members that there is no point in being shocked at the idea of this further increase. The standard of living of other people is going up. We think that people who retire, whether it is at the age of 60 or at the age of 65, should not be asked to live for the rest of their days on the same amount of money and thereby have to take a gradual decline in their actual as well as their relative standard of living.
Therefore, as I said, if I were proposing this resolution today I would go a step further and say that the old age security pension should be $125 a month rather than $105. But one cannot change the resolution at this point, and I would emphasize my contention that the most important part of this motion is not the amount of money that is mentioned in it but rather the principle of universality. Let me repeat again-and I know I have said it in the house hundreds of times-that one of the finest things we ever did was back in the early 1950's when we adopted a universal old age pension. All our
Old Age Security
people received it as a matter of right. Parliament took a retrograde step when we put part of it on an income test, and I hope we will soon get back to the progressive position we took in the early 1950's and pay the full old age security pension to all as a matter of right.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, in rising to deal with the motion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I should like to place on record the position of our party regarding the period which has just elapsed. We believe that the means test incorporated in the legislation put forward by the government some months ago was the meanest test of all, particularly when inflation and high costs are a part of the everyday life of our communities and particularly in view of the fact that this measure affects those people who have contributed so much in the past to the productive capacity of our nation today. I agree with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that assistance should be made available to our senior citizens at the age of 65 without the escalating feature which was incorporated into the legislation brought forward by the government some time ago.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I know there are those who will say that the government cannot find the money to provide this assistance. If that argument is valid, then it is valid when applied to other expenditures the government has been making. We should compare them on a priority basis to ascertain whether or not this argument holds water. I think of the expenditures being made on behalf of the C.B.C. amounting to $140 million and perhaps next year $180 million. I think of the plight of the senior citizens of our country and I cannot help but feel that part of the money expended on the C.B.C. probably could have gone to help these people had proper priorities been established by this parliament and by the government. I think of the expenditures that were made by Canada in order to have Expo. I am one of those who believe that the expenditures made for Expo were well spent. Here again, however, we find that a tremendous amount of money has been spent in order that we might celebrate the centennial of our confederation.
When we have asked questions of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) with regard to the possibility of a centennial bonus of $100 for our senior citizens, we have been met by silence. I

November 27, 1967
Old Age Security
say to you, sir, that this ill becomes a government that is trying to celebrate the centennial of our confederation.
In talking about our senior citizens at this time I want to add one additional argument to indicate what could have been done. I remind you, sir, and members of the house that since this government came into office some four years ago more than 10,000 civil servants have been added to the payroll. This represents 300 members of the civil service for each member of the government elected in 1963. In other words, the cost that Canadians have had to bear in order to have a Liberal government during the past four years has been an additional 300 civil servants for each member of the House of Commons elected by the Liberals in 1963. If we say that these civil servants are on a modest salary of something like $5,000 or $6,000 each and each has a secretary being paid about $4,000 with office equipment at $1,000 or $2,000 each, we have an expenditure per civil servant of $10,000. If the true figure were known, it would probably be twice that. The minimum cost, therefore, of these civil servants would have been about $3 million. This cost is being borne entirely by the people of Canada in order to sustain this government in office, and yet the government says it cannot grant the senior citizens of this country the things that are set out in the resolution we have before us.
When we have asked for a centennial bonus for the senior citizens of this country, government ministers have been silent. When a resolution like this is before the house we find the Minister of National Health and Welfare absent, not caring enough to be here to listen to the debate and let us know why the government has not seen fit to make this provision.
I say to you, sir, that had the government wished to take care of the senior citizens of this country, had they established proper priorities, we could have provided this assistance without in any way endangering the orderly development of our nation. After all, when we look at the swollen civil service we have today, when we realize some of the waste that is taking place in departments that have been built up in the way the Department of Industry has been, then I cannot help but ask those on the government benches to give a little more consideration in working out priorities and try to do something to meet the challenge embodied in this motion.
[Mr. Nasserden.l


Mr.   L.-P. Neveu@Shefford: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak tonight on this most important motion.
I have often listened most attentively and respectfully to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He is an experienced parliamentarian who never misses an opportunity to make a valuable contribution to the debate in this house.
Nevertheless, when I heard him speak on social security, more particularly on the old age pensioners and guaranteed income supplement to the aged starting at 65 years of age, I realized how much easier it is to sit on the opposition benches than on the government side.
I am, however, most happy to rise in this debate, because I am a member of the party that fathered almost all, if not all, the social security measures benefiting Canadians today from ocean to ocean.
Mr. Speaker, in spite of these objective remarks, I must say that 1 share the feelings of the mover of this motion to the effect that we should aim more and more at a wider distribution of social security, thus giving greater justice to all but, obviously, when a question of social justice is involved, social equality must be more particularly mentioned, not social inequality.
If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, in order to make my meaning clearer, I shall review certain facts and quote statistics which will enable us to better grasp the situation.
As a matter of fact, the Canadian parliament has already recognized the need to maintain incomes by passing, in 1966, an act on the guaranteed income supplement. The purpose of that plan is to ensure old age security pensioners a monthly minimum income of $105, during 1967, by adding a supplement of up to $30 a month to the pension of those who have no other source of income. The plan also provides, for 1968 and subsequent years, the possibility of increasing the guaranteed minimum income, according to the increase in the cost of living.
Indeed, those increases have been announced and they will become effective in 1968, for both the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement.
At the most, those increases will boost the payments to $107.10 per month. I am convinced that the income supplement plan now in force gives our old people an income more efficiently and at a lower cost than would be
November 27, 1967



the case under a formula such as the one proposed by my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
In fact, we do not need that formula, because the income supplement plan meets the needs of the present situation better.
One of the great advantages of the guaranteed income supplement is that it allows for calculating the payments granted in terms of an estimated income.
The motion of the hon. member would make this supplement universal and would provide an additional income to many people who do not need it.
In September 1967, a total of 1,244,085 senior citizens were covered by the Old Age Security plan; of this number, 717,845 pensioners, or 57.7 per cent, received partial or full payment of the guaranteed income supplement. These figures mean that, in 1967, there were 526,960 pensioners, or 42.3 per cent, eligible to Old Age Security allowances, whose income exceeded the permissible limit for payment of a guaranteed income supplement, namely, $1,620.
Of those who received guaranteed income supplement allowances, 436,011 pensioners, or 60.7 per cent, were entitled to full payment, while 281,834 others, or 39.3 per cent, were entitled to partial payment.
The motion introduced by my hon. friend would increase these payments for all pensioners. This would not only increase expenditures, but it would also be unfair toward pensioners with moderate or relatively high incomes.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
The proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would result in a considerable increase of costs. The expenditures thus added to relate the total amount of the supplement to all pensioners receiving old age security payments in 1968-69 would reach about $300 million. Additional expenses caused by the decision to extend these payments to all those between 65 and 66 years of age in 1968-69 would be about $200 million; accordingly, the amount of new expenditures for 1968-69 caused by this proposal would run to about $500 million. This would bring about an increase in expenditures for 1968-69 totalling about $2 billion.
Of course, when considering these things -objectives are always praiseworthy-we must understand that, as administrators, we are delegated to attend to proper management of the country's business and to pass adequate legislation.
Old Age Security
I often hear members on the other side of the house, and especially from the hon. member's party, saying that the government does not do enough. If we were to carry into effect all measures and good suggestions submitted to us, we would fall into such excesses that the government would be the first to show the way to inflation by increasing its public expenditures.
However, every time mention is made of increasing taxes or imposing new measures requiring the co-operation of all citizens, then the government is accused of taking dollars from the taxpayer's pockets. Such a situation is normal. The hon. member who has been here for a long time has certainly made his mark, since he has always kept the confidence of his constituents, but we must say that, at the present time, in 1967, we distribute, we administer the funds committed to us, but we cannot work miracles. That does not exist in the public service.
We must administer without a deficit and in a climate of social justice. We must not throw off balance the small wage-earners, those who want to benefit from that social equality, for instance.
The problems of the old, which I feel very deeply, must be considered quite objectively but they must be solved with equality in mind.
For instance, I know very well that if I were 65, today or tomorrow, and arrived in my constituency, I would not need a guaranteed income supplement, but I would be happy if the majority of my constituents, who are not as well off, who worked hard for their children, who did not spare their health or their time, and who contributed also to the old age security fund as citizens, received a supplement. All that would help promote social justice and the welfare of the population.
The additional amounts suggested in that motion would in most cases go to people who tend to be great consumers, and that would increase the demand for consumer goods and services. As a result, other increases would have inflationary effects on prices and costs. The additional expenses should be supported out of the old age security fund. On the other hand, various taxes would have to be increased: personal income tax, corporation-


Edward Nasserden: Would the hon. member permit a question?

November 27, 1967
Old Age Security


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. Is the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nas-serden) asking whether the hon. member for Shefford would allow him to ask a question?


Mr. Neveu:: After my speech, with pleasure, Mr. Speaker.
-personal income tax, corporation income tax and sales tax. At the present time, this would have some undesirable economic consequences.
New expenditures must be studied in the context of the other priorities to be respected. One of those, especially for the old people in Canada, is the setting up of an adequate medicare plan. Older people usually need more medical attention than the others. That is what is important.
The hon. member knows very well that when he meets his electors over the week end, most of them are often older persons who receive pensions, but who have bills to pay for medical supplies, or medical services, often reaching $30, $40 and $50 a month. Social justice surely demands that we consider the mass and those excellent suggestions in the future. But let us use them today to eliminate the present situation and to give us a truly complete social mechanism.
I feel that, at the present time, it is urgent that Canadians should be given a decent health insurance program. I am pleased that the present minister is dynamic, extremely perspicacious, and that he has the social security of all Canadians at heart, just like his predecessors in the past.
The newspaper La Patrie of Montreal published an eloquent article on poverty on June 4, 1967. It is often said that the poor and the old are ill more often, that they need medical assistance oftener. I think that with the savings of the wise administration we now have, we will be able to give Canada and the Canadians a health insurance that will give greater social equality and allow, once again, the central government to assert itself and say to the provinces: We have something to present, we have something to give you; you are free to refuse it or to accept it, but the government of Canada wishes to bring, from sea to sea, social justice to all Canadians, English-speaking, French-speaking, or whatever the language they may speak.
I think that when we relieve someone of hardship, hunger, when we create social equality, when we pass legislation as did this government, when we pass a bill which is complete, that is unpartitioned, but which

takes into account social facts, then we are doing something for Canada, we are doing something for its people, because when one is happy, when one has a homeland, one of course has something to live for, to hope for, a striking example to pass on to future generations. In fact, I think that the most striking example is to be able to say that, in this house, we have contributed to the improvement of social security, we have contributed to establishing not perfection of course-since perfection is unknown in this world and no one is naturally perfect-but something concrete. In my opinion, we have all the qualities, the sense of liberalism required to see things as they must be seen, all across Canada, and with a very broad outlook.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
We must be proud enough to tell those people: We would like everybody to get $105 per month at 65 or even at 60 years of age,, but the economic situation does not allow for such a provision.
I know some 50 or 55 year old unemployed who come to my office. They are pitiful. I would like to help them. I think that these citizens, who are understanding people, will realize that this is for the future good of the whole people; they can be proud to be Canadians, because not only their fellow-Canadians, their parents and their friends, but above all their children, will be able to take part in progress and in a better Canadi-anism. I am convinced that it is good administration on the part of the government which allows us to reach that goal.
This is my first term in this house, and I fully appreciate the extraordinary work done by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the members of the cabinet, the ministerial team and the right-thinking people in this house. I am proud, at this time in our history, to belong to a government which stands up, assumes its responsibilities and protects, with much concern for equality- because equality is always relative-the true democratic rights of all the citizens of all nationalities.


