1967-11-17

DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON CURRENT MEETINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will he give us a progress report on discussions with the provinces of his government's austerity program? Can he say, in view of his declared intention to proceed with the medicare program next July 1, whether his government is prepared to give consideration to the situation of Canadians in those provinces that will be unable to proceed with the program next July 1 but who will be required to pay taxes to support the medicare program in other provinces?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, so far as the meeting is concerned the only progress report I can give is that it is proceeding satisfactorily and that discussions are very frank and friendly, as we always say.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have had a word with the Minister of Finance, who is chairman of the meeting. The meeting, I expect, will finish today and the minister will be able to make a report which will be a little more than a progress report on Monday, I hope. In making that report I shall call his attention to the question asked by my hon. friend.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since parliament already has taken a decision with respect to the coming into effect of medicare on July 1, and since there have been some different opinions expressed by provincial representatives about the advisibility of proceeding with the program, may I ask the Prime Minister to give the house his firm assurance that the government will proceed with medicare in conjunction with any provinces that express the desire to go ahead and
which comply with the conditions set out in the legislation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a
position to add anything to what I have said. In this sense we are not making any proposals to alter our legislation, and the legislation does impose certain obligations on the federal government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Since the medicare program is an important part of the government's legislative program may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is doing anything to persuade the provinces as to the advisability of proceeding with medicare as a forward step in Canada's social progress.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have had more than one conference, Mr. Speaker, with provincial ministers on this matter. The subject is being examined. It has been brought up at the conference which is going on now and I cannot add anything to what I have said, certainly, until this conference which is now going on has completed its work.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: In
the light of the discussions which have taken place at the conference so far and some of the statements made by provincial representatives, would the Prime Minister not agree that it is now even more imperative to hold a conference with the provinces to establish priorities in connection with expenditures?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is one of the subjects which is being discussed at this meeting, the question of priorities.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: In view of the announcement this morning that the provincial finance ministers are agreeing in some measure to support the federal austerity program, is a certain flexibility being contemplated in order that areas such as the Atlantic region may not be wholly deprived and unemployment there increased as the result of such a program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think the hon. member's question is in the nature of a representation; it is also much too general in character.

November 17, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
WATER RESOURCES	EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON	RUSSIAN PROTEST RESPECTING INCIDENT
ESTABLISHMENT OF INVENTORY	AT OTTAWA EMBASSY
On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and I do so at the request of many people in universities and other places. In view of the increasing support for a national water policy and the urgent need for an inventory of Canada's water resources before a water policy can be established, will the minister take the first opportunity to inform the house what progress has been made to date in the taking of an inventory of Canada's water resources?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in a recent reply to a written question, I reported to the house on this aspect of the water problem, and I also referred to it in recent speeches.
I shall send the hon. member for Kootenay West some material on this question.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Can he confirm whether there will be winter navigation on the Saguenay river? If so, will his department provide ice-breakers services to keep the channel open on the river this winter?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: I shall take this very complicated question under advisement.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF JAPANESE FOREIGN MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of all members of this house to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of the distinguished minister of foreign affairs for Japan, Mr. Miki.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: I wish to address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has any reply been sent to the rather stiff formal protest received from the Soviet government concerning the recent demonstration at the Soviet embassy in Ottawa?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a fact that the government of the Soviet union did deliver a note to our ambassador in Moscow. I have not had the full opportunity to deal with this aide memoire with the care it deserves and will require, but it does contain one submission with which I wish to deal forthwith. The note contains these words:
There are all the reasons to state that the preparation and holding of this provocation went on with the obvious connivance of Canadian official authorities.
Mr. Speaker, the record is clear, and has been made clear to the Soviet ambassador in Ottawa, that in no way could it be suggested that Canadian authorities had in any way contributed to the incidents which took place at the Soviet embassy here a week ago. I made a statement in this house. That statement still stands. I expressed regret over the incident. We recognize our obligations under the convention regarding the protection of embassies in our capital, but there is not the slightest basis or justification for the allegation in the Soviet note.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Earl Johnston: As a supplementary question, in consequence of serious repercussions from the demonstration, are discussions still going on and can the minister report any progress as to steps that will prevent the recurrence of any such unfortunate incident?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker; we have made suggestions to the civic authorities of Ottawa.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: In
view of what the minister has said, is the government going to reject this note in so far as it alleges that these demonstrations were carried out with the obvious connivance of Canadian official authorities?
November 17, 1967


Mr, Marlin (Essex East):: I have just
indicated that there is no basis for that statement and we will certainly reject that part of the note. The complete formal reply is a matter that I am now considering.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, in his answer the Secretary of State for External Affairs said he had discussions with the police of Ottawa. As a supplementary question I ask what special plans are being made to protect consulates in other Canadian cities; and have discussions been initiated by the hon. gentleman's department toward that end?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: This matter has been anticipated and my information is that in Moscow, for instance, this has been done with the co-operation of the Soviet authorities.


Mr. Fairwealher:: I said consulates in
Canadian cities that are affected.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Yes, that matter too is covered.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fullon (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to notice of motion No. 52, appearing on page 34 of today's order paper, in the name of the hon. member for Gaspe. It requests the setting up of the standing committee on housing to study the whole field. In view of the importance of this subject and the position of this resolution on the order paper, would the Prime Minister consider setting aside some period out of the time normally allotted for government business for debate on this motion, in order that this committee may be constituted at an early date?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will look into that matter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Reid  Scoll@Danforlh: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the setting up of this committee and relating to an answer the Prime Minister gave on November 15 about representatives at the forthcoming federal-provincial conference on housing, in the event that it is possible to set up this committee by the time the conference 27053-277
Inquiries of the Ministry is held would the Prime Minister give consideration to members of the committee attending the conference in some capacity other than sitting in the public gallery?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think this conference should be conducted in the normal way applicable to such conferences, and I indicated that yesterday.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transport report to the house on the conclusions of his talks held yesterday with his counterpart in Washington, the secretary of transport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there was a most encouraging and worth-while initial contact with Mr. Boyd, the secretary of transport in the United States. What I am now assured of is close personal working relationships with him and maximum co-operation between the two departments which are responsible for similar problems. I think this will guarantee that information from each country is made available to the other, and to the extent that independent research is done we will try to make it as complementary as possible to supplement the knowledge which is already available. I thought it was most worth-while, certainly from our standpoint; I am sure it will assist us in the important work of trying to take on the problem of auto travel safety, and it will also assist us so far as air safety regulations are concerned.


William Heward Grafftey: With the realization that the minister had only a certain amount of time to discuss these matters with his counterpart I should like to ask, as a supplementary question, whether the minister does not now feel, even after the brief discussion with the secretary, that it is more important than ever to develop Canadian standards.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for an expression of opinion.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Sainf John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the minister had any discussion with his United States counterpart in respect of satellite co-operation, and when we might expect a progress report on this very important matter, certain

November 17, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry aspects of which the committee on transport and communications is now considering.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There were no direct discussions on that subject, but I can assure my hon. friend that this is a matter which is presently under discussion by the government and that some decision will be announced in the not too distant future.



WHEAT-SALES AT LESS THAN MINIMUM PRICE UNDER AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforf-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in reference to a recent statement he made to the effect that Canadian wheat would be sold below the floor price of $1.95J per bushel. Would the minister inform the house whether such sales of wheat have been made, to what countries and under what conditions?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this is the type of information which I do not think it would be in the best public interest to disclose in parliament at this time.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could the minister answer by saying yes or no?


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a supplementary question. In view of the whole situation in respect of the short money supply in western Canada due to loss of markets and low quotas, has the minister changed his mind in respect of the answer he gave me a week ago last Tuesday in respect of cash advances or more money being made available under this legislation?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should answer this question on the basis of the assertions made by the hon. member. Some of the markets have become stronger in recent weeks. There has been some increase in quotas. The answer to the last part of the question is no.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Some days ago the minister said that he would report his decision this week concerning the reference of the subject of cigarettes, advertising and health to a committee. Could he make that report today?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minisier of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to have a reference sent to the standing committee dealing with the general question which has been raised by my hon. friend.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister, our most influential citizen, make an appeal by television to the people of the nation for their effective observance of safe driving week, December 1 to December 7?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to do that. Perhaps I might associate with myself in that appeal the second most influential man in the country.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Finance, but I wonder whether possibly the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce might answer it. Has the government been informed of new United States guide lines governing capital expenditures abroad by United States owned companies, as announced yesterday by the United States secretary of commerce and reported in this morning's Globe and Maill What is Canada's reaction to the situation, in view of Canada's protest with regard to the earlier guide lines a year ago and the suggestion that the new move is even more restrictive in its effect?
November 17, 1967


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, naturally our reaction is one of regret. We always regret any restrictions on the free movement of goods or capital. We have been in touch with the United States authorities. There is no indication that this new measure will have any substantial adverse effect on the plans the companies have developed. Our own guiding principles, of course, for the operation of foreign owned subsidiaries in Canada are outstanding and there is every indication they are being adhered to.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Does the minister imply that the discussions have taken place since these new United States guide lines were announced as reported in the press this morning?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not get the implication of that question.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There were new guide lines announced yesterday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INQUIRY AS TO GRANT TO TORONTO UNIVERSITY HOCKEY TEAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he can inform the house that he has approved a grant recently requested by the intercollegiate athletic union to enable the University of Toronto hockey team to participate in the world student games-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt as to whether this involves a matter of urgency. If the hon. member feels the information is important and should be given to the house now I have no objection to the minister answering the question.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roger E. Regimbal (Argenfeuil-Deux-Moniagnes):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and relates to the recent announcement of the names of persons
27053-277i
Inquiries of the Ministry appointed to the Northwest Territories council. Will the minister explain his failure to appoint a French speaking member to the council in replacement of Mr. Vallee, who was on the previous council?


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



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister in view of the absence of the Minister of Finance. Is the federal government pressing the governments of British Columbia and Ontario to cut production to help ease the economic crisis, as reportedly indicated by the attorney general of British Columbia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have already brought to the attention of the government of British Columbia that we hoped they would join other governments in this country in exercising financial restrictions during this particular period.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister anything to add in respect of the Cyprus situation, in view of the discussions yesterday at the United Nations in which Canada was involved?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I can add nothing more than to say a cease fire was arranged as a result of the efforts of the United Nations force and the officers of the United Nations. This only highlights the importance of the discussions which are taking place between Canada and other countries involved in an effort to reach an arrangement which may avoid these situations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister what progress is

November 17, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry being made toward reaching a political settlement of the Cyprus situation, in view of the fact that it is now some two years since this difficult situation began, and in view of the fact it has been anticipated for some time that the United Nations would press for such a political settlement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say there has been any great progress toward a political solution. The prime ministers of Greece and Turkey and the ministers of foreign affairs of these two countries have carried on exchanges. It would be wrong to say that these exchanges have yielded thus far a political solution.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask if any representative of the United Nations is sitting in on these discussions between the foreign ministers of Turkey and Greece?


Paul Joseph James Martin: UN representatives did not sit in on these discussions, but of course the United Nations and other countries concerned including Canada are aware of the nature of these exchanges. As I mentioned two or three weeks ago, Canada as a member of the security council is discussing with the Secretary General and other countries concerned some suggestions which might lead toward a solution, if acceptable.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate whether the cost of maintaining Canadian forces in Cyprus is born entirely by the Canadian taxpayer, or does the United Nations assist in any way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this question a few weeks ago but the hon. gentleman, because of illness, was away and perhaps my response was not brought to his attention. In answer I would simply say yes. Canada is paying its way except for certain limited contributions that come out of the United Nations voluntary fund. We believe that unfair as this may be, it is our concept of our responsibility in this situation.



CANADIAN POSITION AS TO ADMISSION OF RED CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has reference to the question of China's representation in the United Nations, which I understand is to be taken up early next week. Is it the minister's

intention to go to New York and promote personally his one China, one Taiwan policy?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As to whether I will be there, Mr. Speaker, that is not settled. But there is no change in the Canadian position from last year.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Solicitor General based on an answer given to a question yesterday as reported at page 4330 of Hansard, when the Solicitor General indicated that he had circulated a discussion form of bill to the attorneys general of the provinces, also inviting comment from other interested bodies. Will he circulate this document to members of the house, similar to the course followed by his colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in circulating a like document with respect to proposed amendments to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: This is a reasonable request, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be glad to see that it is done. There may be a slight delay because we are producing the discussion paper in one our own department and have a limited staff, but I will pursue the matter.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he is in a position to give the house a progress report-and I should hope it would be a progress report-regarding the meetings he or his cabinet colleagues have held with hon. Mr. Smith, premier of Nova Scotia, with respect to the steel crisis at Sydney.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I met the premier of Nova Scotia last evening. I had to leave but my colleagues continued discussing matters with him. The premier made a preliminary report to us on the discussions he
November 17, 1967

had been having with Dosco. Those discussions were to have ended on November 15 but there has been an extension of that time and they are to be resumed on Monday, I believe.
We will keep in touch with him as to the progress these discussions are making, and as soon as they are completed we will be in a position to discuss with the premier the details of what can be done in this very difficult and serious situation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand that the government of Canada is leaving it entirely to the government of Nova Scotia to reach a decision on its own, and following that to have discussions with the government of Canada as to what assistance the federal government might provide?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If that were the case, Mr. Speaker, and it is not the case, we would not have been spending hours last night with the premier of Nova Scotia. These discussions with Dosco were initiated by the premier of the province in which the steel company is situated. I think that is the proper way to proceed. We are keeping in touch with him as the discussions go on, and we have assured him of our desire to help in every possible way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he or his colleagues have given any assurance to the premier of Nova Scotia that the federal government will be prepared to accept, in principle at least if not in detail, financial assistance to enable the steel plant to continue beyond April, 1968.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important aspect of the discussions which we are now examining with the premier.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to attend the "Parade of Concern" and assembly to be held at the Forum in Sydney this coming Sunday in regard to the steel crisis, at which time he would be in a position to voice words of encouragement as to what is in the future for those affected.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government will be represented at this meeting by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and
Inquiries of the Ministry I have no doubt there will be other members of parliament there.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that prior to November 8, 1965 the Prime Minister visited many parts of this country, could he not stretch a point and go to Sydney this week end?



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Registrar General and ask the minister whether his attention has been drawn to the request of the Consumers Association of Canada asking that the frozen food industry undertake to stamp all its products with the date of freezing, as a protective measure for consumers. If his attention has been drawn to this request, what action does the minister intend to take?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this question might be placed on the order paper. In any event, I understand there will be discussions about this matter later today.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alberi Bechard (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
In view of the massive C.N.R. lay-offs, mostly family heads with several years' service, in the lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe area, would the hon. minister intervene with the C.N.R. authorities and ask them to continue employing everyone and cancel the layoff notices until such time as a solution has been found which is agreeable to both parties?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken with the management of the company. I would be pleased to do so again. Each time I have urged on them the importance of giving full consideration to the human requirements of their employees.

November 17, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
The basic reasons for these lay-offs I have outlined in the house on previous occasions. I think the best cure is to maintain in the future the level of bulk movements of all kinds which was the case late last year. I think this should be possible in the not too distant future in the normal course, as the projections for bulk movements increase. Unfortunately there may be a short period of time when the activity will not be as high as it was previously, and this does have a serious dislocating effect. I can assure the hon. member that everything I can do will be done, and I shall be glad to again make representations to the management to see that they give full consideration to the needs and aspirations of their employees.


Thomas Miller Bell: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the minister's discussions with railway officials including, I believe, the president, was he assured that the reasons were as stated and not ones of new policy by management, as has been suggested in the press?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think this question is argumentative.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one put to the Minister of Transport by the hon. member for Bonaventure. In view of the refusal of the C.N.R. to continue the transportation of live chicks to the lower St. Lawrence region, which naturally is of grave concern to our area, would the minister consider making representations to the C.N.R. to revert to this practice so that at least one more employee in the lower St. Lawrence may be provided with work?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made a representation to the minister. I assume it has been noted.


James Russell Keays: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The question is urgent because of the need for winter work. Has the minister's department dropped earlier plans for the establishment of a national park in southwest
[Mr. Hellyer.l
Saskatchewan; and if so, will the minister explain the reason for this change in plans?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this can be asked as an oral question. If the hon. member believes it is urgent he can give notice for consideration of the matter at the time of adjournment.


James Ernest Pascoe: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I emphasize that it is a question of winter work out there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member realizes that the matter can be discussed within a few days at the time of adjournment.



CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State. Three quarters of a year ago this house approved a bill establishing the Canadian Film Development Corporation. I wonder, in view of the passage of this length of time, when we might expect the government to set up this corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I doubt whether this is a matter of urgency. We have already waited a few months, and we might wait until the hon. member receives a reply if he places his question on the order paper.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I realize that it may not seem to be a matter of urgency to the government, but it is certainly a matter of urgency to many people in the country. A month ago the minister indicated to me in the house-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I am not saying it is not a matter of urgency. I suggest to the hon. member that the question could be put on the order paper.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, a month ago the minister stated, in response to a question of mine, that within a week the establishment of such a corporation would be announced. After the passage of a month I wonder if she has that answer available.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is "The best laid schemes o' mice and men, gang aft a-gley".
November 17, 1967



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday, in answer to a question of mine, he informed the house that federal officials had not been invited by the Ontario provincial government to attend the conference on pollution which is to be held between December 3 and December 5 in Toronto. In view of the urgent need to continue active co-operation between these two levels of government, would he advise the province of Ontario of the availability of his officials to work with the provincial officials on this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made his representation to the minister.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General a question on the phrase "life imprisonment"? I would ask the Solicitor General whether legislation is being prepared to amend and define "life imprisonment" and parole in respect thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that this matter has been discussed in the house during the last few days, and I wonder whether it might not wait until next week when the general matter is again before the house.



