1967-10-20

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on transport and communications-Mr. Macaluso.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table in English and in French a statement of 28 additional recommendations of the royal commission on government organization which have been adopted by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the widening productivity gap between this country and the United States, our greatest industrial competitor, does the government intend to introduce legislation at this session to induce greater industrial productivity in this country?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, quite a number of the measures that have been adopted by this parliament have had as their purpose increasing the productivity of Canadian industry. If the hon. gentleman is referring to taxation policy this is, of course, a matter that is being reviewed very carefully in connection with the general plans for the reform of the tax structure; and this question of productivity will certainly be taken into account.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question.
Does the minister not believe this matter is so serious that it will be necessary to introduce tax incentives in the immediate future to arrest this serious situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this supplementary question is of an argumentative character.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works and ask him whether he has informed a committee which is organizing an anti-Viet Nam war rally for parliament hill tomorrow afternoon that they may not use a public address system. In view of the fact that the right of free speech should include the right to be heard, is the minister prepared to reconsider his decision in this regard?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to deal with this question, but I first want to comment on the gratuitous reference that the hon. member added to his question. The right of free speech does not always involve the use of parliament hill and certain equipment on parliament hill for other activities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: In addressing myself to the question may I say that last night I was in communication with a representative of the committee, and I advised him of the practice that has been in long usage on parliament hill, namely that the government does not provide loudspeaker equipment or platforms or permit groups or bodies to bring such equipment on to the hill to make a presentation to the public of the country. I do not know how long this has been the practice, but it is a very long time, Mr. Speaker. I assured this gentleman that he would be treated in exactly the same way as other groups and organizations had been treated. This type of problem is not a new one but a continuing one.
3312	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
I also told this representative that I could not accede to his request that I overrule the decision of the committee set up by the government to deal with these matters. I stated that the proposed presentation to be made on parliament hill was not of such a nature that it could be considered, as he had requested, part of the centennial performances that had been presented on the hill this summer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. Is it not true that the organizers of the previous peace rally which was held on parliament hill, and the farmers' rally which was also held on parliament hill, were allowed to use the public address system?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is presenting an argument in favour of his contention, and as such his question is not acceptable.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, surely I am entitled to ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam rising on a point of order?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. Surely I am entitled to ask the minister whether there has been a change in policy, and whether this policy which is now being applied is not the one that was applied to previous demonstrations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not what the hon. member asked. The hon. member for Kamloops on a supplementary.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a direct question to the minister-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think
there is a point involved in this question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have recognized the hon. member for Kamloops. In his reply the minister might take the opportunity to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I intend to put the direct question to the minister. Is it a fact that the rules presently in force prohibit groups which come to parliament hill from providing themselves with a loudspeaking system and using it?
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
DEBATES	October 20. 1967


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That does not involve any change in the policy or practice effective over the years. By way of clarifying a point of fact, I should recall to hon. members that the farmers' group which came to parliament hill had arranged that ministers would explain government milk policy to them. There were large numbers of farmers, more than could be brought into the House of Commons, and the loudspeaker system was provided for ministers to make a statement on government policy and for the representatives of the farmers to reply. That kind of public usage of a loudspeaker system was most useful.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he approves of this policy of discrimination, under which ministers may use loudspeakers but the public may not? Does the minister approve of that policy?


George James McIlraith: I think the government must carry out its responsibilities as best it can in regulating the usage of public loudspeakers. There are other places in Ottawa where organizations may obtain space for their presentations. Surely the government must assume some responsibility for the use of parliament hill and the parliament buildings. I should make very clear to the hon. member that if he had listened to the answer given respecting the farmers' organizations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In referring to these regulations the minister mentioned something about a committee. Could he inform the house whether that is a committee of this house or whether in some way it is related to your office, sir?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre has a supplementary question.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is related to the one that has just been asked. Is the use of parliament hill solely under the prerogative of the government? Should not the Speaker have something to say about it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We might go to another subject.
October 20, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the report in one of this morning's newspapers that the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, General Pearkes, has been asked to remain in that office for a further period of time, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether General Pearkes has agreed to do so? Such a decision, I am sure, would be warmly welcomed by all residents of that province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I am not aware of the facts, but I shall bring the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: I wish to ask the Registrar General if he is aware of the report of the recommendations of Mr. Langford regarding co-operative measures between federal and provincial authorities in connection with securities and exchange control. May I ask the minister if it is the intention of the government to incorporate such provisions in its legislation and, in any event, is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation on this matter during the present session?


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: I read the report of Mr. Langford's remarks this morning. As I said when introducing the bill on corporate and consumer affairs, we are studying this proposal carefully. I also said that I believe we ought to have a federal presence in the securities field because of the national importance of the capital market. I hope to submit proposals on the subject to my colleagues shortly.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a
Inquiries of the Ministry question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the manpower shortage in the Canadian mining industry, does his department intend to take immediate steps to remedy the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot will agree with me that this question seems to be of a very general nature and therefore, cannot be put at this time.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe this matter is of national importance because the mining industry has to cope with a manpower shortage and could use 8,500 workers right away. Unless immediate steps are taken, this industry will surely be in a difficult position within a few months.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have met recently with representatives of the mining industry and the new system which came into force on the 1st of October will undoubtedly enable the industry to obtain the manpower it needs.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Am I to understand that there are no special steps being taken to meet this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I think the supplementary question is argumentative.



COLUMBIA RIVER-REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON OVERDUE BONUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister, one of great interest to British Columbia. In view of the fact that the government of British Columbia is entitled to a $12 million bonus or $16,000 a month interest as a result of the early completion of the Duncan dam, has the government of Canada been approached with a view to advancing this interest to the province of British Columbia in the meantime? Can the minister tell us what has happened to date?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the hon. gentleman knows, there is no obligation on the part of
October 20, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry the federal government in these circumstances to reimburse the province of British Columbia, particularly in the light of the fact that the United States does not deny owing the principal amount. We fully concur with the government of British Columbia that payment of the principal amount should be made to Canada for British Columbia forthwith, and that there should be a rate of interest levied and accepted by the United States for the delay in making the principal payment.
I am sure the hon. member's question was not in any way inspired by a desire to create the impression that there is any difference between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. On this matter the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia act together in making a demand which is based on the treaty with the United States.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the Acting Prime Minister inform the house whether there is complete agreement between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia with respect to the government of Canada advancing this interest in the meantime?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think I have answered that question.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (St. John's East):: have a question for the Minister of Labour; in his absence perhaps I can address it to his parliamentary secretary. Has it been brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour that there is a possibility of strike action being taken by employees working for Cossor Electronics in Newfoundland? If so, what if any action has been taken by the Department of Labour to prevent this strike?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is difficult for the Chair to judge the question of urgency from the way the question is asked. I think there is some doubt about it. Perhaps the hon. member would consider discussing the matter in the adjournment debate.


Mr. O'Keefe:: It is urgent because it
affects a satellite station in St. John's East which could be shut down at any time.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: The hon. member is accurate when he states that this station could be shut down. If they are not already on strike, a strike is contemplated. But I must point out to the hon. member that if the union went on strike they would be perfectly within their rights to do so, as they have proceeded with all the proper preliminary steps. I may say in conclusion that the union has accepted the majority report of the conciliation board. If management would do the same and show a little good faith there would be no need for a strike.


Hon. Michael Siarr (Leader of the Opposition):: Can the parliamentary secretary
inform us whether the Department of Labour has made available the services of an industrial relations office at this point in order to help bring about a settlement without a strike?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say that for the last two weeks the Department of Labour, through its industrial relations branch, has placed a senior officer of the department at the disposal of both parties. I am fully convinced that if there is a strike it will not be as the result of any negligence on the part of the government or of the Department of Labour. I repeat that the conciliation board report has been accepted by the union, and if management would do the same and show good faith in bargaining there would be no need for a strike.


Michael Starr: As a further supplementary question, is it not almost imperative for the government at this point to arrange a meeting, through the industrial relations office, with both parties in order that they may make an attempt to settle their differences?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The suggestion is a good one and has already been acted on.


Michael Starr: Are they meeting?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: They have met, and I should hope that when management has had an opportunity to review the conciliation board report the strike will be averted.
October 20, 1967	COMMONS



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday a meeting was held in Halifax between representatives of the Nova Scotia government and Mr. T. J. Em-mert, president of Dosco and his cohorts. Is the minister in a position, because of the government's concern and responsibility, to report on that meeting? Further, may I ask the minister is it the intention of the government to have a representative at a subsequent meeting to be held in Toronto concerning this very serious matter?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give a report on yesterday's meeting, although I discussed the matter with the premier of Nova Scotia late last night. I understand a further meeting with the company is to be arranged by the provincial government, and following that it is proposed to have a meeting with the government of Canada. We propose to meet just as soon as it is convenient for the government of Nova Scotia.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. On Wednesday I addressed a question to the minister relative to the lay-off of 400 C.P.R. workers in Calgary, and the minister said he would look into the matter. Has he had an opportunity to look into the situation and, if so, has he anything to report to the house at this time?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, probably I should have answered this question yesterday, and I hope I may be excused for not doing so. The Prime Minister has received a wire with reference to this matter, and it is correct that a certain number of men have been laid off.
I have the same complaint to make concerning this lay-off that I have made with regard to the lay-off made by Dosco. I mean
DEBATES	3315
Inquiries of the Ministry that notice of the lay-off was not given soon enough, but I understand the lay-off is for four weeks only and that a certain number of men have been called back to work. So far as the others are concerned, I do not think we will have any trouble finding jobs for them if the necessity arises.


Harold Raymond Ballard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the background of the case given by the minister, but as a supplementary question I would like to ask him whether the government is going to do anything constructive in this situation.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he, on behalf of the government, convey thanks to the Owen Sound junior chamber of commerce for representing the chamber's 250 club organizations across Canada in an international movement in which 90 countries are participating in the erection of a memorial cairn honouring the late Dag Ham-marskjold. The Owen Sound club is contributing a stone-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the minister has noted the representations made by the hon. member for Grey North.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to whom I should direct this question. May I inquire why it is there are a number of people standing in one gallery while just to Your Honour's right there is a gallery with empty seats.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour. When does he expect that the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act will appear on the order paper?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member, who is a former minister of labour, knows that when that
3316	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry moment arrives the announcement will be made in due course by the Minister of Labour, who is absent from the house today.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Would the Acting Prime Minister mind having a word with the Secretary of State for External Affairs to see if he can develop some mobility in the establishment of straight base lines?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, when the external affairs committee meets, which I hope will be some time next week, I shall be in a position to meet my hon. friend's suggestion.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, some days ago I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in his capacity as reporting to this house for the Atlantic Development Board, when we might expect completion of the comprehensive development plan for the Atlantic region. Could the minister now inform the house of the completion date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot inform the hon. gentleman of the specific date, but I will do so at the earliest possible moment.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. I regret that I have not been able to give him notice. The question is prompted by the bill which was introduced yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier. Has it been brought to the attention of the Acting Prime Minister that details are now being worked out in respect
[Mr. Mackasey.l
DEBATES	October 20, 1967
of another bill which will be introduced in this house seeking approval for the likeness of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, to appear in future on both sides of Canadian bank notes and coins? I will introduce this bill myself on Monday.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Secretary of State and is prompted by a news article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of yesterday. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether it has been brought to her attention that thousands of pupils in British Columbia are still awaiting the centennial crests for which they qualified in the centennial physical fitness program. Would the minister make inquiries concerning the delay in this regard which has caused such diappointment to these young people.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I did see the news report and I have checked it. I found-and I do not know whether this is related to the general fitness of the people of British Columbia-that rather more children won the gold and silver awards than had been anticipated. We have run out of these awards. These have been reordered and we hope to have them very shortly, at which time we will send them on.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Wesiminsier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to direct to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder whether the minister would undertake in the interests of public health to give consideration to encouraging the regulation of cigarette advertising.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is similar to a number of similar questions that have been asked on this subject on previous occasions. I suggest it is much too large in scope, and I do not think it should be asked at this time.
October 20, 1967


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Because of the urgency of the situation will he very shortly make a statement in the house regarding cigarette smoking, government intervention in respect of advertising and so on?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate that the question now asked by the Leader of the Opposition is different from those asked previously. I think it is in order for a member to ask whether a statement will be made without asking the minister to make the statement now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will give consideration to the suggestion the hon. gentleman has made.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Springfield two days ago, which I took as notice. From what I have been able to determine, the reports referred to relate to an article which appeared in the October 14 edition of the Winnipeg Tribune which states that a parcel mailed in Canada by the relief arm of the Mennonite church, addressed to North Viet Nam, reached the San Francisco post office and was subsequently returned to the point of origin. Evidently the reason for return is that there is no parcel post service in operation between the United States and North Viet Nam. As a matter of fact Canada has no parcel post service with North Viet Nam, and consequently the parcel in question should not have been accepted for mailing in the first place.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the President of the Treasury Board. Is the government yet in a position to introduce its legislation to implement the
Corporate and Consumer Affairs unanimous report of the special joint committee which called for increases in the pensions of retired civil servants?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister use his influence to urge his cabinet colleagues to decide on this matter at an early date?



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Last Thursday the C.M.H.C. committee approved a loan for the construction of an elderly citizens' home at Somerset, Manitoba. Would the minister give consideration to prompt approval by the Treasury Board?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question should be placed on the order paper.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)



CORPORATE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, October 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner for the second reading of Bill No. C-161, to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs.
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in the two minute introduction to my comments in respect of this bill last evening I stated that after following very closely the statements made by the Registrar General during the resolution and second reading stages, and after reading the bill itself, I found myself somewhat troubled. I also said last evening that the presentation by the minister reminded me of something which I thought was a good expression of my opinion of his presentation and the bill. I further said that when this debate was resumed I would state exactly what the minister's presentation brought to mind.
Mr. Speaker, not too often but sometimes I watch television. On occasion when
3318	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs I do watch T.V. I see a spectacular called wrestling. In this spectacular called wrestling there appear two magnificently built brutes, cavemen, one of whom normally is accepted as being the good guy and the other as the bad guy. For a few moments they look at each other; then they grapple; then they go down, one under the other. They grunt and they groan, they scream and they sweat, but I have always noticed that the man underneath usually has one free arm so he can pound the canvas so the spectators will know the agony he is going through. You know, if I may use the expression of a person whose name I believe is Ed Sullivan, it is a "wonderful shew"-yes, a wonderful show.
I have read a great deal about these wrestling matches on T.V. I have spoken to some of the contestants. They all have to have a knowledge of wrestling fundamentals but they told me that the major fundamental is acting, putting on a show. Well, the wrestling on T.V. came to my mind with the presentation that was made by the minister and the reading of his bill. He put on a wonderful show, sir.
During his speeches at the resolution stage and on second reading the minister got up with all his eloquent words and grappled and sparred as a good guy with the bad guy. He talked about fighting the high cost of living and solving the problems of the consumer, and he referred to what the government intends to do. Then all of a sudden he reverted from a good wrestler to a character from Mother Goose. He stuck in his thumb and he pulled out a plum-Bill C-161-and said "What a good guy am I". The only problem is that the plum seems to be a little bit rotten.
This performance was like a wrestling match on television. It was all a sham and a joke. It was all hypothetical, because the minister did not grapple with these problems and has not included in his bill anything of a serious nature to deal with the high cost of living or to protect the consumer. They were well spoken words but represented nothing but wishful thinking.
Following this hypothetical groaning and straining the minister apologized for his lack of a solution to the problems and blamed this on the existence of jurisdictional and constitutional difficulties. He said the people would not accept controls and that there would be no price review board. I have been intrigued by the extent of the

DEBATES	October 20, 1967
government's militant and aggressive strategy and policies to win a shooting war, but how extraordinarily timid and hesitant they are in respect of policies, attitudes and actions for a war against poverty. Let me suggest that there is a war against poverty to be fought, because to protect consumers the government must restrain outrageous prices and exorbitant profits. This action is definitely part and parcel of a war on poverty.
In relation to the proposed legislation, we find nothing but wishful thinking and eloquent words expressed by the minister. When we find little or no specific attack on the problems of the consumer then I suggest this has been nothing but window dressing. When speaking on behalf of the government the minister referred to constitutional and jurisdictional problems and suggested the people would not accept controls. In view of the emergency I wander whether the people would accept controls. There is an emergency, in that we have inflation and spiralling costs of living. A great many of our people today can not exist with the present cost of living because of the low incomes they earn. Those on fixed incomes find it extremely difficult to even exist at this time.
Perhaps these people will not accept controls, but I wonder what their reaction might be if this government had the intestinal fortitude to say there is a crisis and there must be controls or they would not introduce this bill, and that they are prepared not just to control wages but also prices, profits, profit reserves and their use. If we intend to win this war against poverty and meet the economic crisis we now face militant action will have to be taken. If the government adopted this attitude and made that fact clear to the people, they might find a different reaction in respect of the acceptance of controls.
We have listened very carefully to the Minister of Finance on numerous occasions asking other people to tighten their belts. There might be a different reaction on the part of the people if this government and this House of Commons made it clear that we meant what we said. Although the reduction would be infinitesimal in the over-all picture, how about reducing the stipend of the members of the House of Commons and the Senate? This would be an indication to the people that we believe something must be done about the crisis which exists. Let me hasten to add that I think members are
October 20, 1967