Edward Nasserden: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did I understand him correctly to say that adopting a full pension for senior citizens would cause inflation? Surely he was not serious in that suggestion?


An hon. Member:: That is a serious
question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what he said.
November 27, 1967


Mr. Choquelle:: The question is out of order.


Louis-Paul Neveu: My hon. friend will forgive me for replying in my mother tongue, for it makes me feel more at ease. In any case, he will understand what I say, through our interpreters. We are working quite amicably in close co-operation.
My hon. friend will recognize, as I do, that during inflationary periods, there is an imbalance in currency volume, due basically to three factors: prices, products and wages. It behooves the government to set an example for other agencies in order to stabilize the economy and prevent inflation.
Being aware, indeed, of the knowledge and experience of my hon. friend, I should think he will greatly appreciate my remarks.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, it will be hard to follow the previous act-


Stanley Howard Knowles: En frangais; en frangais.


Grant Deachman: If my hon. friends do not mind, I shall leave French this afternoon to others who are more fluent and impassioned in that language.
This afternoon's debate is interesting because it recalls to mind the debate in this chamber when the guaranteed income supplement, which provides for a minimum income for senior citizens of $105 a month, was brought down. That debate divided itself on party lines. The parties of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) were prepared to increase the old age pension to $100 a month. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEac-hen) argued that we must do something more basic than merely increasing the pension to $100 a month; we ought to introduce a guaranteed income supplement. After that, the guaranteed income supplement was brought down.
The supplement enabled the government to guarantee $105 a month to those who have no income, instead of the $100 a month which would have been paid to them had the party of the hon. member for Rosthern or that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre been in power. The government went beyond that and for the first time tied the pension supplement and the pension to a
Old Age Security
pension index. As a result, we see the pension rising to meet the rising cost of goods and services which our old people must obtain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By how much?


Grant Deachman: I will give my hon. friend the figures; I have them here. The increase which has been announced, and which will come into effect in 1968 will bring the guaranteed income supplement up to a minimum of $107.10 a month. I am as willing as anyone to say that inflation at the moment is rising more quickly than the pension index is rising. I also point out that by not adopting arguments to make the old age pension a flat $100 a month, our old age pensioners who receive the supplement will be $7.10 a month better off. They will be $7.10 better off than if the party of the hon. member for Rosthern or that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had formed the government.
In September, 1967, information available shows that 1.25 million old age pensioners lived in this country. Working out the difference in payments, one may calculate that $7.5 million a month extra is paid to our pensioners. That extra payment would not have been made had a government of either of the gentlemen I mentioned been in office. The total extra payment is about $90 million a year.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North talks about the indignity, as he calls it, of our old people having to submit to a test. They must file an income tax statement. That test every working man in Canada understands. I suggest that it is not so bad when, in common with everybody else in the country, one has to file an income tax statement. It is not so bad when, after filing that statement, one receives-and I am speaking collectively- $90 million a year. Without the indignity of that test, to use my hon. friend's expression again, would that $90 million a year be paid out if-


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question? That additional $90 million is not coming from the government, surely. The government calculates what income our old people have, and those calculations are taken into account in this so called guaranteed income situation.


Grant Deachman: No. This additional $90 million comes from the government. I am talking about the difference between having the pension at $100 a month, and increasing the monthly payments by the amount paid under the guaranteed income supplement.

November 27. 1967
Old Age Security


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit another question? I am not trying to argue, I merely want to get this clear. When the hon. member talks about $90 million, he talks about an extra $90 million that our old people will be paid?


Grant Deachman: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Actually we accepted the $105 figure; but I am not arguing that. This $90 million does not all come from the federal government. Many of our old age pensioners have their own money. Under the government scheme many are getting only $75 a month from the federal government, and not any more.


Grant Deachman: That is all they are entitled to if their total earnings are of the order of $105 a month or more. The government adopted the figure of $105 a month because it wanted to guarantee a floor, under the earnings of pensioners, at $105 a month. If a floor is put under them, then of course we must have the right to examine their incomes. The customary way of declaring income in this country is by filing an income tax form. I suggest there is no indignity attached to that procedure.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Grant Deachman: I have some figures I wish to put on record. I will try to find time for the hon. member's question later.
One of the prime advantages of the supplement is that it distributes payment on the basis of earnings or incomes. The proposal suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would make the supplement universal and thus provide increases for many who are not now in need.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How many?


Grant Deachman: I will give the figures. In September, 1967, there were about 1,250,000 old age security pensioners of whom 718,000 or approximately 58 per cent were receiving full or partial income supplement payments. This means there were 527,000 old age security pensioners in Canada, or 42 per cent, who were receiving incomes in excess of $1,620, which is the qualifying level for a guaranteed supplement.
Of the total number receiving the income supplement, 436,000 or 60 per cent were receiving the full amount and 282,000 were

receiving partial payments. The hon. member's proposal would increase benefits to all pensioners. Not only would this add to the cost but it would create an inequitable situation as between pensioners on low incomes and those on relatively high incomes.
The argument I wish to make this afternoon is that it is beyond our financial limits, I believe, to continue to raise the pensions of all old age pensioners, and raise it to a level at which people are enjoying proper retirement. This government has taken two major steps toward enabling Canadians to retire in dignity. One of these is the implementation of the guaranteed income supplement, which provides for a good deal better rate than could have been paid under the plan which hon. members opposite proposed. The other was the introduction of the Canada Pension Plan which confers benefits by way of transferability and other advantages which hitherto have not been available to most Canadians. These two pieces of legislation together have gone further than any other government measures we know toward underpinning the retired Canadian; we have had nothing like this in Canadian history before.
Members of the N.D.P. and members of the official opposition know that when we began to discuss this legislation in the house, all they were asking for was a simple $100 a month to the pensioner. We would in no way be underpinning Canadian pensioners on retirement, or offering them substantial real benefits, as we have done under the supplementary plan and under the pensions plan, if we had been content with this proposal. These were great steps forward in social legislation. And it was Liberal legislation. It was not N.D.P. legislation; they rejected those ideas. It was not Conservative legislation; they rejected those ideas. They were Liberal schemes, and it is to the credit of the Liberal party that they are on the statute books.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. gentleman like to make it clear that while it is true we rejected the income test attached to the income supplement we did not oppose the Canada Pension Plan? We fought harder for the government to bring it in than did government supporters themselves.


Grant Deachman: Since its inception the N.D.P. has taken credit for fighting harder for things this government has done than has the government itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Isn't it true?
November 27, 1967


Grant Deachman: I don't know. It is a good arrangement, and if that is the way hon. members opposite want it, I suppose it is a suitable way to do things. We shah implement the legislation, and they can grunt hard for it as we do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have to get your ideas from somewhere.


Grant Deachman: I want to make another point before I sit down. The hon. member's proposal would lead to a considerable increase in existing costs. The cost of extending the full supplement to old age pensioners in 68 and '69, as he would do, would be approximately $300 million. The additional cost of making these payments to those aged 65 and 66 would be a further $200 million. Thus the total additional cost would be roughly $500 million. Is that what the hon. member is suggesting this afternoon?
In two or three days it will be budget day, when we shall be called upon to face problems brought about in part by the expansion of social measures. We shall be called upon to face the fact that our productivity is not growing as it should. Does the hon. member wish to burden us at this time with a scheme which would mean $500 million additional expenditure? This thinking is of course what brought Great Britain down, under the government of a party which is very similar to that to which hon. members in that corner of the house belong.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members business has expired.
Does the house agree to resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CORPORATE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-161, to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs- Mr. Turner-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. As it is now seven o'clock, I do leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess. 27053-300
Corporate and Consumer Affairs AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.