STEVEN TRUSCOTT-CONSIDERATION OF GRANTING OF PAROLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. My question is supplementary to an answer to a starred question which he gave two days ago.
In view of the fact that many persons who have been sentenced to life imprisonment have been paroled after serving fewer than ten years, and in view of the fact that the length of time in prison before parole is determined by the governor in council, will
Inquiries of the Ministry the government reconsider the case of a parole for Steven Truscott?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I believe the decisions in the cases referred to by the hon. member were taken prior to the change in the regulations under the Parole Act. Therefore the circumstances which now apply to the Truscott case did not apply at the time the earlier decisions were taken.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


David Vaughan Pugh: have a supplementary question Mr. Speaker. I think now my question might well be in order and the Solicitor General would be prepared to answer it. It relates to the definition of the term life imprisonment. Can the minister tell us whether there is any legislation in preparation with regard to this matter?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I am groping in my mind to recall the question posed by the hon. member. I believe it referred to the length of life imprisonment and the matter of parole. In the case of capital murder every person serving a sentence of commuted life imprisonment for capital murder may have his case reviewed at the end of ten years in prison. At that time if the parole board, after reviewing the case, does not recommend a parole the matter ends there; but if it does approve it the matter is referred to the governor in council, which has the ultimate decision.


David Vaughan Pugh: May I ask, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest
respectfully to the hon. member that my accepting the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, which dealt with a specific case, does not mean the hon. member's own question is in order. I have allowed it, but I point out to the hon. member that this is a matter which we have been discussing and will continue to discuss next week.



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN CASH ADVANCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister could reply to my question in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I should

November 17, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry like to know whether the government is continuing to give consideration to the advisability and feasibility of increasing the amounts available under the cash advance legislation, or whether the government has made a determination not to increase the amounts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt that this can be asked as an oral question at this time. I suggest to the hon. member it should be placed on the order paper or discussed at the time of adjournment.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Both the Quebec premier and the leader of the opposition in the Quebec legislature have issued statements with respect to a steel-works development project in Becan-cour. Now, is the minister in a position to reply to the question I put on the order paper some time ago, namely, have Sidbec officials applied for ARDA funds toward the development of a steel complex in Becancour?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has just stated that this question was put on the order paper. I would think that the hon. minister, if he wishes to reply, would do so by placing his answer on the order paper.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am sorry he has had to leave the chamber, but perhaps my question can be taken as notice. In view of the very serious labour situation which is developing in the transport industry, particularly on the railroads, I wonder whether the minister can assure us that large sales of wheat will be made shortly in order to improve this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



CORPORATE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-161, to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


The Chairman:: House in committee of the whole on Bill C-161, to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs.
On clause 2-Minister defined.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was being considered by the house during the second reading stage I suggested to the minister that it appeared from the wording of the bill, and more particularly from the minister's own remarks in support of it, that the primary purpose of the new department would be to serve the consumer interest. I said this was the primary reason for including under the jurisdiction of the new department a number of business regulatory functions. It appeared from the minister's remarks that the regulatory functions were included to help protect the consumers.
I therefore suggested to the house that in view of this fact it would be appropriate to change the name of the department so it would be called the department of consumer and corporate affairs instead of the department of corporate and consumer affairs. I said to the house that I would be prepared to propose an amendment to achieve this change so as to indicate to the public at large that the government, through the creation of this new department, will exercise its jurisdiction as fully as possible to serve the interests of the consumers of this country.
It is obvious that all of us are concerned about the rise in prices and inflationary pressures. Certainly, as the minister pointed out, he does not have within his immediate personal control the principal levers of fiscal and monetary policy. But I think it is clear that if the authority given to this new department is used creatively and constructively it can do much to ensure that the dollar earned by the citizens of this country will go as far as possible and that this department will have an effective role in dealing with the cost and price spiral which concerns every one of us today. I therefore move, seconded by the hon.
November 17, 1967

member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) with respect to clause 2:
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
That Bill C-161, to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs, be amended by substituting for the words "corporate and consumer affairs" in clause 2 thereof, the words "consumer and corporate affairs".
For the convenience of the Chair I would indicate that I am prepared to move similar amendments with respect to each clause of the bill where such an amendment would be appropriate to effect the change I have mentioned, to make sure that the word "consumer" comes first in the name and activities of this new department.


Erik Nielsen: Without intending any refletion on the Chair, I wondered at the departure from the common practice of recognizing first a member of the opposition when we begin discussion of any piece of legislation in the committee stage. It becomes obvious from the amendment why this should have been so. The minister sits there obviously satisfied with the amendment advanced by his colleague.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is a good amendment.


Erik Nielsen: The amendment is as phony as the bill.


An hon. Member:: Listen to this.


Erik Nielsen: It is a dead give away. During the debate on the resolution stage we said this bill was a mere sham. We said the purposes intended by the provisions of the bill could have been accomplished by incorporating into the ministerial functions of the Registrar General the provisions of clause 6 of the bill, because that clause is the only legislation that is new. Now we have a dead give away of the emptiness and sham of this legislation, and of the whole idea of cloaking the minister in some kind of white knight armour so he can ride to the aid of the consumer. As I say, the amendment is as phony as the bill is phony.


Mr. Macaluso:: The hon. member ought to know about phoniness.


Erik Nielsen: Does the hon. member wish to rise in his seat? From what I have heard in this house he is a greater expert than any other member in phoniness.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: On a question of privilege, I do not object to being called an expert. If the hon. member wishes to make a charge of 27053-278
Corporate and Consumer Affairs phoniness against me I can do likewise against him. I ask him to make his charge at the present time or to withdraw his statement right now. I ask him, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw his statement.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Erik Nielsen: This spurious question of
privilege, is as phony as the amendment. Changing the name of the department by reversing the order, in the name, of "consumer" and "corporate", does nothing. What kind of emptiness are we being asked to swallow by this sort of manoeuvre? Is the government doing it because it feels it was hurt at the resolution stage by remarks such as those that were made by the hon. lady in the N.D.P. who took part in the debate? Is it because of that kind of criticism that the government has done this? Does it think the amendment will gain for the department greater acceptance on the part of the public and give the minister, perhaps, a slightly shinier image? Is that why they are reversing the order of "consumer" and "corporate" in the name? The amendment is phony. It is empty.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, of course we shall support this amendment because for some time we have wanted to emphasize the importance of consumers; by changing the name of the department we do not believe there will be any change in the intent or content of this bill. After all, a rodent exterminator is still a rat catcher. This bill to set up a department of corporate and consumer-or consumer and corporate-affairs is still what it was; its provisions have not been changed, and I have not heard of any amendment which will remove the sort of woolliness and vagueness that its provisions contain.
I believe the minister is alarmed because he has aroused such high hopes across the country about what this bill is to do. Speaking at Antigonish the other day he said, in part that the poor include the aged on fixed incomes, farmers with insufficient land or resources, low wage earning urban dwellers, members of minority groups and the regionally depressed. One of the purposes of the new federal department of consumer and corporate affairs is to bring aid and legislation to this field, he said.
The newspaper report of his remarks has already made the change in the name of the department. It refers to the department of consumer and corporate affairs. I suggest that even at that time, when making the
November 17, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs remarks I have just alluded to, the minister had decided that it would be sensible to change the name of the department, and no doubt he asked one of his supporters to bring forward the amendment in order that the consumers of the country may have predominance in the title of the department.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I point out to the hon. member that in concluding my remarks when speaking on second reading I indicated that I, myself, intended to move such an amendment. I hope the hon. lady will keep that in mind.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I did
not say when such an understanding was reached. It may well be that two minds on the government side had the same thought at the same time.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: On a further question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, so far as I am aware I initiated this concept at this time.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. There is no question of privilege.


Winona Grace MacInnis: The
point is that the consumers of this country are beginning to demand that something be done under this bill. We hear frightening forecasts of what is to happen to the cost of living in the coming year. The Canadian Manufacturers Association says that the consumer price index, which in October of this year stood at 150.7, will go up to 154.8 by the middle of next year and that prices are to increase by an average of 5 per cent. Consumers are aware of what is happening, and they expect the minister to put real teeth into the bill.
Consumer protest associations from Montreal and Toronto have tried to approach the minister. I know the Montreal delegation was not successful in seeing him; I do not know what happened to the Toronto delegation. I do know that many other delegations from other parts of the country will come here and attempt to approach the minister.
In my remarks I shall talk about that part of the bill which affects the consumer. The other part also is important, but that will be dealt with by other members who will speak after I have spoken. We in this party have little quarrel with the provisions that are in this part of the bill. Our quarrel is that so much is left out. As a matter of fact, these things in the bill were recommended by the

consumer affairs committee. Our quarrel is with what is not in this bill.
[DOT] (12 noon)
What are the areas in which consumers need protection? Briefly, they are four-safety and quality, packaging and labelling, information and the cost of living. So far as the first two are concerned, they are looked after fairly well in the bill.
This is because the functions of consumer protection governing these matters are, with the exception of the food and drug directorate, being transferred to this department, and over the years, I must admit, an increasing amount of protection has been afforded by the government in this direction. I do not mean that consumers can afford to go to sleep. They cannot. But I do feel these matters are under control.
I wish to turn now to the other two areas, information and the cost of living. I wish to say plump and plain with regard to the cost of living that the consumers of this country are not going to get any special protection under this bill as now drafted unless real teeth, real muscle power which is not there now, can be put into it. I know that in Canada Month a few weeks ago the minister was warning us: "Until I have the muscle I don't want to talk too much; I am a weak department; I am the low minister on the totem pole." I suggest there are ways of being a higher minister on the totem pole and of getting more muscle into this bill. Before we have finished we in this party want to suggest ways and means of muscling the minister; I do not say "muzzling" the minister because we do not want to do that. But we want to muscle him to match his words when out on the hustings.
I do not want to see him fall into the category mentioned the other evening by the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas in her eloquent speech who referred to his performance as being all things to all men. I feel that strengthening his position would make it not all things to all women but to all consumers. Of course, a great many consumers are women. We know that according to a recent Gallup poll 45 per cent of the responses which came in put the cost of living as the most important aspect of consumer protection. In comparison, the other matters were very small indeed.
The minister has not been too forthcoming on the question of the cost of living. He was asked, again in Canada Month: "What does the N.D.P. want?" He said it wants consumer
November 17, 19G7

programs with teeth; it wants a prices review board. Then we read: "But", says Turner with justifiable triumph, "where is the constitutional authority for that?"
The women who were here the other day said in their brief that if there is no possibility of getting federal action in co-operation with the provinces on this important matter of the cost of living, what in the name of time is the sense of setting up a federal consumer department? If the consumer department is not prepared to deal with the cost of living in any substantial way, what is the use of having such a department? I suggest to the minister that at this stage he must make a decision. Either he must put teeth into this department so it can deal with the cost of living or he must quit pretending that this is a consumer protection department in relation to the cost of living. I think these women were right when they said toward the conclusion of their brief:
In closing, the onus of proving that prices are exorbitant, and business practices in the retail food and retail drug companies corrupt, should not fall on the shoulders of the housewife. These essential items must be made available to all citizens at a price they can afford to pay.
This is exactly where these women are right, and before we are finished with this debate we shall make our proposal again to establish in this department a prices review board which will be able to take a long look at exorbitant prices, bring offences into the light of publicity and take whatever appropriate measures are required to hold the line in the essentials of life the consumer needs.
The whole committee was concerned about this question in various ways and I think it is time the minister grasped the nettle or told the consumers frankly: I shall not be able to do anything substantial about the cost of living. If he would come out frankly and tell them that, they would know they would have to turn some place else. The consumer is being conned if the bill is left as it is.
The minister is shaking his head and I know he wishes it were different, but changing the name of the department is not going to do anything to put real teeth in this bill.
Now I wish to turn to the other area which is not provided for adequately in the bill and that is the question of giving information. In the committee we were strongly impressed by the role which big advertising plays in raising the prices of goods to the consumer. This is what the committee said on this point:
A considerable volume of evidence was accumulated by your committee on the economic and 27053-278 i
Corporate and Consumer Affairs other effects of commodity advertising. There is clearly a wide spectrum of opinion on the social benefits of advertising and on the impact of advertising expenditures on the cost of consumer goods.
Although it does not wish to make any recommendations respecting the control of advertising expenditures, your committee was concerned about the volume of advertising whose sole or primary purpose is to create consumer preference for a particular brand of some staple product on the basis of trivial variations.
The minister has also been showing concern about advertising. He has been talking about the need for protecting the consumer on various fronts. But I do not believe he can have expected the results he got the other day when the president of Canada's largest advertising company turned on him and bit him in a very sensitive spot indeed. I quote from the Globe and Mail of November 1:
The president of Canada's largest advertising agency has accused John Turner, Registrar General, of making confusing and contradictory attacks on advertising.
George Sinclair, president of MacLaren Advertising Co. Ltd. of Toronto, said in a speech at London, Ont., that Mr. Turner and other critics of advertising argue that much advertising is useless, that a more discriminating public no longer believes it, and that many people are repelled by it.
Yet at the same time, Mr. Sinclair said, these same critics argue advertising is so powerful it has enabled big business to dictate the tastes and mores of society.
"We are, then, useless and powerful at one and the same time." After these inconsistencies, Mr. Sinclair continued, Mr. Turner "informs us there has been little investigation as to the function of advertising, but that the power of advertising is undisputed."
The critics of advertising are not interested in strengthening democratic institutions but want to substitute a new elite of academics and thought leaders to "control the quality of North American life through state planning."
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
I want to say that I see nothing contradictory in the minister saying in one and the same breath that the public no longer believes the claims of advertising and that advertising has enabled big business to dictate the mores of society. I believe those two statements are true and that there is no contradiction in them. In being made the object of this attack, in my view the minister has received the biggest compliment of his career to date because he has been attacked by one of those elements which have raised and are now raising the cost of goods to the consumer.
I hope the minister will show his willingness to accept the amendments that we are going to propose. In the way he administers
4398	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs the new department as time goes on I hope he will also show he is worthy of the attack which was made on him by the advertising industry because it is afraid he may champion the well-being of the consumer. That is why members of the advertising industry turned and bit him. They are not sure yet whether he is on their side. I only hope he realizes that he cannot be on both sides of the fence at the same time. He has to decide whether he is going to support these big advertisers or whether he is going to support the consumers and see that advertising is kept within bounds.
Should the minister be in any doubt about whether or not advertising can be kept within bounds, and if he is really anxious to launch the type of program that some of us in the committee were anxious to see, I wish to tell him that he has a model already at hand. All members of the committee did not agree on what should be done about advertising, but we did agree that it raised prices to the consumer. Some of us felt that curbs should be put on advertising and were prepared to so propose. Others felt that the least which must be done is to give the consumers full information about the kinds, brands and values of the goods they buy.


Mr. Allmand:: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Winona Grace MacInnis: it is not too long.


William Warren Allmand: The hon. lady has said that in the committee we found that advertising contributed to raising the prices of goods. Where does she find in the report of the committee that advertising contributes to increases in price?


Winona Grace MacInnis: pointed it out before and I will do it again. Here is what the committee said:
Although it does not wish to make any recommendations respecting the control of advertising expenditures, your committee was concerned about the volume of advertising whose sole or primary purpose is to create consumer preference for a particular brand of some staple product on the basis of trivial variations.
Earlier the committee said:
There is clearly a wide spectrum of opinion on the social benefits of advertising and on the impact of advertising expenditures on the cost of consumer goods.


William Warren Allmand: That is not the same thing.


Winona Grace MacInnis: And
we also had a man from Western Grocers who

DEBATES	November 17, 1967
said in answer to my colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo South:
You have given a perfect exposition; everybody does it and it is economic waste. If one man does it and gets away with it he can make money and sell goods cheaper.


William Warren Allmand: The hon. lady did not
answer my question. The statement she read did not say that advertising had increased the cost of goods.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
am sorry, but what the committee said about the impact of advertising on consumer goods is answer enough for me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member think that advertising does not increase the cost?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: May I ask the hon. lady another question?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Not
now. Wait until I have finished and then I will be glad to accept your question. My thread of thought is not as solid as the threads of some other people around here and sometimes it gets broken. I do not want it broken at this stage of my remarks.
I will hedge my statement very carefully by saying that all the members of the committee were not in favour but most of us who made the trip across Canada were convinced that there was a great need for programs during prime radio and television time to give the consumer full information about the pitfalls and the value of the article he or she was buying. If the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace wants to opt out of that, please let him do it at the end of my speech.


William Warren Allmand: I agree with that point.


Winona Grace MacInnis: television program has already been launched in the United States by what is known as the Public Broadcast Laboratory. It is a two-hour Sunday night news and cultural program. It began on November 5 and is financed with the aid of a $10 million grant from the Ford Foundation. In the course of the series it is going to present a program examining the credibility of commercials, just the sort of thing our committee was talking about, the credibility of advertising.
On the first show two commercials were shown, one dealing with aspirin and the other with one of the new long cigarettes. The first commercial was designed to inform consumers that all brand name aspirin on the
November 17, 1967	COMMONS
market contains the same ingredients as aspirin that can be bought under drugstore labels at a fraction of the cost. It showed a man shaving in his bathroom, when a voice said to him, "Oh George, have you got a headache?" "Yes," he said, "these commercials always give me a headache." "Have you any aspirins?" asked the voice and George replied, "Yes, I have got all kinds, every possible kind you can imagine in the medicine cabinet." He went on to mention Anacin, Bufferin and all the other kinds of well advertised aspirin. The commercial ended by pointing out that all these had the same kind of ingredients as the drugstore label aspirin which is much cheaper.
In the second commercial a pretty young girl is offered a cigarette. She breaks it in two, commenting, "This has a far larger proportion of noxious tars in it than the smaller cigarette." This is the sort of program that would be of value in protecting consumers, and I suggest to the minister that he give serious consideration to launching programs of this type.
The minister cannot dodge this issue. He has to make up his mind now whether his department will be one that will genuinely protect the consumer or whether it will be a piece of window dressing to hide from the consumer the fact that he is being given no protection against a rising cost of living and that no such protection is being planned. There is no half way house about it. The consumers are not going to be put off merely by a change of name, even though I must say the change of name is welcome to us. I only hope this is not going to prove to be a case of a bill that failed to protect the consumers.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Would the hon. lady answer my question now? I apologize for interrupting her remarks earlier. Is it not a fact that the actual recommendation or comment of the consumer committee to which she has referred did not condemn all advertising but only certain types of advertising, a comment with which I am in agreement? Furthermore, is she feels that all advertising is deserving of condemnation how is it that co-operatively owned businesses, which are so active in this country, advertise so extensively? e (12:20 p.m.)


Winona Grace MacInnis: think the hon. member is quite correct in saying that there were much greater stricture put on some types of advertising than on other types, particularly the competitive advertising
DEBATES	4399
Corporate and Consumer Affairs of commodities where the difference was practically non-existent or trivial. However, it was brought out in the committee that large scale promotion and advertising do raise the cost of goods to the consumer. In fact, I myself brought out in questioning that in the ultimate analysis the cost of advertising and promotion is and must be passed on to the consumer. This is why some of us feel measures should be taken to examine advertising and curtail any unnecessary expenditures. I think a great deal of the advertising now considered essential might very well prove not to be so, at least, to anything like the extent that exists at the moment.