underpaid in view of their responsibilities. There are 265 members on this board of directors for the 20 million people we represent, and we must do something on their behalf. If we believe we are now facing an economic and financial crisis as a result of spiralling costs of living, then we are morally obligated to take immediate action and do some belt tightening ourselves. By doing so we might create a different reaction regarding the necessity of imposing controls.
It is obvious that such an approach is not acceptable by the government. Let us at least consider adopting the immediate measures outlined by the minister in Bill C-161. At least the bill contains provision for research and the dissemination of information. As far as I can decide the major principles are contained in clause 6, paragraphs (c)	(d). If this represents all
the government will do, the government should aggressively use the power thus provided to stop inflation and spiralling costs. It should also make known to every citizen of Canada just what the situation is and what it intends to do. I am convinced that even though the government may not want to act, if it will make known through ministerial releases in the press, on radio and on television just what is causing this high cost of living, this will have a beneficial influence.
Let me give four clear illustrations of what I have in mind. Under the powers contained in clause 6 the government through this department will be able to exert some pressures in respect of consumer commodities. Over the years every time there has been an increase in the price of flour there has been an increase in the price of bread. Generally speaking the increases in the price of flour have amounted to only a fraction of one cent per loaf, but every time such an increase has occurred the price of a loaf of bread has been increased by two cents.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
When these things happen, will the minister call for a justification of such increases? He has his research and information officers and he should make known to the people of Canada that this is an unjustifiable increase. I gather, on the basis of quite a few years' experience in dealing with the public, that perhaps public opinion will compel the manufacturers and the provincial and federal governments to act so as to prevent such unjustifiable increases.
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
What more can I say than has already been said about the high cost of drugs? I read the report of the committee. The government was aware of this situation and announced it would remove the 11 per cent sales tax at the wholesale level. It also said that on the basis of the research done by the committee and the report which followed it recognized that the drug manufacturers had the highest net profits of any manufacturers or other industries, that it was unjustifiable and that if the price of drugs was not reduced further action might be contemplated by the government.
I ask the minister who is to head this new department, is he prepared to do something about the high price of drugs? Is he prepared to instruct his information service to disclose what is taking place? Let me give you one illustration by relating a persona] experience. A few months ago unfortunately I suffered from neuritis in the right shoulder; at least it was finally diagnosed as neuritis. I received a prescription, which I took to the pharmacy. I happen to have known the pharmacist for many years. He looked at the prescription and said "Harold, I can fill it right now, but can you wait for four hours? I have new stocks coming up from the wholesalers. To fill that prescription now would cost you $11, but if you wait four hours I will give you the same medicine but with a different brand name for $8." This sort of thing must be exposed. Companies should be named and brands should be named, and an exposure must be made of this sort of rapacious profiteering at the expense of those in our country who are ill.
Will the minister go further and investigate some other factors which have a great effect on the spiralling increase in the cost of living? Will he look into the reports and financial statements of large corporations and note that almost without exception they base their profit percentage on the sales of that year and compare it with the sales of the previous year or years? Since when should profit be based on the sales return percentage and not on capital investment? If honesty prevailed and profit were based on capital there would be a fantastic reduction in the cost of living to all the people of this country.
Will the minister look into that and expose this practice through his information service? Will he do more than that and look into the growing number of corporations in Canada which split their shares? I
3320	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs can think of one company which over the years has split one share into four, four into 16, 16 into 32 and 32 into 64. They state that the reason for doing this is to make the shares more readily available to the people who want to invest. This is eye-wash, because if one examines this practice, when a $100 share is split into 4 shares at $25, the value of the $25 share goes up immediately it hits the market. Anyone who buys the share at the higher price wants to profit from its return on the stock market price, which is not a fundamental basis of return. If you add to that the fact that many corporate directors get their shares at far less than the market value and make not millions of dollars but hundreds of millions through stock market manipulations for which eventually the consumer has to pay, the unfairness is compounded.
If my hon. friend the minister is sincere he will use his ability, his knowledge and his capabilities to ensure that under the present Bill C-161 he will make a start in the war against poverty and will put a road block to further inflation and the increasing cost of living.
The answer does not rest in our hands on this side of the house. At the present time it does not even rest in the hands of the people of Canada. It rests in the hands of the government in general, and in particular on the intestinal fortitude of the minister who will head this department and be in charge of its policy and its administration.
What does this bill really mean? To the majority of the people of Canada it means that a policy of wait and see is being adopted by the government. I hope this period of wait and see will not be too long in duration. As I said last night, I might have to make an agonizing reappraisal of my hon. friend for whom I have had the utmost respect and admiration. I hope that in the administration of the new department he will exercise determination and utilize every power possible to protect the consumers, to stop the spiralling increase in the cost of living and perhaps even to reduce it.
I will draw my remarks to a close by saying that many hon. members who have spoken before me have perhaps somewhat embarrassed the minister by drawing to his attention the obvious fact that he is a young and handsome man. I will conclude by reminding the minister of an old and truthful saying, namely that handsome is as handsome does.

DEBATES	October 20, 1967


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am always delighted to follow the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). In some ways he has made my task easier, because he has painted in a colourful way some of the problems which confront us and which I am sure will confront the minister. However, I may have to disagree with some of the proposals he has made.
When the minister introduced the resolution, accompanied by the usual publicity which is given to a measure of this kind, it seemed to us that at long last we might have been receiving for the benefit of the consumer a giant, economy size package. But when we came to read the bill we found that far from being the package we had hoped it would be, it was only about half full and instead of soap it contained mostly apple sauce. I believe all members will agree that this government, indeed all governments, face a very difficult problem in connection with this aspect of consumer prices.
[DOT] (12 noon)
When members of parliament are asked to exercise their responsibilities as representatives of the people of Canada in connection with a particular bill they ask themselves, first of all, what evil is it seeking to cure or, alternatively, what benefits will be secured by the passage of the legislation? When we look at bills we often find there is a preamble which sets out the purposes and intentions of the legislation. In this bill we have the bald statement that it is an act to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs.
The corporate aspect can be set to one side because this is a matter over which this parliament has exercised jurisdiction for some time. The government has been invested with certain responsibilities in connection with corporate affairs which could be properly collected together and brought under one minister. I believe this is sound, common sense.
What do we mean by consumer affairs? There is really nothing in the bill to guide us, and from what I have heard of the debate thus far we can form one of two opinions of the government's intention. First, this bill may be intended to indicate that the government of Canada is going to make a real, meaningful attempt to come to grips with one of the most serious problems affecting not only this country but most countries in the western civilization, the escalation of prices of goods and services to a point where they
October 20, 1967	COMMONS
are beyond the capacity of many people to meet and provide a reasonable standard of living for their families. I do not believe there is any doubt about the fact that we have moved in the last two or three generations from a rural society into a complicated, basically urban society in which the machinery of production as well as the machinery of supply and demand have become increasingly complicated. I think many people today are discontented, unhappy, frustrated and becoming exceedingly angry at the fact there seems to be no real effort on the part of the mysterious "they", as governments are described today, to do anything about the situation.
I think we had an excellent example of this last year when there was a virtually spontaneous demonstration across this land by housewives and people whose task it is to go to the markets to buy the goods and services required by their families. I think the fact that the joint committee of this house and the other place, which was inquiring in a rather pedantic and pedestrian way into consumer credit, was suddenly seized with a great measure of anxiety about consumer affairs turned that committee into a more attractive and more meaningful body. It then secured authority to make an investigation into consumer prices.
When we talk about consumer affairs, at first blush there appears to be no doubt that most people think of consumer affairs in terms of the prices which consumers have to pay. This is one aspect of the matter with which I want to deal more extensively in a minute or two. On the other hand, consumer affairs may be regarded in a narrow, restricted way in relation to the constitutional rights and limitations which are placed upon this government in relation to the question of research and advice. If that is the intent of the government, then later I propose to say that we did not need this legislation. I propose to say that by means of taking advantage of existing legislation, existing regulations, with possibly a very minor amendment to the government organization measure, we would not have needed this bill at all.
I have come to the conclusion that the only basic purpose behind the passage of this legislation is to introduce into government organization the glamorous name of consumer affairs. This could well be a double-edged sword. I am not going to make the point that there is nothing that can be done if we follow either one of these directions in dealing with consumer affairs, either the broad 27053-210
DEBATES	3321
Corporate and Consumer Affairs measure of dealing with consumer prices or the restricted way of dealing with the problem through research. The bill refers to cooperation and co-ordination of government programs and undertakings or programs in co-operation with provincial governments. This is a narrow, restricted interpretation which can be placed on the intention of the government in setting up this department under a separate minister.
I should like to deal first with the question, can anything be done by the federal government within the limits of its constitutional and financial responsibilities? Point after point has been made by hon. members in this house that we must not follow the Procrustean method and, merely because the victim does not fit the bed, either stretch him or cut off his legs. This would be the course to follow if we adopted the philosophy of the Greek myth about the bed of Procrustes. I cannot agree with that. In my opinion, laws were made for the benefit of man and man does not exist for the purpose of being tortured, cribbed, cabined or confined within the limits of existing legislation.
This does not make our task any easier from the constitutional viewpoint. Unfortunately, we are entangled in the web of our own constitutional law-making. Whether we like it or not, the constitution exists until we devise some ways and means of changing it. We can, therefore, only do in this parliament what we are authorized to do by the British North America Act. It is all very well to say, let us do this, let us proceed on this particular scale to deal with this problem. In the present very sensitive stage of federal-provincial relations, I am sure any attempt to break out of these narrow limitations would be bound to be met not only by legal proceedings but by sound and very strong objections from provincial governments.
With this in mind, then, can anything be done? A reference was made earlier to conditions which existed during the war. To be honest, I do not really believe it is feasible to adopt the course followed during the war. I would object to it not only because it would be constitutionally wrong, but I feel it would be wrong in practice to set up in this country the tremendous organization required to oversee the prices and costs of goods and services. As a corollary, we would also have to oversee production. Surely there is no one in this country, certainly no one in this parliament, who would suggest that this problem needs to be tackled in that way. Such a course would set loose a Pandora's box of wrongs,
October 20, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs nuisances and evils far worse than those we are attempting to cure. I do not think anybody has argued that we in this country should at this stage do anything approximating what we were compelled to do during the war years.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) has from time to time rather persuasively brought up the proposal of a prices review board. This is a method which in a limited way was introduced into the United Kingdom, which of course is a unitary state with no constitutional problem. Perhaps there need be no constitutional problem here, Mr. Speaker, because balanced on the narrow edge of the criminal law it might be feasible to enjoin corporations and unions, in fact everyone who is engaged in the business of production and selling, to publish well in advance of the time when prices are to be increased evidence of their intention to do so.
We tend to think of this concept, Mr. Speaker, in terms of our own particular examination of the problem. I am sure there are some members in this house who could find some large and iniquitous corporations in this country to whom this sort of arrangement could be well applied. On the other hand, other hon. members would say that this approach should be taken toward labour unions because some labour unions have improperly importuned their employers at critical times, sometimes only for jurisdictional purposes, in order to secure wage increases which under the circumstances were not justified.
These two differing points of view may in themselves be quite correct. However, I would point out that if we attempt to solve the problem in this way we cannot stop just with the large corporations and the unions. We must institute the program in such a way that there is total involvement in the intricate make-up of our economic life. For example, every storekeeper who runs a corner store and wants to increase his prices and every employer who employs three or four persons would be caught up in the same web, and at this stage I do not think that this is a reasonable or a necessary means to deal with the problem. I just do not think it would work. I think that the cost of imposing a prices review board system would become appallingly high and would add to the problem of inflation now facing us. I do not think that this approach would be feasible. The enforcement machinery would be so large and expensive, so opposed to our concept of
[Mr. Baldwin.)

freedom to which we have adhered in this country for so many years.
Is there perhaps a third way, Mr. Speaker? I do not know. However, I would make this suggestion to the minister, though he might well have it in mind. Surely it might be possible in co-operation with the provinces to establish a joint board which, without being restricted to the criminal law alone, as is the case so far as the parliament of Canada is concerned, would have the jurisdiction to examine this issue. We all know very well that no government can delegate authority to another government; judicial decisions have held that to be so. However, it would be possible through the establishment of a tribunal which would be invested with some power by the federal parliament and with some authority by the provincial governments to examine glaring cases of abuse of our free enterprise system in the fixing of prices and the increasing of wages. In the kind of society in which we live I believe that the various public media would be quick to point out such abuses. If we could expose such cases to the broad glare of public opinion from time to time after suitable investigation had been made, then it might be possible to provide some kind of average test which others in the country could follow and which might be used in order to keep within reasonable restraint increases in prices, goods and services.
This would not be easy, Mr. Speaker. The options open to any government in any part of the world today are far more limited than they were 40 or 50 years ago. Sensitivities of one part of the world to another part, economic relations and rapid means of communication and transportation have brought this about. We in Canada particularly have found that our proximity to our great trading partner to the south, to whom we sell and from whom we buy large quantities of goods and services, has put us in such a position that no government has the degree of freedom it would need to deal with this problem properly in such a way as it might have been dealt with 40 or 50 years ago.
However, Mr. Speaker, there are some options open which have not been exercised. I want to emphasize that I am only putting forward this proposal for consideration by the minister, but I think there are means that can be used if there is a real desire on the part of the federal government and the provincial governments to deal with this matter. Let us bear in mind that these governments represent the people of Canada, and
October 20, 1967	COMMONS
the people in the province of Alberta and also the people in the province of Quebec are people of this country, people of Canada. I think it is high time that we should remove problems that have been created by a certain amount of jealousy between governments at the provincial level and the federal level. Our particular task here and the task of all legislators in all the provinces is to deal with those things and to engage in those measures that we think will enhance the interests of the people of the country at large.
There is then, Mr. Speaker, this possibility which might be looked at. However, before we could embark upon such a system the government of this country-perhaps also the governments of the provinces but certainly the federal government-would have to set its own house in order. How difficult it would be for the government of Canada to undertake to act responsibly in dealing in this way with prices and costs without first looking at its own area of expenditure.
I am not going to deal with this point extensively because we have been all through it during the budget debate and other members of the house have spoken about it. For example, we have been told that when the estimates come down we will be astounded at the extent to which the knife has been wielded. That is all very well, Mr. Speaker; when the estimates are available we will look at them. But bear in mind that more is involved than the estimates alone. When one looks at the estimates at the beginning of the year and then compares them with the actual expenditures made for that year which show up in the following year's estimates, hundreds of millions of dollars have been added by way of supplementary estimates at one time or another and this increases tremendously the money that is actually spent.
I suggest that this government cannot conscientiously ask industry or labour to show restraint with regard to increases in prices or wages until it is able to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that it in turn has been prepared to set its own house in order. And this we are waiting to see. If it does happen I will be the first to give all credit to the government, and I hope that the minister will not take it amiss if I say that at the present time I am from Missouri so far as these proposed cuts are concerned.


John Napier Turner: The Peace river is bigger.
DEBATES	3323
Corporate and Consumer Affairs


Gerald William Baldwin: We in Peace River have learned very well to look with great suspicion at anything that a government, particularly a Liberal government, does.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Sold down the river.


John Napier Turner: I was just pointing out that the Peace river is bigger than the Missouri.


Gerald William Baldwin: Now let us look at the question from the more limited aspect of the proposals that are contained in this bill. These are pretty well set out in clause 6 and I am not going to deal with them too extensively. All they consist of is the right to undertake to co-ordinate programs of the government of Canada, which is what the Economic Council of Canada proposed. You do not need legislation for that; you do not need legislation to initiate, recommend or undertake programs designed to promote the interests of the Canadian consumer.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
One must bear in mind the wording of this legislation which says that the only matters over which the minister has responsibility are matters over which this parliament has jurisdiction and which are not by law assigned to any other department of government. The minister's right to initiate and recommend programs designed to promote the interests of the Canadian consumer is not a right which is given to him through this legislation. He has that right without the benefit of this legislation. His right to cooperate with provincial governments is a right which he has today; there is no question of that. His right to engage in research is a right which he has today. Apart from clause 1 which creates the department of corporate and consumer affairs, every power, every right and every responsibility which accrues to the minister through this bill could have been exercised under existing legislation. I could undertake to guide the minister through several statutes to show him exactly what I mean. The only reason for enacting this legislation is to create a department which, within its title, bears the words "consumer affairs". The legislation itself does not meet the needs of the people.
It may be remembered that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam yesterday referred to the poll that was conducted by Montreal Star. I looked at that report and from my reading of it, it indicates that only 31 per cent of those polled knew anything about the new department. Of that 31 per cent, approximately 70 per cent believed or
October 20, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs hoped that the minister and the new department would be concerned with prices. Perhaps the minister wishes to know how I arrived at my totals. I added the percentages of those who were interested in controlling profits and prices to the percentages of those who were concerned with a lower cost of living, and the result came to approximately 70 per cent of the original figure of 31 per cent. I expect the minister will accept my mathematics, unless he wants my figures to be research by the new department.
The minister, who is a member of the bar in several provinces and a businessman of some acumen, must have struggled with his political instincts, because I am sure he did not wish to leave a false impression. He must have recognized the grave limitations, legally and economically, of what could be done as a result of the creation of the new department.
I give the minister credit for his speeches. I am sure that his instincts as a politician led him to believe in the efficacy of the magic words "consumer affairs". No doubt he saw himself in the role of protector of the housewife when she enters a supermarket. She would walk hand in hand with him through the rows of goods and commodities and would feel safer knowing that "John Turner is looking after me."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: As I say, though the minister spoke carefully I thought he allowed his instincts as a politician to prevail occasionally. If he is honest when he sums up before the bill receives second reading, he will admit that it does not invest the government with any new rights or authority and, that its authority already is limited economically and legally.
The only possible solution, as I suggested, would be that kind of collaboration with the provinces which would result in the institution of a joint board to which there could be delegated an adequate degree of authority, not with respect to the prices of all goods, commodities and labour across the country but with respect to pinpointing particularly glaring cases where the rights of the Canadian consumer have been ignored or where the Canadian consumer has been ruthlessly exploited. If this were done and a few instances were brought to light as examples, I think the benefit would be substantial.
As I said at the resolution stage, I regret that this bill did not go to a committee. I expect that the minister will say that the committee on consumer credit held hearings


all over the country and explored this entire question. He may say that, considering the number of witnesses it heard, to send this bill to a committee would be merely repetition. I do not think so. I have become increasingly convinced that there must be a better way of dealing with legislation than at present. The government conceives it in the darkest corners of its privy council closets and becomes attached to it by virtue of parenthood. It brings the legislation before the house and then refuses to accept amendments.
It seems to me that a bill designed to meet the present serious problems confronting the consumers of this country ought to have been sent to a committee before second reading. It is still not too late to do that. Great numbers of witnesses need not be called. There might be some sort of terms of reference and a limitation of time. Before that committee there could be presented the views of hon. members who sit to our left, of hon. members of the official opposition, as well as the views of others who are interested. In committee we could join issue on the problems we face. When the bill was returned to the house it would reflect the thinking of the members of the committee, who in turn are pipe lines of communication with their constituents, the consumers of Canada. I am not alone in thinking this.
During the debate in 1965 on the report of the procedure committee the following words were uttered, as found on page 12588 of Hansard:
It means we shall establish a procedure whereby legislation can be submitted at an earlier stage to standing and special committees of the commons for scrutiny by members. This reform would, in my opinion, achieve two main results. First, it would allow an individual member of parliament access to information upon which to base intelligent criticism.
I see the minister smiling. He will recognize the author of that statement. It was made before the minister ascended to the rarified atmosphere of the privy council. I will not say that he had more intelligence then than he has now. I will simply say that he occupied a lower position and had not attained the privilege of being a member of the privy council.
A bill like this, which seeks to affect intimately every part of our country and all our people, ought to have been referred to a committee with appropriate instructions along the lines I have already suggested. The minister could still do that at this stage.
October 20, 1967

Perhaps he has given favourable thought to my proposal. I doubt that, however. The minister is some distance from me but I can tell from the look in his eye that he will not go along with me.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
Ministers like to get bills through. They want to see them wound up as soon as possible. This is a very reasonable approach but I do not think it is good enough. I think many measures would be better bills, better adapted to the wishes and aspirations of the people of Canada, if the people who represent the consumers of Canada, the members of the House of Commons, had some say in the shaping of the legislation upon which they are asked to vote. I still hope the minister will repent at the last moment, recognize that this bill does not give us the best of either world, and allow it to go to a committee where I am sure we can produce a much better bill than has been dreamed up so far.