Maurice Rinfret: House again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-161, an act to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs. When the committee rose, it was considering clause 6 of the bill.
On clause 6-Duties re consumer affairs.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with my brief remarks I cannot resist mentioning the fact that you cut a most impressive figure in your traditional robes.
Before six o'clock I had dealt briefly with the fact that I was rather disappointed that the minister was not willing to accept our amendment to what most of us realize is an experimental form of legislation. I dealt with the general and continuing interest in the problem of the cost of living, and I mentioned the legislation that had been passed in British Columbia as the result of a response to public opinion.
On second reading of this bill I dealt primarily with that portion of it which provides for information and education, and the next day I was very pleased to receive some very complimentary comments from members of trade unions who thought I had dealt with a very necessary aspect of the bill. I must say that I am very interested in clause 6(l)(d) and all the matters which come under it. I must also say I am interested to note that there are trade unions which take an interest in wider matters than wages and working conditions, and which are willing to participate with any level of government to make legislation work that is intended to be in the general interest.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Shall we discuss the issue and come to the point?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have just arrived at the point, and I am rather surprised at that remark from the hon. member for Carleton, who sometimes wanders far afield himself. In this connection I wish to quote from Canadian Transport of November 15, 1967-and this is directly related to clause 6(l)(d):
All Canadian workers have It within their own power to give themselves the equivalent of a 12 per cent wage increase. They can do it simply by learning how to spend their present income less wastefully.
That is true in some cases.
That's the message of Transport's consumer affairs expert, Sydney Margolius, in his latest book, "The Innocent Consumer vs. The Exploiters."
4752	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs Margolius estimates that the average family wastes about one dollar out of every eight spent. For a family with an annual income of $6,000, this means $720 down the drain. Over a 20-year period, that amount, if saved, would pay all university expenses for two children.
Why do people habitually spend more than they have to for food, medicines, home furnishings, clothing, insurance, and other goods and services? Mainly because they are fooled by deceptive advertising and shady sales gimmicks.
I might say that this is a quotation from an article "Minority Report", written by Ed Finn, an editorial writer for Canadian Transport.
"Consumer exploitation," says Margolius, "has replaced labour exploitation as the real problem of our times. We would not permit the things to be done to people as workers that we allow to be done to them as consumers."
The shocking examples of consumer exploitation he documents in his book dramatize once again the failure of most labour unions to extend the protection of their members beyond the narrow confines of offices and plants.
That is a complaint I have often brought to the attention of trade union members whom I have the honour to represent, although fortunately the trade union members I represent have taken a wide interest in such issues as the conservation of natural resources and the development of water resources. To continue with the quotation:
Some unions, of course, do provide some consumer services to their members, in the form of health clinics, consumer advice classes, and credit unions. One union even supplies free legal aid to members in financial trouble. But the vast majority of unions continue to limit their services to the work-place, leaving the members to fend for themselves in the modem marketing jungle.
This is an article of some length, but strangely enough it deals with some of the questions that I raised during second reading of this bill. It goes on to say:
One of the biggest frauds is the modem "balloon" bread. This is a one-pound loaf baked in a 11 pound pan so that it expands to a larger volume. The added volume, of course, is nothing but air. Unfortunately, most housewives accept the larger loaf at face value, and pay more for a product that provides up to one-third less nutrition.
Another exorbitantly priced product is the dry breakfast cereal, especially the sugar coated kind, for which the consumer pays $1.07 a pound for the sugar alone. That's a steep price to pay for the convenience of not having to sprinkle on the sugar by hand. By serving the kids cooked porridge, you not only gain financially but nutritionally as well.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I certainly agree with this unionist attitude toward the question. The article goes on in [Mr. Herridge.l
DEBATES	November 27, 1967
this way to deal with another matter which I mentioned at that time:
Buying on credit is another costly trap for consumers. The average family spends $250 a year on credit fees alone, because they use charge accounts or borrow from finance companies. If they joined a credit union instead, and used its services, they could cut their annual credit fees to $75.
Most families also pay unnecessarily high prices for drugs. Take aspirin, for example. It can be purchased, under its generic name, for one-fifth of the cost of Bayer aspirin, or Anacin, or any of the other heavily-advertised headache tablets; and it is just as effective. Still, most people stubbornly continue to buy advertised brands.
Even prescription drugs, under their generic names, can be bought for a fraction of their brand name counterparts. The trick is to insist that your doctor make out his prescription for the generic drug.
I think this is a very useful article, in this edition of Canadian Transport.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question. He has pointed out some very important facts. I should like to ask him whether in his opinion the consumers themselves-not wholly but partly-are responsible for these high costs about which the housewife is talking.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, in some
instances the consumer suffers by his own ignorance, also because of the lack of information on this subject through government sources in the past, and because of the lack of education. This is the reason I was very interested in the speech made by the minister from which I quoted in my few remarks on second reading. I was very pleased to be complimented by the trade unionists for having dealt with this aspect of the question, which in my opinion is very important indeed.
I believe that under this bill there will be an opportunity to provide this information which is required if the organizations are willing to participate and provide information through the advisory council, so that the consumers will know the real nutritional and other values of the goods they intend to purchase. This is the reason I am particularly interested in clause 6. Subclause (l)(d) provides that the minister shall undertake, recommend or assist in programs to assist the Canadian consumer to be more fully informed about goods and services offered to the consumer. Then, the second part of this clause reads as follows:
For the purpose of carrying out his duties and functions under this act, the minister may undertake research into matters to which the powers,
November 27, 1967

duties and functions of the minister extend, cooperate with any or all provinces or with any department or agency of the government of Canada or any organization or person undertaking such research and publish or cause to be published, or assist in the publication of, so much of the results of any such research as the minister deems appropriate and in the public interest.
I believe this clause provides an opportunity for a minister who is alert to the situation. If the full intent of this clause is implemented by the minister, then the consumer cannot help but reap some benefit from the application of this measure. I have always been a bit of an optimist, you know. I have not had an easy time in life, on occasions I have had to struggle for my living. However, I have always taken the attitude that when things look dark it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. It is on that basis that I support this bill, and particularly this clause of the bill.


Joseph Alcide Simard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make my contribution to the debate on the bill under consideration.
One would have to have one's tongue cut off, or still be completely voiceless to refrain from taking part in the debate on this same bill which seems to me to be vitiated by deficiencies and defects detrimental to the Canadian people, who have a right to expect greater objectivity and protection on the part of present legislators.
Numerous amendments submitted to our approval are not, or will not be, likely to solve the problem which now faces the Canadian consumer. I am thinking especially of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman) which suggests that the fate of consumers, worried and squeezed by the excessive and frightening increase in the prices of essential consumer goods, be entrusted to another crown corporation. This amendment which is quite subtle, I agree, cleverly sanctions control of socialism diametrically opposed to private enterprise-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I wish to remind the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean that an amendment has not yet been put before the committee by the hon. member for Waterloo South; the hon. member gave notice to the committee that an amendment would be moved, but no amendment has yet been submitted by the hon. member for Waterloo South.
27053-300}

Corporate and Consumer Affairs Mr. Simard: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for clarifying the matter.
As a solution and cure to the excessive cost of consumer products, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) that:
That subclause (1) of clause 6 be amended by adding thereto, Immediately after paragraph (d) thereof, the following new paragraph (e):
to establish a national credit commission which would be authorized by the Bank of Canada to reassess and adjust consumer prices and compensate any differences by a two-price policy.
Mr. Chairman, any monetary or financial system that does not take into account the question of prices is bound to fail. Sooner or later, it must face the phenomena of inflation and deflation. What use then the monetary units we have in our pockets if the prices of products offered to consumers increase in the same proportion?
Now, in what way does the Social Credit technique for price adjustment limit the freedom of producers and distributors in setting their own sale price? Does the government bureaucrats know the cost price of goods offered for sale better than the producer?
The producer alone must set the conditions which he feels are most appropriate to the production process to meet the needs of the Canadian consumers, but it is not for him to set or determine the conditions under which the consumers will get his products; that is to say, the producer cannot be denied his right to get paid in full according to his sale price, but it does not matter to him if the money he receives comes in full from the consumer or if part of that money has been issued by a credit organization whose creation we recommend.
Such price adjustment could also be made at set periods, every six months or once a year. It can be called a general discount applied to all retail products. That discount could be repaid to the retailer through the issuance of credit.
This bookkeeping operation would enable buyers to pay only a set fraction of the price of the item wanted and the merchant would be compensated for the difference through a credit opened by the authorized office.
This principle of the social responsibility of the state in matters of distribution is quite in accordance with this sentence from the encyclical "Quadragesimo anno", and I quote:
For then only will the economic and social organism be soundly established and attain its end, when it secures for all and each those goods
4754	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs which the wealth and resources of nature, technical achievement, and the social organization of economic affairs can give.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Concerning the admissibility of this amendment, I should like to know whether the hon. member has moved his amendment?


Maurice Rinfret: No amendment has been submitted.


Joseph Alcide Simard: Mr. Chairman, I shall read that amendment again. I moved, supported by the hon. member for Portneuf, that in clause 6, immediately after subclause (d), another subclause (e) be added as follows:
To establish a national credit commission which would be authorized by the Bank of Canada to reassess and adjust consumer prices and compensate any differences by a two-price policy.


Maurice Rinfret: Would the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Simard) send me the complete text of the amendment? e (8:20 p.m.)

There is an amendment submitted by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, to add to clause 6 a paragraph (e), to read as follows:
(e) to establish a national credit commission which would be authorized by the Bank of Canada to reassess and adjust consumer prices and compensate any differences by a two-price policy.

The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Cho-quette) has heard, no doubt, the amendment moved in French by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. The Chair entertains some doubts with regard to the admissibility of the amendment and it would appreciate the enlightened and knowledgeable assistance of the hon. member in the ruling it has to make.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I was about to suggest that the question be put to a vote, but since you insist to get some elucidation as to the admissibility of the amendment, I respectfully submit that the amendment is out of order, and for three reasons.
First, it involves the expenditures of public funds, a power which is reserved to the executive. Secondly, the resolution which preceded the bill does not provide for the creation of such board, and if we consider rather carefully that resolution, we shall find that it contained no provision concerning the
IMr. Simard.]
DEBATES	November 27, 1967
creation of such a board, even on a temporary basis. Thirdly, the amendment is not relevant to the bill.
I am prepared to quote Beauchesne's parliamentary rules but among the arguments which I have put forward with regard to the creation of a prices review board I quoted some precedents with regard to the expenditures of the crown and the purposes of the resolution. However, in order to support my argument to the effect that the amendment is not relevant, I shall quote Beauchesne's citation 203, fourth edition, which reads as follows:

It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.

I think that the remainder of the quotation is self-explanatory. Therefore, Mr. Chairman,
I submit that this amendment is out of order.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, the attitude of the minister, who is piloting this bill, does not surprise us in the least, because it seldom occurs that a minister does not defend the way his bill is drafted. As a matter of fact, in the mind of the minister introducing it, the bill is perfect and cannot possibly be amended. That is why he defends so vigorously the clauses in his bill.
The first objection raised by the minister as to the validity of this amendment, is that it will involve an expenditure of money.
Mr. Chairman, it may be seen that clause 6, subsection (1) paragraphs (a) and (b) read as follows:
(1) In exercising his powers and carrying out his duties and functions in relation to consumers' affairs under this Act, the Minister shall
(a) initiate, recommend or undertake programs designed to promote the interests of the Canadian consumer;
But the minister does not tell us how he will go about it. He will set up or prepare programs, but he does not say what programs he has in mind nor the way in which he will apply them.
Clause 6(b) provides:
-co-ordinate programs of the government of Canada that are designed to promote the interests of the Canadian consumer;
November 27, 1967

But how will he promote the interests of the Canadian consumers? Will he suggest, as we hear too often, new taxes? This would not promote the interests of the Canadian consumers, and the amendment is intended precisely to provide in the bill a means of safeguarding and promoting the interests of the Canadian consumers, by a two-price policy, which would reduce prices without increasing the cost. Since this two-price policy would be provided by the funds of the Bank of Canada, it would not be reflected in the production costs, so that the cost of living would actually decrease, which would be in the real interest of the Canadian consumers.
As for the second objection, the hon. minister tells us that the resolution does not provide for such a board. Of course, if the resolution introduced by the hon. minister had provided for such a board, there would have been no need for an amendment, that is clear.
Third, he claims that this is not relevant to the bill. Mr. Chairman, the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Simard) is precisely intended to improve clause 6 of the bill, to make it more efficient by providing for a two-price policy to help the consumer and, at the same time, allow the government to fight efficiently against inflation and the rising cost of living.
Therefore, in my opinion, the amendment is acceptable.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a very brief comment, Mr. Chairman. Having lived in Alberta, I recognize this amendment as a refinement of the A plus B theorem which Major Douglas put forward in his book on social credit. I cannot accept it and I agree with the minister that it is out of order. However, I am shocked and surprised at the minister, who should recall a famous incident of several years ago when members of the present government sat in opposition on this side. At that time, an amendment having been moved by the Social Credit party, the then official opposition endorsed the famous Martin doctrine that anything goes as long as the government is beaten. Later the President of the Privy Council, with his party tenderly embraced this doctrine, and voted for the amendment. I am shocked at the members of the government who have now turned their backs on the doctrine.
Corporate and Consumer Affairs


An hon. Member:: Those were the days of funny money.