Mr. O'Keefe:: Reluctantly, Mr. Chairman, but accurately, I must admit that I am at least in partial agreement with my hon. friend from Vancouver-Kingsway. There are abuses in advertising. I believe, however, that on balance a case can be made, and a very strong one, that in effect advertising does not increase prices but in fact reduces them.
As one of the representatives of Canada's only overseas province I welcome this legislation. I am happy that this government, which cares about people, has taken this step.


Mr. Cowan:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to accept a question when I am finished; I dare not interrupt my train of thought at the moment.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Is not Labrador part of
Canada?


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: Labrador is part of Newfoundland. It was brought back to Canada by confederation and is one of the gifts Newfoundland gave Canada for which we were never properly thanked.
I am also happy, Mr. Chairman, that a man of energy, dynamism and ambition is to head this department. One of the problems in Newfoundland, if I may be provincial for a moment, is the very high cost of living which in turn is affected by freight rates. I make a strong distinction between cost of living and quality of life. I think we have the quality of life, but the cost of living seems to be just too much.
It might be pertinent here to recall the opinions offered by the Newfoundland royal commission on transportation, whose report was presented about a year and a half ago.
November 17. 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs In one section they pointed out that with the advent of confederation Newfoundland, which once dealt with England and the United States, became a captive market for Canada. In passing, Mr. Chairman, may I mention the fact that if you think of Newfoundland as a separate country and not as a province of Canada, Newfoundland would be Canada's third best customer. Only the United States and Great Britain buy more from Canada than does the province I represent.
Confederation also gave the province a freight rates structure not related to mileage or the cost of the services performed. This structure, said the report, was predicated upon the constitutional advantage created by confederation in favour of the mainland maritimes region, and it also provided a system tied to social need rather than economic reality. The effect on transport between Newfoundland and mainland Canada was serious. It gradually resulted in the elimination of most of the traditional water carriers who could not compete with the railway rates. It has been noted through the years how the C.N.R. reduced its rates in summer when there was direct shipping from Montreal and then raised them in winter when the St. Lawrence closed.
The report of the MacPherson federal royal commission on transportation recommended that the mainland maritime structure be altered by imposing rates related to the cost of operation. But MacPherson made special recommendations that the Newfoundland structure remain intact. I hope this will be the case.
This new department is concerned with both corporate and consumer affairs. The inclusion of the term "corporate" in its title should not, however, mislead the public into believing that the protection of the consumer interest will be a subordinate consideration. The department will in fact be heavily consumer oriented. The relationship between the corporate function and the consumer is obvious because the two are closely interrelated.
Let me try to show, Mr. Chairman, one or two ways in which the new department will have the power to act, and under this minister I know the power will be used, with discretion of course and always with justice.
Many of the recommendations of the joint committee on consumer credit and the cost of living relate to fields which fall within provincial jurisdiction. I am happy to hear that the minister has announced his intention of visiting all provincial capitals to discuss with

the provincial authorities a number of pressing consumer problems, along with finding possible solutions to them. It is the hope of the minister, and it is certainly my hope, that this will facilitate his being in a position to ensure that consumer protection is effectively co-ordinated throughout Canada.
One of the most important areas which now need federal-provincial co-operation, in my opinion-indeed, very close co-operation is required-is the acute problem of consumer credit. I should like to deal briefly with the specific subject matter of the problems confronting consumers in relation to credit. The five main problems in this regard, as I see them, are as follows. First of all, there is inadequate knowledge of the cost of credit from various institutions. Second, there is the high cost of credit. Third, there are unfair clauses in conditional sales contracts. Fourth, there is unwise use of credit. Fifth, there is the problem of the refunding of credit cost on prepayment of debt.
How are these problems to be dealt with? Dealing first with disclosure requirements, many provinces-I think most of them-have legislation requiring disclosure of credit costs in prescribed ways, including disclosure of credit costs on revolving charge accounts. The Bank Act and regulations thereunder now require disclosure by the banks of the cost of credit. The provinces and the federal government have co-operated in efforts to make this legislation uniform so that more meaningful comparisons may be made by credit users. The new department will seek to ensure that this co-operation is strengthened and the activity intensified.
The second problem I mentioned is the high cost of credit. Only under the Bank Act, the Small Loans Act, and certain provisions of the Quebec civil code are there limits put on credit costs. In other cases creditors are free to set the cost of credit at a rate which is subject to negotiation. A borrower who is a good credit risk, in comparison with a poor credit risk, will receive a much more favourable rate. One justification for this is that the cost to the lender of administering the loan to the good credit risk may be considerably lower t han the cost that may be incurred in administering loans to poor risk borrowers.
Several of the provinces now have unconscionable transactions relief legislation under which relief may be sought from excessively high interest rates. The new department, as I have already mentioned,
November 17, 1967

will be seeking to augment this protection through action under the Small Loans Act.
The third problem I referred to concerns unfair clauses in contracts. In almost all conditional sales contracts to be assigned by the original vendor to a finance company, there are the following clauses. For example, there is a clause which provides in effect that the goods are not covered by any warranty. Second, there is a so-called cut-off clause which provides that the finance company is not to be affected by equities between the seller and buyer. Third, the buyer is required to sign a promissory note for the amount due under the agreement, and this is a separate, absolute unconditional obligation to pay the purchase price and carrying charges.
I believe clauses of this type should be outlawed. Without these special clauses the law would impose an obligation on the seller to give reasonable satisfaction and, if he failed to do so, the buyer would not have to pay. With these clauses, however, the buyer's obligation to pay is absolute and unconditional and the seller is relieved of the obligation even to supply goods of adequate quality. There is no legislation which prevents the inclusion of these clauses in conditional sales contracts. At present, as we know, it is a case of the buyer beware. The new department, through liaison with the provinces, will seek to remedy this deficiency.
The fourth main problem has to do with the unwise use of credit. A by-product that can be expected as a result of the disclosure legislation is a wiser use of credit. People who are aware of the cost of borrowing may think twice and may borrow up to the limit set by their income rather than beyond and sometimes, to my knowledge, far beyond. I am told that in metropolitan Toronto there is a credit counselling service which is sponsored by the federal government, the provincial government and through private donations. Generally speaking, however, debt counselling is done by lending agencies which are not entirely disinterested in this matter. There is no doubt that the consumer interest can be afforded greater protection in this area through, among other things, consumer education, a matter which will be receiving high priority in the new department.
The fifth point is in respect of the refund of credit costs on prepayment of debts. It has been the common practice in respect of prepayment of debts, where this is permitted

Corporate and Consumer Affairs by the contract, to reimburse the borrower somewhat less than what he would consider to be a fair proportion and, in some cases, a great deal less. Some of the disclosure legislation which is now in effect requires disclosure of prepayment refund calculations at the time the contract is made. This, undoubtedly, is another field in which greater liaison between the provincial and federal authorities could serve to enhance further the protection of the public interest. The interest of the consumer is and will continue to be the main concern of the minister and the new department. Indeed, it will be the continuing concern of all thinking Canadians, including the representative of St. John's East in Newfoundland.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, I should like my first words to be those of congratulation to the new minister. I wish him well in his position in which he has a very great responsibility to the consumers of this country. We know he is being groomed as the whitehaired boy for the Liberal leadership. I believe all of us would suggest that his prospects in this regard are tied in with the success he may have in administering this department and with the satisfaction the consumers of Canada will derive from his ministry.
There is reason for disappointment in respect of this legislation. As my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, pointed out, it is not so much what the bill says that is important but rather what the bill has omitted, namely, the teeth necessary to make this legislation effective.
The committee on consumer credit probably was one of the outstanding committees which has been set up by this House of Commons in a long time. Other committees have done effective work, but I like to think that this committee did a great job. I should like to congratulate the joint chairmen and all the members of the committee from all parties for the good work done by the special joint committee on consumer credit. The report of the committee containing its recommendations was hardly a radical document. It was valuable, however, in terms of establishing the idea that from now on the interests of the consumer would have to be a concern of the government. I regret that the government did not see fit to accept the recommendation of the committee that there should be a department of consumer affairs. Instead, the government has brought extraneous matters into this department.
4402	COMMONS DEBATES	November 17. 19S7
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
The work of the committee has been very valuable. A great body of information and knowledge was accumulated. Considerable research was done even though the staff was limited. Many misconceptions were cleared away and we were given an opportunity to see the problem more clearly and focus our attention on the real difficulties which are before us. The main point that was established was that business, labour and any other group in society would have to justify their behaviour to the consumers. No one was exempt. This point was made at the very first meeting of the committee when a witness expressed a wish that his evidence be given in camera. At that point the members of the committee decided that the information should be made public and that nothing should be withheld from the public. I believe this was an intelligent and wise decision. I think it is one which the public will applaud.
Publicity was provided concerning the work being done by the members of the committee. This I believe was an aid to the consumers. Some firms suffered as a result of the evidence which was given before the committee; they suffered as they deserved to suffer. Some firms were assisted considerably because the evidence given before the committee established that what they were doing was in the public interest and that their services were superior to those of others. I am convinced that during the period the meetings were being held the fact that the committee was in existence had the effect of restraining prices which might have risen more rapidly than they did. I believe that during that time everyone was looking over his shoulder and wondering to himself what would happen if a price increase were put through and he had to appear before the committee to justify it. These people probably were asking themselves: What would we have to say for ourselves? The representatives of some of the companies have already indicated that this in effect is what happened, that is, that during the course of those hearings prices were restrained.
I regret that this committee has not been reconvened. I think there is a great deal of valuable work which it could be doing. I hope that during the course of this debate the minister will find an opportunity to assure us that he intends to have the committee reconvened as soon as possible so that it can continue some of this work. We were unable, for instance, to look into the matter of automobile prices. The United Automobile Workers wrote the committee requesting that
[Mr. Saltsman.l
an investigation be made into the high price of automobiles in this country. Because of the other work being done by members of the committee at the time, that investigation was not held. I believe it should be held. There are good reasons for looking into the pricing practices of the automobile companies in this country.
The result of the work of the committee really was that the minister was provided with the shape and outline of a department of consumer affairs with a prices review board. This is the work the members of the committee were doing. They were reviewing prices and practices and, because the work was so valuable and constructive, the minister should seriously consider continuing a program of this kind on a permanent longterm basis by means of a committee or board composed of qualified professionals. I would not want that remark to be interpretated as meaning that we did not have qualified people. Some first class people assisted the committee and I should like to express my appreciation to the staff assigned to help, particularly Dr. Warren James who did an outstanding job on behalf of this group.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
We did not have enough people to do the work we set out to do. The committee meetings were very instructive in the early days when we were somewhat amateurish. Most of us came to the committee without any experience in these fields and it was difficult to come to grips with the complicated problems before us. However, as the meetings progressed the committee members became more astute in their questioning and more knowledgeable about these problems. I think this supports the need for more expertise and continuing examination of prices and practices in this country.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace played a very important role on that committee. He was one of the excellent members there and I recall some of his questions which came to grips with the suggestion of a prices review board. He was very sympathetic to the idea although, as he pointed out, he wanted some evidence that such a review board would produce the desired effect. I should like to quote some of the questions he posed at that time. There seems to be a gremlin around here who is walking away with the significant pieces of evidence I had. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace
November 17, 1967

in questioning Professor Neufeld is reported at page 124 as follows:
A way should be found to bring public opinion closer to the price-setting practices of all industry. I think you made the comment at that time, "but not this kind of a committee"?
Mr. Neufeld then said "no". Then Mr. Neufeld went on to say:
-I think as I mentioned before, this is an area in which one has to learn as one goes on. My hope would be, perhaps it is a futile one, that the justification in the first instance would be before public opinion. If the public has the information, and if it is known that the major price increases and wage increases must be justified on rational economic grounds then in this way it might be that public opinion will have a greater impact on these prices. That is where I would start to try to bring public opinion to bear on the price setting and wage setting mechanism-
A board would do exactly that because it would operate like the committee and would focus attention on price changes taking place in our society. It would ask for justification for these price changes and thereby provide the government with an opportunity to take action should it find the changes are not justified.
When a member of this party refers to the suggestion of a prices review board, almost invariably somebody asks about wages and whether we should not also look at them. I think we must look at everything, and I do not think the wage earner would be the slightest bit afraid to come before a review board to justify his behaviour. In fact wage earners do this every day of the week through collective bargaining. They must justify their demands, and they do so. It is interesting to note that this position was supported by the vice president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Dodge.
The minister will have to find new ways of tackling these problems on behalf of the consumers of this country. He should not be constrained by the need to walk on both sides of the fence. I do not know how the minister feels about this limitation on his authority but I would think it is very restrictive.
It has been pointed out that difficulties in respect of consumer and corporate affairs have some things in common. One could say that consumer affairs are related to almost everything else in our economic set-up, but that is not the point. What we must understand is that there is a branch of government for almost every interest in this country and sometimes branches for sectional interests. These interests must be reconciled and only
Corporate and Consumer Affairs one minister with undivided loyalty can speak on behalf of these interests. It is not the minister's job to balance interests between consumers and corporations. It is the minister's job, on behalf of the consumer only, to argue with the other ministers in the government in order to resolve these problems in cabinet, not in his own mind. Let us not make a Pooh-Bah of this minister, a high executioner on the one hand and a chancellor of the exchequer on the other. This would be an impossible task and one which would not do him credit. Nor could he do justice to the responsibility facing him today.
The minister will also have to be a bit of a radical. He will have to consider government intervention in economic affairs. The old method of leaving the market to itself will not help to solve the consumer problems which have developed for that very reason. Markets operating on their own have in many cases conspired in some way against the consumer's best interest. The minister must look not only with the eyes of the consumer but must rid himself of any dogma he may have. Many different types of economic ideas will be necessary, some coming from the socialist arsenal and others resulting from the valuable experience of free enterprise. The minister should not hesitate to take advantage of either in the interest of the consumer; otherwise he will do a disservice to those he is attempting to help.
Experience in Canada has indicated how important government intervention can be. This nation was built by government intervention in the economy and it is becoming increasingly obvious that many problems can be solved only through government participation. This fact is accepted today by all but a few die-hards. We have accepted what we call free enterprise for a long time and the results have not been as valuable as they might have been. It has often led to high costs, inefficiency and waste instead of productivity.
The minister must consider how to change the direction of market forces and how to direct competition into more meaningful channels in order to achieve lower prices. Competition may not always be necessary. Canadians will have to accept concentration and co-operation in some cases as the most effective way of lowering prices. The real issue in a matter of this type will not be the question of size or concentration but whether that concentration or size will be in the interests of the Canadian people, particularly the
consumer.
November 17, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Through our present combines legislation we have attempted to control the size of market power, but this has become a dead letter. It has completely failed its purpose and has not stopped harmful collusion. It has, on the other hand, prevented Canadian business and consumers alike from coming to grips with the real problem in respect of lower prices of goods and services. It is time the government faced up to the fact that our combines legislation does not serve the purpose for which it was intended and that we will have to find a better way of stimulating the economy and protecting the public interest than now exists. There are better ways. There are two general approaches that could be taken to this problem. One would be to pass more legislation setting up a larger organization for the detailed examination of business activity, to look over the shoulders of everything that is being done. The other way is for the government itself to provide some competition.
There are many things we could do. In consultation with industry we could determine those items of general use for which the Canadian market is big enough to provide maximum efficiency of scale. We could encourage manufacturers in Canada to reduce the variety of their products and go in for longer runs. Our productivity lags far behind what it should be. It lags far behind because of the splintered nature of our economy. Despite a far higher level of capital investment in our secondary industry, we are considerably less productive than those with lower capital investment.
A great deal has to be done in this area. We will have to encourage manufacturers in Canada to reduce the variety of their products and go in for longer runs, as I have already said. They may have to co-operate with each other. Immediately the suggestion of collusion arises and the question is asked: How do you protect the public interest in this case? I think a good case might be made to show that some of our firms must be larger. Then the question will be asked: How will the public interest be protected under these circumstances? I suggest to the minister that he has all the means at his disposal for solving this problem. He has at his disposal means far more effective than the combines legislation to protect the public interest, if only he is willing to use them. In respect of those products which are subject to international competition, I do not think there need be a great fear of abuse. I believe that tariff

legislation would protect the consumer in cases of this type while allowing our own manufacturers to reach efficient size and scale.
There are other measures that could be taken. Changes in the patent laws of this country would have a most salutary effect in protecting consumers. It would have a far better effect than the phony combines legislation that really does not work very effectively. For those industries that are not constrained by foreign pressures the minister will have to find new approaches. One of these new approaches, I suggest, is government competition. If competition is the answer in industry and that competition is not forthcoming from the private sector, I suggest it is time the government itself became a competitor in the economy in order to achieve the price reductions and provide the services needed by the consumer.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I do not think any of these decisions can be made unless the minister establishes a prices review board -perhaps it should be called a prices and practices review board-which would examine not only pricing but also the approaches being taken in the market itself. Such a board could examine the price changes that are introduced and decide how effectively measures are working to ensure that the lowest prices prevail. Under some circumstances it may even be necessary that some prices in this country be controlled. But that is a decision which could be made only after a thorough examination of an industry's pricing structure.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. member a question on that point?


Max Saltsman: Yes.


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member said we need a prices review board that would review prices in the way the consumers committee examined consumer prices and practices last winter. Does the hon. member mean by a prices review board a board that would merely examine prices but would not have the power to roll back or fix prices?