Mr. Don Jamieson (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for much that was fair and objective in his presentation and, most of all, for his frank recognition of the difficulties which would be involved in attempting to implement some of the more dramatic proposals that have been made during the course of this debate.
I think there would be unanimous approval of any technique that the minister or his associates could devise which would serve to control prices. Every one of us is concerned in one way or another about the high cost of living. It is certainly refreshing to hear the hon. member emphasize the extreme difficulties which would be involved in setting up machinery to control prices. By the same token it is disconcerting when other hon. members less objective in their approach do not recognize, or at least seem not to recognize, that the control of prices would involve far reaching and complex activities and that it simply could not be achieved without at the same time requiring, for example, the control of incomes and intervention in a host of other spheres related to this delicate and difficult subject.
Where I part company with the hon. member who spoke immediately before me is on his contention that the work which the new department is designed to perform could have been carried out without setting up the addition to the administrative machinery which the bill before us proposes. The minister himself has stated that there will be
Corporate and Consumer Affairs difficulties and shortcomings and that in the initial stages mistakes will probably be made. But it does seem to me that a focal point has now been created, a department which will have as its major responsibility the broad area of concern for consumers, and I do not believe that a variety of agencies could act as effectively.
I have had a fairly close association with various phases of marketing over the years and my native province has the questionable distinction of supporting the highest cost of living of any part of Canada. Many references have been made to the difficulties we in Newfoundland face because of a variety of circumstances which have resulted in costs that by mainland standards can only be described as fantastically high. Having lived in this atmosphere and having experienced these difficulties and noted, by the way, that along with the highest cost of living we also have the lowest per capita earnings of any part of Canada, I for one welcome any effort which is likely to bring these two factors into better balance.
The minister himself has said there must be consultation with the provinces. I heartily agree. I believe this is an approach which ought to be taken soon. Within a short time we shall be dealing with drug legislation, and we know that so much of the force which generates the high cost of drugs is within the control of the provinces and outside the control of the federal government. In this field, then, as well as in the whole field of consumer goods, consultation will be of the utmost importance.
It is impossible in the short time available to me to range over all the implications of this bill, so I should like to say a word about a subject which I believe is of greater importance than has been recognized by many of us up to the present time. There is, in my opinion, a great need for consumer education. A great deal has been said in the house about the high cost of living but I think it is fair to say too that at least within certain groups what we are suffering from is not so much the high cost of living as the cost of high living. This is a direction in which I believe education can accomplish much. There is nothing to prevent the new department launching a well-developed, well-thought-out program of consumer education.
I do not believe the department can do it alone. From my own experience I feel that there is a great need in our school system and in the whole of our educational process to lay more emphasis, when talking to young
3326	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs people who will be the family makers a few years from now, on ways in which they can spend their money better and to greater advantage. I say this for a variety of reasons, not just from the point of view of saving money but from the point of view of better nutrition and the like.
My communities in Burin-Burgeo-there are about 200 of them-are made up of 60 or 70 families each at the most. The smaller ones consist of as few as 25 families. Such people, living in rural communities, face problems with regard to the high cost of living which are not present in metropolitan areas. We hear a great deal about trading stamps, supermarket practices and the general attractions offered to consumers. For my part I wish that in these small communities in Newfoundland, and for that matter in other parts of Canada, there was more of this kind of competitive activity. I should like to see the new department seek to devise ways in which these minority groups, whether they happen to consist of people in small communities, elderly people who do not have ready access to marketplaces, or of people in the low income brackets, can be given a better opportunity of access to the new marketing techniques.
On previous occasions I have expressed strong criticism of most of the major manufacturing companies in Canada which produce what could be described as consumer lines for their tendency to concentrate on seven or eight centres in this country. I do not know whether hon. members who live in the areas of high population realize that many of the so-called advantages gained by consumers in Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal are gained in many instances at the expense of rural purchasers. In the large centres the bigger firms must of necessity compete on a head-on basis with others who manufacture the same lines. If the pressure of the marketplace means anything, it must operate in areas where the competition is most keen. But in other parts of Canada these large organizations either neglect to employ the same kind of promotional devices or permit brokers and agents of various kinds to add on a variety of extra costs.
If hon. members from other parts of Canada were to come to my constituency I am sure they would be appalled at the mark-up on prices which fishermen earning $1,400 a year have to pay compared with those now being criticized in supermarkets in the larger centres. One of the reasons for this, and I now return to my conviction with regard to
IMr. Jamieson.]
DEBATES	October 20, 1967
the need for an educational process, is that these minority groups are less attuned to the new marketing techniques and do not have the same appreciation of the advantages which might be open to them if they employed their buying dollars to better advantage.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I am aware of course, of the new trends toward attractive packaging and the like, and I do not necessarily criticize them. I think this is part of the whole new marketing concept and, while it has its abuses, in the last analysis we have to recognize that there are a great many consumers who are anxious to buy the kind of convenience foodstuffs, and the like which are now being produced in this way. But where there are people who cannot afford these or who ought not to be purchasing them in such quantities there is a need for some kind of consumer education program which would illustrate to them that they can buy foods of comparable or better value for smaller expenditures.
Harking back to my own province of Newfoundland, it has been a traditional activity of Newfoundland homemakers over the centuries, one which I expect they are noted for throughout Canada and North America, to do what is called home baking. But I find today that what we in Newfoundland refer to as "baker's bread"-I suppose that is a standard expression throughout the country-is being sold in small places throughout the province. The younger generation of Newfoundlanders, particularly housewives, is losing the art of home baking. There may be some who will say that this is a good thing and that home baking belongs to the archaic past, but the truth of the matter is that not only is their own product more nutritional but the cost saving is fantastic. However, I do not know of any campaign or activity being conducted by any provincial government agency, or other department to show the younger generation of Newfoundlanders how to continue this very worth-while activity.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member accept a question?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: By all means.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is he suggesting that the minister should undertake a campaign to get young housewives to bake their own bread? I am all in favour of it.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, I would agree with that, and while on this subject I think the
October 20, 1967

minister should assess some of the activities of other departments in the food field and make them a little bit more realistic with regard to the type of advice and guidance they are distributing which is supposed to be for the benefit of consumers.
I had a wonderful laugh the other day when I was in a kitchen in my riding filled with good Guernsey fishermen and honest Newfoundland housewives. A brochure had arrived from the department outlining how to make sour cream party dips in a hurry. Hon. members can just imagine these hard working Newfoundland people rushing off to cocktail parties where such sour cream party dips would be served. Many of the other publications that come from these departments are equally unrealistic.
I suggest that there is a legitimate and very proper area for consumer education in the many fields in which surveys and research could be undertaken. My hon. friends from British Columbia may be pleased to know-and it becomes a source of bafflement to me every time I see it-that British Columbia salmon is brought to my province which sells for less money than our own Newfoundland salmon. It makes no sense to me that this sort of thing goes on.


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: And our salmon are better.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Of course our salmon are better, as the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. O'Keefe) reminds me, but that is beside the point.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I suggest there are valuable contributions that this new department can make regardless of the limitations under which, for constitutional reasons, it may function. I repeat my recommendation that one of its initial activities should be to undertake a study of the reasons for some of the things I have outlined, and it should also undertake a comprehensive consumer education program. By undertaking just these two things, in the long run the new department would justify its establishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, after delivering his speech, the member for that Newfoundland constituency whose name I always forget, should pass the hat and collect an entertainment fee. And I am not being facetious when I say this, for although the member has not been sitting in the house very long, not only are his remarks
Corporate and Consumer Affairs always clear and timely, but he makes them with such vigour, with such spirit, in keeping with his nature that they are all the more interesting. Still, I cannot say that I agree without reservation with all he has just said.
For instance, I cannot see, in spite of any educational campaign the minister might launch, Canadian women going back to the days when they used to make their own bread and cooked all their food themselves. You know, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to be realistic. We are living in a different age. In fact and up to a certain point, it is the age of automation, of effortless living, the century when everyone claims the right to leisure. I think it would be running against the tide if we were to bring back a major part of our people to methods that might well be called primitive.
I do not suggest we should disregard them, for there will always be people with a taste for nice things, people who will want to keep these handicraft practices. A little more of them would do no harm and some kind of concern on our part in this respect would benefit everybody. However, we should not be led to believe that this could solve the problem of living costs, at least not in any appreciable degree.
Since the beginning of this debate, Mr. Speaker, I have listened to 15 or 16 speeches. I listened to them attentively, because it is very rare that there is not at least one member who gets up to say something constructive and worthwhile. I even take the trouble to make notes on some of the comments made by those who take part in the debate.
I was struck by several things. I will not list them now, for it would take too long, but one thing in particular impressed me very much, and that is the way in which the Registrar General of Canada (Mr. Turner) and future minister of corporate and consumer affairs was showered with compliments. He was told that he is handsome, intelligent, ambitious and has sound judgment.
As far as I am concerned, being used to the facts of life, I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this chorus of praise, most of it coming from the opposition, troubled me. That reminds me of the fables about the sirens who lured ships on the reefs, or of pirates who dazzled navigators so that their ships struck rocks, which would enable them to pick up the spoils. This leads me to tell the minister that I know he has enough judgment and experience of life not to let all those complements paid to him today go to
October 20, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs his head, not to imagine that the opposition members, who try to wear out his resistance, while giving him advice, which is to the point in many cases, may be preparing to tear him to pieces tomorrow, if he does not deliver the goods.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
As a member of the opposition, I should like to warn the minister specifically against three great dangers. In my remarks at the resolution stage, I said that I would vote for the bill even if it did not seem to be perfect- and I do not see who could draft a perfect bill here, even on the opposition side-because it represented a sincere attempt to meet a real problem, a crucial problem.
I think I am doing the minister a favour in warning him-recalling the old saying: spare the rod and spoil the child-that he must not be taken in by congratulations; rather he must expect very strong opposition within the cabinet, as some of his colleagues will want to pull the rug from under him because it will hinder their departments' operations. One knows that this can reach wild proportions at times, as it has happened in some circumstances.
I should like to warn the minister against the favourable disposition of the opposition; his behaviour will be watched day after day and everyone of his statements will be scrutinized, precisely because members of the opposition told him again and again during this debate that, in addition to all the qualities credited to him, he was ambitious and might aspire one day to the leadership of his party. The opposition will check his every movement, scrutinize his words and actions and try to destroy him eventually if his legislation falls short of the expectations of the Canadian people.
The minister has been in politics long enough to know that politics have no soul but occasionally bring out fierce reactions from people gifted with the highest qualities who also feel themselves even more gifted by Providence to serve the people than those in power and that as a result the latter must be destroyed so that one fine day the former may take their place.
And this is not all. The minister must further face the people, and he must remember that there is no use preaching to a hungry man.
I am one of those who believe that in spite of all the efforts of the minister, the cost of living will continue to rise. He may perhaps


halt the increases but not much. Then, monster delegations will descend upon him, loudly protesting and accusing him of all sorts of things such as was reported in the newspapers of the past few days about the chairman of a bank charging the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) with having misled the people and having practised a massive swindle. He even used the words theft and robbery.
Such things will then be said to the minister who will have to fight the very people he wants to help. I do not say that to discourage him, because I know, of course, that he is brave and that he is ready to face the music; I mention it so that he and his associates may be realistic.
I would even like to remind him of something else. For several months now, one of the things which has struck me particularly when listening to the speeches made in all corners of the house, is that we are living in a period of crises. We have crisis here, there and everywhere and I infer from that that if we are experiencing so many crises-it is useless for me to enumerate them, because hon. members do so every day-it is because there is failure somewhere.
I have said it before and I say it again to strike the imagination of those I am referring to. I am not necessarily a Creditiste, I am not yet a socialist but I say nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the two old parties which are operating within a capitalistic system which is going out of fashion, within private enterprise which pleads and admits itself that we are faced with bankruptcy within a system which has failed to attain a fair distribution of the good things the Lord has provided for all Canadians-while a few are getting fat, others are deprived of bare necessities-within a capitalistic or free enterprise system which has failed to provide a fair distribution of the reasonable minimum of commodities without which according to St. Thomas Aquinas, a Roman Catholic theologian, a Christian cannot gain salvation, I say that now more than ever is the time to find a solution.
From day to day, what we hear in this house from all parties, is an avowal of the failure of the capitalistic, free enterprise system.
I will not say that the ideal solution necessarily lies with the creditist or socialist systems, but I say to both the old parties, which get funds from large capitalist interests who admit they have failed, while putting the blame on government representatives, though
October 20, 1967

the latter operate as best they can within a rather limitating system, I say that the most urgent action to be taken by the minister of corporate and consumer affairs (Mr. Turner), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and all the ministers who wield some influence in financial circles, is to convene all the leaders and pontiffs of high finance in Canada and tell them:	Gentlemen, examine your
consciences, because the public is beginning to grumble. You feel it in the strikes, in the monster delegations that come in protest to the federal and provincial governments; you feel it in the revolt against laws and injunctions; you feel it in the abusive language we hear every day; you feel it in the hundreds after hundreds of fantastic lucubrations that loom every day all over the land. The storm is gathering, because the system under which we have been living for hundreds of years is heading for failure in the face of the urgent needs of a population desirous of enjoying that minimum of reasonable affluence it is entitled to.
The capitalists should meet, or at least those who hold the reins of our capitalist system; they should quit thinking that through concern or the handsomely paid propaganda of public relations men, they will have the people believe that they are not hungry when they are famished, that by dilly-dallying they will calm them down and silence them.
This era is over, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that if the minister wants to succeed, if he hopes to overcome the opposition, mainly, of the business circles who control the life blood of the country, he will have to coax the latter into self-examination until they understand they had better proceed on their own with a revision of the present system, and adapt to the conditions of 1967, or even of the forthcoming year 2000. If they do not, they will have to face open rebellion from the people and I pray God it is not a violent one, such as we may already forecast from the strikes that are now prevalent all over the country. The strikers mention unparalleled violence nobody could have dreamed of twenty or twenty-five years ago. Those are disturbing demonstrations and I believe that if the minister seeks to get at the root of the evil, he will have to tackle those things first of all.
He is broad-minded enough to understand, and mind you, I press the point to say that it is difficult for both parties to take such a revolutionary stand in order to tackle the problem at the root because-I know it and I 27053-211
Corporate and Consumer Affairs do not blame them too much for it because they live within the system-they are financed by the bigwigs of high finance and that is how they are elected and try to do as little harm possible to the Canadian people; I know that under these circumstances, it is difficult.
I should like everyone to understand that as an independent, I am free from those obligations and I can be of service to all my friends and colleagues of goodwill from every party, the majority of whom have had a tremendous experience and can one day diagnose the needs of the Canadian people in every walks of life, and who spend hours and days and weeks considering what are the best solutions in the English context in which we live.
I should like to urge the members of the old line parties, to make it clear to the bigwigs of private enterprise that they are the source of all our evils because they do not understand that they must exercise self-discipline before it is forced upon them by the people.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for coming back so many times to that question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Order.
Our time is also being consumed. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, at the start of this second part of my remarks which I began before the adjournment, I would like to have, with your kind permission, the privilege to make one or two comments which are not precisely connected with our debate today.
First, as an independent, I have not had the opportunity, since we are not recognized under such circumstances, to offer my congratulations and my good wishes to the new leader of the Progressive Conservative party. I have had the pleasure to meet with him, a few years ago, when he was the premier of his province and I as president of the Canadian federation of mayors was travelling through our ten provinces to discuss municipal problems with the premiers and I remember him as an efficient man, with a sound judgment, as a Canadian who wants the good
October 20, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs of his country and who shows an above average intelligence and an understanding of today's problems. I know he is taking on a tremendous task, that of restoring the prestige of his political party in the eyes of the Canadian people. Such a responsibility does not rest with him only, but also with the other traditional party, judging from the results of the last election, since no party has had a clear majority in a number of years. I personally wish him will in that endeavour, because I feel that the more the traditional parties regain their value and their prestige in the eyes of the public, the more they will prove useful.
I should like to refer to some of his remarks, especially when he said he had been shocked, on his arrival in the house, to note the poor attendance of press gallery reporters, since their mission is to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. I regret interrupting the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, but I should like to ask him to show me how the remarks he intends to make on the role of the opposition, his congratulations to the new leader of the Progressive Conservative party and his remarks on the parliamentary correspondents can be related to the bill now under consideration?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Precisely, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for having brought up the subject. It will enable me to elaborate further.
If you recall, I said that I craved the indulgence of the chair so that I could deal with a question of privilege and if some of my remarks were far afield, I think it is my privilege to demand that the work which I and other members are doing is reported to the Canadian people who have only the newspapers to obtain information and precisely I should remind the parliamentary correspondents who blame the members often enough for the lack of attendance at the sittings of the house that they themselves, on a pro rata basis, have no better attendance record since I am told that there are between 130 and 135 correspondents covering the proceedings of the house and that most of the time two, three of four are to be seen in the gallery whereas most of the others amuse themselves reporting on the eccentricities of some members rather than the serious discussion being carried on.
Mr. Speaker, I have finished appealing to your indulgence and I revert to my subject.

A few minutes after the house recessed for lunch the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) reminded me very charmingly and jokingly that while the minister hails from St. George riding in Montreal he is not St. George. While this is true, it is my contention that the minister will need all the qualities, fighting spirit, dash and boldness of those as celestial as St. George and St. Michael if he wants to kill the dragon now facing him. His responsibilities are tremendous and crushing for many reasons. One reason is, of course, all the qualities attributed to him this morning. We expect far more from one with those qualities than from the normal member of parliament or minister. The minister must tackle a very difficult problem and assume very heavy responsibility in order to live up to the qualities and ambitions attributed to him this morning by the opposition. Whether he possesses those qualities or not, everyone will expect more from him. His responsibilities are great because of the scope of the job he has undertaken, particularly in light of the circumstances and difficulties with which he will be confronted in attempting to solve the thousands of problems he must solve.