Mr. McCleave:: The members of the government have no conscience.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I thank the hon. members for their many explanations. By addressing submissions to the Chair, hon. members enable it to consult books to which reference must be made rather often.
Here, I must, for the guidance of hon. members, quote citation 203 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if it is agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
The law on relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject matter with the original motion they are admissible but not when foreign thereto.
I venture to draw the attention of hon. members of this committee to paragraph 3 of the citation 246 by the same author which reads as follows:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment from the financial initiative of the crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also of its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
Lastly, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. members to citation 406 appearing on page 285 and I quote:
Amendments are out of order if they are
a.	irrelevant to the bill or beyond its scope, governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived;
b.	inconsistent with or contradictory to the bill as agreed to by the committee.
For all those reasons, I declare that the amendment is out of order.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, until the present time the house has been very unsuccessful in trying to induce the minister to insert some teeth into this legislation. He has two strikes against him, but the third time will really be out for him. The final proof of whether or not the legislation is worth while or whether it will help the consumer rests on the measures contained in it for that purpose. All we have now are some generalities, some
November 27, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs words regarding good intentions, and a hopeful outlook for the consumer; but there is nothing positive which will demonstrate that the minister using these powers can act effectively on behalf of the consumers.
Earlier today the minister was given an opportunity to take some action with regard to copper prices. He has turned it down. I would now like to suggest to the minister a specific area of difficulty in this country and a situation which calls out for correction, namely the high price of drugs. I suggest to him that he should examine this legislation to see what could be done to bring down the price of drugs.
In some of his previous statements the minister has indicated he intends to take some action in this regard. So far we have seen nothing of a concrete nature to help the consumer in reducing the cost of drugs. The government has thrown out a bonus; it has given away tax money for this purpose. So far we cannot see that this reduction of taxes has significantly affected the situation. There is no need to document extensively what is going on in the field of drug prices in Canada. This has been done very effectively by a committee set up for the purpose. But I would like to draw the minister's attention to a few statements to indicate the serious nature of this problem. I refer him to a statement made on February 14 and reported in the issue of the Toronto Star of that date. The heading reads "Alberta Study hits out at Drug Firms", and the text reads as follows;
A U.S. economist says his study of the Canadian drug industry shows that lack of price competition among druggists "is a major factor in the high cost of drugs."
Farther on Professor Steele went on to say:
Excessive sales promotion budgets of the big manufacturers create a major barrier to entry into the industry by small firms who could provide effective price competition.
Another report in the Toronto Telegram of February 14 stated that the Alberta government called for sweeping changes in patent, tariff, trade mark and tax laws which were proposed to the House of Commons drug prices inquiry by a United States economist, commissioned by Alberta. The article reads in part as follows;
His study said the industry here now is almost 90 per cent foreign-controlled and well able to lower the barriers that squeeze out smaller competitors.
Prices could be cut by half with annual savings to consumers of $100 million.
[Mr. Saltsman.l
We are speaking about a vast sum of money which, in many cases, is being paid by those least able to afford it. If we consider a smaller estimate such as the one put forward by the druggists, we find that it is their belief that $50 million could be cut from the customer prices. I should like to quote the following statement from the Kitchener-Water loo Record of August 18:
If two resolutions passed by the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association Thursday were put into effect, Canadians could save as much as $50 million a year says association president Philip W. Goldman.
Whichever estimate the minister wishes to accept, either the $100 million or the $50 million, it is certainly an indication of the amount of charging that is taking place, due either to profiteering or to the inefficency of the drug industry in this country.
The editorial of the Toronto Star of April 4 was entitled "They soak the sick: Ottawa should get though on drug firms", and is as follows:
* (8:40 p.m.)
Profiteering and wasteful expensive promotion make Canadian drug prices among the highest in the world.
Then, in an editorial in the Globe and Mail, I read this:
The House of Commons committee on drugs seemed to doubt that it was. In its April report it suggested that the drug industry was more interested in its pockets than in sick people (except as a source of revenue.) The committee found that Canadian drug prices were among the highest in the world, up 140 per cent in the past 16 years compared with 40.8 per cent for general consumer goods, and returning profits double that enjoyed by other manufacturing industries.
As an indication of what is happening to the consumer, I should like to quote from the minutes of the special committee on drug costs and prices for Thursday, December 1, at page 1512. The hon. member for Winnipeg North is questioning the witness about government policy on buying drugs and the prices paid by the government as compared with prices paid by consumers. The record reads:
Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I would like to point out that the department was able to purchase at the price of $3.25 per one hundred, and that Parke Davis, which is the big manufacturer or distributor in Canada, offered them to the department for $6.39 per one hundred.
I made a phone call after we got this table. The list price which Parke Davis offers to retail druggists in Canada is $39.40 a hundred; the discount which the druggist gets is 40 per cent. The
November 27. 1967

retail druggist therefore pays $23.64 for one hundred of these capsules which Parke Davis offered to the department for $6.39 a hundred. I think it is an interesting comparison.
-on Librium, I notice that here again prices were asked for 10 milligram tablets in bottle sizes of 100 tablets. I notice that Hoffmann-La Roche, which tendered the lowest price offered them to the department for $2.60 a hundred in bottles of 100 tablets. The price to retail drugstores by Hoffmann-La Roche is $12 a hundred, list price.
There are many examples of this type that could be placed on the record. It is generally acknowledged by those who have looked into the situation that the drug industry is in deplorable shape and needs some corrective action. If this department of consumer affairs is to serve a really useful purpose, then it must take action to bring down the prices of drugs. We do not believe that the bill, as it is now constituted, possesses the power to use effectively all the instruments that the minister might be able to use on behalf of the consumer. The willingness of the government to consider our proposal will be an indication of how serious it is in tackling this problem.
I should like to read into the record an article written by Mr. D. H. Fullerton which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen for November 25. The writer raises these very interesting questions:
Action to bring down Canadian drug prices continues to move at a snail's pace.
In June the sales tax on drugs was removed, although most observers felt that this step should have awaited measures to bring greater price competition into the business.
Current proposals being considered by the government involve compulsory import licences and changes in the Trade Marks Act, which would increase the effectiveness of import competition.
Unfortunately, even if these proposals become law there is some doubt whether the impact on drug prices will be more than marginal.
In a society where the high cost of drugs is borne by those least able to afford it-the old, the sick and the poor-one may be pardoned for asking why action on drugs has not had a higher priority.
One answer is being observed in Ottawa today where the well-heeled, monopolistic, and internationally powerful drug industry has been recently mounting the most intensive lobby ever seen in the capital.
A senator with impeccable political connections is acting as contact man for the industry. Ministers, senior officials-irj fact anyone who is likely to have any possible role in drug policy-are being wined and dined and courted by the manufacturers.
Several new plants are being promised for certain key constituencies-as if new jobs for a few hundred workers would counterbalance the $200 million or more the country is paying annually in excessive prices for drugs!
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
The effectiveness of the drug lobby was plainly demonstrated at hearings of the commons committee on drug costs and prices. One M.P. was openly being fed information and questions by representatives of the companies and of their organization, the P.M.A.C., in order that he could better interrogate witnesses hostile to the drug manufacturers.
The minister has an opportunity tonight to indicate that some of these charges are not true. He can take positive action to curtail the influence and power of the drug companies in Canada. I suggest that influence and power is being used against the consumer.
As an indication of the kind of reprehensible approach the drug companies take, I have a letter sent to me by a doctor who resented the infantile approach of these drug companies to the members of his profession. The letter has at the top a picture of two little capsules. I will not read it into the record because it is too lengthy. However, the letter, in child-like terms, goes on gently to lead the doctor to consider that these two capsules might not be alike, but it does not give him any adequate reason for saying so.
This letter is from Bristol Laboratories of Canada Limited, and is put out by a firm that at the moment is under investigation in the United States for price fixing. I should like to quote from an article in the Globe and Mail of October 24, 1967 which reads:
After six years of delay, the drug industry's battle of the century has begun in Federal District Court here.
The adversaries are the justice department and three of the nation's largest drug manufacturers- Chas. Pfizer and Co. Inc., American Cyanamid Co. and Bristol-Myers Co. These are charged in a three count indictment with fixing artificially high prices and monopolizing the manufacture, distribution and sale of the "wonder" antibiotic drugs that millions of Americans use.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the minister that even tariff removal on drugs, or complete free trade between Canada and the United States would not be effective in solving the problem of consumers in Canada of procuring drugs at the prices they should be paying. The same companies that are operating in the United States are operating in this country, and if they are fixing prices, arranging prices or whatever they may be doing in the United States, I think it is reasonably certain the same thing will be happening in this country. All that the removal of the tariff will accomplish will be to allow the companies to rationalize a little better than they have in the past.
The impact on drug users would be minimal. Far more than that has to be done in
November 27, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs order to bring this industry to heel. We believe that a provision should be included in this bill to permit the government to establish a crown corporation which could manufacture drugs, or could buy them from Canadian companies and put the government brand on them. These drugs could then be distributed directly to druggists. The crown company could operate with a minimum of advertising and could generally serve to rationalize the industry on behalf of the consumer.
What we are suggesting is not original. The government does this now on behalf of many of its own agencies. If I may, I should like to quote again from the minutes for December 1 of the special committee on drug costs and prices for December 1, page 1500. Mr. I. C. Ellis, pharmacist for the Department of National Health and Welfare is being questioned about suppliers, and he said:
-the Department of National Health and Welfare does have a variety of programs. We all seem to go along in different directions in the procurement of drugs. The medical services branch, which covers the activities of the Indian health services and northern health services, sick mariners services and civil service health, requires pharmaceuticals and continuing supplies in varying amounts.
9 (8:50 p.m.)
The Emergency Health Services Division of the Health Services Branch require large annual purchases of drugs and pharmaceuticals for additions to, and resupply of, the national stockpile.
There is also a general purchasing branch in the Department of Defence Production charged with the responsibility of procuring a very wide range of commodities, and among these commodities are drugs.
The amounts are not insignificant. As reported at page 1526 of the same report, in reply to a question about the amounts, Mr. Erskine stated:
Mr. Chairman, in total dollar value I could not tell you. Certainly it is a very small percentage of individual types of drugs; but we have not yet any statistics for the two departments that are fairly new customers of ours. We have some estimates of their total requirements in a year. I think around 31 million is what we expect. The Department of National Defence would run anywhere from $750,000 to $1 million, and National Health and Welfare would be relatively small, perhaps $100,000.
So you can see, Mr. Chairman, about $5 million worth of purchases are accounted for by Mr. Erskine. What we are suggesting is that this program, which is now operated in a somewhat divided way, be grouped together and then extended so that purchases in