Max Saltsman: I recognize the difficulty the hon. member raises in any question of prices. I think we need at this stage a board to examine the price changes that are taking place and then make recommendations to the government for corrective action. I do not think such a board would have all the powers necessary to achieve adequate price control under some circumstances, but on the
November 17, 1967

basis of the board's examination of the situation it could report to the government. One of its recommendations might be for a tariff change, another might be for a patent change. Another recommendation might be that the federal government seek agreement with the provinces on controlling the price of certain items. There are constitutional problems, but I do not think they are insurmountable.
The point is that the government is not in a position even to know what the problem is until such a board is established to examine the changes and practices that are taking place in our society. Then action would become the responsibility of the government and not of the board. Only the government could have this responsibility. The board would indicate the direction and the kind of action that needed to be taken.
We have had today a discussion of advertising. I know there is some disagreement about what is good and what is bad advertising. I think all of us agree that the advertising being carried on at the present time is away beyond what is really necessary to move goods and services and inform the consumer. Even the advertisers themselves would in their lucid moments agree with this.
The question then resolves itself into the following: How do you sort out the good from the bad, rather than deciding whether all advertising is bad or good? The minister faces a very profound challenge in this problem. I am pleased to see that the minister is aware of the problem. I do not think the problem has been solved in any significant way by anyone in North America. This may be one of the most serious challenges facing the minister. I should like to quote from a newspaper article to remind the minister of his awareness of the problem. Referring to the minister, an article which appeared in the Regina Leader Post of September 22, 1967, says in part:
The minister said that Canadians spent 21 times as much last year on advertising as on higher education, and in the U.S. it has been found by the courts that huge corporations can approach monopolistic power by the weight of their advertising.
That is a good start. The minister is aware of the problem. Now that he has stated the problem and has noted the waste and the fantastic, incredible difference in the amount of money spent on advertising compared with that spent on higher education, he must do something about it. This is a real challenge and we will be waiting to see what sort of programs the minister develops. I point
Corporate and Consumer Affairs out to the minister that he will not be courting popularity in some circles, but the people will have reason to be grateful for changes that are made which reduce what is a social waste in this area at a time when we need whatever resources we can command for useful and valuable purposes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One o'clock.


Max Saltsman: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I might be permitted to complete my remarks at this time.


Erik Nielsen: Two minutes?


Max Saltsman: Two minutes. Let me just say that at this time the minister is on probation. He will be carefully watched. We want to see whether his actions conform to his words. He uses words very well. Let us hope that his actions are equally praiseworthy. But he will have to be one-minded on behalf of the consumer and he will have to be uninhibited. He will have to use his political power as no minister has ever used it before. We hope he will.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: One o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Malheson:: Mr. Chairman, the future of the free market depends, I believe, on its ability to provide for the needs of all Canadians. I believe it to be the role of government to ensure that the system works to this end. This is not a new idea. In our country a large influence in this direction is the philosophy of Keynes, who in the thirties took this view after having the advantage of training by two great economic giants, Marshall and Pigou.
Keynes was always prepared to adjust his theories to the changing shape of the outside world. He felt that private enterprise and government were two powerful partners for growth. He believed society was made for man, and he favoured the role of the state in the mitigation of economic adversity wherever it appeared, always with the purpose of preserving and enlarging freedom. The bill introduced by the minister, a young, dynamic
November 17, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs and highly educated member of the House of Commons, I think approaches this interesting economic problem in response to the emergencies that we face in Canada arising from a particularly affluent society.
It might be worth while for us to review what it is that we collectively have accepted as our economic goals, objectives that will not be disputed by any member of the house. In 1963 the Economic Council of Canada was created by an act of parliament and established specific goals. Let us ponder them carefully. Full employment; a high rate of economic growth; reasonable stability of prices; a viable balance of payments; an equitable distribution of rising incomes. In short, Mr. Chairman, an optimum economic balance. John Deutsch has been one of the great apostles of this kind of economic balance throughout his years of service to Canada in various capacities. I congratulate the minister on bringing in a bill which I believe both in its style and its content does preserve something of balance.
Professor Galbraith, who is newsworthy as well as very highly respected as an economist, specifically developed the theory of social balance. He followed other theorists such as R. H. Tawney, who in his famous text "Equality" writes:
-slowly and reluctantly, amid prophecies of moral degeneration and economic disaster, society began to make collective provision for needs which no ordinary individual, even if he works overtime all his life, can provide himself.
This is written by one of the champions of freedom who believes freedom can in fact be enlarged by wise governmental action which is complementary to that great engine of progress, private enterprise.
I have been looking at price trends in Canada and at some of the statistics relating to our problems associated with rising prices. To understand our situation in Canada we must always make comparisons with other countries. The fact is that in recent years the Canadian experience relatively has been highly favourable.
I have been studying the change in the cost of living that has occurred in 27 countries between 1958 and November, 1966. The percentage change has universally been that of increase; in other words, the change has tended toward inflation. The United States has the lowest record of inflation of all these countries with only 14 per cent. Canada is second lowest with 16 per cent. The third lowest of these 27 countries is Australia.

However, sir, I would point out that a country as prosperous as Germany has had an increase of 22 per cent since 1958. Switzerland, which we regard as one of the most stable of world economies, has had a 26 per cent increase. The United Kingdom, with several changes in government and a willingness on the part of government to be radical and to innovate, shows an increase of 27 per cent. There are no less than 11 important countries of the world, including Italy, France, Japan, Israel and Yugoslavia, which have had increases ranging from 34 per cent up to 167 per cent. So, Mr. Chairman, by all objective standards Canada's record has been quite remarkable. Let us bear in mind that we are, after all, a nation of only 20 million people trading in this large international complex of nations and influenced, therefore, by the inflationary tendencies prevailing in all parts of the world.
Personally, Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that we must judge any economic proposal we bring into this house on the basis of what effect that proposal may be likely to have on the optimum allocation of resources as well as on patterns of saving and investment. If anyone laughs at this as academic, I would argue that in the middle and long run these are in fact the factors that are going to determine the consumption of Canadians and the cost of goods that they will be able to enjoy.
e (2:40 p.m.)
Sir, social imbalance, according to Galbraith in "The Affluent Society", is the natural offspring of persistent inflation. Inflation by its nature strikes different individuals and groups with highly discriminatory effects. The most nearly unrelieved victims, apart from those living on pensions or other fixed provisions for personal security, are those who work for the state. He points out in his text how parts of the private sector can deal with inflation. Private firms can adjust to inflation by increasing prices. Management and labour, by their organization, can protect themselves by increasing prices and wages but others are grievously injured. That is why this bill, that permits the minister to initiate and undertake programs designed to promote the interest of Canadian consumers and to co-ordinate programs, to co-operate with provincial governments-a basic necessity of this department-as well as to undertake research into matters affecting costs, sound balance has been reached in the unremitting struggle against higher prices.
November 17, 1967	COMMONS
W. A. Preshing of the University of Alberta, said about the Canadian consumer:
While installed horsepower and output per production worker almost doubled in the two decades from 1920 to 1940, average hourly wages increased by one-third. This rising productivity passing on to the same number of production workers with only limited increases in income caused prices to fall. Business, producing the same products, was forced to lower selling prices, with consequent under consumption contributing to the stagnation of the economy.
That condition also contributed to growing unemployment. Preshing says that the second world war, with its emphasis on research, brought quite a change not only by bringing about changes in old products but by assisting in the creation of new products.
A new state of affairs was therefore brought into being and this has been described in the writings of J. A. Schumpeter. New products were produced and we are now enjoying them every day. I continue to quote from W. A. Preshing:
The immediate post-war period saw a reversal of the economic conditions outlined above. Incomes, rising faster than productivity, created more discretionary income and helped emphasize the importance of marketing innovation.
An hon. member who preceded me spoke a few minutes ago about the importance of having teeth in the bill. I cannot put my hands on the study but I have read an analysis of the ineffective results gained heretofore by placing too great a reliance on the Criminal Code to contain, control and direct economic activity. I have had some modest experience in this area as a lawyer and I have seen how inequitably in certain instances is the application of the code. We know that the Department of Justice may use sections 303, 304, 306, 323, 324, 349, 350, 351 and 354. From time to time the department prosecutes under those sections.
The code does not afford, I believe, much protection to the consumer. Greater protection lies in multilateral trade. May I quote the basic economic argument enunciated recently by Harry G. Johnson before he left for his chair at the London School of Economics. He said at a convocation in Kingston:
The problem that will face Canadian policymakers will be, how to safeguard as much of Canada's trading interests-and through them her prosperity-as can be preserved in a fragmenting international economy.
He speaks of how we are to obtain our greatest material rewards and says:
It will be of vital importance to Canada for the policy-makers' logical heads to rule their emotional hearts, and for them to stick to the principle that Canada's economic interests lie in freer trade and larger markets.
DEBATES	4407
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
Let us never forget in the course of our discussion on prices, Canada's great economic accomplishments in the last few years, compared with the accomplishments of other advanced countries of the world.
Jim MacDonald, executive secretary of the National Labour Co-operative Committee, says in Canadian Labour of October, 1963, that $200,000 is the approximate amount of money which the average Canadian worker will earn and spend in his lifetime. This reminds me of something written recently by Charles Graham entitled, "The Capricious Consumer". He refers to the sombre conclusions of Thorstein Veblen who was writing in times of unemployment and great economic inequality. In many ways the problems of our affluent society are quite different today. Now it is the capricious consumer who wields a weapon, optional consumption, which manifestly often leads to significant change and development.
One of the problems we discover is that many shoppers do not know how to buy. This has been spelled out most eloquently by Robert Millar in his book, "The Affluent Sheep", which discusses British buying habits. The affluent sheep, the British consumers, have money to spend but do not know how to spend it. The greatest need, apparently, is for consumer guidance. Incidentally it was the Conservative party in the United Kingdom which set up the Molony committee which studied this problem in a fresh and interesting way. The same weakness more or less is to be found in North America's affluent society, as analysed by Vance Packard in "The Hidden Persuaders". That book speaks of the new jungle called the supermarket.
It is clear that those who have given the most serious study to this field of marketing feel that there is abundant need for a department of consumer and corporate affairs. The fact is that the job of protecting the consumer has been scattered throughout many departments. A study in the United States indicates that 83 separate departments of government are concerned with this problem. Many of these departments lack adequate research facilities and cannot look into consumer problems. In this country before now there has been no single voice at a sufficiently high level in the government to speak on behalf of consumers. Now we have an able and articulate voice that will do just that.
There has been, until now, no system for bringing about a coherent consolidation of matters affecting consumer interests. The minister will serve as a high level public
4408	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs relations officer who is a go-between between the government and organizations who are trying to do something to improve our economy. All these considerations point irresistably to the wisdom of establishing a single agency of government for the protection of the consumers' interest. Actually, Canadian Labour of October, 1963, stated:
All evidence points to the fact that more money spent on consumer services by the federal government would provide a bountiful return in improved health safety, nutrition and cash savings for Canadian consumers.
In Canada on the average we spend 23 per cent of our income on food, 19.9 per cent for shelter, 10.5 per cent on transportation-that in the main means a car-and the fourth item is clothing on which we spend 8 per cent. I should like to leave those figures with the committee for its consideration.
A few weeks ago I was able to talk to an interesting personality, John Kenneth Galbraith, who was speaking at Queen's University. He has developed a new idea in economics and he talks about the concept of "countervailing power". That is what our minister had in mind in this balanced bill which has been brought to the consideration of the house. Galbraith develops the theme about the problem of prices in the modern industrial system.
Neoclassical economists like Paul Samuel-son hold that the consumer is king, that he knows what he wants and goes after it. The accepted sequence of such economists has been the unidirectional flow, on instruction from the consumer, to the market and to the producer. The provocative question is now asked, what if that flow should be reversed? Galbraith throws up this challenge in his interesting book "The New Industrial State", which deals with the new circumstances of today. What if the flow of direction and control should be reversed? What if the flow is from the producer to the market and in turn to the consumer? Can we believe in a new technological industrial system which attempts to manage the consumer, which in effect synthesizes consumption.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Actually ours has proved to be a very prosperous system. I could not deny that the United States has done more for its people than any other country in the world, and Canada comes a very close second. In these circumstances, then, part of the countervailing power which perhaps is needed to restore the balance to which I have been

DEBATES	November 17, 1967
referring is precisely the presence of specialists within government who tend to speak and act on behalf of consumers as a class.
In the last analysis, the greatest corporation must be the servant of the consumer and the consumer is the real boss; the businessman really carries out his order. This is the general view. Consumer sovereignty is sometimes spoken of as balloting in the marketplace. Yet some of the finest conceptual thinkers in the field of economic theory today-I mention by way of example Franklin Fisher and Carl Casey-detach themselves from full acceptance of the notion of consumer sovereignty. They recognize this framework described by Samuelson and others but feel there may need to be a countervailing force on the part of the state to assist the consumer to achieve a selection of purposes, to assist in obtaining clear, honest advertising, to cut waste in every possible way, and thereby to preserve and to enlarge real freedom.
This means, according to Galbraith's analysis, that we simply do not live under a pure system of competition. Joan Robinson many years ago made it clear to us that we were really living under conditions of monopolistic competition. Industry in a modern state is never entirely monopolistic; it is bound to respond to various competitive forces, notably those forces which generate from outside the country in the form of competition from multilateral trade. At the same time, however, it may synthesize consumption, control its consumers to some extent through credit agencies, through advertising and so on. Galbraith sees the sequence of planning production, distribution and sales to meet industrial rather than consumer needs.
What we are trying to do, I think, in this new department, is develop expertise to serve consumer and investment interests as they relate to corporations, to develop in Canada a sophisticated countervailing influence to benefit every single person, whether just born or about to retire or to die. Every person in Canada may be served by this consumer specialist and corporation specialist sitting in a position of influence within the government.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to say that since last June when this legislation was first introduced the minister's statement on the resolution stage, his subsequent statements and the debate which has taken place seem to us to have covered the whole subject matter of this bill. We would like to
November 17, 1967

speed up the procedure and get along with and complete the committee stage this afternoon so that we may move onto and pass the Industrial Development Bank legislation and the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act legislation as well. We wish to co-operate to that extent and hon. members on this side intend, therefore, to act accordingly in the hope that hon. members will put all these pieces of legislation through this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want the committee and the minister to realize that I speak as an old socialist who found himself at one time in a situation described to some extent in this bill. I have lived in complete independence and security all my life, slightly above the social welfare level, until I was elected a member of parliament, so I can well understand the situation mentioned by the minister in his recent speech to the Ot-tawa-Carleton Liberal Association.
This is a bill to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs. I think it could also be termed a bill to reconcile the contradictions of capitalism. Or it could be called a bill to handcuff free enterprise for the benefit of consumers. It might even be called a bill to experiment in participation with the consumers of Canada. It is, I think, correct to say that this is more or less experimental legislation.
In the light of all the circumstances, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs would say, and realizing the difficulties which arise with respect to the constitutional problem as between the federal government and the provinces, I am hopeful that this measure will be of some advantage to the consumers of Canada. I may say in this connection that I have received support for the bill on this basis from some of my constituents. We all realize the constitutional problems which need to be resolved and which can only be resolved with co-operation between the federal government and the provinces and the various agencies related thereto. So far as the administration is concerned, this will obviously require close co-operation among any advisory council which is to be appointed, consumers organizations across Canada and all other governmental and private agencies which are willing to take part in an effort to make this legislation a success.
I have risen to speak particularly on one aspect of this matter which concerns me. I believe that the greatest step forward with respect to the control of prices is likely to be
Corporate and Consumer Affairs through the provision of information and education in an attempt to establish better buying habits on the part of those who lack such habits at the present time. I will tell you why I say this. My wife, at the present time, bakes her own bread. She does so because she enjoys homemade bread. However, she has worked it out carefully and finds that it costs just half as much as bakers' bread. I think it would be a good thing to point out such things to members of the consuming public who require information of this type.
The other day a friend of mine was in a chain store. A lady came along, obviously of extremely modest station judging from her dress, and he noticed she had seven packets of breakfast food in the basket she was pushing around the store. She explained that she had seven children and that each of them liked a different kind of breakfast food. I think it would have been much better had she told her children: Here is a bowl of porridge, eat it, it will do you more good.
There has to be education. There has to be a measure of self-discipline if consumers hope to spend their dollars to the best advantage. The minister was kind enough to give me the notes of his speech to the Ottawa-Carleton Liberal Association entitled "The Troubled Consumer In An Affluent Society". I had an opportunity to read the speech quickly and I want to say at once that I am in accord with many of the statements made by the minister as well as with the proposals he sets out. I want to say without any question at all that I have a great deal of confidence in the minister's ability and if he gets the co-operation of the Canadian people and of all the parties in the house I am sure something can be done to improve the circumstances which we are dealing with this afternoon. On page 12, under the heading "The Troubled Consumer", I read:
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Under the new department of corporate and consumer affairs which is presently being considered by parliament, we have an opportunity of opening a second front on the federal war on poverty.
This new department will have the power to coordinate federal consumer programs, provide effective consumer protection in matters of fraud, restrictive trade and safety, provide information and research on consumer issues, and in general develop programs to enable the consumers of this nation to gain maximum value for the full range of goods and services they purchase and use. This is an important mandate, and one that can be of special use to the many groups of low income, handicapped consumers-the troubled consumers.
November 17, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs
I agree with that approach and I congratulate the minister on giving some thought to the application of this legislation to the circumstances we face at the present time. Then he goes on to say:
For those trapped in the web of poverty it is crucial that they gain maximum use of their income, but they are the ones least likely to have the capacity to do so.
That is true. I have personal experience of that sort of thing.
As study after study shows it is the poor who pay more for consumer goods of lower quality than the average Canadian housewife.
It is the low income consumer who must resort to high cost credit, with little protection or guidance.
How true that is. How often people, unfortunately because of their ignorance, enter into credit arrangements that keep them in poverty for years on end.
It is the resident of our urban or rural ghettos who doesn't have access to outlets where comparative shopping, and a wide range of goods are available.
Everyone knows that those circumstances are described correctly.
It is the uneducated and unsophisticated who are taken in by the unscrupulous seller, who fall prey to unethical advertising, and who too readily get caught in the special kinds of commercial jungles that are spawned on exploitation and fraud.
You know, Mr. Chairman, that phrase reminds me of the early days of the C.C.F. I have heard C.C.F. speakers repeatedly use that type of language, and I congratulate the minister on recognizing the fact that exploitation does exist.