Mr. Speaker, people sometimes say here that we are living in a period of emergency; I positively state the contrary. The constitutional problem which is raised all the time and is discussed without rhyme or reason- the speaker often not knowing what he is talking about, not taking the trouble of defining words-is not the most serious problem. I say that the Canadian people are not too interested in constitutional matters and that the problem we are facing is a social problem, which is precisely caused by what has been mentioned, the rise in the cost of living and all the complexities involved in the field of welfare. I say that Canadians are nervous, worried and disappointed in many cases, and that they are extremely surprised to see everything that is done with impunity in Canada, at the present time, to see all those urgent problems which are discussed endlessly and to which the older parties seem powerless to bring lasting solutions.
It has been pointed out this morning and over the last few days at least, that it is difficult to set up a body that would control prices, keep them within bounds, but I say that it is probably the most urgent thing to do and I do not feel that it is enough to say that constitutional reasons prevent us from
October 20, 19S7	COMMONS
finding valid solutions when we are faced with a problem of such urgency, such seriousness, which has such grave implication for the welfare of the nation as a whole.
I think there is enough good will among the officials of the provincial and federal governments to enable them to sit together and decide to take the urgent steps needed before we are faced with an escalation or a multiplication of those social disorders, we regret to witness at the present time.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I said this morning that private enterprise must also understand that it has to show self-restraint if it does not want to be compelled to do so tomorrow by social troubles or by parties of which it is afraid as, for instance, our friends the New Democrats who advocate an increasingly relaxed form of socialism which would entail reforms unpalatable to private enterprise, at times.
In my opinion, private enterprise should be made to understand that we no longer live at a time when money was given to the wealthy to allow them to acquire more wealth, but that today money must be made to serve the people. If we do not want to see the notion of profit disappear in private enterprise, we must understand that today money and profits must be distributed as fairly as possible so that as many people as possible may enjoy that minimum and reasonable standard of living.
I say it is high time we put a stop to some financial activities that result in excessive profits for people who, by virtue of being there, of having learned the tricks of the trade, now succeed in wheedling large, considerable amounts of money from those they have persuaded to sink their lifetime savings into uneconomic ventures by holding up to them the promise of interesting profits. We heard some eloquent speeches yesterday and this morning; I cannot mention all those who have spoken about it in this house, but their speeches are now on record in the official report of the debates. I say they were well advised to talk about this, one of the problems of our modern society.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister should put the tiller hard over to the left, although this word seems frightful to many. Conditions are such that it is high time to heed the people's demands and put the tiller hard over to the left. What I mean by that is that all the good things of this world should be made available to the people placed by Providence in this rich country of ours, leaving to all those who want to work 27053-2115
DEBATES	3331
Corporate and Consumer Affairs the freedom to do so in peace. We should find or create the conditions in which they can earn a livelihood.
And when they have given an honest day's work, we should see to it that the cost of living remains at a reasonable level, that outrageous exploitation be stopped and that false pretences be eliminated. Further, Mr. Speaker, it is time that some labour leaders who are showing what I would call shameful disregard for the common good, and who in some cases use the kind of tactics used by the underworld in the United States but not in Canada, be brought into line.
I feel that if capitalism and private enterprise can be blamed for misunderstanding their role, it is time that some labour leaders, especially at the top level, should be made to understand that they are not above the law of the land, that the law is enacted for all of us and must be complied with by everyone. When it has come to pass that a piece of legislation is called a mere scrap of paper and that union members are urged to despise and disregard it, I say that it is time for the authorities to step in.
It is all very well to say that we are living in a free country, that the labour movement must not be interfered with but I think that most Canadian citizens expect the governments to become conscious of their responsibilities and take some action to restore order in society, to prevent anarchy.
In my opinion, that long-lined obligingness is beginning to exasperate the Canadian people who are expecting more leadership from those to whom they have entrusted their destinies.
This is one of the fields in which governments should display more energy, bring labour leaders into line and make them understand that even for them, every means is not fair. Any legal means is fair. They have no right to jeopardize the common good for the sole purpose of protecting their personal prestige, of increasing their membership or of playing down to their members in order to be in a better position to keep on extorting from them increased contributions after those disputes which, of course, are costly.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we are dealing with a social problem. It is truly a social revolution that the minister and some of his colleagues are being called upon to quash.
I think that if the minister were to fail in this task, public censure would be all the more cruel as the minister has made more
October 20, 19S7

Corporate and Consumer Affairs promises than most candidates to such difficult posts, and as these responsibilities were offered to him wrapped in all sorts of compliments. The minister will discover with each day that not only are his problems not diminishing, but they are becoming more complex because of the urgent needs and aspirations of the whole Canadian people who have decided now that the wealth given by Providence to this country would no longer be shared only by the members of a privileged group. They believe that all Canadians axe entitled to their rightful share of this wealth, the minimum and reasonable competency which has been spoken of as an essential condition of a normal human existence.
I therefore wish the minister all the success he deserves in this undertaking. I feel the opposition will be happy to co-operate because I think it is convinced of the urgency, the seriousness and the extent of the problems he will tackle.
Although the opposition parties allow themselves from time to time a bit of sport, of partisan opposition, generally speaking and going down to the root of the matter, I think they will want to co-operate with the minister in solving a problem on which depends not only the well-being of Canada, but also peace in society.


Mr, J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the bill now before us for second reading. Bill C-161 is designed to set up a department of corporate and consumer affairs. Every one of my constituents and every constituent whom other hon. members represent is a consumer, and I believe that all those who spoke here today were speaking in their interests and on their behalf. In order to voice their great concern over the increasing costs of consumer goods I wish to emphasize their demand that the government take definite and positive action with regard to rising prices. I say definite and positive action because, as other hon. members have said, we are not convinced that under Bill C-161 this will be done.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
We are all aware of the agitation of consumers during the last two years over rising prices. We have heard their insistent demands, as voiced through the Consumers Association of Canada. We have seen some of their demonstrations and have read some of their briefs to the government. I get the

impression now that at long last the government senses that the public is demanding more government involvement in this problem which affects every household in the country. Bill No. C-161 appears to be the government's answer. Does it meet the demands of the consumer or is it, as some hon. members have suggested, just window dressing? Is it an attempt to give the public a glamorous or important feeling and create the impression the consumer will have a voice in the councils of the mighty?
The minister who will be in charge of this new department is very friendly and charming. However, it will take more than charm, I am sure, to satisfy the consumers who have seen the purchasing power of their dollar eroded almost monthly. If I may be facetious for a moment, I should like to refer to the fact the bill says the minister will hold office at pleasure. Of course this means at the pleasure of the government. He will also have to look to the pleasure of the consumers in a large way. I feel he is going to have a very difficult job in this regard. I do not believe the provisions of the bill are sufficiently strong to allow him to satisfy the consumer.
I have a brief from the consumers association before me, but I shall not refer to it at any great length. It was presented by the Consumers Association of Canada in March, 1960, to the government. Several statements are contained in the brief to which I shall refer a little later relating to the concern of these people over prices. I also have a letter from the president of an organization called "Women Against Soaring Prices", which I imagine works closely with the Consumers Association of Canada.
This organization, Women Against Soaring Prices, asked for and I imagine received a hearing from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). The letter reads in part:
Sir, we have a petition regarding this urgent subject-
Prices.
-signed by 12,000 ol our fellow citizens and addressed to you. We therefore respectfully request an appointment at your earliest convenience at which we can place that petition in your hands directly, and, we hope, discuss with you what can be done to combate soaring prices on essential foods and skyrocketing rentals.
I quote that part of the letter because while we have been referring quite often to soaring prices of foods, rentals certainly have been soaring as well. I think each one of us is acquainted with that fact, and it is part of the problems of the consumer as well. I put
Ociober 20, 1967

on the record earlier a letter from a senior citizen who, of necessity, must have drugs each day. She sent me a voucher she received dated April 6, 1967 for a drug costing $1.70. On April 25, about three weeks later, the same drug cost $2.90. The voucher for April 25 contained this notation:
There has been a price increase on this prescription in compliance with the new pricing schedule. Thank you.
This represents an increase of $1.20 on that drug. I believe increased drug prices will be a problem the minister's department will have to tackle too. Perhaps I should put on the record the figures relating to the repeated increases in the cost of living. The graph I have is headed:
What every housewife knows.
The advance of living costs was sharply faster in the past six months than it was in the same period during any of the previous three years.
The figures are taken from a Dominion Bureau of Statistics release. In 1964 the index rose from 134 to 137; in 1965, from 138 to 141; in 1966, from 142 to 146, and in the first half of 1967, from 146 to past 150. The graph certainly indicates a continual rise in the index, and this trend will continue unless the minister has more power than he would appear to have under this bill.
In the Saskatchewan Bulletin for October, 1967, we find a table setting out average family expenditure patterns for a family of four. In 1959 the exenditure on food amounted to $1,247, and in 1967 to $1,520. The expenditure on housing in 1959 amounted to $854, and in 1967 to $1,000. As has been pointed out by others, the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials is probably responsible for part of this increase. I will not quote all the items but they all show increases.
If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I should like to go back into history for a minute. I am referring to a time which the minister would perhaps not remember too well, namely, the period of the wartime prices and trade board. I am not advocating that we have price controls such as we had then because we had a war emergency at that time and we were all working in the national interest. However, I am sure the minister can obtain some useful information, if he has not already done so, by consulting the files of the wartime prices and trade board. He might even find some information in his family files because his family had a direct connection with this board, but I shall not refer to that now. I am just making this
Corporate and Consumer Affairs reference, for the information of the minister. There are details there of consumer education and consumer protection to which I shall refer later.
I should like to read part of an article which sets forth the objectives of the wartime prices and trade board. As I say, I am not advocating price controls such as existed at that time.
It makes all the difference to the happiness and
smooth running of a home if there is some semblance of economic stability. It makes it a lot easier for the housewife if she knows that the prices of staple foods like bread and milk and flour will be just about the same next month as they are today, if she has some assurance that the landlord won't jump the rent, and that the savings in the bank will buy just as much next year as they do right now.
This article was written in 1942, but I believe we should try to attain the same objectives today. May I refer very briefly to a short article about the minister and his proposed consumer department, and I do so to give him full warning of what is ahead of him. The minister stated that this department will concentrate on the dissemination of information and the educational aspects of consumer buying. It will primarily be a service department answering questions from consumers and businessmen. Correspondence followups will be one of the most important aspects of the new department.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
This is why I have referred in particular to the wartime prices and trade board. In the operation of that board there was a consumers branch which was under the jurisdiction of the former Byrne Hope Sanders. That branch was evidence of the fact that as women do 80 to 85 per cent of all buying of goods and services they are a very important part of the battle to keep down prices. What I wish to emphasize to the minister is that this consumers branch had a network across Canada and linked with every women's group, and at the end of 1944-I have the record here-the English and French officers of the branch numbered nearly 16,000. This indicates how women can organize. I suggest that if the minister plans on answering the letters of all these women he will certainly have a job on his hands in this department. In this connection I emphasize what others have said, namely, the danger of building up an empire of his own in a great bureaucracy.
I should like to quote an article on this point which appeared in last night's Ottawa
October 20, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs Journal. The heading reads "C.S. Jobs Increased By 1,000 Monthly In '66" and the opening paragraph is as follows:
Employment in the federal civil service grew last year at an average rate of better than 1,000 a month, a pace unmatched since the crash build-up during the second world war.
That was when the wartime prices and trade board was building up its personnel. The article goes on:
Civil service employment has been creeping up steadily from its wartime peak of 116,000 in 1945. But it didn't really start to surge until the start of 1965. Since then it has increased by an astonishing 9 per cent.
I hope that the minister does not have in mind the building up of an organization anything like that.
The brief of the Consumers Association of Canada stated that at present there is no focal point in the government for consumer policy, to focus attention on how policies affect consumers. I think this could be the most important place that the minister could occupy in the battle against rising prices. He will be meeting with his colleagues and it will be up to him-certainly we in the house have not been able to do it-to convince the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) that the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and construction machinery is increasing the price not only of homes but also of goods.
The minister will also have to convince the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) that the present rate of interest on mortgages of 8J per cent is adding to the cost of homes, which in turn adds to the problems of consumers. In addition he will have to convince the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson), as we have tried to, that on many occasions the unfair application of the estate tax makes it necessary for small businesses to sell out in order to pay this tax, thus reducing competition and benefiting the large retail outlets.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the minister will certainly have to convince the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), who I imagine will take a lot of convincing in view of his other performances in this house, as well as his former colleague, now head of the transport commission, that increases in freight rates add to the cost of consumer goods. Coming as 1 do from the west I refer especially to the removal of the bridge subsidy on the long haul north of the great lakes, which certainly adds to the cost of consumer goods.
I should now like to refer to a matter on which I have spoken previously. It is something for which the consumers themselves
[Mr. Pascoe.l

are to blame and perhaps the minister can persuade them otherwise. I refer to the expensive diet fads which are the trend now across the country. I speak on this subject with some interest because I am a wheat farmer. I suggest that the consumers of Canada get back to the good old nutritional habit of eating more bread. I do not agree with some statements that have been made to the effect that bread is not good for you. It certainly is; it is a very healthy food.


Mr. Byrne:: Especially home-made bread.


Mr. Pascoe:: I would certainly match those western housewives who bake their own bread against any women in eastern Canada who are on a diet. I think western housewives who eat bread will win the prize both for charm and beauty as well as health. I object to this trend not to eat bread. Today women are asked, yes, and men too, to eat imported grapefruit when we in the west have the wheat waiting to be turned into bread. Therefore if the minister could convince these people to return to the eating of bread he will have done his duty in this regard.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget eating apples too.


James Ernest Pascoe: Yes, an apple a day, but that will be hard on the doctors.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I think a great deal of the experience gained by the wartime prices and trade board will help the minister. I realize we cannot impose the restrictions of those days such as price ceilings and rationing because the problem is different now. But many of the approaches of the board worked then and some of them will work now.
May I conclude by repeating what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said, namely, that before the bill was brought in the matter should have been referred to the standing committee where witnesses would have been able to present opinions. Had that been the case I think the government would have come up with a much better bill.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, every observer of Canada and Canadians remarks on our diversity, diversity of region, of occupation, of religion, of language, even of politics, if I can mention that word in this august chamber. But among the things that we have in common is the fact that obviously we are all consumers.
October 20, 1967

It has already been pointed out at an earlier stage in this debate that the late President Kennedy, in his first message to the United States congress, said that consumers have rights, the right to be informed, the right to choose, the right to safety, the right to be heard. I think that this applies to Canada as well. The citizen as a consumer is entitled to ask that these rights be protected where necessary, by the organized community, by government, no less than the more traditional rights of free speech, religion and so on.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
There is a federal responsibility in this area of consumer interest and through this bill the government is attempting to have this federal responsibility carried out more actively and effectively than ever before. It would not be fair to the worker, to the family man concerned about how far his pay cheque will go, to give him the impression that the responsibility for consumer affairs can be carried out solely at the federal level. It is one which at present must be shared by the federal government with the provinces. But even under our existing constitutional arrangements there is a federal jurisdiction in consumer affairs which the federal government must use actively and creatively. Aside from a number of specific constitutional powers which have permitted it to act in the past in such areas as inspection of food and drugs to assure purity and safety, and in the area of weights and measures, the federal government in recent years has assumed a general obligation to keep the economy operating at a high level, which I think makes it necessary for it to take the consumer interest into account. This obligation involves efforts to maintain high levels of employment and income together with reasonable price stability.
Consumer expenditure on goods and services, according to the first report of the economic council, has been twice as large as all other uses of domestic output combined since the 1920's. In fact, 68 per cent of the gross national product in 1963 went for this type of expenditure. Twenty three per cent of family expenditures in Canada is for food. For low income families this figure rises to nearly 30 per cent, with another 40 per cent being taken for shelter, transportation and clothing.
Obviously, one key way of maintaining standards of living and making the pay cheque go farther is to make it possible for the consumer to make wise choices when he
Corporate and Consumer Affairs goes out to purchase, and to protect him from being misled and deceived in the marketplace. It must be clear by now that market forces, the pressures of supply and demand, do not of themselves supply the necessary degree of protection. Increasingly the supply side is coming to be or is held in the hands of a decreasing number of large concerns which are in the position to use economic power in a way that is not available to the thousands of individual economic consumers.
The new and complex technology going into consumer goods makes it increasingly difficult if not impossible for the consumer to make meaningful judgments as to their quality and safety. The same problem is created by much of modern packaging which, while attractive and colourful, provides a very limited amount of or no real information as to the contents of the package and its quantity. And even the information that is provided is often in a form that makes it impossible for the average person to make any meaningful comparison between the particular product and other products he may be interested in purchasing, unless he has a slide rule and an advanced degree in economics, biochemistry or dietetics.
If products may not be bought with safety it is obviously no answer to say to the consumer, "You do not have to buy this product next time." The damage is already done. In fact, the damage is done even where it is only a matter of the price of the particular product not being justified by the quality which the consumer finds when he opens the package. After all, the consumer's money is gone; and if it is a big ticket item, an expensive appliance, for example, it will be a long time before that consumer, who is stuck with something that does not measure up to the standards he was led to believe he could expect, will be able to go into the market again.
There have been continuing and growing complaints about rises in food costs, about misleading packaging, labelling and advertising, and about the difficulties consumers have in making judgments in a meaningful way when about to make purchases, as well as the organized consumer protests of the past several years. These show that our market economy, in spite of its obvious achievements in providing an amazing range of goods for a large number of people, does not of itself contain, adequate mechanisms to protect consumers from being misled or abused. This, of course, has been partially recognized over
October 20. 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs the years, as evidenced by the creation at federal and provincial levels of legislation such as the food and drug laws and the weights and measures laws which are designed to afford a degree of protection to the consumer. At the federal level, however, as has been pointed out, responsibility for implementing and administering this legislation has been scattered over a number of branches, over a number of different departments, all of which have other primary purposes and concerns. There are gaps which have not been covered by existing legislation. There has been no central co-ordination, no voice for the consumer interest at the policy-making level.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, will go a long way to meeting these requests. The bill creating the department of consumer affairs is one that has been requested by the Canadian Consumers Association for a number of years. The report of the joint committee of the house and Senate on consumer prices, a committee created by this government, strongly recommended the creation of such a department. Obviously there will be an important role for the new department of corporate and consumer affairs, not only to carry out more effectively existing programs of consumer protection but to add to them and expand them where necessary.
The federal government-and I should like to deal with a number of areas of activity which I hope might be undertaken by this new department-already sets standards for many products it buys. Many of these products are also offered by their manufacturers to the consumer market. Why cannot the federal government go on to expand its existing program of setting standards and set standards which would cover a wider range of goods? It could offer a mark which could be carried by goods meeting these standards. The government has gone part of the way in the area of marking agricultural products. Even there, consumer groups have pointed out the need for making these markings more immediately meaningful and significant to the consumer. Therefore I suggest that one program that might well be undertaken by this new department would be to expand the system of standards which already covers a wide range of products purchased by the federal government. In that way a marking could be made available to products meeting these standards offered to the consumer.
Surely, also, there is room for the strengthening of existing laws to ensure fair and informative labelling of goods to permit meaningful comparisons to be made. Sometimes