bulk be made not only on behalf of government departments but also on behalf of the consumers of this country. I do not anticipate that this corporation would take a very large proportion of the business in drugs in this country; but if the government were to move into this field and indicate that it intended to take action to bring down the price of drugs by this method, then the industry would soon straighten itself out very quickly. If they did not do so, the government would take over some of their business.
There has been experience of this situation in other countries. For example, in Sweden the co-ops undertook the job. They effectively reduced prices in many areas, just by moving into the market and taking a small portion of business in the market. The other companies in the field got the message very quickly and reduced their prices to a more reasonable level.
The minister has previously pointed out in argument the difficulty of establishing what is a fair price, or how one arrives at a price. I would suggest that one of the ways to establish this is in a competitive market. However in order to be sure that the price is as competitive or as low as it could possibly be under the circumstances, there must be real competition. This we have not had in the drug industry in this country. Therefore I suggest that the minister has an obligation on behalf of Canadian consumers to see that such competition and alternate supply exists for the consumers, and is obligated to seek powers in the bill that enable him to do so.
Hospitals all across Canada are now doing exactly what I am suggesting the minister should do. They are buying drugs on behalf of the consumers, who ultimately pay the hospital bills. I would therefore suggest that the minister give very careful consideration to this proposal and indicate his willingness and concern to take real action on behalf of the consumers by accepting the amendment I should like to move at this time. My amendment is as follows:
That sub-clause (1) of clause 6 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after paragraph (d) thereof, the following new paragraph:
"(e) establish a corporation on behalf of Her Majesty which shall be empowered to: manufacture, sell, distribute, and promote drugs offered for sale in Canada;
supervise all advertising and promotion activities related to drugs including the distribution of samples and the content of advertising literature."


John Napier Turner: Corporate and Consumer Affairs no comment on the substance of what he said this evening, I ought to point out that he will have another opportunity during the session to present his argument, when a matter that is more relevant to his argument is being considered.


David Orlikow: I was interested in the minister's comments. At one point he told us that the purpose-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member for Winnipeg North is about to assist the Chair to arrive at a decision as to whether this amendment is acceptable.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make a few comments on points the minister raised. Though we have heard arguments in this house on questions of irrelevancy of amendments, nothing it seems to me is more relevant than the $200 million the consumers of Canada are forced to overpay with respect to drug prescriptions in one year.
That is an important amount of money and we ought to address ourselves to consideration of how it is spent. The minister suggested that the amendment is out of order since the purpose of the bill is to permit the minister to appoint advisory committees to help him. 1 was under the impression that the bill was being enacted to help our consumers. I can think of nothing which would help our consumers more directly than allowing them to buy prescription drugs at a fair price.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North is discussing the amendment. The Chair wishes to hear arguments for and against the admissibility of the amendment before a ruling is made.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, my point might be made more clearly if I were to recite to Your Honour the provisions of clause 6(l)(a) which reads as follows:
(1) In exercising his powers and carrying out his duties and functions in relation to consumers' affairs under this Act, the minister shall
(a) initiate, recommend or undertake programs designed to promote the interests of the Canadian consumer:
It is obvious from this, that any measure which enables the Canadian consumer to save money is admissible. The amendment of the hon. member for Waterloo South would materially help our consumers to save money and would contribute to their welfare. The words I have read give the minister power to

do precisely what our amendment proposes. We can demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that our amendment is truly worth while, and I think Your Honour ought to rule that the amendment is admissible.
I wish to raise another point. Throughout this debate the minister has said, "I will not argue about what you are proposing, but this is the wrong time"-or the wrong place, or the wrong bill-"and you should not make your proposition now." The minister suggested that some of our suggestions might be put forward appropriately on the trade marks and patents legislation. I tell him that I have grave doubts about whether we shall ever reach that legislation, at the rate at which we are moving. Even so, I submit that our proposal to establish a crown corporation to manufacture and distribute prescription drugs, which is the substance of the amendment, will have as little to do with the patent and trade marks legislation, when that is brought down, as the minister's arguments have to do with this amendment at this time. I suggest that our amendment is proper and that the committee ought to support it.


Max Saltsman: I wish to deal with some of the points raised by the minister with respect to the admissibility of the amendment and, particularly, I wish to deal with the question of relevancy. The amendment is of the highest relevancy, since no other measure that I am aware of would as effectively help the drug consumers of the country as would our amendment, if it were adopted in the legislation.
The minister also raised the question that our amendment involved expenditure of money. We are not talking about any additional expenditure of money. We presume that the crown corporation referred to in the amendment would be self supporting; it would not be bonused, if I may use that term. It could carry itself and compete effectively against the drug companies, as well as bring some return on its investment.
Our proposal is eminently practical since the drug industry of this country needs effective competition. Only the government, with its resources, can create a crown corporation which would not involve the expenditure of extra money and which would provide the drug companies of this country with effective competition.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The hon. member for Waterloo South is debating the amendment. The Chair wishes the committee
November 27, 1967

to present arguments on whether the amendment is admissible. Debating the amendment itself is quite another matter.


Max Saltsman: Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the admissibility of the amendment I was trying to answer the point the minister raised. He said that accepting the amendment would entail the expenditure of money and we say that this amendment, if it were accepted, would not involve the government in additional expenditures, within the normal meaning of that term.
The minister also said that the amendment went beyond the scope of the resolution. He said that the resolution provided for bodies to assist the minister. Nothing else would assist the minister more in carrying out his duties than establishing a crown corporation like the one proposed in the amendment. That is completely within the terms of reference of the resolution.
Answering the minister's third point, that anything enacted under this legislation must be shown to be of interest to consumers, I say again, as I said when answering the second point, that the amendment would be of enormous interest to consumers and to those in Canada who suffer because of the distorted price structure which the drug industry of this country has created with respect to drugs. I submit that nothing could interest consumers more than the amendment we are seeking to move tonight.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Edward Nasserden: The hon. member who has just resumed his seat referred to the creation of yet another crown corporation and the results which might flow from it. It would be irrelevant to go into that issue as the present time. But the whole tenor of this bill has been to provide a policing structure and an information bureau-indeed, I referred to it earlier in the debate as being a glorified information bureau to provide consumers with information about products they might be using. I do not think it is within the purview of this bill to set up a crown corporation.
Consider the experience in Saskatchewan over a period of 20 years, during which crown corporations were set up by the C.C.F. government under the leadership of the present leader of the New Democratic party. The developments which took place in that province were far from happy.
27053-301$
Corporate and Consumer Affairs


Herman Maxwell Batten: The Chair is interested in hearing arguments for or against the admissibility of the amendment, not for or against the amendment itself.


Edward Nasserden: I was about to indicate that the creation of a crown corporation, as this amendment suggests, would divert all the attention of the minister and his department away from the task parliament is seeking to give them. For this reason alone I believe the amendment is completely irrelevant. Indeed it amounts to deliberate obstruction on the part of members of the N.D.P. when they introduce amendments of this type to a bill of the kind now before us, knowing full well that they are irrelevant.


Colin Cameron: I am assuming that the argument the minister made with regard to relevance has fallen on deaf ears, because it is one which cannot be supported by logic or common sense. Nothing could be more relevant to a department of consumer affairs than the protection of a particularly badly exploited section of consumers by a particularly rapacious segment of industry. I will spend no more time on this question of relevance.
The other point the minister raised was that it went beyond the power of a private member to introduce such an amendment because it entailed government expenditures. I would draw the minister's attention to clause 6 (a) where it is stated that the minister shall-he has no option about this-initiate and recommend or undertake programs designed to promote the interests of the Canadian consumer.
The amendment produced by my hon. friend from Waterloo South specified one such program which the minister should undertake in carrying out the terms of this legislation. Surely the legislation allows the development of precisely such a corporation. After all, we have not as yet been presented with an estimate of the cost of setting up this new department. We have not been told that certain limits of expenditure have been placed upon the minister in the performance on his duties. Paragraph (a) clearly indicates that the minister has very wide authority to undertake any kind of program, whether it be the establishment of crown corporations or any other action, if he believes he is acting in the interests of the Canadian consumer. The bill itself sets out the minister's
4762	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs duties and, as I say, one of these is to establish programs in the interests of the consumer. Our amendment specifies the sort of program he should be considering.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If members have no further comment on the admissibility of the amendment, the Chair could possibly proceed. May I first of all point out that under the terms of the resolution the governor in council may establish a consumer advisory council "and other bodies to assist the minister". The interpretation which the Chair would place on those words would be "bodies coming within the purview or within the control of the department." The setting up of an independent body such as a crown corporation would I believe, not come within the meaning of "a body to assist the minister" as referred to in the resolution.
Second, it is the opinion of the Chair that setting up a crown corporation would be a matter for major parliamentary decision and something which would be more properly done by a substantive motion rather than by an amendment to a clause of a bill.
Again, the setting up of such a corporation would be well outside the scope of the resolution. May I read to the committee part of citation 246 (3) beginning at the sixth line?
In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
In the resolution which was agreed to on October 13 there was surely no authority given to this department to manufacture, sell or distribute drugs. This, in the opinion of the Chair, is well outside the confines of the resolution.
For these reasons, therefore, I declare the amendment out of order.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
have another amendment to put forward. I will first of all explain the reasons for moving it,


Mr. Mackasey:: Why don't you people form a government some time and bring in your own proposals?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Some hon. members over there are in a terrific hurry to pass this bill. I can tell them that for a great many people in this country this is one of the most important measures to come before the present parliament. We intend to