An hon. Member:: The C.C.F. doesn't.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The C.C.F. is alive in the N.D.P. and exploitation still exists. The minister goes on:
As a Yale Law Journal study states, "In reality the poor buy different goods and services at different stores for different prices, and this has a profound effect on their standard of living-compounding, preserving and deepening their poverty."
That is a very careful analysis of what is happening today.
That study goes on to point out that:
1.	Often it is less expensive to help a family save a given amount through proper consumer behaviour than to help them achieve an equal increase in income.
That is true, especially if the people who are trained have sound buying habits as the result of education and information.
2.	Many of the people not reached by present anti-poverty efforts could be helped by a consumer program, and

3.	The benefits of increased income may be dissipated through poor spending habits.
Therefore, anti-poverty efforts must not only aim at raising income but also at increasing the amount and quality of goods which that income provides.
I think there is tremendous scope there for co-operation with the various organizations which I have suggested and which are suggested in the minister's speech. Then he goes on to say:
In a society so oriented toward the consumption of consumer goods, where so much emphasis is placed on the possession of things-
It is not only the poor people who place emphasis on that. It is the philosophy of the society in which we live.
-and where there is such a high degree of stimulation, the consumer is faced with the bewildering, tantalizing need to grasp the nearest shiny object-a problem of special severity for the family on limited income. The Canadian living in poverty is placed at great psychological disadvantage in our modern marketplace. He has $10,000 worth of desires-
Stimulated desires, of course.
-$5,000 worth of needs, and $2,000 worth of income. This inequality leads to strange and unfortunate situations.
I am sure most members of the house have seen circumstances exactly like that. In terms of what my comrades would call my Victorian philosophy of life, I might say I am a revolutionary conservative but I have seen situations like that. I was talking to a lady not long ago, with a relatively low income, not as low as described here, who told me she never darned her children's underwear when holes appeared in it. She just threw the underwear out. You cannot endorse that sort of thing whether you are on the poverty level, above the poverty level, or well off. There has got to be knowledge, responsibility and a certain amount of self-discipline.


Mr. Mongrain:: Would the hon. member allow a question, a very polite one?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I see that the hon. member is reading the text of the minister's speech. Is the hon. member not under the impression or of the opinion that the Liberals are now tearing a leaf out of the N.D.P.'s program and appropriating it?


Erik Nielsen: Misappropriating it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite factual and truthful to say that the other parties are tearing leaves out of all our programs. When I hear Conservatives suggest
November 17, 1967

the socialization of the C.P.R. and even of its subsidiaries, as I did last session, and hear Liberals suggest the nationalization or socialization of Dosco, I do not think there is a very great ideological gulf between many of us today. It is what we are trying to do that counts, not the sort of technical language we may use. I continue with the minister's speech in which he has outlined a consumer program.
He said:
It is for this reason that my own department sees as a first priority the need to mobilize government activity to aid the low income consumer.
1.	One obvious answer is information and education. The effects of having more accurate information about products, of knowing where to buy and how to buy and what to buy is an essential condition of making better use of income. Going beyond this, there is a striking need just to begin developing better shopping habits, of teaching consumer skills that are appropriate for the modern marketplace. This would involve counselling and neighbourhood improvement clinics-
I think that is a very good suggestion indeed.
-which would be established in conjunction with provinces, universities and private groups already working in the field.
I can imagine that the consumer organizations would be only too willing to get right in there and work in co-operation with the minister and his officials.
To begin work in this field officials in my department have begun planning a pilot project for consumer counselling. What we have in mind is to recruit the services of retired men and women who have an interest and background in economic or commercial affairs willing to donate their time to public service.
I think that is a creative suggestion and I am sure there are retired persons with knowledge and experience in life who would welcome an opportunity to undertake this type of work. I can think of some in my own district, and I will talk to the minister about that later.


Erik Nielsen: How about you, Bert?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not like the political inference. I continue reading from the minister's speech:
Such individuals may be former businessmen, union or co-op officials, school teachers who would wish to serve in local communities as initiators of a program of consumer counselling. This person would be available to give advice on matters of credit, real estate dealing-
That is very necessary.
-legal protection-

Corporate and Consumer Affairs
A most necessary thing.
-buying skills and financial management. Most important, they would work with existing agencies in the area such as credit unions, settlement houses, fraternal organizations, church and welfare organizations with a view to establishing consumer programs of counselling, information and training particularly relevant to the needs of low income consumers. In this way they can act as a catalyst for local community action to repair consumer inequalities.
I think those are very constructive suggestions.
Our pilot project will select two or three communities initially and, if successful, can be expanded using the services of dedicated, skilled individuals who have retired from their own occupations. The provinces would naturally have to play an important part in this scheme for it to be successful.
There is no question that if this legislation is going to be successful it has to have the willing co-operation of the provinces and the participation of other organizations and individuals.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
2.	Our plans also include far more stringent and effective enforcement of the laws dealing with matters of fraud, misrepresentation and restraint of trade. There must be better protection against unethical business practices. We need the co-operation of the provinces to fashion a co-ordinated and efficient system.
I think that is very necessary and fundamental.
3.	Finally, the very presence of a consumer-oriented department in government gives us the opportunity to enact new legislation and influence the development of new policies that can improve the position of the new consumer. The proposed action on drugs is an example. There will be others in the fields of packaging, labelling, weights and measures, misleading advertising, safety, etc.
I think that before making his speech the minister perhaps listened carefully to some of the speeches made by members in this group throughout the years. If he did, I give him credit for going to the right source to gather together the best information available.
These general programs I outline are, of course, only one part of the over-all approach required by the existence of millions of "troubled", low-income consumers, both those caught in poverty, and those who because of age, or youthful inexperience, or lack of consumer skills, find the market place restrictive to their ambitions, rather than the asset it should be. No one level of government can provide all the answers and there must be the concerted and co-ordinated involvement of the provinces, municipalities, schools, churches and private groups which have a stake in the consumer's battle.
November 17, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs
That is definitely so.
Poverty like war is a complex of problems that will not surrender to scattered action. There must be a dedicated, unified response utilizing the best resources and best minds in the country.
So when we talk about the challenges open to us in this new century, when we think of the greatness that can be ours, we must think in terms of how we build a society open to all citizens, spreading its advantages throughout the population.
That is the philosophy of this group.
The troubled consumer is, of course, only one dimension of the total program of problem solving required in the next generation. There is a large inventory of other issues-the state of our cities-
I quite agree with this.
-the rational development of our resources, the proper use of new communication and new technology, the direction of our foreign policy.
We in this group consider this to be most important.
Each of these require the full mobilization of power and effort in the Canadian community.
I have quoted at length from the minister's speech because I was very pleased to see that he had given some thought to these things which are of advantage to the country as a whole and the people whom we seek to serve. In conclusion I should like to wish the minister every success in the administration of this legislation. I realize it is somewhat experimental in nature, but we trust that as the years go by it will be to the great advantage of the Canadian consumer.


Mr. Loiselle:: Mr. Chairman, permit me to contribute in passing Bill No. C-161, which will be significant in the future, even though it is claimed that such a department should have been set up during previous parliaments.
I was somewhat surprised to hear the encomiums of the house philosopher, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), in contrast to the criticism of certain members of the opposition. Since the minister has the blessings of our great philosopher, I am sure this new legislation will succeed. I agree unreservedly with certain qualities that some hon. members have bestowed upon the incumbent of the new department, but I nevertheless wish him courage, boldness and determination to carry out the program he has laid down. Before taking my seat, I propose to remind him of certain objectives which he has set for himself and of the methods he has outlined during his speech on second reading.

If I am particularly concerned with the bill now before us, Mr. Chairman, it is because I represent a constituency largely made up of workers whose family budget is somewhat limited. I could state that approximately 30 per cent of the people in my constituency live in a state of hardship, want or poverty. I am convinced that the new department of corporate and consumer affairs will do much to enable the housewife to make the best possible use of the available budget.
In the last few years particularly, there has been talk of waging war on poverty. This war on poverty should not be waged only with money and all kinds of subsidies. Social assistance measures, social security measures, assistance to housing must be provided of course, but care must also be taken that subsidies will be used in the best possible way by those who receive them and in this, the new department can do a great deal.
I consider most important the role the new department will play in the field of merchandising. A great quantity of products are offered to the public and the various advertising techniques often risk misleading the consumers. As a matter of fact, when shopping, a housewife must often give much thought and make many calculations to be sure of the quality and quantity of the items she buys. The various representations made by housewives in the last few years prove that a problem exists, and I am glad to note that the new department of corporate and consumer affairs intends to control very closely manufacturers' advertising, and see to it that goods are honestly and completely described.
The department will have to keep a sharp eye on radio and television advertising. Some ads are in bad taste and, above all, create new needs for families. I know quite well that the ultimate purpose of advertising is to promote products to attract consumers. But should we not consider imposing limitations on advertising? Is it desirable, for instance, to advertise a cigarette brand by implying that fashionable people, the boy who is with it, must smoke such a brand? Can we accept that a certain beer should be advertised by suggesting that, when things go wrong, the best way to get out of trouble is to drink that beer?
In that field of advertising, I wish to protest particularly against advertising intended for children. For instance, now the holiday season is coming on. Every year, parents with limited means complain about the fact that some televised programs for children
November 17, 1967

involve a form of advertising which leads the child to ask for the most expensive toys. The little girl does not merely want any doll for Christmas; she demands a doll which does all kinds of special tricks and which, of course, is very expensive. If the parents cannot afford to buy the doll which was advertised, Christmas day will be disappointing, even if the parents have made great sacrifice to offer their children the toys they could afford. To me, that publicity is but odious blackmail. I would suggest that the new department consider forbidding publicity aimed directly at children, by virtue of the principle that they are not responsible, are easily influenced and unable to understand the need to limit their demands to the possibilities of the family budget.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The department to be created by Bill No. C-161 can contribute a lot to educating the consumer. There again, the experience of the people in my riding enables me to see the numerous possibilities in that field. Where a couple barely has enough for the basic needs, the ability of the mother to manage the family budget can mean the difference between a happy family and a poverty-stricken family. The women consumers must be taught to plan their budget; they must be taught to save, to choose their products and to set up the priorities in the needs of the family.
How should we educate housewives? By means of various publications, radio and television spot announcements, even contacts between housewives and management experts. Some thought could be given, perhaps, to setting up, in less fortunate areas, information centres where housewives could be instructed in budget planning and the best possible use of the limited funds available. Furthermore, such centres could be a clearing house for housewives' complaints against fraudulent advertising or excessive price ranges; housewives could even voice their suggestions to these centres, which would pass them on to the department of corporate and consumer affairs, as suggested by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray).
Such a campaign for consumer education should not be limited to adults. The department should also educate teen-agers who spend lavishly the first dollars they earn. I come back to the idea I expressed a moment ago: some persons may receive many pensions, several welfare cheques, but if they do not know how to manage their budget, they will always remain as poor and their family will always be indigent.
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
To conclude, I want to emphasize the task which the department of consumer and corporate affairs will have to perform in the field of credit. I could give a list of many families in my riding which have been defrauded, not to say robbed, by finance companies or door to door salesmen who bring to bear too much sales pressure often on credit, for goods of very dubious quality.
The future head of that department mentioned the reports of the Economic Council which point out that, as a whole, the general provisions of the Criminal Code against fraudulent sales practices constitute, on the part of the federal government, a key legislation to protect the consumer. I am happy to note that the future department will co-ordinate the application of the various measures to protect the consumer against lenders whose honesty is often questionable. There again the department of corporate and consumer affairs will be able to educate the consumers. It is necessary to let the people know, especially those with a low income, about the danger of borrowing too often and too much.
In my remarks, I stressed mainly the role of educator that the future department will play. I am convinced that many people are living in misery because they lack information on all kinds of things and cannot get the most out of the money at their disposal.
The new department, Mr. Chairman, also includes the corporations but, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, I intend to speak of consumer affairs only.
Before concluding, I should like to remind the head of this new department of the goals he had established and the course he intended to follow in his new department. This is excellent, in my opinion, at least at the beginning, and it will help to control and perhaps stop, for some time at least, this price increase about which all the housewives are complaining.
Here is what the minister said, as shown on pages 3232 and 3233 of the official report of last October 18:
Our goals are simple, and I wish to summarize them.
I am greatly encouraged to see that the minister is taking things so well and that he seems certain of the future of his department, because his list of goals is quite long. In fact, he has a great many. As he seems to be so very hopeful, I wish him all the success in the world and, as I said at the beginning, his courage and determination will help him
November 17, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs to reach his goals. I continue to quote from his speech:
We wish to ensure, first, that the Canadian as a consumer is afforded full protection against fraud, deception and unfair trade practices; second, that he is offered the maximum standards of quality, safety and protection in the services and goods he buys; third, that he is provided with full and accurate information on which to base his purchases; fourth, that he is given strong and active representation in the councils of government; fifth, that he becomes involved in debates and discussions on those decisions affecting his vital consumer interests; sixth, that he is able to make maximum use of the amazing storehouse of riches in the Canadian market. To do this, we are trying to build a department that will, first, make use of the best of modern organizational and program methods to get the best value for the dollar spent in government services.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I hope the department will be set up as soon as possible, in order to help those who, according to certain figures, make up between 30 and 40 per cent of our population. As I said at the beginning, in my own riding, whose population is mostly made up of the working class, at least 30 per cent of the people are deprived of the necessities of life. I venture to hope that, thanks to the measures to be taken, these people will now be protected against a certain exaggerated publicity and that it will be possible to teach them to draw up their budget in the best possible way, so as to regenerate family life.


Howard Earl Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a great deal of sympathy at the beginning of the debate this afternoon for the hon. member for Yukon who protested that his party had lost its traditional place. However, that sympathy evaporated a moment ago when the hon. member pointed out that the members of his party had said all they want to say in this debate and therefore the rest of us should remain silent. This inability to face the reality of Canadian politics as they exist at the present time exemplifies one of the factors involved in the failure of that member's party to increase its support in the country. This is one of the factors which will have to change very soon if those hon. members wish to achieve greater success.


Mr. More:: That is good advice coming from one from your part of the country.


Howard Earl Johnston: The amendment before us at the present time strikes me as being a mistake. I opposed the resolution introducing this bill to set up a department of consumer affairs on the grounds that it was not really

necessary. I now find that the amendment is compounding that error.
Let me enlarge on the reasons for my feeling that it is an error and a compounding of an error. One of the things the Registrar General will have to learn during his rapidly advancing political career is how to recognize an attack. Certain qualities he brings with him to his political career, which were outlined to the house the other evening by the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas and I shall not repeat them at this time caused people such as the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway to rush to his assistance. That hon. lady rushed to his assistance the other day when we were debating the resolution. She had some suggestions for him which she felt were important. In any event he should recognize an attack, no matter how attractively packaged, advertised or presented. I know of no one who can do these things better than the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. As a result, I am afraid he accepted one suggestion she presented the other afternoon and it appears now in the amendment.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I think the emphasis here is most dangerous. The hon. member for Yukon has pointed out correctly that the amendment is phony. He did a very good job of pointing out in the debate on the resolution that the legislation is phony. I have to agree with the hon. member when he says this. I suppose what the amendment will do is fool some of the public a little more into assuming that the government, by laying its massive hand on various aspects of industry, will actually protect the public. This is something I very much doubt.
I was impressed by an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of last Wednesday. It was written by Mr. Bruce Hutchison who at the present time works out of my province. The article is entitled "World Corporations Seen As Way To Revolutionizing Life." Mr. Hutchison bases his article on conversations he had with Anthony Wedgwood Benn and George W. Ball during a recent trip to Britain. I should like to quote at some length from the article because I believe it contains some things which are very pertinent to the amendment and the bill before us this afternoon. Mr. Hutchison says that Mr. Wedgwood Benn:
-begins with the remarkable pledge that the Labour government is totally committed to "the success and profitability" of private enterprise in Britain. He adds that "no previous British government, of any party, has hitherto entered into such a commitment."
November 17, 1967

Of course, he has correctly defined the political situation in Britain at the present time, where the government that calls itself Labour is nothing of the kind but is working in any way it can to stave off a disaster that has been at least partially produced by the excesses of the policies for which Labour has usually stood. The article goes on to say:
While the British economy must always be "mixed," with deep intervention by the state, "the profitability of a mixed economy is an essential prerequisite of economic growth and commercial success." So much for the myth of pure "socialism" and the evils of profit still nourished by a dwindling group of nostalgic socialists of Canada.
I feel that this bill and the amendment are part of the last gasp in Canada of that approach to profit. Mr. Wedgwood Benn did not stop there, because the article continues:
But Mr. Wedgwood Benn lifts it to a new and unfamiliar level where the thinking of the Canadian government, the Opposition and the New Democratic party has not yet arrived.
You notice, Mr. Chairman, that the Social Credit party was omitted there, because we arrived at approximately this level back in 1935 and have stayed there ever since. The article goes on to say:
In a word, he has grasped the fact that modem technology is basically revolutionizing the world economy, and man's entire way of life, in a totally unexpected fashion and making most of his economic and political notions quite obsolete.
This is the appeal I make to the minister this afternoon, namely, that he recognize an obsolete suggestion when it is handed to him. I refer to the suggestion that we set up a department purporting to protect the consumer and then this afternoon go through the legerdemain of shifting the title around. We must recognize that this will not protect the consumer. We must also recognize the obsolescence of the approach in which the minister and the government are involved at the present time. This article goes on to say:
The first phase of this revolution proclaims itself in vast, privately owned international corporations, most of them based in the United States. Already "they have established such superiority over their international competitors that no single European country, even if it merged every company in a single field into one monolithic industrial group, could alone stand against them. I am certain that corporations like those hold the future of the world's high-technology industries in their hands."
Finally, we have a quotation from Mr. Ball, the other source from which the writer drew the information for his article:
With a daring but typical lunge into the unknown, Mr. Ball proposes some international authority, established by treaty, to license and control the
Corporate and Consumer Affairs new corporate colossi so that they may nourish man's wealth without abusing his natural rights and his differing national aspirations.
It is in this field that the problem lies. For this reason, if we must have this bill at all, and if the official opposition lies down before the challenge of the presentation of the bill, for goodness sake let us at least defeat this amendment and leave the word "corporate" as one of the first words in the title. If we are to protect the consumer now and in the future, attention must be given to the overwhelmingly important problems on the world economic scene and not to the size of the package and whether or not it has a dish towel in it.
This is why I regret that the tremendous variety of women's organizations which sprang up about a year ago to bring to governmental and public attention the abuses that were going on in this area have felt that their only objective should be to turn the whole matter over to the government. Surely any member who has sat in this House of Commons for any length of time and has had to work through the levels of governmental bureaucracy in order to solve the simplest problem knows that this is not the only way to keep track of the number of ounces in a box of soap, that an aroused public, an educated public concerned about the abuses that they wish prevented will always be needed. If we think the enormous effort of government can be focused on some of these small packages, we are looking at the wrong end of the problem altogether.
I listened this afternoon with interest as usual, to the hon. member for Kootenay West who gave us a variety of examples where the public has not been sufficiently educated or sufficiently careful in its shopping or purchasing habits. The hon. member referred to a lady from this area who confessed to being negligent in repairing her children's underwear. I was rather surprised that he should have raised this sensitive topic in the house at this time, but he did. One really cannot mind that because the hon. member for Kootenay West always looks after his constituents in a way that any member could well copy.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The only thing I criticize is his conclusion. He seemed to feel that the good lady should get busy with needle and thread and that he should in some way reprimand her for a statement that he found surprising. I would say to him and to all the members of the
November 17, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs party he represents that they should "get with it" just a bit. He should have recommended the lady as a recipient of the centennial medal for her contribution to the Canadian economy because she is on the right track. We know that manufacturers have given us great variety, usefulness, beauty and ease in our present society, articles such as instant coffee, paper tissues, automobiles, and other products which move us and assist us. Within two years they will be providing us with disposable underwear which the good lady will not need to darn nor wash because it will be made of paper.
The hon. member for Kootenay West should recognize the great economic advantage to his own constituency of such a move. This is part of the technological revolution described in this article. Especially in view of the construction of the vast hydroelectric projects and in view of the vast forest resources of his constituency, the hon. member should write a letter of commendation to the lady for being ahead of her time. Perhaps she is approaching the immediate situation in a rather uneconomical way but she is looking to the future which is coming sooner than we think.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he not realize that the first person I consider is the small farmer?