we hear arguments that abuses in labelling, packaging and advertising can be left to the self-regulation of the appropriate segment of industry, to the segment of the business community that is concerned. I think the available evidence proves that this is certainly not the answer.
Better business bureaux do good work but the great gap there, of course, is that they have no sanctions they can apply to those who they find have not met the minimum standards required. I have had people come to me and say "I went to the better business bureau and they wrote a letter to the firm; the firm did not reply or they gave an unsatisfactory answer and the better business bureau says that it is sorry but it cannot do any more."
This shows that in spite of many satisfactory adjustments bodies such as better business bureaux are able to obtain there are gaps which cannot be filled by such voluntary adjustment programs. Sometimes an industry group comes along and says, "We have set up an association; we have a code of conduct, and it is going to do the trick". Of course, the weakness of this argument is that a code of standards of this type has no effect on the firm that does not believe in it or that does not want to follow it. I think that reference has already been made to the code of standards set up by what I believe is called the Canadian Association of Manufacturers of Chemical Products. It is a very useful code, but it is one which would have no effect on those firms that do not choose to belong to the association or which choose to belong to it but say that they do not care to carry out this code in its entirety.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the minister of this new department, if it is approved by parliament as I hope it will be, could look into the creation of a body within his department to carry out a task somewhat similar to that carried out by the federal trade commission in the United States.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Our systems of enterprise and of industry are not so dissimilar that the type of complaints with which this body deals in the United States, complaints concerned with misleading advertising, misleading packaging and so forth, could not be found to exist here. So there is room at the federal level for action. I think there could be jurisdiction under the existing laws governing patents and trade marks. I suspect jurisdiction will be found also under the heading of the British North America Act covering trade and
October 20, 1967

commerce. Some students of the matter have said that this power could be used far more actively and creatively than it has been up til now. I hope the minister will take a look at these studies if he has not already done so, and that he will be influenced by their conclusions.
1 hope, also that the minister will take steps to make some of the facilities of the various government laboratories such as exist in the National Research Council available for the testing of consumer products. I understand it is very difficult for consumer groups in Canada to have tests carried out, such is the expense involved, and I maintain that if firms making industrial products can turn to the N.R.C. and ask for tests to be carried out in connection with the manufacture of their products, active consideration should be given to allowing laboratory facilities to be used for the testing of consumer products to provide better information for consumers.
Since we have jurisdiction over promissory notes and bills of exchange I think people are on the right track when they say the federal government should help eliminate the abuses which occur when finance companies, having taken assignment of promissory notes, hide behind the non-recourse provision in the Bills of Exchange Act and say to consumers whose goods have fallen short of reasonable standards-perhaps they have never even received the goods ordered- "We can do nothing for you; you have signed a document without recourse and that is all there is to it." Some nice legal points are involved in all this, but it is too much to expect the average citizen to be aware of all the implications of this type of purchase arrangement and I think there is room for corrective action to be taken under the leadership of the minister and his new department.
I hope, too, that the creation of this new department will mean the carrying on under federal jurisdiction of the progress reflected in the Bank Act where provision is now made for disclosure of the true interest rates on loans. At the present time this is limited to borrowing from banks under the Bank Act. There is room for amendment to the present Small Loans Act to make sure that people who borrow within the terms of that act are able to know the real cost of their borrowing. This is a subject on which the joint committee on the cost of living and consumer credit, again under the leadership of Senator Croll and the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) did a lot of
Corporate and Consumer Affairs constructive work, and it represents an important field of action for the new department.
I urge that the jurisdiction over combines will be actively used to ensure that the trend to bigness on the part of manufacturers and suppliers will in fact bring the benefits of mass production and mass distribution to consumers rather than become the basis of inordinate price increases.
There is certainly something to be said for educating the consumer, but there is obviously a role for regulation too, and this must be the justification for including in the responsibilities of the new department jurisdiction over certain federal responsibilities in the area of corporate affairs-bankruptcy, patents, trade marks and so on. The protection of consumer interests on the demand side requires regulatory activity on the supply side as well. I might add that this type of activity is also a protection for businessmen who want to provide quality goods at reasonable prices. Possibly the minister has seen a note in the recent edition of Consumer Reports suggesting that a sort of Gresham's law of the marketplace is in operation whereby the existence of a large number of people producing shoddy goods discourages more reputable businessmen from turning out goods of better quality at reasonable prices.
It seems to me that if the purpose of including these regulatory activities in the work of the department is to protect the consumer interest the name of the department should be reversed and it should be called the department of consumer and corporate affairs, not the department of corporate and consumer affairs. Even though certain business regulatory activities are provided for, my contention is that the basic purpose of the department is to protect the consumer interest, and I think this can be taken from the remarks of the minister himself. I note that as reported on page 3069 of Hansard for October 13, the hon. member said:
In order to represent the demand side of the marketplace and to give the consumer and investor a direct voice in governmental affairs, any department charged with that responsibility would have to have some authority over certain aspects of the supply side of the marketplace. Those aspects of the supply side of the marketplace are covered within the corporate affairs functions of this department.
I note also that as reported on page 3108 the minister said:
I hope that this department will be responsible to the consumer, will represent the consumer and will give the consumer a new voice at the ministerial level of the federal government.
October 20, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs
If this is the intention of the minister and of the government I suggest to him and to the house that as soon as we reach the committee stage on this legislation the name of the proposed new department be amended so that it will clearly be demonstrated that the emphasis in this department is placed where it should be, that is, on caring for the interests of the consumer. I myself would be happy to move an appropriate amendment if this were acceptable. I strongly urge on the minister and the house acceptance of the idea of putting the word "consumer" first in the name of the department so as to demonstrate that this government is assuming its responsibility to exercise as completely as possible its jurisdiction in a meaningful way to protect an interest common to all Canadians-our interest as consumers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That was a narrow squeak, Mr. Speaker; I have just finished writing a few notes in connection with this bill.
First, I should like to congratulate the hon. gentleman on his coming appointment to this most important ministry and wish him well in all he undertakes in the administration of this legislation when it becomes law. In that connection I may say I have been asked by some of the people who knew him when he was a young man to extend their best wishes as well.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
This and previous debates within the last two weeks have indicated that similar problems come repeatedly before the house. This is an indication that history repeats itself. I am rather fond of history. I suppose that is why on occasion I am called a bit of an old Victorian, but I do not mind that.
It is interesting to note that on April 16, 1935, the house discussed the first federal housing policy. We have heard about housing policy in recent days. On April 12, 1935, the house discussed the radio broadcasting bill. We have a bill dealing with that subject before the house at the present time. On April 9, 1935, the house amended the Post Office Act, and in the near future we expect another bill to amend that act. On April 12, 1935, the house discussed the price spreads commission report. I well remember reading that report when it was issued. I well remember the interest created throughout the country as a result of the hearings that the commission held.


John Napier Turner: Does the hon. member know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was the secretary of that commission?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I had forgotten, but now I remember he was. I also well remember that that commission was established as a result of the activity of Hon. H. H. Stevens, a Conservative member of parliament, who was concerned about the depressed economic condition of the country at the time. We must give him credit. He was the first one to campaign in an election to form a new party, the Reconstruction party. He was elected in Kootenay East and his election slogan was, "Protect the Consumers' Interests." He spoke on that subject in the house, as did other hon. members on both sides of the house. The issue was boiling at that time. It was of great interest to the Canadian people.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Conservatives are always interested in the well being of the consumers.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would naturally suppose so. However, owing to improved economic conditions and to the second world war, interest in that issue died. Now we are faced with a similar round of circumstances, with a rising cost of living over the last few years which has again brought the matter to the attention of the house. A committee of the house has given considerable thought to the question and has heard witnesses from consumers' associations and other groups. I only mention these things to indicate that there seems to be a continuing cycle in parliamentary affairs as a result of which problems return to us over a period of years.
I listened with interest to the minister's speech and to the speeches made by members of this group. There is no necessity for me to repeat the criticisms that have already been stated with respect to the terms of the legislation. They were expressed forcefully and I am sure made an impact on the minister's mind. I also listened with interest to what I thought was a most constructive speech by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), dealing with the difficulties surrounding this type of legislation. Further, I listened to the interesting speech made by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson). I thought he made an excellent speech and made some constructive suggestions with respect to the administration of the legislation.
In my opinion this bill does focus attention on a problem which is Canada-wide. The hon. member for Newfoundland mentioned that people in Newfoundland suffer more
October 20, 1967

from increases in the cost of living than we do in British Columbia, but the problem is country-wide and affects consumers in general.
I doubt that this legislation can be administered satisfactorily or will prove of great value unless the government is able to get the co-operation of the provincial governments in administering it. This point was mentioned by the hon. member for Peace River and other hon. members. I think that is essential. In the first instance there must be co-operation with respect to research, the providing of information and so on. It is also essential to have co-operation with consumer and other groups. The government must get the co-operation of larger groups in our society that are directly affected by increases in the cost of living. These would include consumer groups, women's organizations, trade unions, chambers of commerce and all other agencies that can be persuaded to co-operate with the federal government in giving effect to the legislation.
I trust the minister will accept the advice of hon. members who have suggested that information be given to the public on prices prevailing throughout the country, and that he will have courage enough to mention the names of firms that violate the spirit and intent of the legislation. In that respect I refer to brand names and company names. It is essential to focus attention on the culprit, no matter how important he happens to be in Canadian society. There is nothing as effective as drawing attention to the person who is causing problems for the people and the government.
I was most interested in references that were made to the need for an educational program. There again we must get the cooperation of all interested groups. The public has got to be educated with respect to buying food which is of value because of its nutritional content. The public must also be educated on sound purchasing habits. There is a lot that can be done in that respect. We live in a very wasteful society. We see this every day, and I think something can be done by the federal government, provincial governments and other agencies to help establish sounder habits in that respect.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo mentioned baking one's own bread. This is something very dear to my heart. I realize that a great number of women are working today and do not have the opportunity to bake

Corporate and Consumer Affairs their own bread, but from practical experience I know they can do it. My wife bakes her own bread even here in Ottawa with only two of us to eat it. We have kept track of the cost of homemade bread and I can tell you the cost is about half that of baker's bread.
I think the minister would be well advised to get in touch even with people on welfare who are going to shops and buying expensive baker's bread in order to see to it that they are given information on how to bake their own bread.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Home-baking tastes much better too.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Much better.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is very fattening.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is a fact.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Takes too much butter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think the department
should arrange for competent officials to give talks to women's institutes, consumer groups, farm organizations, chambers of commerce, in fact to any groups willing to listen to government policy and learn what it hopes to achieve. In this way such groups will participate in the work. This is a suggestion which I have made with reference to other legislation. I forget for the moment which legislation it was, but at any rate the department concerned followed the advice and it was surprising the co-operation it got from various organizations once they had an opportunity to listen to the government's policy.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
We must remember that this is a large country. Many of our towns and smaller communities have a feeling of being a long way from the centre of government. I think it would be a good thing if they were given the feeling that they are involved in the administration of legislation. This could be accomplished at least in part by their being informed through the lectures which I suggest and in other ways.
I believe it is very necessary for the minister to co-operate with the press. I doubt that it is necessary for me to advise him in this regard because he is an intelligent young man. I must say that I have heard several references to a certain image being created. I do not agree with that. I loathe the word "image" because it is a product of Madison avenue attempts to deceive people for the
October 20, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs purpose of selling goods, services or personalities. I am sure the minister is above that. I suggest that there should be every co-operation with the press here in this house and throughout the country, as well as with the farm union periodicals. I think this idea must be sold to them. If they are genuine in their expressed concern about the cost of living and its impact on the Canadian people generally, they should be only too willing to cooperate and place the research they have done on this matter in the hands of the federal and other governments which require it.
As I said before, there is a great deal to be done in connection with research as a result of co-operation between all governments and agencies which can do effective work in this direction. As a result such research will provide a basis for information which may be given to the Canadian people.
Before I take my seat I should like to deal broadly with clause 5 which reads as follows:
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 of the government of Canada...
Those are pretty wide terms of reference. Then it goes on to say that this provision relates to certain matters. The first is consumer affairs, which I have been discussing for a few minutes. The next is corporations and corporate securities. I think other members who have spoken have given us the benefit of their knowledge and opinions on that question.
Then there is reference to combines, mergers, monopolies and restraint of trade. There is a general feeling abroad that the combines investigation branch, giving it all credit for the work it has done in the past, has not been as effective as it should be in prohibiting combines and mergers throughout this country. I am sure the minister will explore all avenues by which the administration of this legislation may be improved.
The next is bankruptcy and involvency. I have had a little experience in respect of bankruptcies. I have been a trustee in bankruptcy and that sort of thing. On one occasion when I was an inspector I refused to sign the report which was being made to the superintendent of bankruptcy by the trustee in question because I said it was not true. Nothing was done about this. It was sent to Ottawa and that was the last I heard about it. For some unknown reason and because of my stubbornness in refusing to sign the

report, apparently it was decided that it would be accepted without my signature. This was done.
There is need for a different state of affairs in respect of the administration of bankruptcies at this time. This is a problem which is more widespread than would appear on the surface. Justice must be done with regard to all parties who are concerned. I trust the minister will tighten up the administration of bankruptcies after this legislation is adopted.
Then we come to patents, copyrights and trade marks. I have had experience in this regard, but I have no criticism to make of the branch of the minister's new department which will be responsible for this aspect because I have found that generally these matters have been handled well and if they were in confidence and so on they were treated in that way.
I believe that the matters which have been stressed are ones in respect of which something must be done to protect the consumers of this country and to strengthen the Bankruptcy Act so that it will be administered fairly in respect of all persons concerned with any bankruptcy. I do not intend to say much more at this time because as I said before I do not believe in repeating unnecessarily what has already been said. In conclusion may I say that I for one will be looking forward with the hope, as will other Canadians, that the minister will be able to make this department really effective, because attention is focused on this department, on this legislation and on its administration.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length because I know this very important bill has been discussed objectively and constantly since Tuesday. I know also that hon. members who have spoken and who have taken a keen interest in this debate so far would like, if possible, to wind up the debate today so that the minister will have an opportunity to express his opinions and obtain second reading before the normal closing time.
I am particularly pleased at this time to have an opportunity to participate in the debate because of the fact that the minister and I both come from the island of Montreal. We were elected to the House of Commons in the same general election of 1962. We shared the same office and, indeed, since there was only one telephone for two members in those days we shared the same telephone during
October 20, 1967

the short period of time when we sat on the opposition side between 1962 and 1963.
I think the minister will prove to be extremely capable in the administration of his department. Although we sometimes forget this fact he has been a member of the House of Commons now for five years. During that time he has shown considerable interest in the policies and affairs of the nation. He has also built up a reputation, which is fully deserved, as a very objective and progressive member of the government. I am sure it is the feeling of every person in this house that he will do justice to this very important department.
There has been some criticism to the effect that in many ways this bill does not go far enough. One must take into consideration, however, the rather peculiar make-up of this country and the obvious necessity for the government to respect our constitution. This is a point which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) emphasized so eloquently earlier today. Many of the problems with which we are confronted in 1967 and which tend to create a feeling of disunity and resentment in this country have arisen from the fact that too often in the past we have been prone to disregard the spirit and intent of the constitution as it was envisaged 100 years ago.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
So, Mr. Speaker, the effectiveness of this department in many areas will depend on the persuasive talents of the minister and the team of experts he is rapidly attracting to this new and all-important department. I presume and hope that the future of this nation will depend more and more on a greater degree of co-operation among all three levels of government. I believe this will all come about because the public is becoming more aware of the problems which tend to create disunity. They are growing impatient with politicians at different levels who attempt to hide behind the constitution. I suspect that the people of Canada very properly anticipate and expect more co-operation and joint action, particularly in respect of the affairs of the consumers and those things important to the man on the street, than has been the custom in the past.
Rather than being pessimistic about the fact that in some ways this bill depends on more co-operation between federal and provincial authorities, I am optimistic because I think this is the spirit that will prevail in Canada in the future. It is my belief that the
Corporate and Consumer Affairs federal government will respect the jurisdiction of the provincial governments and that this will become a country in which provincial governments in turn will realize the necessity for closer co-operation and greater communication with the government here in Ottawa.
I followed with a great degree of interest, as I am sure most members did, the events leading up to the establishment of this department. I read with great interest and concern the proceedings of the joint committee of the house and the Senate on consumer affairs. The many facts brought out by that particular committee were very revealing. They indicated the need to make practices more uniform, less confusing and less deceptive. It will be the role and the responsibility of the minister to rectify these obvious misrepresentations which do occur from time to time in what has been commonly called the marketplace.
I am not in accord with those people who have expressed the opinion here, outside the house and before the committee, that advertising is bad, that it adds to the cost of production and that if we could eliminate or limit advertising we would automatically reduce the price of the commodity. Nothing is further from the truth. Advertising in general has played a very important role in the development of the economy of the North American continent. It is in fact one of the fundamental and basic differences between our economy and that prevalent behind the iron curtain, where advertising until very recently was practically non-existent. It is significant as we travel around the world to see other countries adopting the marketing practices which are prevalent in the United States, and indeed in Canada. They are being adopted because they are logical.
We are all nostalgic about the old fashioned marketplaces, but the majority of housewives prefer to buy their produce today from the supermarkets rather than from outlets such as are still prevalent in many parts of Europe, where they count out so many heads of corn, and measure and weigh everything to be placed in a paper bag for the customer. That was the situation when I was young-and I am not that old.
Let me point out to the minister that I hope during his remarks he will assure the house and the public that he is interested in the advertising world, that he will not limit advertising on the pretense of preventing fraud or deceptive advertising. I hope he will
October 20, 196?