DEBATES	November 27, 1967
draw attention to proposals which could make it a far better piece of legislation if they were adopted. If they are not adopted we shall point out that the public is not being granted the protection to which it is entitled. The bill in its present form is deceiving the people of this country, and unless it is improved we shall be the first to point out its shortcomings.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
In its interim report on consumer affairs, the economic council in July, 1967, reported upon the responsibilities of the Registrar General and recommended the establishment of an interdepartmental committee on consumer affairs under the chairmanship of the deputy registrar general. It stated that this committee should include the deputy ministers of trade and commerce, national health and welfare, industry, agriculture, fisheries, insurance, finance and justice and of such other departments as have a continuing interest in consumer affairs. It stated that in such matters as food, pesticides, consumer credit, consumer goods standards and trade practices, where responsibilities are widely distributed, such co-ordination was imperative for efficient administration.
We would be the last to decry the idea of close co-ordination, but again I would point out that in this respect there is a great lack in the bill. I have been approached by a good many people, members of the Consumers Association of Canada, members of the price protesters association, and by people inside government departments who have told me of the difficulties that exist in regard to this legislation. They have told me that there is a need for it to be amended to make sure that such co-ordination will be possible.
The quickest way in which I can illustrate the need for an amendment such as I am going to move is by quoting from a brief submitted by the Consumers Association of Canada to the Economic Council of Canada in July last. In the appendix to the brief there is a good illustration of the problems arising out of divided jurisdiction in the federal government in matters affecting consumer interests. At the present time there are several departments concerned with consumer interests; thus an amendment such as I am about to propose is necessary. I quote from the appendix to the brief as follows:
In late 1963 and early 1964, C.A.C. received complaints from a number of consumers across the country that milk and fruit juices sold in wax cartons in retail stores did not contain the amount of liquid contents stated on the carton. Before acting on these complaints, C.A.C. undertook a pilot-measuring project in Toronto. Two samples
November 27, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	4763
of 21 brands of various kinds of milk and fruit juices in wax cartons were purchased at random across the city. Using standard measures from the Department of Trade and Commerce, and watched by an official of the Weights and Measures division of that department, C.A.C. members measured the contents of these cartons. Thirteen of the 21 brands contained less than the amount of contents stated on the package, several brands being four fluid ounces short. Two weeks later the operation was repeated and the same results secured.
Inspection of these cartons was the responsibility of both the Food and Drug Directorate, the Department of Trade and Commerce, and in the case of fluid milk, the provincial department of agriculture. As a result of dual and triple control and lack of co-ordination, inspection failed to give consumers the protection they should have been receiving to ensure full value for their dollars.
After checking a complaint that cans of tomato juice labelled 20 fluid ounces did not contain that amount, C.A.C. decided that this matter needed a more thorough investigation. In 1964, some 237 cans of juices in seven different sizes, but chiefly in the most popular size, 20 fluid ounces, were purchased across Canada and shipped to a qualified testing laboratory for careful measurement of the contents.
I quote this to show that the Consumers Association of Canada has been doing very-careful work on behalf of consumers in checking complaints and trying to have them remedied under existing legislation, and I believe the members of the association have every right to demand through some of us here that we make this legislation foolproof.
The laboratory reported that none of the cans labelled 105 fluid ounces contained 105 fluid ounces: only one in nine of those labelled 20 fluid ounces contained 20 fluid ounces. Only in the sizes labelled 48 fluid ounces and 10 fluid ounces did all samples contain the amount stated on the label. It was obvious that in most sizes it was very difficult and in some sizes impossible for processors to fill the cans with the amount stated on the label. These cans are of international standard sizes and the amount stated on the label is regulated -under the Canada Agricultural Products Standard Act.
On the basis of the test, C.A.C. requested the Department of Agriculture to review its labelling requirements under this act to ensure that the labels of canned juices correctly state the amount of the contents of the can. The results of the test and this request were reported in the press.
Now I come to the moral of the story.
The matter was also referred to the food and drug directorate, which has the responsibility under the Food and Drugs Act that food shall not be labelled or sold in a manner which is false or misleading. The director immediately informed C.A.C. that the directorate was fully aware of the incorrect labelling and for ten years had been trying to get the Department of Agriculture to amend its regulations to require accurate labelling not only of canned juices but of canned juices, fruits and vegetables.
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
For ten years the food and drug directorate had been trying to get co-operation from the Department of Agriculture, and unless something is done to make this procedure more effective than has been the case in the past, Canadian consumers will be left very much under-protected. I continue with the quotation:
The Department of Agriculture has since taken action. Amended regulations of this department became fully effective on January 1st, 1966. Until C.A.C. discovered this deception and pressed for rectification of the labelling, the food and drug directorate was unable, on account of the inactivity of the Department of Agriculture, to carry out its responsibilities under the Food and Drugs Act.
I know that this bill provides for co-ordination of these different activities under the minister, but I maintain there is still something important lacking, and that is why I move:
That subclause (1) of clause 6 of Bill C-161 be amended by adding thereto the following new paragraph:
''(e) be empowered to secure information from any other department of the government to assist in the investigation of consumer complaints."
In other words, Mr. Chairman, we want to give the minister power to go into the Department of Agriculture, the food and drug directorate or whatever other department may be involved, to get information directly related to consumer complaints. If the bill remains in its present form there is nothing to prevent a situation happening again such as I outlined a few moments ago, where a consumer complaint was left unsolved for ten years while one department waited for another department to act.
This amendment does not propose the spending of public money. It does not interfere with provincial jurisdiction. It does not get the minister in wrong with industry. I really hope he approves of it. I may say that this is not my own idea. It comes from members of the Consumers Association of Canada, who are to be found all across the country. I feel this amendment would strengthen this clause in the bill.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Amendment (Mrs. Maclnnis-Vancouver-Kingsway) negatived: Yeas 24; nays, 43.


Mr. Fawceli:: Mr. Chairman, during all this debate I have not taken any of the time of
November 27, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs the house. However, I do not feel I should let this clause pass without making a few remarks. As my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway pointed out, this, at least to the general public, is one of the most important pieces of legislation that has been brought before this house in a long time. When I look at clause 6 I cannot help feeling that it deals in very vague generalities. I should like to quote subclause (l)(a):
initiate, recommend or undertake programs designed to promote the interests of the Canadian consumer;
What type of programs are to be undertaken? Will they be educational programs or programs designed to enlighten the general public with regard to the quality of goods? I notice that further down in clause 6 it states that the minister does have the authority to undertake research and publish or cause to be published anything in connection with what this research divulges. However, there does not seem to be anything very specific here. This is my complaint in respect of the whole bill, although necessarily I must deal with clause 6. I should like to be a little parochial and ask whether under the authority of this clause someone will look into the situation in northern Ontario to determine why we pay seven cents more for a gallon of gasoline than is paid 100 miles to the south, when the cost of transportation on gasoline is approximately a quarter of a cent a gallon? Is this one of the things on which the minister is going to have some research done? Will these paragraphs be used to expose the methods used in high pressure advertising?
We know, in respect of the various brands of soaps, that if the sale of a particular brand would seem to be falling off the company comes up with another brand which has a special additive. Neither you, Mr. Chairman, nor I nor the people across the country know what this additive is. We do not know whether it contributes anything to the product. This is another place where I believe there should be a good deal of research in order to determine whether these additives contribute anything to the product, or whether they are just another method of "hard sell". Will the ingredients contained in various products be analysed so that a comparison may be made between the quality of the highly advertised products which sell in the stores primarily under a brand name, plus of course the "hard sell" advertising, and the quality of the lesser advertised products? Here as an example I might use a product which is packaged for the various chain

stores, and which sells under a name used by the chain store, although this product in many cases is manufactured by the same company which manufactures the products which are sold under brand names. These brand name products in many cases sell for considerably more than the product which is sold under the chain store's brand name.
In this connection I should like to mention something which came to my attention a number of years ago. It do not know whether or not this particular consumers research bureau is still in existence, but at one time in the United States various labour organizations participated in providing the funds for a consumers research bureau. It did very extensive work. The ingredients which went into various products were analysed. Tests were made to find out whether one product was actually better than another. I recall very vividly some comments made in respect of some research carried out on soap, as an example. One particular type of soap that was not advertised on the market at all was packaged in a plain brown paper bag, and sold over the counters not only in chain stores but in the small retail stores. When the ingredients of that product were analysed it was found that it contained practically the same ingredients as the highly advertised brands. In addition it was found that there were other substances in this particular brand of soap which made it a better product than the highly advertised product.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I wonder whether the arguments being put forward by the hon. member about soap are relevant to clause 6.


Norman Edward Fawcett: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I am merely pointing out that this clause deals in generalities and does not specifically point out what kind of research programs will be carried out, how the people will be educated, and so on. Perhaps I might read the second part of this clause:
For the purpose of carrying out his duties and functions under this act, the minister may undertake research into matters to which the powers, duties and functions of the minister extend, cooperate with any or all provinces or with any department or agency of the government of Canada or any organization or person undertaking such research and publish or cause to be published, or assist in the publication of, so much of the results of any such research as the minister deems appropriate and in the public interest.
Here, so far as my argument is concerned, is one of the most important parts of clause 6, because if we are to have something which
November 27, 1967

is merely a brief article appearing in a newspaper, or a leaflet which is sent to a householder in the mail, I do not think very much will be accomplished. I suggest to the minister that when he comes up with the result of the research into some of the various commodities, the information should be advertised across the country on a popular public affairs program, which the people watch, so that they can be made very much aware of what has been developed by the research carried on by this consumer affairs branch.
As 1 said, I shall be very brief. I do not intend to say very much more. This clause in particular deals in generalities rather than in specifics. In all probability the minister and his officials when drafting the bill had certain specific things in mind. I only wish that he had been more specific in outlining just what types of research will be carried out and how he hopes to inform the public of the results of the research which is carried out.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The Assisiant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall
clause 7 carry?


Mr. Watson (Chaieauguay-Hunlingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Chairman, I have something to say on clause 6. I should like to put on the record some suggestions which I think should be made in relation to clause 6 (c) of this bill. Under clause 6 (c) the minister will be given the power to promote and encourage the institution of practices or conduct tending to the better protection of the Canadian consumer, and so on. He will be able to co-operate with provincial governments or agencies as well as, I presume, various federal agencies. In this respect I believe some specific suggestions should be made. I suggest that the new ministry, in full co-operation with C.M.H.C., take immediate steps to assure greater consumer protection in the field of housing.
I hope the new ministry, acting in its capacity as watchdog over the interests of the consumer will, either by direct pressure on C.M.H.C. or by recourse to the publicity and information supplying resources which will undoubtedly be at its disposal under clause 6(1) (c) and (d) of the new bill, be able to persuade the public, and through the public C.M.H.C.-if this is necessary-that new
Corporate and Consumer Affairs measures and conditions must become an integral part of future housing developments if the house buying consumer is to have full value for his investment dollar and adequate long term protection for his investment.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has not over the years taken enough social initiative. It has fulfilled its legal responsibilities but has not gone out of its way to impose upon the communities benefiting from its lending funds the aesthetic standards which we should regard as minimal in any housing development. It would be a simple matter for C.M.H.C. to insist that it would not allow its funds to be lent to any development unless provision was made for putting all telephone and electricity lines underground.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should also insist that adequate recreational facilities, more especially parkland and playground areas, be included in any development receiving its funds. If C.M.H.C. does not soon include these requirements as a condition for extension of its loans, I suggest to the new ministry that it should intervene on behalf of our home buying public.