Howard Earl Johnston: Yes, of course, but the farsighted policies of the Social Credit government of British Columbia have placed forest reserves on most of the lands in the province which are unfit for agriculture and in fact have moved some of the marginal land which was unfit for agriculture back into forest reserves. Therefore in really vast areas of the province we must be concerned not about the agricultural industry, which is important to some parts of his constituency and very important to mine, but with the forest industry.
Last of all, Mr. Chairman, I suggest there is a strange anomaly in this government moving in a variety of pseudo fashions to present itself as the great protector of the consumer and at the same time enabling the introduction of lotteries on the Canadian scene, because if anything removes purchasing power from the hands of the consumers who need it most lotteries will do it. If we pass this bill this afternoon and it becomes the law of the land, we shall have to take a very good look at the other bill when it comes before us.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, as usual the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke applied a new version of the twist to the words I used when I rose last to speak very briefly and appealed to hon. members to pass this legislation as well as the other two pieces of legislation listed for discussion today. We on this side want to co-operate and expedite the business of the house, but if we are to listen to the kind of accusations made by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke we will not get very far because members on this side will be compelled to participate. His speeches are usually pompous and most of them are empty of content, empty of any constructive contribution and completely devoid of any thinking. Perhaps if he could stop the practice of mumbling in his beard we might understand him. I will simply say that his speeches can be compared to a steer. They have a point on each side with a lot of bull in between.
I say once again that we on this side are prepared to deal conclusively with this legislation this afternoon. It was first debated on June 16 when the minister's estimates were being considered and later on October 7, October 18 and October 19. Eight members of the New Democratic party have participated in the debate, two members of the hon. gentleman's party have spoken, and several members on this side. We feel that all useful contributions have been made, and we are prepared to pass the bill so that the minister can start doing the job which everybody thinks he should be doing.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, may I begin by expressing some amusement at the usual arrogance we have come to expect from the hon. member for Yukon. Having made his speech some days ago and received the frontpage publicity he wanted, having made his speech today-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And having nothing more to say.


David Orlikow: and the members of his party not being particularly interested in this important piece of legislation which affects the welfare of every consumer in this country, he is prepared to let this bill go forward without further discussion. The hon. member for Yukon is a member of a party which since I have come here has filibustered many other issues, a party which yesterday would not permit a vote on an important issue, a party which kept the debate on the flag going for weeks. I do not think we should have to
November 17, 1967

listen to lectures from members of that party when some of us want to discuss in detail and clause by clause a bill which will have an important effect in protecting the rights of the consumers of this country.


Mr. Churchill:: Tell us more about the Conservative party. I like that.


David Orlikow: It is pretty hard to find any adherents of the Conservative party in my part of Winnipeg so I cannot tell the hon. member much about it. They are gone like the ancient dinosaurs.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Like the New Democratic party in Winnipeg South Centre.


Mr. Webb:: The hon. member is here only once in a while so he has to make a speech.


David Orlikow: The hon. member who has just interjected, and who usually interjects at what he considers to be appropriate times when it would be much better for him to keep quiet, should not speak about my attendance here which I would compare at any time with the attendance of 99 per cent of the members of his party who today are conspicuous by their absence.
The bill now before us is an important one. I join with some of my colleagues who have expressed their concern and disapproval of the idea of placing under one department and one minister the responsibility of protecting the interests of the consumers and the responsibility of regulating corporations. It seems to me it is like putting a lamb and a lion in one pit. We know who survives in that kind of situation.
It seems to me also that the corporations have enough representation in the house. They have good representation in the Department of Trade and Commerce and they have good friends in the Department of Industry, as they should. I think that the consumers of this country could well have a department in which the minister and his staff would have one job, to protect the interests of the consumers.
Our society works through various groups which organize and band together to make their views and desires known to governments and to the community as a whole. This is as it should be. The working people of this country are represented by their trade unions and by two trade union federations. The manufacturers are represented by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. The farmers are represented by the National
Corporate and Consumer Affairs Farmers' Union and by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I could go on naming the interest groups which have representation and organizations. When something happens that affects them they are very quick to come here to tell the government and the various political parties what they think should be done. And so they should, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, the consumers have not been able to organize and to make their desires felt.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The proposal to set up this department is one with which the members of this party agree. We have a very young, presentable, and if one reads the press reports, a very able minister. He has been travelling across the country making speeches about what he thinks he needs to do in his job and about some of the problems faced by consumers. This is all to the good. Some of his ideas are excellent; they ought to be, because they have been put forward for a number of years.
I want to refer to some of the things that the minister indicated his department will be undertaking. Unlike my colleague from Kootenay West, I am not going to quote the minister verbatim in one of his speeches, copies of which seem to arrive on our desks three or four times a week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He did not make a speech at Edmonton though. We missed that.


David Orlikow: That may be. I cannot keep track of them. However, I do want to quote from two articles which appeared in the Financial Post for April 15, 1967. They concern some of the things that the minister sees his department undertaking. For example, he is going to increase his investigation and research staff. The combines investigation department has been told to recruit more economists and lawyers; the actual investigation staff will probably be doubled. That is an excellent idea. I wonder what will happen to this proposal, Mr. Chairman, in light of the austerity program of the Minister of Finance.
The minister is also planning to put more teeth into our existing law. For example, if the minister has his way directors of companies who are guilty of flagrant price fixing may face criminal charges. As the minister says: "Why should only trade unionists go to jail?" That is a question I have been asking for two or three years now.
November 17. 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs
1 want to know what the minister has been doing since April. Where is the legislation that will spell out the authority he is to be given to do this sort of thing? It is not on the order paper.


Erik Nielsen: He is waiting for us to pass the bill.


David Orlikow: Nonsense, we do not have to pass the bill. The minister is in office and has staff, and he could have got on with it a long time ago.
There is also going to be an extension of the combines legislation to cover service industries. According to the Financial Post it is no secret that the minister would like to launch an investigation into professional sport, the activities of the National Hockey League and the Canadian Football League.
It should not be very difficult for the minister to do this, Mr. Chairman. All he has to do is to talk to the former member for York West, Mr. "Red" Kelly who, when he decided it was time to stop playing hockey and to become a coach, was told in no uncertain terms by the Toronto Maple Leafs that they owned his contract for life and that he could not do anything until they gave permission.
So I ask, where is the legislation? I remember the former member for Port Arthur, before I came to the house asked a former minister of justice when the government would amend the legislation so that it would be impossible for the National Hockey League to sign to contracts youngsters of 12 and 13 years of age, contracts which tied them to particular hockey teams for the rest of their lives, if they wanted to play hockey for gain. Talk about slavery in the United States before the civil war. We have slavery here in Canada, Mr. Chairman. Why is the minister waiting all these months before taking some action in this regard?
The article goes on to say that the legislation will open the way for injured parties in price fixing cases to sue in civil courts for damages. I remember, Mr. Chairman, when certain electric companies in the United States-Westinghouse, General Electric and several others-were prosecuted in that famous case, and some of their officers were treated like ordinary people who broke the law and sent to jail for a month, something which we have never done. I suggest the minister should look at this possibility. I cannot think of anything which would make directors and officers of Canadian corporations think more seriously about obeying our laws than this kind of action, instead of
['Mr. Orlikow.]
patting them over the wrist with a $25,000 fine.
When this action was taken in the United States, Mr. Chairman, it was followed up with something even more salutary. It was followed by the electric utility companies, both co-operative and private, going to the courts of the United States and suing these large companies which had mulcted them and the public, by fixing rates far higher than they ought to for generators and other equipment which the electric utilities had to buy. The companies were sued in the courts for the amounts which these utility companies felt they had overpaid. Speaking from memory-and I think I am correct-under United States law I think you are permitted to sue not only for damages but for triple damages. The minister is kind enough to help me by confirming what I say. I ask once again, where is the draft of this legislation? Why is it not on the order paper?
I could continue to quote from the article, but I think I have made my point, Mr. Chairman. The minister has said all the right things, and they are very nice to hear. Perhaps they help him a great deal in his quest for the leadership of the Liberal party. I do not mind if he is successful in that quest; I am not too worried about that; but I do wish he would spend some time in Ottawa running his department. I wish the minister would get on with his job.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


David Orlikow: Someone opposite says "oh". I should like to come to some specifics. Ever since I came to the house in 1962, and even before that, members of the house from all parties-Conservative, N.D.P., Liberal-have been putting on the order paper private bills to amend the law so as to put some sort of check or restraint on the sort of thing that happens to ordinary citizens who find themselves in difficulty and have to borrow money.
I want to give credit-he is a Liberal, though I do not understand why-to the campaign conducted over the years by Senator Croll, a campaign which has been very successful.


Mr. Prud'homme:: He is a Liberal.


David Orlikow: Precisely; that is the point I am making. I wish members over there would listen to Senator Croll. As a result of this campaign and as a result of the large number of bills which have been put on the
November 17, 1967

order paper and debated in the house over a period of many years dealing with this subject, the government finally got busy and established the joint committee on consumer credit. I was on that committee initially, but was replaced later by my colleague from Waterloo South. This committee had a large number of meetings running over several years. It made a very detailed report, and if the minister has been too busy travelling across the country making speeches to read it, I would commend that report to him.
This report was tabled in February of this year. I am not going to read the whole report because it runs to well over 100 pages, but there are some very specific recommendations made in the report in respect to changes in the legislation which, if adopted, would protect to a large extent the ordinary people in this country. I just want to give one illustration of the kind of robbery-I realize, of course, it is not legal robbery- that affects people who can ill afford it.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The Financial Post of three or four years ago carried the story of a recently landed immigrant who became the victim of a mortgage broker. He borrowed and received $1,500 from the broker, but to get that amount he had to sign a note and promise to repay $2,350. The extra $850 represented the arranging fee. After paying the prescribed $35 a month for three years the immigrant found that he still owed $1,580, which was more than the amount he had originally borrowed. He thought he was paying an interest rate of 7 per cent, but the actual interest rate turned out to be 30 per cent.
This instance is not new, nor is it isolated. There are thousands like it every year. That is the sort of thing which the joint committee on consumer credit looked at and made recommendations about. I shall read into the record a few of those recommendations. The first one, to be found on page 3 of the report on consumer credit, reads as follows:
We endorse the principle of what is popularly known as "truth in lending": that is, the principle embodied in the disclosure bills that have been repeatedly introduced in the Senate and in the House of Commons. Specifically, we recommend that every person, firm or corporation, including every chartered bank, carrying on the business of extending consumer credit, shall be required by law to disclose to the consumer the total cost of that credit, expressed both as a lump sum and in terms of simple annual interest.
The second recommendation reads:
The principle of "truth in lending" should be extended to provide protection for all potential 27053-279
Corporate and Consumer Affairs borrowers, whether or not they are at the point of committing themselves to a purchase or a loan. For this reason it is essential that all advertising of credit should truthfully and accurately state the total cost of the credit to the consumer.
Stopping there for a moment, Mr. Chairman, I wish to tell the minister that in discussing these matters previously I have illustrated my remarks by referring to advertisements which appeared in Winnipeg newspapers. I am sure that similar advertisements appear in newspapers of other cities. I am speaking of advertisements which urge people to borrow up to $5,000 and which say that repayments are to be as little as $50 a month. One is not told for how many months he must pay. I suggest to the minister, and I agree with the committee, that this kind of advertising is immoral, unjust and ought to be stopped.
The fourth recommendation of the committee was the following:
We recommend that the Parliament of Canada extend the protection accorded to borrowers under the Small Loans Act so as to include loans up to $5,000 rather than loans up to $1,500, with appropriate interest ceilings.
The sixth recommendation is:
Consumers are sometimes compelled to pay for faulty or defective goods, or even for goods they never receive. This is particularly hard on the consumer when, as occasionally happens, the purchaser of his obligation to pay has no knowledge of the original transaction. To prevent situations of that kind, we recommend that every bill or note given in connection with a retail credit transaction be required to be so marked on its face.
I could go on and on because the committee brought in many excellent and essential recommendations. But where are they reflected in the legislation? I know that in the area of consumer credit the jurisdiction is divided between the federal government and the provinces. I also know that a number of provinces already have acted on the basis of this study and on the basis of their own studies. Speaking from memory, I think I am right in saying that in this area of consumer matters the province of Nova Scotia has passed legislation, as have the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario. But where is the federal legislation?
Apart from the time the minister spends campaigning for the Liberal leadership he ought to devote his full time to working out the details of this legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was he not told to stop?


David Orlikow: He was told to stop campaigning for a while. He, his department and
November 17, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs his assistants ought to be working out the details of this legislation, and they ought to spell out in that legislation the unanimous all party recommendations of the committee.
The time has long passed for the minister to go running around making his nice, popular speeches which he has made to groups across the country. The time for action has come, and that action ought to be not only in the field of consumer credit. I shall not repeat the arguments advanced by my colleagues from Vancouver-Kingsway and Waterloo South, but they argue that the government and the department ought to set up a prices review board. I do not expect the minister to accept that argument. After all, the prices review board might feel it necessary to call before it General Motors or the Chrysler Corporation and ask them to give to the people of Canada a statement which would show the financial records of the last few years, which would show the investment in Canada and which would show the corporate net profits of those concerns in Canada.
I do not know what those profits are; none of our laws require that disclosure. It is sad when we in Canada must find out from the United States what the three top officers of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company earned in the year for which they reported. The figures as disclosed revealed that they earned almost $300,000, or an average of $100,000 for each of them. And how did we learn that? We learned it because of the United States regulations. United States law requires that any company wishing to sell shares or borrow money in the United States must file a detailed financial statement, which is to include the salaries of its top officials, with the securities and exchange commission of the United States.
The people of Canada wish to know what are the profits of the automobile manufacturers. I do not object to the principle of the Canada-U.S. auto pact; we ratified that auto agreement and under its provisions we agreed to forgo almost $50 million a year in tariffs. That $50 million, Mr. Chairman, went to the auto manufacturers.
I know that today more people than ever before are working in automobile factories in Canada, and this is good; I know that we are making more automobiles than ever before in Canada, and this is good; but we also know that cars made in Canada, by Canadian automobile makers, are shipped to the United States and sold in cities like Buffalo more cheaply than similar cars are sold in Canada.


Clearly, then, one of two things is happening. The cars are being sold in the United States at a loss, which I do not believe, or, if they are being sold more cheaply in the United States than similar cars are sold in Canada, the profits which are made in Canada are exorbitant. I think the people of Canada are entitled to a full disclosure on a year to year basis of the financial position of every company operating in this country.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The minister in that interview which I quoted from the Financial Post said this was something he would like to see. Well, many of us on this side of the house would like to see it. But we do not have the authority to draft the necessary legislation and we certainly do not have the authority to induce the government to bring in the legislation. However, one would expect a minister responsible for a new department charged with that responsibility to have that authority, and I should like to know where the legislation is.
Turning now to another subject, I raise this question because it has been a source of irritation to many people, particularly those who can least afford the kind of treatment I am about to describe. To indicate that I do not mind giving credit where credit is due, I will point out that back in 1963 the government of the United Kingdom, at that time a Conservative government, brought in legislation which provided that when a person who had made a purchase outside the premises of the seller later came to the conclusion that he had made a mistake, he had the right within 72 hours to inform the company which had made the sale that he did not wish to go through with the purchase. Any money he had paid would be returned.
This is an excellent idea, and the Conservative party of Great Britain which brought in this legislation deserves a great deal of credit. I am sure there is not a member of parliament who has not heard from one of his constituents that, while he was at work, a salesman for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or a salesman of aluminum doors had called on his wife, given her some persuasive sales talk and got her to sign a contract in which she agreed to purchase volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica which would probably never be used, or aluminum doors and windows which could be purchased locally at half the price mentioned in the contract. Some of the provinces have taken action to stop this kind of thing. It seems to me that this is one of the recommendations which the
November 17, 1967	COMMONS
consumers committee made in its general report. But where is the legislation?
I say to the minister in all seriousness: If he wants to do a job, if he wants to leave his mark in Canada, if he wants to be the leader of the Liberal party, let us have an end to these speeches. We are all for good; we are all against evil. Let us have an end to speeches-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: -about what the minister intends to do or about what the government intends to do. Let us get down to the cold and realistic facts of legislation-


Erik Nielsen: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: -which will spell out precisely what the government intends to do about these important matters.
The hon. member for Yukon said "Hear hear." He wants us to pass the legislation: It is not very good legislation; it will not do much; but let us get it passed. That is how much the hon. member for Yukon is worried about the problems of the consumer. The reason we are speaking about this, the reason we are not letting this go through, is that we are concerned about the affairs of consumers. We do believe the consumer needs a department; we do believe the consumer needs protection; we do believe the government of Canada should establish a department of consumer affairs; we do believe we need a minister of consumer affairs. But we believe we need a minister of consumer affairs who will stop talking and get on with the job.