Corporate and Consumer Affairs assure us that he has no intention of limiting or interfering with private enterprise by suggesting that a part of their advertising budget over and above a certain ceiling be allocated to cost reductions.
In this regard I have in mind the drug industry. The Hall commission report suggested that drug advertising should be limited. This is the type of restriction intended to lower the cost of drugs, but I suggest it would be a flagrant interference in what to this date has been private enterprise. Even the arch-enemies of the drug industry from the United States who appeared before the committee made the point that there would certainly be little or no purpose in curtailing advertising.
When referring to volume advertising, the money spent cannot be associated only with the advertising field. Many loose statements have been made about advertising and the need to curtail, restrict or interfere with it. One has only to consider the cost of the daily newspaper to realize the very valuable role that advertising plays in our everyday life. We are all aware of the fact that we could not buy a newspaper for seven cents, 10 cents or even 15 cents were it not for the revenue from advertising. Our radio and television stations could not operate efficiently or economically without the support of advertising. Again I am not referring to distasteful or fraudulent advertising. I am emphasizing that advertising has played an important role in the development of our economy. This is one of the main differences between the economy of this country and countries such as Poland and Russia.
In this respect it is interesting to note the news from Poland, Russia and other iron curtain countries which indicates that they are going to do things in a different way in the marketing world. They intend to pattern their methods after those prevalent in this part of the world. I suggest to the minister that he resist any effort on the part of his advisors, if indeed there are any such efforts being made, to adopt any restrictive action in respect of advertising. He should not adopt any restrictive measures in this regard, other than those of laying down rules and regulations governing what constitutes honest as opposed to dishonest advertising.
I should like to have said more about other things in relation to this subject, but I realize it is now four o'clock and that one of the more active members of the consumers committee wants to make a few remarks. I also realize that the minister would like to


conclude the debate. Therefore, I will stress one point rather than the three or four I had in mind.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am very pleased to note that clause 5 of the bill, which refers to other duties of the minister, does not cover such typical things as the price of cornflakes, whether the boxes should be red, blue or green, oblong or square. The minister has retained, as he should, some other very important responsibilities. I am referring, for instance, to patents, copyrights and trade marks. I am very much aware of these because, along with other hon. members, I attended close to 100 meetings of the special committee on food and drugs and we all realize that there is no cut and dried solution in this very complicated field. But I would remind the minister that out of the Harley committee report came, not one or two, but 21 or 22 or more recommendations. I am not sure of precisely how many there were because I have not looked at them for several months.
One of the problems of the government, which is perhaps at times an indication of a lack of communication between different ministers, is that to implement all the recommendations of the Harley committee report which, if they were all introduced, would achieve the desired effect of lowering the cost of drugs, would require the efforts not only of the present minister whose department we are discussing but also legislation by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) and perhaps the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury). In all fairness to the pres-sent minister I think that before making important changes, for instance in the field of patents, copyrights and trade marks, he should discuss them with the other ministers involved, because he may find these desirable changes are not practicable and cannot be effective unless another minister brings forward necessary legislation.
In that same report it was proposed that the recommendations of the Hilliard report be implemented and that before the minister decides to adopt certain recommendations of the Harley committee to alter the Patent Act, the Copyright Act or the Trade Marks Act he should make certain that the food and drug directorate is enlarged and given the proper funds to ensure that the drugs flowing into this country as a result of these changes are subjected to the most rigid scrutiny. I am not
October 20, 1967

a medical man but I read the report, I attended the meetings and I understood the implications of the Hilliard report. The Hilliard report simply states that the methods of inspection in Canada today are not stringent enough and that they should be more sophisticated.
I may remind members of the house that this committee was set up as a result of a request made in the house by Dr. Jones, a former member. I should say, in all fairness to the minister, that if he were to introduce changes in the Patent Act without previously ascertaining that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will implement the Hilliard report and that the same minister will broaden the food and drug directorate so as to provide an assurance to the Canadian public that the imports coming into the country as a result of these changes are subjected to the most rigid tests in order to avoid another thalidomide tragedy or something of this nature, he would be doing a disservice to the Canadian public. The point I am trying to make is that as a member of the Harley committee and as one who endorsed its recommendations I am convinced that changes to the Patent Act will entail provisions which would give greater importance to the safety of drugs than to their cost.
I think the minister understands my message and agrees with me that the cost of drugs must and can be reduced by proper legislation but it cannot be reduced by piecemeal legislation. So there should be a concentrated effort on the part of all the ministers involved to implement the recommendations of the Harley report almost simultaneously, otherwise we would be unfair to the minister of this all-important new department.
I might say, as a personal friend of the minister, as one who was elected in the island of Montreal at the same time as he was and as one who shared the same office during the short time we were in opposition, that I wish him well. I know he will make a success of this department and I suggest to those people who feel this bill does not go far enough that we must not underestimate the minister's well known persuasive ability to acquire or achieve the right degree of co-operation from the provincial and civic authorities


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to go over a great deal of the ground that has been traversed these last few days, but I do not want to see second reading given to this bill without making a few comments in summary, because in my view the matter
Corporate and Consumer Affairs dealt with in the consumer part of the bill is one of the most important to come before parliament this fall. I consider it, along with housing, as being of first urgency in the minds of the people across the country. I want to make certain points crystal clear because now that we are committed to this legislation there is no particular point in trying to do other than to see what it will do and where it falls short.
I should like to point out the genesis of this legislation. A year ago women from all across Canada, buyers and shoppers for their families, found that the cost of living had risen out of all proportion. They came in large numbers from all across Canada to picket and boycott the supermarkets of this country. They made their voices well heard and their influence well felt on parliament hill. It was because of them and nothing else that the committee which was set up to study consumer credit was instructed to study the cost of living, which it did with particular reference to food and to a lesser extent to housing. I want to emphasize that this legislation was brought down first and foremost because of the rising cost of living.
The committee found there were two problems of great urgency to the customers of this country. One was the problem of consumer standards. The other was a problem of infinitely greater concern and urgency, namely the problem of the rising prices. When we were first given a chance to look at this bill most of us had the feeling that it empowered the new department to do something about consumer standards. However, on looking at it more closely we see that it is vague in its terms although it allows the minister to deal with standards, and such things as deceptive packaging, labelling and deceptive advertising. I do not want to belittle this aspect of the bill. I think it is important to all consumers across Canada that there be legislation dealing with deception and false advertising.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Having said that I should now like to point out that this legislation attempts to do little or nothing at all to deal with the really urgent problem facing the consumers of this country, namely the rising cost of living. This bill is particularly empty in that regard. Unfortunately, I was not able to listen to the minister's speech at the second reading stage of the bill. However, I read it quite carefully hoping to find that he would put some teeth into that part of the legislation which should be dealing with prices. I hoped he would be able to read something into the legislation
October 20, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs having to do with prices and the cost of living. Unfortunately, I consider the minister's speech was a little like the deceptive packaging and labelling about which we have heard. I thought his speech cast a veil of uncertainty and confusion around the legislation instead of helping to clarify it.
I do not believe the minister made any case that he intends to do anything about the cost of living, other than the slight savings that might accrue to the consumer as a result of improved packaging and labelling. Those things, Mr. Speaker, the deceptive packaging and labelling, are less than one tenth of the iceberg that shows above the water. The danger to navigation lies in that part of the iceberg below the waterline, that part which cannot be seen, and I would compare it to the cost of living. I am afraid that when we have eliminated the glossy packaging of the minister's speech we are left with the conclusion that we will have empty hands, in so far as our fight against the cost of living is concerned.
I am afraid that the picture the one hon. member drew this morning of a very gallant Mr. Turner accompanying the housewife through the supermarket with her shopping buggy, protecting her from the cost of living as they went along from shelf to shelf, will not remain long with Mrs. Consumer across the country. I think that after all the foufa-raw of the debate, it will be seen that the minister has taken refuge, as the ministers of other departments have before him, behind the constitutional difficulty of doing this job of coming to grips with the cost of living.
We are not denying for a moment that this is exceedingly difficult. It is a piece of pioneering. Never before in peacetime have we had to come to grips with the problems of the cost of living and prices, in the way we have to do now. In his speech the other day the minister indicated that I seemed to be looking upon the new department as a reincarnation of the wartime prices control board. I am not looking upon it as that at all. I am under no illusion that the new department pretends to be a reincarnation of the wartime prices control board, nor at this stage do I want it to be such. I do want to reprimand the minister, and I say this more in sorrow than in anger, because he has said very clearly he does not intend to cope with these difficulties.
It is the minister's unwillingness, his folding up in front of the difficulties, constitutional and otherwise, which I feel is regrettable.

We know the constitutional difficulties are great. Pioneering has to be done. We know also that in every province from Newfoundland to British Columbia there are thousands upon thousands of families on low incomes, families with a large number of children, people who are on welfare, old age pensioners, people who are incapacitated, and so on, who are groaning under the burden of the rising cost of living. This morning one of the members from Newfoundland referred to the difficulties in that province. I want to say, as I said at the resolution stage, that if the minister would take his courage in both hands and go to these provinces, they could devise machinery at the federal and provincial levels, whether it be concurrent legislation or some other type of machinery, with which to deal with the rising cost of living. We would get some stability for the consumer. I do not believe there would be a provincial government that would dare say no to such a suggestion.
Everyone says that this minister is young, vigorous and energetic. Heaven knows he has that appearance, and I hope it is not just an appearance. I hope he will use these qualities of youth and energy in order to do the pioneering job that needs to be done. I say to the minister that in all the important fields today what we need is not a federal government quarrelling with provincial governments, like dogs daring each other to step into the other's territory. This attitude has been tried and has been found wanting today. What we need is a partnership between the federal government and the provinces in order to find ways and means of dealing with an urgent problem. Housing and the cost of living are two of the most urgent problems. I should like the minister to try to find a workable solution with the provinces. He could go to them one by one or take them on all at once if he felt capable of doing so. He may find one that would be receptive. Ontario might be a good place to start because that province proved amenable to working with the federal government in connection with housing. I do not see why they would not do so in this case. Recently the Ontario government has had a reminder that if they do not, somebody else will, and in the not too distant future. I believe ways and means could be worked out for controlling this cost of living.
I knew the minister had been reading Mr. Galbraith's book the minute he spoke about the split level facet of our economy. I knew that although he used his own language to
October 20, 1967	COMMONS
describe the economy. I hope he will not disappoint me by saying he has not read the book. The minister knows quite well that all corporations in this country are not subject to the free play of the market. He knows the giant corporations which dominate every major field of Canadian industry are able to plan right down to the last detail. They are, to a very great extent, independent of market influence. He knows that they can plan their budget, they can plan their returns, and he knows that advertising cannot be dealt with separately because advertising is an integral part of their existence. He knows all these things.
But I should like to suggest to the minister there is something he does not know. Mrs. Consumer, from one coast to the other, wants to be able to plan her budget, too. The consumers of this country have been unable to plan their budgets because they have been subjected to uncontrolled advertising which has pulled their budget entirely out of control. As a result of these different merchandising interests jockeying for a larger share of the housewife's dollar, her budget has gotten completely out of balance.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
She finds she is no longer able to purchase those items which are essential to a decent standard of living in this country. What is required is to get some kind of price stability for the consumers of this country. We need this type of planning in the homes of this country. The people of this country are looking to this government for the opportunity to make a balanced, planned budget for their families, just as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is expected to do for the nation as a whole. I very much wish that the minister would attempt to do this.
We will, of course, Mr. Speaker, have to support this legislation because it does take care of the standards problem, at least in a measure. But we are going to support it very reluctantly and half-heartedly because of what the legislation does not do. During the committee stage we will try to improve it if we can. On the other hand, we feel there are many problems in connection with the cost of living that are not even touched by this legislation.
If the minister cannot do any better than what is envisaged in this legislation, then I do not think it will be very long before the consumers of this country once again start to boycott supermarkets and other merchants. This they will have to do. Consumers have
DEBATES	3345
Corporate and Consumer Affairs been asking me all along the line what this new legislation is going to do to reduce the cost of living.
One good aspect about this legislation, to which I would like to refer, is the intention of the minister to provide consumer information. I hope that this will not be given in stodgy, unimaginative leaflet form in this day and age, when radio and television are the media for contacting people. I should like to see the minister use our information facilities to the full.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if he really wants to become known and to make his mark in Canada among people who have never cared very much for politics-and I refer to the women of this country-then this is one way he can do so. The reason that women in this country have never cared very much for politics is not difficult to see. They have been burdened of course with the greater share of caring for children in the home. But even at that, Mr. Speaker, if women wanted to be interested in politics this double burden would not stop them. The reason the women of this country have not been interested in politics is that they have failed to see the connection between politics and family concerns, such as the welfare of their husbands, their children and their homes.
I suggest to the minister, at risk of telling him how to prolong the life of this government, that if he wants to make a name for himself and to help his own followers in the government nothing he may say would be half as important as to up and grapple with this problem of the cost of living in general, and of prices in particular. Let him enter this den of lions, the provinces, if I may call them that, and approach them as though they are not going to bite. And perhaps they will not, Mr. Speaker, because they are under the gun, too.
If the minister would do this and amend the legislation accordingly, and if he were willing to listen to some amendments which will be moved from the floor, then I believe he will have left an enduring mark not only upon the political scene of the country but, what is far more important, in the hearts of the people of the country who so very desperately need protection at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the debate during the last two or three
3346	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs days and noted the path which it has taken. I want to thank members of the house for their active participation in the discussion of this bill, and to thank particularly those members of the house who wanted to speak this afternoon but who agreed to defer their remarks until clause 2, which we will reach on the committee stage. I appreciate this very much. I think it has been a good debate, if not wholly constructive in every element. I should like to deal with two or three of the issues which have been raised, if I might, before I reply in general terms to some of the questions and objections that were raised during the course of our discussions.
First, Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that I was particularly interested in the position taken by the Conservative party. I felt that they were developing a new style of activity in this house, one which I would call a flip-flop, acrobatic style of politics. I mean by that that they are a party that have changed their course in midstream.
I recall having sat through the resolution stage last Friday and listened to the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). The chief opposition party at that time was taking the view that a department of consumer affairs was not necessary at all. I have only to refer to the words of the hon. member for Yukon, reported at page 3073 of Hansard:
In essence we on this side of the house believe that the government is not following a prudent course in setting up a new department to deal with the growing and vexing problem of consumer affairs in this country.
The hon. member for Peace River used words to similar effect, to be found at page 3086.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we find during the course of this debate, and in particular in the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon who opened on behalf of the official opposition, that he has disagreed with himself and has now become awfully concerned that the legislation setting up this department has not gone far enough.
This leads me to the question, why the change of heart? I have been pondering that question and wondering whether it was the discovery of the Gallup poll published earlier in the week, which in effect indicated that control of profits, prices and the cost of living had in the minds of the Canadian people become of primary concern to consumers. All I want to say in this regard is: What a difference three days make. At the resolution

DEBATES	October 20, 1967
stage there was severe doubt about the necessity for a department at all. Then on second reading stage there is the feeling that the department as constituted does not go far enough: No consistency, no coherence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the minister a question. I am wondering whether that same Gallup poll has persuaded the minister that he ought to go further with this legislation.


John Napier Turner: I think that the government was persuaded as to the importance of this particular problem in that it introduced this legislation, and I think the legislation will speak for itself.
I also listened with great interest to the very reasoned speech today of the hon. member for Peace River. His argument was that in order to accomplish what in his view the bill attempts to accomplish-I trust I am stating his argument fairly-a bill was not necessary at all. To his mind everything could have been accomplished in a reorganization bill; that the only purpose of a bill was to give the department a new name. I think in essence that was his argument.
In the view of the government this bill establishes in clear and definable terms the presence of the federal government in the consumer field.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order, because when the minister finishes at five o'clock I will not be able to speak again. I did say that was the case if it was intended to take only the narrow, more restricted position with regard to the government's intentions. On the other hand, I went on to say that if there was a real intention on the part of the government to try to come to grips with the wider problem of price control, I suggested certain measures by which the government could achieve this intention.


John Napier Turner: I will of course accept that explanation, Mr. Speaker; none the less the argument is on the record and I feel I should answer it.
The purpose of this bill is to establish in clear and definable terms the presence of the federal government and of this department in the consumer field. The bill establishes authority to co-ordinate and to represent the consumer interest. I think that the people of Canada have a right to know what are the purposes of the department and the methods that are being used to achieve those purposes. It is because of this that we have
October 20, 1967	COMMONS
attempted to define quite clearly in clause 6 of the legislation just what this scope will be within the complex of the federal government.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Let me say to the hon. member for Peace River, who like myself is a lawyer, that this legislation is not merely a legal document but a statement of government intention. As the ordinary citizen in this country is apprised of that intention through the communications media he will know what the government is intending to do. I feel that in his argument the hon. member took a narrow and juridical approach. In the amendment to the transportation bill especially, in section 2, the government set out the national transportation policy of Canada so that the people of this country would know how the government felt about that national policy. Also, in the broadcasting bill there is a declaratory section which sets out national broadcasting policy. Section 6 of the bill sets out, in clear language, the government's intentions with respect to this department. Government is not only the art of doing things; it is also the art of accepting responsibility for doing them. This bill pinpoints that responsibility in a new focal point for the consumer.
I wish to deal briefly with the arguments of the New Democratic party. Basically, their argument is that this bill is window dressing, that this bill has no teeth. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said that I betrayed a nineteenth century philosophy in my concept of the marketplace, though he admitted that I had read Galbraith. He took an isolated remark from a speech that lasted one and a half hours.
My answer is that it is true, this bill does not set out the entire program for consumer affairs, as contemplated by the government. This bill is enabling legislation setting up a new department, having authority to co-ordinate existing activities; it is to promote the consumer interest and to initiate new measures. In my opening speech I described some possible measures to which parliament will be asked to assent to. I expect to be back in the house before too long with new legislation.
Answering the N.D.P., I believe that this department is a great step forward. I believe that the co-ordination of the consumer's interest will be more effective than it has been up to now. It has not been too effective because that co-ordination has been lacking. Existing consumer legislation is considerable in scope,
DEBATES	3347
Corporate and Consumer Affairs and it will become more effective when certain new programs are introduced-programs such as mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and others on her side of the house.


Winona Grace MacInnis: What about prices?