I should like to add that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is remiss in its duty of lending money to municipalities to install sewage treatment systems and water purification plants without giving them, at the same time, advice on the most efficient and less costly methods. In my constituency, the town of Sainte-Philomene received a loan from the corporation of over $500,000, 25 per cent of which represented a federal government subsidy. Unfortunately for this town, the system installed on the recommendation of private engineers whose fees were a percentage of the total cost of the project, was needlessly complicated. In using the "open pit" method, the municipal authorities of Sainte-Philomene could have achieved the same results at half the cost.
The corporation is mistaken if they consider that their responsibilities end when funds are loaned. It is an inexcusable waste of public moneys to lend funds to install a system twice as expensive as others just as efficient and with a lower cost of operation. When the municipal authorities of a town or a city try to borrow money to install a sewage treatment system or a purification plant, the corporation should provide advice and the services of their own experts.
November 27, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs [English]
I wish to make one further suggestion to C.M.H.C. which I trust the new ministry will keep in mind. For far too long the Canadian house buyer, although protected from structural and basic construction defects by C.M.H.C. standards and provincial laws, has not been adequately protected against finishing defects. Only a minority of house builders are guilty of producing poorly finished houses, but the unfortunate house buyer who discovers that he has acquired a shoddily finished house must engage expensive legal services, if he is to be able to force the builder to fulfil his contractual responsibilities.
In most cases the buyer is too far in debt, because of buying and furnishing his new home, to afford legal services. The builders know this and take advantage of the buyer's position. The builders who get away with deficient finishing are usually the same ones who have purchasers sign purchase offers which are phrased in a way which result in a buyer signing up for more than he bargained for.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation may have fulfilled its legal obligations under the National Housing Act, limiting its responsibility to maintaining basic construction standards; but it has, I submit, a much broader social responsiblity for consumer protection which it has not fulfilled, but could quite easily be put into effect. I would request that the minister of consumer affairs ask C.H.M.C., if this body does not act on its own, to consider without delay the following proposals: That a blacklist be established of all builders who have been the subject of verified, legitimate and well-founded complaints by home buyers to C.M.H.C.; the establishment of a blacklist of delinquent home builders or, alternatively, the creation of a register of the names of those home construction companies who have a complaint free record. This would have an immediate and highly beneficial effect on the house finishing practices of delinquent house building companies. Also an appeal procedure could easily be established which would satisfy the responsible house builders. If hon. members will bear with me, I suggest that the blacklist of complaint free builders be distributed to the public by C.M.H.C. or through the department of consumer affairs. It could be distributed by public libraries, consumer groups and a broad selection of associations and public bodies.
[Mr. Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Lapralrie) .1


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please.


Mr. Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-La-prairie):: I suggest that such a house buyer protection policy would produce immediate and dramatic improvements for average Canadian house purchasers, and I would urge the minister and C.M.H.C. to give these suggestions their immediate consideration.


Maurice Rinfret: While the hon. member did have the last word, may I tell him that I was at a loss to relate the remarks he was making to the clause under study.
Clause 6 agreed to
On clause 7-Advisory and other bodies.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, this clause reads as follows:
The governor in council may establish a consumer advisory council and other bodies to advise or assist the minister or to perform such duties and functions as the governor in council may specify-
And so on. Originally I had intended to move a amendment to this clause. However the minister has been obdurate and inflexible and his juggernauts, the backbenchers on the government side, have spoken in opposition to amendments coming from this side of the house. I would urge the minister, Mr. Chairman, to accept the removal of the words "and other bodies" from this clause.
e (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, while the minister is thinking about that, may I support the suggestion which has been made. Clause 7 is almost a blank cheque to the minister because in it he does not set out the function of advisory boards, as was done so carefully in part II of the bill with regard to the manpower and immigration council, which was earlier before the house. He has simply written in what amounts to a wide open paragraph giving him complete power to set up an advisory council and other bodies. He does not specify how often they will be called together nor what will be their composition. This clause will give the minister too much authority, and now that he has had time to think over the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River perhaps he will modify it by striking out "and other bodies", or else explain to us what he intends to do under this clause.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I accept that deletion.
November 27, 1967


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I move that the words "and other bodies" be deleted.
Amendment (Mr. Baldwin) agreed to.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be of interest to the committee, because it is of interest to me, if the minister would tell us how many members there will be on the consumer advisory council.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, instead of making the remarks that I wanted to make I will make a fair exchange with the minister. Win he rise for a few moments and tell us about the advisory council, how many people he proposes to put on it, what its representation will be, where the members will be from, geographically, and who will nominate them. I would be more than satisfied if he would give us this information.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway would review my speech on second reading, she would find the answer to her question. Let me say briefly that we contemplate the appointment of about 15 members chosen for their personal qualities and representing the various economic interests of the country, that is the consumers, the retailers, the manufacturers, the advertising industry, labour, universities and so on. Of course the geographic and the other balanced interests of the country will be represented on the council. However, may I say to the hon. member that I dealt with that matter on second reading.


Winona Grace MacInnis: should like to ask the minister a question. If this is to be an advisory council on consumer affairs, how will the minister make sure that the consumers will be represented, as opposed to the manufacturers and other such groups, because I would draw to his attention that the economic council, which reports to him, has only one representative of the consumers. How will the minister avoid this situation with regard to the consumer advisory council?


John Napier Turner: I think that the consumer interests will be adequately represented by the consumer associations, the labour unions and the universities.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
On clause 9-Annual report.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, to make the bill consistent throughout I should like to move:
That Bill C-161, to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs, be amended by substituting for the words "corporate and consumer affairs" in clause 9 thereof the words "consumer and corporate affairs".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On Clause 10-Acts to be administered by Minister.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move:
That Bill No. C-161, entitled "An Act to establish a Department of Corporate and Consumer Affairs" be amended by substituting for the words "corporate and consumer affairs" wherever they appear m clause 10 thereof, the words "consumer and corporate affairs".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
On Clause 12-Prior Appropriation Acts.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the consumers of this country would be happy to see the house pass this bill as quickly as possible, but I think we should make the necessary changes in form. Therefore I would like to move:
That Bill C-161, to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs, be amended by substituting for the words "corporate and consumer affairs" in clause 12 (2) thereof the words "consumer and corporate affairs".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Schedule I agreed to.
On Schedule II.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I believe that an amendment similar in form to the one I have moved on several occasions will have to be made to Schedule II, and perhaps the committee will take it that I have read the appropriate amendment to Schedule II.


Maurice Rinfret: Is the
committee agreed on the amendment to Schedule II?
November 27, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule II as amended agreed to.
On clause 1-Short title.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I presume that this clause will also be amended in a similar way.
The Assisiani Deputy Chairman: Is the
committee agreed on the amendment to clause 1?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the business before the house tomorrow will be as follows: the post office resolution; the emergency gold mining bill; item no. 9 on the order paper regarding the interprovincial and international teleferries; item no. 24 on the order paper regarding the Government Employees Compensation Act; item no. 29 regarding the C.N.R. financing bill; item no. 39 regarding the Judges Act; item no. 40, the reference of the regulation of the Bank Act to the committee; and the amendment to the Criminal Code respecting capital punishment.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister say if these items are not concluded tomorrow the same order will prevail on Wednesday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not necessarily the same order in the following days, but the same batch.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]

Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, it may seem at first, that my few remarks at this time are a continuation of the representations which we have been trying to make earlier this evening with regard to consumer affairs. However, this is not the case. Some days ago on orders of the day I asked a question relative to car insurance and to the need, in my opinion, for an investigation of that industry at the federal level. My question was not answered at that time, so I hope this evening I will be allowed a few minutes to underline what seems to me to be an important question, and try to get an answer to it.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that car insurance is mainly the responsibility of provincial administrations. However, in recent times the federal government or various departments of it have concerned themselves with traffic safety, and in my view car insurance forms a very important part of that subject. In so far as traffic safety is concerned it is known that a number of private members, including myself, had proposals on the order paper in the form of bills or resolutions dealing with various aspects of motor vehicle standards and car safety, which is basically another sphere of provincial interest. We were successful in having all these bills and resolutions referred to the committee on justice and legal affairs. This committee concerned itself with traffic safety, our bills and resolutions, and brought in a report which in large measure was subsequently adopted by the government. The Department of Transport is now implementing some of the recommendations in that report.
It is my opinion that car insurance is an integral part of the over-all national or federal picture with regard to traffic safety. I say that because we have 150,000 traffic casualties a year, including 5,000 fatalities, which amounts to 100 per week. We spend approximately $1 billion a year, or at least that is the economic toll of highway traffic injuries. Of this $1 billion, car insurance represents something like $600 million. This is the amount which Canadians spend trying to defend themselves against the casualties of the road. In my view, Mr. Speaker, anything that affects so many Canadians, whether motorists or pedestrians, in every area of Canada is a matter which could well merit investigation. This is particularly true when we consider that of the approximately $600
November 27, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	4769
million a year that Canadians spend on car insurance by way of premiums, according the latest figures I have they recover only about 67 cents on the dollar.
I think one of the very first matters which the newly created department of consumer and corporate affairs should take up is service to Canadian motorists in the car insurance field. A national publication, the Toronto Star Weekly, earlier this month ran a feature article on car insurance in Canada, and it introduced the subject by saying that everybody who owns or drives a car knows something of the statistical witchhunts, dubious moralizing, high handedness and general hugger-mugger that affect what he pays to insure himself.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, this is a subject that commends itself for attention at the federal level, just as much as those other aspects of travel safety the federal government has already entered into. I appreciate having these few moments to bring the matter up again tonight and I ask the question once more: Would the newly formed department of consumer and corporate affairs undertake to consider giving further attention to this problem?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it pleases me a good deal that the hon. member for New Westminster has put the first question to me about consumer affairs, the house having just accorded third reading to the bill to set up this department.
The combines branch has looked into the matter of automobile insurance under the terms of a general inquiry under section 42 of the Combines Investigation Act, on which the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission reported as long ago as May 16, 1960.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, the commission expressed the opinion that some of the rules, methods and activities of the board's organizations-that is to say, the Canadian Underwriters Association and some of its affiliated territorial associations across the country- and insurance companies, had features which in some circumstances might bring them within the kind of actions, defined by the act, and there was a possibility that they might be held to infringe upon the law.
It was suggested to the C.U.A. at the time, and to other associations, that they should review the situation particularly with regard to the character of premium and commission rates. After a reasonable time had elapsed, in which the C.U.A. and its member associations examined the report of the commission, the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Director of Investigation and Research made extensive preliminary inquiries to determine whether the situation warranted formal inquiry under section 8 of the Combines Investigation Act.
In his annual report for the year ending March 31, 1963 the director stated that after assessing all relevant facts he did not consider that the existing agreements among members of the C.U.A. with respect to premium rates would at that time be likely to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition unduly, contrary to section 32 (1) of the act, and therefore that formal inquiry was not warranted. The director has continued since that time to keep informed on the operations of the industry as they pertain to automobile insurance. The director's inquiry pertaining to automobile insurance is referred to in the annual report of the Director of Investigation and Research, under the Combines Investigation Act, for the year ended March 31, 1967, pages 19 and 20.
I realize that the question of the hon. member for New Westminster relates to a wider term of reference than that pursued by the Director of Investigation, and Research, and in view of the program we propose for the newly constituted department of consumer and corporate affairs, I assure him I will give his suggestion consideration as the new department's program develops. It might well be a proper term of reference for the committee of the House of Commons on consumer affairs.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