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


John Napier Turner: Having spoken on my estimates, at the resolution stage and when we introduced the bill on second reading, as the hon. member for Yukon has already stated, I do not think I need say any more at this point.
With all respect to the committee, most of the questions and points which have been admirably brought up this morning and this afternoon were dealt with by myself in those speeches.
With respect to the amendment introduced by my hon. friend from Essex West, I have stated that this department will represent primarily the demand side of the market place, and I am prepared to accept his reasoning though I do not have particularly strong feelings one way or the other. I have
DEBATES	4421
Corporate and Consumer Affairs advanced arguments to show that both the corporate and the consumer functions are properly to be found in one department. Therefore we would be prepared to accept the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
On clause 3-Department established.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Perhaps I should rise now on a point of order which may facilitate the disposition of this bill. When I spoke on clause 2 and moved an amendment which the committee has now been good enough to approve, I pointed out that I intended to ask for similar amendments to be made to a number of other clauses. I provided notice of these amendments to the Chair and to the representatives of the various parties.
May I suggest to the committee that it might be convenient at this point to agree to the other amendments, which are in exactly the same terms as the one just accepted by the committee, and approve them en bloc? This is of course subject to the new clause, as amended, being accepted by the committee. I have in mind amendments to clauses 3, 4 9, 10, 12(2), schedule II and the long title.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member asked whether the members of the committee would be agreeable to that course, but I think the Chair should have to say something about this. It seems to me we have to take the clauses one at a time and pass on them in order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps I should refer members of the committee to standing order 78:
In proceedings In committee of the whole house upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and if the first clause contains only a short title it is also postponed: then every other clause is considered by the committee in its proper order; the first clause (if it contains only a short title), the preamble and the title are to be last considered.
I recognize that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex West is one which affects a number of the clauses of this bill. Possibly, by unanimous consent, it would be possible to make the necessary amendments en bloc, but my own preference as Chairman is that they should be made to the clauses as they are brought up for consideration by the committee.
4422	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs [DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman. Therefore, with respect to clause 3 I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo North:
That Bill C-161, an act to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs, be amended by substituting for the words "corporate and consumer affairs", wherever they occur in clause 3 thereof and in the heading to that clause, the words "consumer and corporate affairs".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I have been looking at the subclauses in clause 3, and I discover that when the Department of Industry was set up in 1963 it had similar provisions. Clause 2 says that there shall be a minister of corporate and consumer affairs, and clause 3(1) says that there shall be a department of corporate and consumer affairs over which the minister shall preside. Then we have subclause (2) which says:
The minister holds office during pleasure and has the management and direction of the department of corporate and consumer affairs.
Of course ministers hold office during pleasure. That has been established procedure. In subclause (1) we determine that the minister shall preside over the department. Why do we need subclause (2) to say that he shall have the management and direction of the department, and then have the minister's duties set out in clause 5? Although I notice that this was done in 1963, this would not be the first time something has gone through the house without being noted. I keep telling my colleagues that everything put in front of us by this government should be examined under a microscope because errors have crept into every bill that it has presented. This may be established practice, but I think it is a bad practice. I think it should be struck out, and therefore I move:
That clause 3 of Bill C-161 be amended by striking out subclause (2) of the clause.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment
carry?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre anticipated my answer when he suspected that this might be a standard clause, and so it is. Clause 3 is merely a re-enactment of section 6(1) and (2) of the Government Organization Act of 1966 which set up the Department of the Registrar General. I am advised by the law officers of the crown that both subclauses are necessary and complement each other. The first establishes the
[The Chairman.]
DEBATES	November 17. 1967
department over which a minister shall preside. The second gives the minister the active management and control of the department during pleasure, which is an indefinite term depending on the Governor General, and probably a longer term than the hon. member would like.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The fact that this was done in 1966 in another statute does not make it sound any more sensible to me. Has it any firmer ground to rest on than that? I have just been reading an article in the press about information being given to people in public administration by one of our distinguished civil servants. I realize that they are taking over everything we are doing in this country, and that parliamentarians have not the specialized knowledge that is necessary to cope with the problems of government. I recognize my knowledge is limited, but is it necessary that this should be done? Cannot the minister make a decision on this himself, without being instructed what to do by other people within the service?


John Napier Turner: I know that the hon. member would want me to ask for the advice of the law officers of the crown, and accept it if judged apropos and within reason. I can remember the hon. member for Yukon making quite an issue in the house at one time about the referral of administrative decisions, involving legal discretion, to the law officers of the crown.
Basically subclause (1) establishes the department. Subclause (2) establishes the managerial authority and responsibility of the minister over the department. In the opinion of the law officers of the crown they are both necessary to establish the authority of the department, and of the minister over the department. I can say no more to the hon. member but thank him for his very astute question.


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the operations of the committee, and if the minister is satisfied that these instructions are necessary in the bill, providing for direction over himself and the department, then having regard to his youthfulness and need for direction they may be necessary; and so I would like to withdraw my amendment.
November 17, 1967


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Churchill) withdrawn.
Clause 3 as amended agreed to.
On clause 4-Deputy minister.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, again in line with your ruling on the procedure with respect to amendments I would move:
That Bill C-161, an act to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs, be amended by substituting for the words "corporate and consumer affairs", wherever they occur in clause 4 thereof, the words "consumer and corporate affairs."


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would just like to ask the minister if this is satisfactory to the law officers of the crown?


John Napier Turner: Yes, indeed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the hon. member the French name of this department.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It is: le ministere de la Consom-mation et des Corporations.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Very well.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I have given the chairman and the other members of this committee French copies of all these amendments. As a member concerned with the question of national unity, I am used to working all the time in the two official languages of the country.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 as amended agreed to.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
On clause 5-Duties of Minister.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, when we discuss the powers and duties of the minister I think I should cite something from an article which recently appeared in a publication which months previously had taken a great deal of trouble to produce a very laudatory article about the minister. I am referring to Canada Month for November 1967. I have not had the pleasure of reading the October issue, but I am sure it also must contain a great deal of laudatory material about the minister. In any event, let us take a look at
Corporate and Consumer Affairs this very short excerpt, which I think must go on the record:
And now the watchful eye of such clever guardians of us has been assumed into heaven and set into the new minister of consumer affairs. This is a minister who could say that, today, "because consumers are better educated", governments are expected to perform a better protective role. Which is the same conclusion he would undoubtedly draw from the notion that "consumers are not better educated". In other words, we shall be looked after, come what may.
With not a dissenting vote on the principle of looking after us, from any of our representatives. They all apparently think the same of us.
"Government measures to protect consumers are as old as history," the new minister told the House of Commons. He approvingly conjured up the historical image that "in ancient Athens there were functionaries who paraded fully armed through the marketplace to see that there was fair dealing." And there too, go we.
Today we have a new government department, to lead us. "We have here an opportunity to make the department of corporate and consumer affairs the most advanced of its kind in the western world ... We are going to do our best to respond to the challenge ..." said the minister.
With the author I ask: But who will protect us from the minister?


Mr. Priitie:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments which I should like to make in respect of clause 5(c), which refers to combines, mergers, monopolies and restraint of trade. There are some things which never change around Ottawa. They seem to go on for years and years. I recall that when I first came here in 1962 the royal commission on pilotage was sitting. That commission has not found its way to court yet and is beginning to be something of a joke around here.
At the same time the situation concerning combines and monopolies has not changed very much either. Successive ministers have come and gone and the same questions are asked. We never receive any answers. I have quite a file which includes questions asked first of Mr. Chevrier, and then of the late Mr. Favreau. The answer always has been that something is going to be done about the Canadian combines law. But nothing seems to happen.
Just the other day I saw a newspaper report to the effect that when the Registrar General was speaking, I think in western Canada, he promised something along this line.


Erik Nielsen: How did he get out there?


Robert William Prittie: That was one of the week ends when they were allowed to travel. I will not take the time today to quote chapter and
November 17, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs verse, but whenever the estimates of the department concerned with combines have come up, I have asked the minister what is being done about this and the reply always has been that something would be done. Some very important speeches have been made on this subject. In one of those speeches the late Mr. Favreau, in October, 1964, before the Association of Canadian General Counsel at Montebello, Quebec promised some real changes. That is more than three years ago now. In the meantime the reports of the restrictive trade practices commission continue to be turned out. I have a drawer full of them in my office. However, very little seems to happen in the way either of a change in the law or in the way of action upon the reports which have been made.
The years go by and nothing happens at all. I should like to suggest that surely the persons who are charged with the responsibility have now had enough time to do all the necessary studies. There is quite a lot of literature on this subject. They have had sufficient time to do the necessary studies and make recommendations. On the general question of the law concerning mergers, monopolies and combines, I believe the thinking of some of us has changed over the years. Bigness in itself is not bad. It may well be that in our Canadian economy a number of mergers should take place. We hear a great deal about the competition which Canadian industry will have to face. This will be intensified when the Kennedy round agreements are implemented. It may be that there is a good case for mergers and monopolies, so that our industries can become more efficient. If that should be the case, I suggest that some of these be allowed to take place. But once it has been done I think there must be some public accountability.
My colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo South, has spoken on this subject at other times. This is I believe where the prices review board comes into the picture. If monopolies are to be permitted to exist, it may be that in some cases in the public interest there should be some place where they will be accountable. It seems that it is in the public interest in some sectors to accomplish as much as it is possible. This is where we are weak. Court cases dating back to 1960 at least show the weakness of our laws in this connection. I cannot understand why in seven years no amendments have been proposed to the house to strengthen that

part of the Combines Investigation Act in an effort to promote competition wherever possible. I certainly would like to hear something from the minister concerning this aspect of the responsibilities of his department, before we proceed any further. I should like to know what is happening and what is likely to happen in that regard.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would care to make any comment at this time concerning whatever plans his department may have in respect of the present situation as it relates to combines and mergers. I am wondering whether some legislation is being drafted which will be presented to the house in the near future.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, in answer to that question, I may say that I believe I expressed our feeling at some length when I spoke on second reading and at the resolution stage. I should remind the hon. member that on July 22, 1966 the whole question of monopoly, merger and restraint of trade was referred by the then minister to the Economic Council of Canada, as one of three references. I would hope that at an early opportunity that particular reference would be reported back to the house, so that we would be in a position to take action along the lines I suggested in my speech on second reading.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, in respect of subclause (d) of clause 5, bankruptcy and insolvency, I should like to ask the minister a question, because I have been very interested in this subject over a good period of years. I believe I mentioned previously that, while I was an inspector in bankruptcy, the trustee made a report to the superintendent of bankruptcy which was not true and I refused to sign it. Nothing happened as a result, however. Would the minister tell the house who, under the administration of bankruptcy, is supposed to sign a report from the trustee to the superintendent of bankruptcy in connection with any bankruptcy?


John Napier Turner: It is my understanding that the trustee signs the report to the superintendent.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, in answer to my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, when he raised the question of possible legislation with regard to the regulation of combines, the minister said, quite properly, that this is one of the questions which has been referred to the Economic Council of Canada. Although he did not quite
November 17, 1967

say this, I presume he means that we will not have legislation before us until we have a report from the economic council. Has he been in contact with the economic council and, if so, does it appear to be likely that we will have a report from them in the near future. By the "near future" I do not mean next week or next month, but perhaps the spring of 1968. Are we going to have to wait until 1969 or 1970 before getting a report?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: I think it is important that the government assess the report of the Economic Council of Canada for some of the reasons mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Waterloo South relating to the changing economic factors.
Before Dr. Deutsch retired as chairman of that council I had a conversation with him as to the dates upon which the council would report on the references regarding combines, patents, trade marks and copyrights. He advised me that on the present schedule he would not anticipate a report before the fall of 1968.


David Orlikow: I have a great deal of respect for the economic council. At the same time I would urge the minister not to wait until he gets the report before bringing in legislation dealing with combines. This legislation has been on the books almost from the beginning of the career of a former Liberal prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, yet its effect has been minimal. As the leader of our party has said on a number of occasions, a fine of $10,000 or $20,000 imposed upon a company which does millions of dollars of business is really a very cheap licence to steal. Surely the government should not have to wait until it receives a comprehensive report from the economic council before it brings in some legislation in this regard. The people of Canada are beginning to doubt, if they did not have illusions before, that this government will really do anything about the combines in Canada which have spread to virtually every field of our economic activity.


Erik Nielsen: In view of the very few minutes left for discussion at the committee stage I cannot go into the subject of bankruptcy as deeply as I should like. The minister will recall what I said to him some time ago with regard to the number of references to the special bankruptcy fraud investigation function which had been set up in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. I believe some 200

Corporate and Consumer Affairs investigations had been completed in Montreal by the squad as of last June. From time to time some of these cases have been referred by myself to the R.C.M.P. If my memory serves me correctly some 58 references came from my office to the R.C.M.P. Has the minister these figures available to confirm my recollection, and can he tell whether any prosecutions have resulted from investigation of the matters I referred to the R.C.M.P.?


John Napier Turner: I can give the hon. member general figures, but I have not yet received the information which would relate these figures to the particular inquiries in which he is interested. As of September 28 this year, and we are talking now about investigations and prosecutions in progress under the Bankruptcy Act and the Criminal Code relating to bankruptcy, complaints presently under review by head office for investigation, as well as at regional offices, number 100. Investigations of complaints at the regional office in Montreal number 120, in Toronto 75 and in Vancouver 10. The superintendent of bankruptcy estimated on that date the R.C.M.P. were currently investigating approximately 80 complaints. Cases presently in the hands of prosecuting authorities for prosecution number as follows: for the federal Department of Justice, 35, and the provincial attorneys general, 25.
A few months ago in reply to a question by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace I stated that more than 200 investigations into alleged irregularities in bankruptcies on the part of bankrupts, creditors and trustees had been initiated by the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy. I had this reviewed again by the superintendent of bankruptcy and he advised me that the statistical facilities available to him are still not as complete as he would like. He feels this figure of 200 may appear to be high in view of the fact that the bankruptcy branch had only one officer working directly in Montreal. He reminded me that the bankruptcy branch was assisted by the bankruptcy squad of the R.C.M.P. which at that time had four to seven officers. One of the areas in which I hope we can make some improvement is in respect of statistical services available to the bankruptcy branch.
As to relating those prosecutions and investigations to those cases in which the hon. member for Yukon is interested, that is quite a job, because it requires a great deal of co-ordination between the Department of
November 17, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs Justice, the R.C.M.P., the Department of the Solicitor General, and our department. We will do our best to furnish the hon. member with this information.


Erik Nielsen: I thank the minister for those explanations. Perhaps very briefly he could tell us whether any of these prosecutions to which he has referred, and which have been completed, have resulted in any suspension of any licences of trustees under the Bankruptcy Act?


John Napier Turner: Before I answer a question like that I should like to be very sure of my information. I can say in the last two years there have been 60 trustees licences suspended for one reason or another.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Duties re consumer affairs.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that so much time was lost this afternoon. Several amendments that we on this side will be proposing, contrary to the anticipation of my friend from Winnipeg North, either will not be discussed to the extent they deserve, or will result in this bill being put over to another occasion.
In dealing with clause 6 briefly, after very careful consideration of the provisions of this clause, we have concluded that, in order to provide the minister with the kind of teeth to which we referred at the resolution stage and during debate on second reading, amendments are necessary. In subclause (2) of clause 6 we suggest to the minister that in line 3 there should be words which give the power of investigation to the minister. Nowhere in the bill is that power of investigation into irregularities or unlawful practices provided. Immediately following the word "research" in line 3 of subclause (2) we propose that the words "or investigation" should be added. We propose further that in line 7 of subclause (2) immediately following the word "research" the words "or investigation" should be added. Third, immediately following the word "research" in line 9 of subclause (2) we believe that the words "or investigation" should be added. These alterations to subclause <2) of clause 6 will, in our view, provide the minister with the kind of power we believe he should have in order to fulfil completely the intention which we believe lies behind the principle of introducing the legislation.

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River:
That subclause (2) of clause 6 of Bill C-161 be amended by deleting the said clause and substituting in its place the following:-
Three separate amendments could be moved but I am proposing an omnibus amendment, as a result of which the substituted subclause (2) of clause 6 would read as follows:
"For the purpose of carrying out his duties and functions under this act, the minister may undertake research and investigation into matters to which the powers, duties and functions of the minister extend, including price increases, cooperate with any or all provinces or with any department or agency of the government of Canada or any organization or person undertaking such research and investigation and publish or cause to be published, or assist in the publication of, so much of the results of any such research or investigation as the minister deems appropriate and in the public interest, and in particular with regard to price increases, the minister shall report to parliament thereon with appropriate recommendations."
Before sending this amendment to the table I would point out that there are two other amendments which the minister will have noticed while I was reading what we propose as the substituted subclause. We have included a specific reference to "price increases." These three additional words "including price increases" will be added in line 4 of existing subclause (2) following the word "extend." The reason for this addition is quite obvious. The purpose of the bill is to do something about price increases and to give the minister power to do something about them. We therefore feel there should be a specific reference to "price increases" in the subclause. The other alteration the minister will have noted follows the last word of subclause (2), namely, "interest." We have added this phrase, "and in particular with regard to price increases, the minister shall report to parliament thereon with appropriate recommendations."
We feel that parliament should have a continuing interest in this matter and that the minister should be obliged to report to parliament from time to time on the very matters with which the bill will deal through this amendment to the subclause, namely price increases, research and investigation into complaints, and the like.
These are the five alterations we have for the minister's consideration. We hope all these amendments will be made with the approval of the minister. I am sure he sees
November 17, 19G7

merit in them and we hope they will be accepted by the government in this omnibus form. However, if after consideration the minister feels that some of them merit acceptance and others do not, he might indicate this to us. I have prepared individual amendments which perhaps we might agree upon as we go along.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a point of order before you put the amendment. It is not a point of order against the amendment but rather it has to do with our procedure. Your Honour called clause 6 and quite properly recognized the hon. member for Yukon, who then proceeded to speak mainly to subclause 2. It so happens that two or three of my colleagues have amendments they wish to move to subclause 1. We have no objection to subclause 2 being dealt with first, provided this does not preclude our right to move amendments to subclause 1. If it does, I would have to give Your Honour notice that we have members who wish to move amendments to subclause 1. I leave the matter in Your Honour's hands, so long as our rights are protected.


Erik Nielsen: On the point of order raised by the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, we would have no objection to any member of the house going back to subclause 1 and moving an amendment. Perhaps I was a little premature in going to subclause 2 before we had dealt with subclause 1. In any event, since the matter has progressed this far perhaps we could deal with subclause 2 now, with consent, and then go back to subclause 1.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I would point out that we are rapidly running out of time this afternoon and I wonder whether it would not meet the convenience of the committee to have introduced and tabled the amendments of the New Democratic party to subclause 1. We would then have an opportunity of considering them, and the next time we discuss this bill we will be in a position to deal with them.