John Napier Turner: I shall come to prices. As I said, and I direct my remarks to members of the New Democratic party particularly, already on the statute books there is a considerable quantity of legislation affecting consumers. All this legislation is less effective than it might be because of a lack of coordination. To bring about this co-ordination is part of the federal program with respect to consumer affairs. Here I am talking about section 306 of the Criminal Code and about section 33C of the Combines Investigation Act. These relate to misleading advertising, and so on. I also refer to the amendments to the Corporations Act. We shall be moving into the federal security field, for the protection of investors. We shall be making efforts to coordinate and consolidate legislation on consumer credit. Here I must also mention the food and drugs regulations that are already on the books, the weights and measures legislation that is already administered by the standards branch; the laws affecting the description of misleading or deceptive qualities, which are administered at the moment by the Departments of Agriculture and Fisheries; and, under the Combines Investigation Act, monopolies, mergers, restraint of trade, price fixing and retail inspection services will all be included. All this legislation will be coordinated; the welfare of the consumer will be paramount under new legislation.
This is not an omnibus bill; this is not a bill which contains the entire consumer program of the government. This is a bill that allows the department to co-ordinate the enforcement of all existing legislation.
I recognize, as I said in my opening speech, that intervention in the marketplace will be necessary. I think that I understand the nature of the large corporation and its dominant position in the marketplace. Historically, the legal corporation was given certain privileges under our statutes and common law. The concept of "limited liability" was an important economic innovation which galvanized fresh captial to take risks and embark on bold business adventures. The corporate veil became real in law and in fact. The inner workings of the corporation were hidden from public scrutiny and a wall of protection was built around the promoters and the
October 20, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs managers of our corporations. But the nature of the corporation has changed. There is now a separation between ownership and control, shareholders becoming more diverse. I believe the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) recited that fact. I believe it is clear that the average shareholder in Canada holds shares in any company for less than six months.
The average shareholder becomes a shareholder in transit; the real people over whom supervision is required are not the traditional owners of a corporation but those who manage it and control it, those whom Anthony Sampson referred as the paraproprietors.
The dramatic separation of control from ownership has changed the ground rules. We must adjust our vocabulary to the new circumstances. We must now pierce the corporate curtain and look behind it. The investing public must be properly formed and management made subject to reasonable guide lines. This department will intervene against the overwhelming market power of the corporation; it will penetrate the corporate veil. I wish to say that the department will pursue these aims with vigour.
I know that hon. members have read the recent report of the Director of Investigation and Research of the Combines branch. I admit that current legislation is somewhat inadequate. It is being reviewed by the Economic Council of Canada.
I wish to see jurisdiction extended into the service industries I wish to see a test made of the trade and commerce clause of the bill, so that we could use a civil solution as well as criminal remedies and not be restricted to the severe burden of truth enforced on us by the criminal law.
The merger sections are inadequate, as are those dealing with restrictive trade, and so on. As I said, the department does intend to enter the market with respect to fraud, deception, safety, conflict of interest situations, whether those might be between auditors, lawyers, trustees or others, and we shall act with respect to disclosure, insider trading, and so on.
The final argument, aside from the general one to do with costs of living, was the one raised by the New Democratic party about the prices review board. We were accused of drafting legislation that had no teeth; I deny that. I say to the leader of the N.D.P. that the prices review board would have no teeth in it. He as much as admitted this. He admitted that prices would be reviewed by the board,


but that the board would have no power to enforce its decisions. Its authority would be limited under federal jurisdiction, and he knew that. That is why he suggested, as a second step, concurrent provincial legislation.
I say to him that here we see a suggestion without teeth; here is a suggestion that is cumbersome. I wonder whether the hon. member has contemplated reviewing costs as well as wages; I wonder whether he has checked his idea with the labour movement? I believe that his proposal would, from the beginning, lack constitutional jurisdiction to back it.
I should like to deal with the cost of living and the role of the new department. Specifically I wish to deal with the question of prices which was of much concern not only to the opposition but to members on the government side also. I do not think there is anyone here who, knowing that others suffer under the burden of the increasing cost of living, is unaware of the extent of that burden. In this regard I think I speak for everyone in this house. Everyone in this house is concerned with rising prices and I suggest that it is irresponsible for the opposition to suggest that our attention is not seriously focussed on the problem.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Let me remind the house of some important facts which so far have been ignored by the opposition in its discussion of prices. Price movement is due to complex factors, many of which are beyond the control of the federal government. Some of them are beyond the control of the Canadian people generally. For example, international economic developments make a significant impact on prices; they are of severe consequence to us when one quarter of every dollar we earn is dependent on foreign trade. Spending both in the private sector and by provincial and municipal governments has also contributed to the very severe demand curve. We are also caught in a dilemma shared by every western government: full employment naturally means an upward pressure on prices and costs. We in this government have embarked on a policy of full employment, and this involves, as a corollary, risk to the stability of the cost of living. To quote from the third report of the economic council:
The most pervasive and recurrent goal conflict of modern industrial economies has proven to be that between full employment and reasonable stability of prices.
To meet these problems the government has used a careful orchestration of fiscal and
October 20. 1967

monetary policy. We have also attacked one of the basic causes of inflation, limited productivity, since increased productivity is the major means of escaping from rising prices.
Let me describe more fully the role of the new department. First of all, as I have said before in this house, the basic responsibility for any direct control of prices resides constitutionally with the provinces. This is not an escape valve; it happens to be a constitutional fact. This does not mean-and if I have given hon. members a wrong impression I will try to correct it, now-that the new department will not have a role. Hon. members know very well that in this department we are not responsible for the major instruments of fiscal policy which influence the general level of prices. However, as I made clear in my presentation, it is our intention to use the instruments we have wherever those instruments can be applied.
What are they? They include the use of the Combines Investigation Act and government machinery as a means of ensuring competition and fair trade. If the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) would read The Industrial State by John Galbraith more closely he would realize that Galbraith recognizes that the market relationship is still an important factor and that competition can be preserved or restored, through effective action against monopoly, to guard against excessive and artificial prices which exploit the consumer.
And where that exists, and where there are companies in a dominant position in any particular industry, and where that dominant position reaches a point at which prices may be influenced by one side of the market alone, or where a company may by its very size and dominance influence not only the price but the base of demand, and when that dominant position is reinforced by advertising so as to bring about almost a monopoly position, we shall be interested, we shall investigate, we shall act.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said that as far as he was concerned the existence of monopolies was a major cause of the rise in prices. I would be very glad to receive evidence of this from the hon. member; I am sure he would not say such a thing unless he did have evidence. I can tell him we would be glad to investigate any case of collusion or monopoly to which he can point specifically. If no evidence is available, I hope he will not accuse me of restricting the imaginative quality of his speech by drawing attention to a few facts. I am making no
Corporate and Consumer Affairs defence of the retail trade, but as a matter of fact, during the past five years-and I am quoting now from a report of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics which appeared in the Globe and Mail of October 19-the profit margin of the retail trade has fallen from 1.3 per cent to .8 per cent.
The facts seem to demonstrate against the hon. member's argument. However, as I say, if he has the evidence, let him present it to us or to the Director of Investigation and Research, and we shall look into it. I would point out, also, that we are strengthening the enforcement of anti-combines legislation, we are asking for bigger fines and we have asked the economic council to advise us on the modernization of the Combines Investigation Act so that it can be made even more effective.
In the second place, a primary reason in favour of the creation of a new department was the need to create a central body to examine and analyse selected areas of federal activities which can influence prices, and to take remedial action. There must be a ministry responsible for this function and it will be our purpose to seek out ways and means, other than those in the fiscal and monetary realm, by which the federal government can assist in the maintenance of price stability and in the reduction of prices. Our proposed legislation on drugs is an example of the way in which we can modify laws in order to help bring about lower prices. The hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) asked about our intention with respect to drugs. All I can say is that we shall shortly introduce a bill to amend the legislation governing patents and trademarks.
The new department will also undertake investigation and research designed to produce information which will assist consumers to avoid excessive prices and to get the best value for their money. This is all the more necessary in the face of the confusion caused by the variety and complexity of consumer goods now being offered. Should it be felt that any particular study is required the government can of course, make use of its power under the Inquiries Act to get to the root of the problem.
For example, my department is already examining a problem in connection with hearing aids, a number of allegations having been made that these appliances were being sold at excessive prices. I believe we can assist consumers by advising them how to avoid areas of exploitation and by seeking, upon
October 20, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs our own authority and that of the provinces, to limit the extent of the exploitation. We shall consider what further powers may be necessary in order that the new department may become a vehicle for planning new legislation and developing better ways and means of providing for the protection of the consumer. We want facts before action. Before we put words on to the books of the House of Commons we want to know what the facts are and whether the proposals made will work. The enabling legislation before the house at the moment gives me and the government scope within which to move. We need a structure and organization capable of conducting a thorough investigation of new requirements and planning for the future. I expect to be back in this chamber on more than one occasion seeking approval for measures which will benefit the consumer, but I cannot and will not do this before I find out what the most effective solutions are likely to be.
The economic council has, for example, referred to the department the question of deceptive trade practices, with the suggestion that legislation might be needed to deal with them. This question has already been placed in the hands of an interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of the deputy minister, and when the findings of the committee are available we shall take whatever action is indicated.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We will also be working on ways to improve the measurement and analysis of consumer prices and we will be working with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to try to develop more sophisticated statistics for the use of government, and clearer methods of presenting these to the Canadian people. The economic council has stressed the need to have price statistics and information that can be translated into meaningful terms for the consumer for use in planning his or her purchases.
These, sir, are examples of the ways the new department is prepared to deal with those aspects of the question of prices which fall within our powers and responsibilities under this statute, and which fall within the constitutional limits of the federal authority. This is a first step. It is a beginning in what is going to be a very complicated process, but the establishment of this new department is not the only step.
Given the time and the co-operation of this house-and I have said every member of parliament is an advocate for the

consumer-if the house believes that I will merit its support, we will be able to make a contribution and provide assistance in the total involvement of this government on the problem of prices. But let us not fall into the serious mistake, a mistake certain members of the opposition have made, either deliberately or because they have not taken in the full scope of the bill, of assuming that prices are the only consumer problem. I was grateful to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) for pointing that out in her speech this afternoon.
Of course prices are important. Of course they are foremost in the minds of the consumers, but they are not the only concern of the consumers. In passing may I say I rather doubt the accuracy of the percentages quoted in the Gallup poll because these things depend on how a question is asked. We are talking in this bill about dealing with issues relating to quality, standards, measures, safety and a host of special problems which inhibit and limit the full exercise of consumer opportunity.
We will want to look at the problem of inflammable fabrics, safety measures, the quality of children's clothing, the special needs of those who suffer from allergies, misleading packaging and excessive credit practices. These are bread and butter issues. But they are issues which the opposition, in their haste to find fault with the government, ignored in the full range of consumer interest. I refer hon. members to the resolutions passed by the Consumer Association of Canada relating to false advertising, poisoning from children's drugs, food grades and standards of labelling on food containers, frozen foods, canned juices, inflammable fabrics and a host of other commodities.
There is a wide range of issues concerning the Canadian consumer and it is the intention of this new department to deal with as many of them as is humanly possible. Finally let me say that this new department dealing with the consumer-and this is something I said when I opened the debate-will have no magical, instant solutions and panaceas. It will not offer any panacea such as the opposition suggested I should be able or prepared to do. It cannot do this because there is nothing simple or easy about the economy we live in or the issues we face.
I would be doing a disservice to this house, and through it to the people of Canada, if I were to promise pie in the sky solutions, easy
Oclober 20. 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	3351
as this would be to do. But I can promise that the efforts of this new department will be devoted toward the interests of the Canadian consumer, just as the interest of the entire government is based on finding practical workable solutions to the general problem of the cost of living. I believe the establishment of this department is a positive step on behalf of the consumers of this nation, and on this basis I ask the support of hon. members for it.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that we now proceed to private members hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills and private bills.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I think there is agreement by the government and by the spokesmen of other parties with whom I have consulted to consider the passage of Bill No. C-159 and Bill No. C-165, which are items Nos. 138 and 141 under the heading Public Bills.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Reynold Rapp (for Mr. Madill), moved the second reading of Bill No. C-159, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Michael Starr: the second reading of Bill No. C-165, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
Canada Labour (Standards) Code Amendment
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)

Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. C-8, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (Three weeks annual vacation after three years).
He said: Mr. Speaker, if you had not called on me, I think I would have taken my cue from what happened a few moments ago and said nothing. Apparently it is possible to have bills passed if one remains in his seat and avoids making a speech. Do I have unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to say nothing and get this bill through?


An hon. Member:: No; we like to hear you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since there is not unanimous consent that my bill be put through all stages, as has been the case in respect of the two previous bills, I should like to suggest a compromise. I would be quite happy if the house would give second reading to this bill, whereupon I would be pleased to move that it be referred to the standing committee on labour and employment so that its details could be studied by the members of that committee.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: They are well known.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) says that the details of the bill are well known. I trust that he, as a well known labour man, will support the principle and details of this bill.
In this centennial year there have been a great many speeches in which the speakers have been looking back over the last 100 years. It also has been a popular theme to look forward into the next 100 years. I have read with interest some of the speeches made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and other cabinet ministers. I read with interest one made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) some time ago. Most of those who forecast the future see tremendous improvements taking place. One of the areas in which improvement has been forecast is with respect to the amount of time that people will have to spend at work earning their income. We all agree that there will be, in the future, much more free time than we now have.
October 20, 1967
3352	COMMONS
Canada Labour (Standards) Code Amendment
It seems to me that the time to extend the periods of holidays and other provisions for our workers is not when we get around to our second centennial but right now. It is in this vein that I bring to the house once again this bill which would amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code with regard to the provision for annual holidays with pay. At the present time the Canada Labour (Standards) Code provides an annual holiday of two weeks with pay to every employee who has been with the same employer for at least one full year. I need not go into the history of the legislation now in effect, the number of years it took to get it started, or the provisions of the first bill that was passed. The point I wish to make now is that it seems to me the time has come to start improving on this provision.
This bill proposes that the law remain as it is with respect to those who have worked for only one year for the same employer, but that in the case of those who have been with the same employer for three years or more, their annual holidays should be three weeks with pay. That is all there is to the bill. I am sure no one really is opposed to it. I am sure also that the only improvement anyone would like to make to the bill would be to extend the holidays still further after five years of employment. But surely, in 1967, no one is opposed to the idea of workers, after having worked for three years with the same employer, having three weeks annual holidays with pay.
I trust, therefore, that the house will give second reading to this bill this afternoon.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has stated the purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code so that employees, after they have been employed by the same employer for a period of three years or more will be granted three weeks vacation with pay. The hon. member suggested that perhaps he should not have spoken at all and that the house should have agreed unanimously to deal with his bill in the manner in which it dealt with the two previous bills, and then send it to the committee immediately. This of course is an interesting proposal. If I could get the same type of agreement from the hon. member and others in his group to treat some of my private bills in the same way, I am sure I would listen to his proposal with a great deal more interest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are those private bills really your bills?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am the sponsor of them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is quite a difference.


An hon. Member:: Is this one really yours?


Stanley Ronald Basford: If the hon. member and members of his group, as I have said, would agree to give second reading to some of the private bills which I sponsor, I would certainly be more interested in his proposal of this afternoon.
There is, of course, behind this bill the desire of the hon. member, which we have seen exhibited constantly in this house by him and members of his party, to clothe themselves in a great cloak of being the only group in the house which is concerned with the working people in this country, and the only group which is interested in protecting these people. This of course, as you undoubtedly are well aware, Mr. Speaker, and as I think the vast majority of the people in this country are aware, is indeed a false image. The hon. member and other members of his group have worked very hard to create this image.
However, when one looks at the election results it becomes evident that they have not been successful in putting this image across to the people of Canada. When one examines the history and record of the legislation passed in this country, he will see very clearly that the group in this house, which has taken the responsibility of introducing and passing measures which protect the people in our society who need protection, is the party which sits on this side of the house, the party of which I have the honour to be a member. The records will show, if one examines them closely, that it is this party and not the party of the hon. member down in the far corner of the house which has put on the statute books practically every social security measure we have in this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After we have pioneered them.


Stanley Ronald Basford: We hear this from them all the time. They claim we are contantly stealing their ideas and putting them on the statute books. Let us look at that charge, and the latest examples of this. For the past two days we have been debating, and this afternoon obtained second reading of the bill to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs. Hon. members of the N.D.P. have
October 20, 1967	COMMONS
been hard at work for three days claiming that this was their idea and that we stole it from them.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Wasn't it?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, it was not, and I was rather shocked by their claim. In fact, the other day the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) made this claim. I pointed out to him that the idea was not theirs but one that had been brought forward by that great organization, the Consumers Association of Canada. They brought this idea forward and it is their idea which is now in process of being put on the statute books of Canada. The same hon. member for New Westminster suggested that all the members of the Consumers Association of Canada were members of the New Democratic party.
I thought this was a great slander against that organization.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure my hon. friend does not want to leave on the record a wrong impression of what I said. I said that a great number of the supporters and members of this organization were supporters of the New Democratic party, and that very likely the idea of a consumers affairs department came simultaneously to this party and the organization. While I am on my feet I should like to pay tribute to this association for being such a very fine organization.


Stanley Ronald Basford: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should say the point is well taken. The hon. member did not claim that all of the association's members were members of the N.D.P. There are many members of that organization who are very intelligent and would not be interested in being members of that party. I know of many who are members of the Liberal party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There would have to be some who are not so smart.


Stanley Ronald Basford: If I interpreted the hon. member incorrectly I sincerely apologize.
In dealing with the matter now before the house let me suggest that the introduction of this bill is a designed move by the hon. member and other members of his party to create the impression that they are the only people who are concerned about Canadians in this country who need protection. The history of this country will illustrate very clearly to anyone who wants to examine it that it is this party which has put on the statute books the important pieces of social 27053-212
DEBATES	3353
Canada Labour (Standards) Code Amendment legislation which now exist. Let me list some of them for you.
Under this government we adopted legislation including the old age pension, family allowances, national hospital insurance and veterans pensions. In regard to veterans I think we have a very impressive record in relation to our treatment of veterans, following world war II.
During this parliament we have adopted the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan, the university loans program, educational allowances, which came into operation April 1 of this year, improvements to the ARDA program, national medicare, which is to come into effect next July 1, the guaranteed income supplement program enacted last year and, of course, in this particular field the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. All these measures were enacted, not by the N.D.P. or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but by the government and party on this side.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he know who presented the first bills in this house calling for vacations with pay, and the number of years I had to present them before the present government brought in its legislation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I think we had some labour standards legislation on the statute books of Canada before the hon. member was a member of this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You did no such thing; that is not true.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Last year we adopted the Canada Labour (Standards) Code establishing standards for those industries under federal jurisdiction, such as railways, banks, telegraph lines, the marine industry, interprovincial trucking and so on. This code established basic working conditions and assured each employee in this class of federal work two weeks vacation with pay, a 40 hour week at a minimum of $1.25 per hour and eight statutory holidays. When we passed that legislation we discovered a peculiar situation.
I come from the province of British Columbia where the hon. member's party is very active. In that province it has been held out to us by members of the N.D.P. that the people of British Columbia should take note of what is happening in Saskatchewan, because that is a land of milk and honey, or was such under the leadership of the present hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. October 20, 1967
3354	COMMONS
Canada Labour (Standards) Code Amendment Douglas). When we were dealing with the Canada Labour (Standards) Code in this house we found that our minimum wage under that code was far in advance of any minimum wage provided in Saskatchewan. The minimum wage there is $1 per hour. That is the situation following 20 years of government by the C.C.F. or N.D.P. Rather than look at the image the hon. member and his colleagues try to create I suggest we look at the record, and the only record we can look at is that of the Saskatchewan government for 20 years.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Twenty dismal years.