TELEVISION-QUEBEC-INQUIRY AS TO PROTESTS RESPECTING PROGRAM

Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on November 9 last, I asked the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) to tell the house whether she had been informed of a petition protesting against a TV program shown on station CKRN-TV of Rouyn on October 30 last, and qualified as a torrent of filth by many and, if so, whether she could assure us that the matter would be taken into serious consideration.
Following that program, there was a general protest by all televiewers served by Ra-dio-Nord against that program in which the main characters, who claimed to be journalists, used coarse language concerning a certain public figure. That program was badly received by the entire population.
November 27, 1967
4770	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
So, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask whether the Secretary of State had heard any comments about this program and whether protests had been made by residents of northwestern Quebec. Here I would like, to support my remarks, to quote fron an editorial which appeared in the November 1 issue of L'Echo, and which was reprinted in the November 8 issue of La Frontiere. I shall read the first part of this article, which is self-explanatory:
The air in our households was polluted by a program originating from Radio-Nord; the term "polluted" is none too strong to express our resentment, our disappointment and our bitterness at viewing the program "Blanc sur Noir", which had been extenisvely publicized for weeks.
Mr. Antonio Flamand, whether one agrees or disagrees with the policies of the member for Rouyn-Noranda, whether one approves or disapproves his conduct as a public official, one is not entitled to be examining magistrate, public prosecutor and judge at the same time, and especially to hurl insults in the face of a man and a population by trying to pass for a journalist.
Last week, we deplored the removal of the program "Le sel de la semaine", due to several complaints, in favour of a local program; no doubt it was intended to punish us for a long time by showing of a spectacle that does not even belong in vaudeville, the main attraction being sub judice, which means in journalistic terms and for everybody else too, that we are not allowed to discuss it.
Here, I would like to say that following this editorial, the director or president of Radio-Nord made a correction, saying that this program "Blanc sur Noir" was not replacing "Le sel de la semaine" but rather another program from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation entitled "Dossiers."
Then, after all that, came an avalanche of protests. The last and most important protest

the Secretary of State or at least the B.B.G. probably heard of it-came from the city of Amos and was set forth in a resolution passed at one of the recent meetings of the council of this town. I quote the whereases of this resolution to put them on the official record and to bring them to the attention of the minister's secretary:
"Whereas Radio-Nord Inc. has, on October 30, 1967, at 10 o'clock p.m., despite many protests from the public, replaced the excellent porgram "Le Sel de la Semaine" originating from the C.B.C. with its program "Blanc sur Noir" deceiving once again the people served by Radio-Nord Inc.;
"Whereas "Blanc sur Noir", on October 30 last, was purely and simply an insult to the population, in view of the behaviour of two so-called journalists, Dexter and Bouchard, who, during the whole program, used every effort and in the most vulgar way to tarnish the reputation of their guest, the member for Rouyn-Noranda, Mr. Antonio Flamand;


"Whereas the management of Radio-Nord Inc. could have cancelled that program, which was taped;
"Whereas, by this shocking and offensive program, Radio-Nord Inc. showed once again that it cannot serve efficiently the people of the Quebec northwestern area who, paying taxes to the federal government, are, as much as others, entitled to a complete broadcasting service by the C.B.C.;
"Whereas the city of Amos wishes to join with the cities of Chibougamau, Chapais and Matagami to ask also for full radio and television coverage by the C.B.C.;
Wherefore, it is moved by alderman Jean-Hughes Boutin, seconded by alderman Jacques Bourgeois and resolved unanimously that the Board of Broadcast Governors be requested to investigate the actions of Radio-Nord Inc. with regard to the program "Blanc sur Noir" of October 20, 1967, and that the board of governors be also requested to see to it that full radio and television coverage is given by the C.B.C. to all the people of northwestern Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Secretary of State will study that resolution and follow it up.
I should like to add that for a number of years, particularly on the week-end, we have been pestered with stupid gogo programs which only interest children; in fact, not all children listen to these programs, which are intended for them.
Therefore, in my opinion, the C.B.C. should service that area, at least for the time being, with FM radio programs, which would not irritate the people with abstract music, but help them to acquire greater culture by giving them worthwhile programs of truly great and beautiful music.
I support wholeheartedly the request of the authorities of the town of Amos that the C.B.C. service the region of Amos as it does other regions throughout Canada, since we pay taxes just as they so.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, after having read in the newspapers of north-western Quebec L'tcho and La Frontiere what has been written on that famous program of October 30 called "Blanc sur Noir" on the CKRN-TV station, after having heard several comments and especially the statement of the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) I understand quite well his indignation and that of most people of northwestern Quebec as a result of that televised program.
However, I must say to the hon. member for Chapleau that the Secretary of State has in no way been asked either by a request or by a resolution emanating from any public organization to intervene in that particular case.
November 27, 1967

All I can tell the hon. member-and he is well aware of it-is that the Secretary of State is not responsible for the programming neither of the private radio and television stations nor of the C.B.C. I can, however, give the assurance that the minister will call the attention of the Board of Broadcast Governors to any request of this kind that might be made in the future.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL-CARDINAL LEGER- REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO LEPERS IN AFRICA

Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, when his Eminence Paul Emile Cardinal Leger recently made known his decision to leave the direction of the archdiocese of Montreal, it was such a momentous announcement that a deep impression of a great tragedy was created.
The unexpected departure of the distinguished prelate spread sorrow among all those who followed the rich tapestry of his good works and the magnificence of his sublime apostolate. Cardinal Leger, in giving up his present function, chooses a path which surely will lead him to a more fertile and lofty action on the moral plane.
However, a chasm is opened by the depth of such a loss.
The new horizons towards which the cardinal is headed show that he is prompted by a spirituality unattainable by ordinary people. However, his departure deprives both French and English Canada of an irreplaceable support.
The deep wisdom of that prominent churchman, the powerful example of his personality and his life are a source of inspiration that will not be easily replaced.
Our country is going through difficult times, Mr. Speaker. One only has to watch closely the events taking place here and there, the developments occurring every day to realize that the present situation in Canada is extremely serious, perhaps dangerous-one cannot say-but without being a prophet of doom, it can easily be foreseen. Who knows what leading part Cardinal Leger might have played, through his mere presence in this country, his sense of moderation, his objectivity, his deep influence in various quarters in this looming crisis which, one could say without being unduly pessimistic, could shake the very structures of Canada, to which we are still greatly attached.
The Cardinal will henceforth devote himself to a praise worthy work, and no one
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion should complain; on the contrary, with spontaneity, with admiration, everyone expresses his joy and voices his encouragement in the new task the Cardinal is setting out to accomplish.
Still, I should not like to see his departure pass unnoticed by the Canadian government. Moreover, I feel that a man who has served his country so well, on both the spiritual and temporal planes certainly deserves from his country an outstanding token of gratitude.
I would suggest that before he leaves, he receive from the authorities of his country, the highest available decoration because he richly deserves it.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that it might offend the humility of a man who tries precisely to shield himself from all those sumptuous things, but I believe that we cannot remain indifferent to such a departure, that we cannot remain inattentive, as Canadians, to the tremendous task carried out by the Cardinal, and our country, his mother country, must honour him in an appropriate fashion. Therefore, I believe that the best way to honour him, the best decoration we can offer him, would be to establish a fund which could assist him in the task he wants to perform with the underprivileged and afflicted people.
In my opinion, no action or gesture would be more appropriate than that of a government willing to subsidize, directly or indirectly, the task which Cardinal Leger wants to undertake.
I shall conclude my remarks by saying that in the past, Mr. Speaker, our external aid has been considerable. We have particularly helped the Commonwealth countries at a time when the British Commonwealth needed it. Only this year will the Frenchspeaking countries begin to receive substantial assistance from the Canadian government, $12 million as compared to the $14 million which will be given to the Commonwealth countries.
I think that if we want to help both French-speaking countries and at the same time the task undertaken by Cardinal Leger, we should give important financial assistance to the Cardinal.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I have been requested by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), in the absence of his parliamentary secretary, to
November 27, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion answer the question put by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette).
I should like here, Mr. Speaker, to stress the nobleness of the decision taken by His Eminence Cardinal Paul-Emile Leger. Needless to recall his apostolic zeal and ardour. Nevertheless, I should like to express the admiration which his dedication to the lepers rouses in our hearts of hearts. Such a worthy, noble and freely taken decision is a fitting climax to his unlimited devotion to the service of the faith.
With regard to the possibility of the government helping him in that project, I must tell the hon. member for Lotbiniere and the house that this matter comes under the External Aid Office of the Department of External Affairs which examines any request for help in detail and according to the circumstances.
If His Eminence Cardinal Paul-Emile Leger ever asks for our co-operation after stating the exact nature of his needs, our External Aid Office will be very happy to give his proposals the greatest consideration.
Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, I should like to underline and applaud the action of the hon. member for Lotbiniere; it is so characteristic of his awareness of what goes on and of his great Christian charity.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, November 28, 1967