Stanley Ronald Basford: My thanks to the Secretary of State for her always worth-while interjections. If we look at the minimum wage requirements in Saskatchewan we see that they are very inferior to the standards established for federal industry by this Liberal government.
The bill proposed by the hon. member suggests three weeks holiday with pay. Let me suggest that if the hon. member and his colleagues ever came into office these people would not have three weeks holiday per year: They would have 52 weeks without pay, because they would be unemployed. If the hon. member and his colleagues ever came into power there would be a tremendous lack of confidence in the country.


Mr. Smallwood:: That is what happened in Saskatchewan.


Stanley Ronald Basford: As I say, we should look at the record, and it shows exactly what happened in Saskatchewan. In that province there was a state of economic stagnation for 20 years. The potash in that province remained unused. Oil exploration came to an end during this 20 year period. The great northern woods of Saskatchewan remained unused, in spite of the fact there was a potentially great forestry and lumbering operation to be developed.
After a period of 20 years the people of Saskatchewan got smart and changed the government. We have now witnessed the development of the potash resource and a tremendous increase in employment. The MacMillan-Bloedel company has moved into northern Saskatchewan and developed a viable and growing lumber industry. Oil exploration is again taking place.
During the 20 year period of social government in Saskatchewan the population declined. Every other province and major


city in the country grew, prospered and developed during this same period. The people in Saskatchewan began to leave that province and move to the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario to find work.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Tardif): Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I presume he has not read the bill lately. I am afraid he is slightly out of order. The bill requires that there be three weeks paid vacations for Canadian workers.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Deachman:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member's comments are well related to the economic conditions of the times and I think there should be scope for discussion of the economic conditions under which the three weeks paid holidays may be granted to the working people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: I thank the hon. member kindly for his intervention. The only problem is that it is the Chair who makes the decision and my decision is that the hon. gentleman should confine his remarks to the subject matter of the bill.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I appreciate very much the fact that Your Honour brought my attention to the rules of the house. Knowing Your Honour's great knowledge of the rules I bow with deference to the ruling and I do want to discuss the bill in detail. However, Your Honour realizes that I did want to discuss the bill and its provisions in the general economic setting of the country, and of Saskatchewan in particular which, the hon. member tells us, is such a good example.
One of the matters in relation to this bill which the hon. member did not discuss, and which I think should be discussed today and gone into carefully by the committee which will study it, is the additional cost which the industries would have to incur under this bill. For the last three days we have discussed the rising cost of living, which is a matter of great concern to all of us in the house and to all Canadians, and yet not one word was uttered by the hon. member sponsoring the bill as to what effect if any his proposal would have on the cost of living. In the committee on consumer credit and prices we found that the rising cost of living had the greatest impact on those whom we could call the economically weak and economically disorganized, such as old age pensioners, the
October 20, 19G7	COMMONS DEBATES	3355
disabled, the blind and the unemployed. Those are people who do not have strong organizations speaking for them. In spite of the fact that there is a rising cost of living in the country we see the hon. member rushing to the defence, not of the economically weak or the economically disadvantaged but of the very well organized and economically strong people in this country.
Under this bill we would provide minimum working conditions in industries such as the railways, shipping, marine business, telegraphs, air transport, interprovincial trucking and pipe lines. It is in these industries that trade unions have been organized for a longer time than in any other industry in Canada. These industries have strong and active unions, well able to look after the interests of their members and to negotiate and bargain for proper working conditions which we all want to see. On the one hand we see people adversely affected by the cost of living, such as the pensioners, the disabled and those on fixed incomes, and on the other hand we see the hon. member not paying any attention to them but rushing into the house to defend people who have the best organized trade unions working on their behalf.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was it getting married that confused the hon. member?


Stanley Ronald Basford: We heard nothing from the hon. member about the effect which this bill would have on the cost of living. I know that he and members of his party have often put forward unique proposals whereby the cost of producing goods and their transportation is somehow or other not reflected in their price. This is a false premise, since we all know that the cost of producing goods is included in the price of the goods which the consumer is paying. Under this bill we would impose upon industries under federal jurisdiction an additional three weeks paid vacation, and yet the hon. member makes no reference to the effect which this would have on the cost of living.


Barry Mather: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question? Before he concludes his remarks would he undertake to tell the house whether he is for or against the bill before us?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I will be delighted to do so at
the appropriate time in my speech. This is a bill to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. It seems to me that one of the important considerations which the hon. member
27053-212J
Canada Labour (Standards) Code Amendment did not take into account is the fact that we live in a country where most of us firmly believe in the present system of free collective bargaining. In considering any amendments to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code account must be taken of what should be done to establish minimum statutory standards, and what are the conditions which should be left to the process of free collective bargaining. The best judges of how the total wage package should be distributed in terms of benefits should be the trade union organizers, the members of the union and the union economists. They are the best judges of the necessity for wage increases, paid holidays, an increased number of statutory holidays, a better health or pension plan or other benefits for which to fight and bargain. This is undoubtedly the best system, and we as legislators and parliamentarians should establish by way of our minimum labour standards legislation decent working conditions. We should then allow the other benefits and conditions to be determined through the process of free collective bargaining, in which we all believe.
Statistics will indicate that in many cases, through the process of collective bargaining, unions have chosen to seek benefits other than the three weeks paid vacations. This bill is far ahead of the present practice in the federal industries and in industry generally. The 1965 working conditions survey reported in the Canadian Department of Labour publication "Working Conditions in Canadian Industry, 1965" that for all employees surveyed, and this amounted to more than 2.5 million, only 27 per cent of those working in establishments were granted a three week vacation after less than ten years service. It is clear that, while most establishments give three weeks vacation or more to long service employees, the length of service required is far in advance of three years.
Hon. members will see that since only 27 per cent of all industries grant three weeks vacations after less than ten years of service, the focus of collective bargaining activity has been on conditions which the members of unions regard as more important than three weeks paid vacation after three years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I was interrupted several times by some hon. members of the New Democratic party and I agreed to
3356	COMMONS
Canada Labour (Standards) Code Amendment answer their questions which, under the rules, I did not have to do. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I should be allowed more time?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: The hon. member was compensated for that time, as I carefully noted the time when questions were being asked.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I was most surprised at the attitude taken by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Bas-ford) when he rose to speak on the bill now before the house. In speaking on the principle of the bill the hon. member did not start by saying he will consider it on the basis of what is in it, but he said that he would co-operate with us if we would co-operate with him on his bills. What an extraordinary attitude and approach in discussing business before the house. If that is the attitude of the minister, then may I tell him that no member has ever had greater co-operation from this group than he has. Recognizing the situation and the circumstances, we have unanimously agreed not to raise any objection to Major General Pearkes continuing as lieutenant governor of British Columbia, until there is an election to give him an opportunity to go to the other place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. gentleman has x*ead the bill?


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, I certainly did.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I feel that I should read to him the explanatory note to the bill:
The purpose of this bill is to improve the annual vacation provision of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code by providing three weeks annual vacation with pay after three years of employment with the same employer.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly know that. However, with all respect, I find it a little bit strange that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard can be given 15 minutes in which to make charges and cast aspersions against this group, yet I am not allowed two or three minutes to tell him what nonsense he is speaking and what misinformation he is giving to this house. Surely, I was doing the right thing, the honest and fair

DEBATES	October 20, 1967
thing, in just asking, not for the same privilege but only a percentage of the privilege that was given to the hon. member.
However, sir, in discussing-


Stanley Ronald Basford: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I believe there is a question of privilege involving myself when it is suggested that the possible extension of the appointment of the lieutenant governor of British Columbia may in some way be related to my political future. If that is what the hon. member is saying, I think in fairness to a man who has done a fantastically great job as lieutenant governor of British Columbia, the hon. member should withdraw any such implication.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, that was the contention that appeared in the press. May I just say, sir, it is rather remarkable how thinskinned our hon. friend is.


An hon. Member:: Who is crying now?


Harold Edward Winch: It is all right for the hon.
member to say anything he wants about the N.D.P., but no one should say anything about him. Is there not something called a quid pro quo?
One of the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard in his opposition to the principle of this bill, was the fact that thousands of people had left the province of Saskatchewan. Why did he not point out also that 100,000 have left the maritimes under Liberal and Conservative governments? But no, that was not mentioned at all.
Let us look at this bill. It makes provision for three weeks holiday with pay if a person has worked for the same employer for a period of three years. I have been in the trade union movement since 1924, and I have sat on conciliation and arbitration boards many times in past years. Trade unions often negotiate holiday periods in their contracts. However, sir, there are more people outside unions than inside, unfortunately.
Over the years, governments have found it necessary to lay down minimum standards in labour codes, one of which has been the minimum amount of holidays with pay. I am going back in memory now, but I believe over 16 years ago legislation in British Columbia made two weeks holidays with pay mandatory. Surely, after 16 years, using that fact as a basis, we have advanced in our economy and our progressive thinking to the
October 20. 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	3357
point where that minimum in the legislation should be raised. Certainly, except tor the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, who is living in the dark ages, we have progressed to the point where federal legislation should provide for three weeks holidays with pay after three years with the same employer.
I feel there is one convincing argument that can be used, and I am going to conclude with this. I say to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard that this year he did not object to 11 weeks holidays with pay, having worked for three years for the same employer. Let us have a basic minimum of three weeks holidays in light of the fact he took his holiday without complaint. He is the man who should say to his fellow workers that three weeks is the minimum.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We never had time to say it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious from listening to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) during the two occasions when he has spoken today that he is better informed in the art of wrestling than in the art of economics.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It must be tough to be deficient in both.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: In so far as this member is concerned, watching the art of wrestling has never been a pastime so he is definitely ill informed in that art. In so far as economics is concerned, we shall have to leave that to a decision of the house.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I was brought to order for not discussing the bill; how about this member?


An hon. Member:: Go back to your seat if you want to speak.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The rules prohibit a member speaking who is not in his place. Certainly an interjection made by the hon. member for Vancouver East while sitting in the seat of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) is contrary to the rules of this house and that interjection should not be allowed.


Harold Edward Winch: I know the rules and I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker.
Canada Labour (Standards) Code Amendment


An hon. Member:: You cannot speak from there.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: There is a rule, but I do not want to go into that matter. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) comes forward with these private bills on an annual basis, one after the other. One bill has to do with hours of work and the other with vacations with pay. He is like all other socialists who seek to tinker with the economy without giving full consideration to how these measures may affect it. I had the pleasure, Mr. Speaker, of visiting a country where socialism has gone full circle. One of the hon. member's colleagues, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Fawcett), was with me. We visited that great socialist country, the U.S.S.R., in which all these matters are governed entirely by the state. I wish the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had been with us on that occasion to see for himself just what state enterprise and regulation can do. I think that Canada, indeed the whole North American continent, has the best productive and distributive system in the world, principally because we do not tinker more than is absolutely necessary with the economy.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Later in my remarks I am going to refer to the question of economics and how labour costs and other costs enter into the question of the cost of living, the cost of housing and so on. However, in the meantime I have a few statistics, or rather copious notes, if you will, and I am sure the hon. member will bear with me while I relate some of these figures and comparisons to the provisions of this bill.
The proposed bill would provide for three weeks vacation after three years. This is far in advance of the present practice in federal industries and in industry generally. 1 am sure the hon. member is aware of the very exhaustive study that was made before the Canada Labour (Standards) Code was introduced. He should also know that in some instances economic considerations in some industries, while not disastrous, were critical. Nevertheless the study was very thorough.
The hon. member said that we should allow this bill to pass without debate. I suggest that a bill which could have a very serious effect on the economies of industries certainly deserves more consideration than that suggested by him.
According to a survey of working conditions which is reported in a Canadian Department of Labour publication, only 11 per cent
October 20, 1967
3353	COMMONS
Canada Labour (Standards) Code Amendment of non-office employees in industries under federal jurisdiction in 1964 worked in establishments where three weeks vacation was granted after less than ten years service. Of all employees who were surveyed-and there were more than two and a half million-the proportion working in establishments where a three weeks vacation was granted after less than ten years service was slightly higher than 27 per cent. Three weeks vacation after relatively short periods of service was found to be more common among office workers.
I have some statistics showing various comparisons that I should like to table if the house so wishes. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that while most establishments do give three weeks vacation or more to long service employees, the length of service required is far in advance of three years.
There is only one province which so far has adopted in its legislation the three weeks standard. The Saskatchewan annual holidays act requires two weeks after one year and three weeks after five years service. Three other provinces require a two-week annual vacation, and one other, Nova Scotia, will require an annual vacation of two weeks after January 1, 1968. Five provinces require one week. Ontario now requires one week for each of the first three years of employment, and two weeks each year thereafter. Newfoundland has not legislated with respect to annual vacations.
Attached to the comparisons, which I should like to table if the house agrees, is a pamphlet relating to labour standards in Canada and providing further information on legislation dealing with annual vacations in Canada. The Canada Labour (Standards) Code went into effect on July 1, 1965. It raised the annual vacation requirements from one to two weeks for employees with one year's service, and at the same time required the granting of eight general holidays with pay throughout the year. These provisions involved a substantial improvement in working conditions for a number of employees who were affected.
A proposition such as the one put forward in Bill No. C-8, which would substantially raise annual vacation standards, could hardly be considered seriously at this time. A three weeks annual vacation is a goal for the future, but I think it is hardly in sight at the moment. In the meantime it seems appropriate to leave to collective bargaining the question of increasing annual vacations along with length of service.


As the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) has said, we have established a basic vacation of two weeks in our labour standards code.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes, I would be delighted.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member has
referred to the vacation provisions of the Saskatchewan act and regulations, but would he not agree with my submission that, taken as a whole-that is, annual vacation, statutory holidays, wages and overtime provisions -the whole Saskatchewan package of minimum standards is far inferior to the present federal standards?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to range quite as far abroad as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard in dealing with the specific question of annual vacation. It has been-


Harold Edward Winch: Might I ask the hon. member a question in view of the previous question. Is it not correct that a man by the name of Thatcher, the leader of the Liberal government of Saskatchewan, has been in office in Saskatchewan for the last three years?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Your own leader should know that.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member's question reflects directly on something that I said and leaves the inference that what I said was wrong. It is well known that Mr. Thatcher has had only two years in which to catch up from 20 years of C.C.F. government.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: And, of course, to establish sufficient industries so as to make it worth while having labour legislation in the first place. This was one of the weaknesses of the former administration; there were so few people employed in industry that the question of labour standards was really not an important one.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Before I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that it is a good question how far legislators should go in establishing minimum standards of working conditions without cutting into the proper field of collective bargaining. I have had some experience in this field, as has the hon. member for
October 20, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	3359
Vancouver East, and I think I can safely say that in my time I have negotiated some of the best union agreements that were negotiated during the early forties. I negotiated a 40-hour week for the mining industry of Canada, contrasted with the 48-hour week that existed previously. But we were dealing with the industry itself, not imposing upon the industry and its employees by way of legislation those things that we believed to be correct. We negotiated and we knew, when negotiating, that the industry was well able to pay. Where employment is stable enough to permit an employee to accumulate several years of continuous service with one employer there seems to be no bar to effective organizing and strong bargaining.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question. Will he explain why he thinks that two weeks holidays with pay by statute is good, but three weeks holidays with pay by statute is terrible?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If economic conditions and general employment warranted, I should be only too happy to see six weeks holiday with pay. Every member of the house would be happy to see that; that would be four weeks more than most members of parliament take. I am not opposed to one month or to two months holidays with pay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the hon. member is opposed to three weeks.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I think the hon. member, in common with others who sit in his corner of the house buries his head in the sand, as do many union leaders. They will not see the relationship between labour costs, the cost of living, the cost of housing, and so on.


An hon. Member:: May I ask a question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If Mr. Speaker will allow me some extra time, I shall not mind.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to sit after six o'clock to permit the hon. member to continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the socialist member who is somewhat left of centre, continually introduces bills such as Bill C-8 which provide something at the expense of management and the taxpayers of Canada.
Canada Labour (Standards) Code Amendment


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Of course, that is the advantage of not being in office. The hon. member's party has no hope of taking office and as such it need not consider what effect its proposals will have on the economy.
To prove my point that hon. members on the other side of the house bury their heads in the sand and pay no attention to those elements that make up the cost of living, the cost of housing and so on, I wish to read something from a newspaper, On the Level, which is a publication aimed at the carpenters of Vancouver. As I said, the name of the paper is, On the Level.


Harold Edward Winch: Do you understand it?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I suppose that is a question of our relative integrity. The hon. member has proven his; I hope to prove mine as the years go on. I have as much experience inside and outside the house as the hon. member has.
The headline of an article on page 4 is, "Increase in Interest Rates Impedes Housing Starts". For the moment let us consider this contention. The increased interest rate, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) has argued, will not impede housing starts but will bring in more money for housing. The argument will not be answered for some months, not until we see how many houses have been started by next spring.
The article goes on to advise the membership of the union to write "to your M.L.A. or M.P." to demand that the interest rate be lowered and that the 11 per cent sales tax be removed. These people have all the answers when it comes to governmental affairs. Yet, in large black letters on a dark background of the same newspaper, we find this announcement:
Remember the 71 hour day started October 1, 1967.
Regular hours:
Days: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
With half-hour lunch (12 noon to 12:30 p.m.
A longer lunch period is allowed in camps)
2nd and 3rd shifts:
Each work 61 hours.
Wages:
-$4.14-$4.69.
This is the sort of thing to which I object. It is time that those in all elements of the economy faced the facts of life. Profits are one thing, and the cost of lots is another. Profit may enter into the cost of lots, but included in that cost is also the matter of putting in hydro lines, underground telephone lines, and so on. Many elements enter into the high cost of living and of
October 20, 1967

Canada Labour (Standards) Code Amendment housing, and it is unfair to blame one segment of our society for these rising costs. Let us be prepared to face the economic facts of life and to do something about these costs. We need higher productivity. There is no question in my mind that wages and costs are not really important if, in our society, each head of his household receives a fair share of the gross national product, related to the amount of effort that he expends.


Mr. Rapp:: Six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member for or against the bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hour set aside for the consideration of private members business has now expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 23, 1967