Erik Nielsen: That is agreeable to us, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think Your Honour has already read out the standing order under which we proceed in these circumstances. We are considering this bill clause by clause. I would think there would be no objection to our dealing with any particular part of a clause, whether it be subclause 1 or subclause 2. I
Corporate and Consumer Affairs offer these comments for Your Honour's assistance.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I do not think there is any objection to amending any part of the clause. The only difficulty is that the Chair is in possession of the amendment to subclause 2 and is not in possession of any amendment to subclause 1. The Chair does not know whether there might be any conflict between the amendments. However, I think the hon. member for Yukon was quite right in discussing clause 6 and moving an amendment to subclause 2. If the hon. member is willing, perhaps the Chair could hold his amendment for the time being and hear the amendment that is to be made to subclause 1.


Erik Nielsen: That would be agreeable to us, Mr. Chairman. However, if you do not mind my making a suggestion, perhaps Your Honour would put the amendment to the committee, simply to have it on the record, and then we could go back to subclause 1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we could not agree to the suggestion made by the Registrar General, namely that the amendments my colleagues intend to move be read before we deal with the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Yukon. The hon. member for Waterloo South has an amendment he wishes to move, and so has the hon. member for V ancouver-Kings way.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps I could read the amendment, offered by the hon. member for Yukon, rather than putting it from the Chair; then we could hear the amendment of the hon. member for Waterloo South and I could read it to the committee. It has been proposed by the hon. member for Yukon:
That subclause (2) of clause 6 of Bill C-161 be amended by deleting the said clause and substituting in its place the following:
" (2) For the purpose of carrying out his duties and functions under this act, the minister may undertake research and investigation into matters to which the powers, duties and functions of the minister extend, including price increases, cooperate with any or all provinces or with any department or agency of the government of Canada or any organization or person undertaking such research and investigation and publish or cause to be published, or assist in the publication of, so much of the results of any such research or investigation as the minister deems appropriate and in the public interest, and in particular with regard to price increases, the minister shall report to parliament thereon with appropriate recommendations."
4428
November 17, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr, Bailsman:: At the next opportunity we intend to move the following amendment:
That sub-clause (1) of clause 6 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after paragraph (d) thereof, the following new paragraph:
"(e) establish a corporation on behalf of Her Majesty which shall be empowered to: manufacture, sell, distribute, and promote drugs offered for sale in Canada;
supervise all advertising and promotion activities related to drugs including the distribution of samples and the content of advertising literature."


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, the next amendment that we propose to move is:
That sub-clause (1) of clause 6 of Bill C-161 be amended by adding thereto the following new paragraph:
"(e) be empowered to secure information from any other department of the government to assist in the investigation of consumer complaints."
The second amendment that we propose to move is:
That sub-clause (1) of clause 6 of Bill C-161 be amended by adding thereto the following new paragraph:
"(e) establish a prices review board with authority to inquire into complaints of price increases in essential commodities, to make its findings public and to take joint action with any of the provinces to deal with price increases that cannot be justified.

I have the two amendments in both languages.


John Napier Turner: Do X take it, Mr. Chairman, that all the amendments to this clause have been moved?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe that is the case, Mr. Chairman, so far as we are concerned. The three amendments that have been read are the three that we wish to move to this clause.


John Napier Turner: I want to reserve my right at the next sitting not only to argue the substance of the amendments but also to argue their admissibility.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister does not surprise us.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps I should point out to the committee that the suggested amendment by the hon. member for Yukon has been read but has not been officially put by the Chair. The same is true of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Waterloo South and the two amendments moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
[The Chairman.]


John Napier Turner: We might take it as notice of intention to amend.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being five o'clock and in order that the house may proceed to consideration of private members business, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?
Progress reported.



BROADCASTING


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the consent of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of moving that the subject matter of broadcasting and televising of educational programs be referred to the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. The committee has considered the white paper on broadcasting but has not had an opportunity to complete its study of educational television. I believe there is a desire among members of all parties to have this done.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent for the minister to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I move:
That the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts be empowered to consider the subject matter of broadcasting and televising of educational programs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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.



CRIMINAL CODE


Robert William Prittie: the second reading of Bill No. C-13, to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been a perennial with me. I first introduced a similar bill in 1963, followed by one in all subsequent sessions since. I notice the bill is numbered C-13 this time. I do not know whether that is significant one way or the other.
November 17, 19G7

The explanatory notes in the bill are quite clear. At the present time the Criminal Code of Canada makes it illegal to disseminate any information designed to prevent conception, and this has been on the statutes in the Criminal Code since 1892. I should like to say at the outset that this bill does not deal with abortion in any way at all. This is a distinctly separate subject which is being studied at the present time by the health and welfare committee. The bill simply deals with birth control or family planning, whichever term is preferable. The meaning of the present law is quite clear. It is against the law to give such information, and in recent years the law has fallen into disuse. Prosecutions have been infrequent. I believe the last one was in 1961.
As we all know, physicians regularly give advice on this subject, as well as prescriptions. Druggists sell materials, public health nurses give information, and hospitals, both public and private, supply birth control information to various people. Many cities and counties in Canada are now openly engaged in this practice. Indeed, last year, with the authorization of the minister of health in the province of Ontario, family planning services were made available in the public health clinics of that province. The city of Montreal is now providing this type of service to the citizens of that city. However, as the law reads at the present time, all these people are breaking the law, and that would include also the government of Canada which has purchased contraceptive materials.
My colleague, the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer) asked a question which was answered on June 21, 1967. His question, No. 187, reads as follows:
1.	What were the government of Canada expenditures in each of the last two fiscal years for purposes of purchasing supplies of drugs and devices of a contraceptive nature?
2.	By what departments were these expenditures made and what was the amount in each case?
3.	From what drug manufacturing or distribution firms were these purchases made?
In the reply which the hon. member received from the Department of National Defence the amounts were stated. The only point I wish to stress is that the government of Canada is breaking section 150(2) of the Criminal Code.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: They are also breaking the law on capital punishment.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Robert William Prittie: I see my hon. friend from York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) here, that implacable foe of the 20th century. I can expect to
27053-280}
Amendment Respecting Birth Control hear from him later in the debate so I will wait until then.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the law has fallen into disuse. There have been very few prosecutions-none that I know of since 1961. In these matters that affect the private lives of individuals we in Canada always seem to lag behind other countries. The social mores change but we do not seem to change very quickly. For example, on the subject of divorce, we have studied the subject and made recommendations, but as yet we have no legislation to implement those recommendations. We are at least 30 to 35 years behind everyone else.
Almost every other country in the western world has changed its law on this particular subject of the dissemination of information on birth control. I want to give an illustration of one country that has moved rather fast on the subject, and I am referring to France. France had on the statute books a law almost identical to the one in Canada. In the French presidential campaign of November, 1965 M. Mitterand, one of the candidates, raised this question. There was quite a popular response to it on the part of the French electorate, and early in 1966, shortly after the election, the French national assembly appointed a commission to study the subject. This commission, headed by a French deputy, M. Lucien Nieuwirth, reported early in 1967, and in June 1967 the French assembly actually changed the law of France. All of this happened, Mr. Speaker, within the space of a little more than a year and a half.
I want to give a little background to what has happened in Canada. The first bill that I introduced on this subject and the first bill on the subject to be introduced in the house was in 1963. Following its introduction there was quite a campaign for public support by various groups within the country. But as often happens with private bills, it did not come up for second reading in the session of 1963.
I reintroduced the bill in 1964 and it was actually debated on September 11,	1964.
There is an interesting little story in connection with this. It is very seldom that a private member's bill ever passes in the House of Commons. One had passed earlier that year, a bill introduced by the present Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saint Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien), to change the name of Trans-Canada Air Lines to Air Canada. By some agreement that got through.
November 17, 1967

Amendment Respecting Birth Control
It looked for a while, Mr. Speaker, as though the bill I had introduced on this subject would pass. The government whip of the day informed me that the government were not going to oppose it. Indeed, only one government member, my friend from St. John's East (Mr. O'Keefe) spoke on it very briefly.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: The hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette) also.


Robert William Prittie: Yes. However, the two members who effectively talked the bill out on that occasion were the hon. member for Ro-berval (Mr. Gauthier) and the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois). I found out later they had misunderstood the bill; they thought it dealt with the subject of abortion, which it did not. However, the bill failed passage in 1964 and it has not been debated in the house since.
Following the new parliament which came after the election of November 1965 four bills were introduced in the house on the subject, one by myself, one by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford), one by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) and one by the hon. member for York-Scarbor-ough (Mr. Stanbury). All four bills were subsequently referred to the committee on health and welfare.
That committee held a series of hearings and heard from all interested parties who wanted to appear. I should like to read the list of the national and local organizations which appeared before that committee. The Anglican Church of Canada, the Association des Medecins de Langue Francais du Canada, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Catholic Conference, the Canadian Unitarian Council, the Canadian Welfare Council, the Community Welfare Planning Council of Manitoba, the Consumers Association of Canada, the Family Planning Federation of Canada, the National Council of Women, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, an organization known as SERENA of Ottawa, the United Church of Canada, the Voice of Women of Canada and the Y.W.C.A. of Canada. All of these groups except the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada gave support to the idea, though some of them with qualifications. The committee on health and welfare reported to the house, and I want to refer briefly to their report which is dated Friday, November 18,	1966, a year ago
tomorrow. Part of the report is as follows:
Your committee feels that the dissemination of family planning knowledge should he completely available and free from any fear of illegality, as a matter of personal choice.


Then on the following page, page 591, the report continues:
Medical knowledge and technique are at a level today where intelligent family planning can be carried out relatively easily. The present laws of Canada have made this impossible in its fullest sense. It is the feeling of your committee that family planning is a personal decision of a married couple and the state should not interfere with action or laws in any way to influence such a personal decision.
The committee made some recommendations and I will refer to them a little later on. I want to refer briefly to the submission made to the committee by the Canadian Catholic Conference, which is a conference of the bishops of the Catholic church in Canada. In part, Mr. Speaker, they had this to say:
In the light of these conditions we consider Article 150, which forbids giving information about contraception as well as the sale or distribution of contraceptives, an inadequate law today. We consider it so quite independently of the morality or immorality of various methods of birth prevention. We believe it a deficient law because it does not meet all the conditions outlined above.
The law is not in fact enforced, and the good of public peace might well be lost by attempts to enforce it. A large number of our fellow citizens believe that this law violates their rights to be informed and helped toward responsible parenthood in accordance with their personal beliefs.
It is our clear understanding, of course, that the modification of the law in question is not to extend to that part of it which has to do with abortion. For our conclusions would be quite different were there question of such direct destruction of human life.
The church is making its view known on abortion to the health and welfare committee, but on this occasion it did agree that section 150 of the Criminal Code should be changed.
It seems to me simply incredible that here in Canada we take so long to do anything. I gave you the example of France, where within a little more than a year and a half the subject was brought out into the open, debated, studied by a French parliamentary committee and the law changed. Many people advocated this change before I came on the scene, but the first bill introduced in this house was by myself in 1963. And here we are, Mr. Speaker, in 1967, four and a half years later, and no change has been made.
To be fair, Mr. Speaker, I will say that some action has been taken on the report of the committee on health and welfare. There was introduced in the Senate on November 1 Bill No. S-22, which deals with this and a number of other subjects. In essence, Bill S-22 recommends that the section on contraception, as it now appears in the Criminal Code, be taken out. This bill also suggests
November 17, 1967

amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, one of which is in these terms:
Section 3 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
''(3) Except as authorized by regulation, no person shall advertise to the general public any contraceptive device or any drug manufactured, sold or represented for use in the prevention of conception."
The idea there is that the food and drugs directorate will examine the various types of devices which are on the market, will presumably approve some of them and will authorize certain persons, such as doctors, public health nurses, family planning associations and hospitals, to distribute this type of information. I would point out one odd feature of this bill. The food and drug directorate alone had the authority and exercised the authority to approve for sale birth control pills, because they are of a chemical composition. That was done, even under existing law. The food and drug directorate apparently is to be charged with the responsibility for all contraceptive devices, whether made of chemicals or not.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
A bill dealing with that has been introduced in the Senate but it has not been debated or passed. In time I suppose it will And its way to the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought the Senate had adjourned.


Robert William Prittie: The Senate at present is
adjourned but is to reconvene on November 21, I believe. Eventually they will get around to discussing this question. It seems to me, nevertheless, that 1967 will end without the change in the law dealing with the subject having taken place.
For once I wish that we in Canada could be leaders or innovators, rather than imitators in fields of social reform that affect the private lives of individuals. I realize that many hon. members probably feel that the bill which has been introduced in the Senate should take precedence over the one I have presented today. As a second measure I would be prepared to accept the one that is before the Senate, but I still hold the opinion I held originally, in 1963. The section dealing with this matter ought to be removed from the Criminal Code and individuals ought to be left to decide such questions for themselves.
My hon. friend from York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) is here. He was a member of the health and welfare committee and I await
Amendment Respecting Birth Control with interest the comments he will make on this bill.


Joseph Alcide Simard: Mr. Speaker, it is said in the explanatory notes that the purpose of this bill is to exempt from the sections of the Criminal Code referring to family planning, authorized personnel of duly incorporated family planning associations, physicians, pharmacists, or registered nurses and public organizations. Authority is given to these people or organizations to legally sell or distribute means, instructions, medicine, drugs or articles intended as a method of family planning. That is the bill this house is asked to vote on.
Section 150(2)(c) of the Criminal Code is open to all sorts of omissions or transgressions and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, what is happening now is a joke. This is the section that the Canadian government itself has violated through some of its actions toward overpopulated countries. Bad legislation breeds contempt of the law itself. According to Father James R. Robarts, member of the Catholic family court of the Vancouver archdiocese, any legislation, in order to be effective and benefit the community, must be accepted by the majority of the population; otherwise, its violation by a great number of people, even in good faith, breeds contempt of the law.
In September 1964, a bill similar to the one now being considered was introduced in this house, but it failed to meet the unanimous approval of the members. I sincerely believe it is high time we looked into that problem seriously and objectively, if we are not to be accused of denying the individual of one of his most sacred rights, that of having children when he wants and in any number he wants.
According to Teilhard de Chardin, no human being worthy of the name can accept that an outside force or coercion should prevent him from fulfilling himself naturally and normally. To be a father, to be a mother is a wonderful experience, especially when parents know they can give their children all they need.
Still, births that come too close to one another can become dangerous for the mother's health. Too many children can become a heavy burden instead of a great joy. All parents want the best for their children: a good home, good food, a good education, in short, happiness. When parents plan their family, have children when they want them, the family has a better chance of being
4432	COMMONS
Amendment Respecting Birth Control happy and healthy. That is why that question must be looked into by society and especially by the family.
The essential thing is to provide for the birth of children under proper conditions and to restore to the couple the joys of freely accepted parenthood. Accordingly, there is no question of exercising mandatory control over the number of children, but to space births so that each child is born into a family that welcomes him and is able to provide for all his needs, including a proper education.
If, on the one hand, we agree that husbands and wives have an inalienable right to attain a spiritualization of love through a dialogue where they can together evolve toward a flowering of their mutual love and, on the other hand, that the child, the fruit of this love, has also the right to be born in an atmosphere and environment conducive to his education and upbringing, we must logically and inevitably infer that both parents are entitled to enlightened information on various contraceptive methods, their use and disadvantages. Furthermore, the doctor must not substitute his conscience to that of his patients by imposing his own moral standards on them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, who can get this instruction, this knowledge? Everyone who so wishes, I would say without hesitating. I would even say that sexual education should be given to children, adapting it to their capacity and development.
Later, when they have grown up, when they are adults, they will be in a better position to understand the great problems relating to the noble role of transmitting life through love freely accepted and given.
All Canadian citizens, rich as well as poor, must have free access to this knowledge which will enable them to perform in peace, love and order, their noble role of procreator intended by God.
Among the long-term measures which might help to improve the lot of needy families, Dr. Mongeau puts the amendment of the law on contraception, the opening of free family planning clinics, the extension of marriage preparation courses to more people, better training for doctors and social workers, so that they can give judicious advice on family planning, as well as a better sex education at home and in primary and secondary schools.
Who should dispense such information? Precisely those who have the competence and training required to inform the people about

DEBATES	November 17. 19S7
such matters and who were forbidden by law to do so until now.
Only the representatives of family planning associations regularly incorporated, doctors, pharmacists or registered nurses and the public organizations would be authorized to sell or distribute legally any information, drug or article needed for family planning.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The centres authorized to distribute information on family planning should be oriented towards the essential family values and its preservation; above all, they must endeavour to consider the problems of fertility not only from its technical viewpoint, but within the context of the many conjugal problems to which birth control too often serves as a smoke screen.
At this time, one problem seems to worry many people. How will the young people react to this information on contraceptive? Will it constitute an open door to dissolute ways and the debauchery of minors? To that question, I shall reply with another. Was alcoholism ever checked by prohition laws?
Again, would we revolutionize the problem of premarital sexual relations by hiding the truth from those who thirst for it? As it stands now, the legislation barely covers up the advertising and sale of contraceptive products to which young people already have easy access whenever they wish.
Can it be properly inferred that the establishment of conjugal clinics would greatly increase the incidence of premarital sex among youths? In my estimation, only a sound sexual education can help youth to discover the true meaning of sexuality in marriage. Prohibitions and smoke-screens of all kinds can but further enhance for them the eternal attraction of the forbidden fruit.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, as the civil legislators, we must be guided by two major criteria: the natural law and the common good of the country.
Indeed, the determination and justification of any legislation must be based mainly on the natural law. In a certain sense, I think we must put aside our religious persuasion, precisely because there are so many in the country.
A civil law which is to be respected by all the citizens of a country, irrespective of their religion, cannot be based on religious prejudice, but on a principle accepted by the majority of citizens, in this case natural law. But does this mean that the legislator cannot
November 17, 1967

indirectly make use of the certain knowledge which he derives from his religion? Certainly not, but this knowledge must serve as a confirmation and not as a justification. I shall come back to this later, Mr. Speaker.
The second criterion of a civil law is the common good. Indeed, a law which would only apply to part of the population for example only to Catholics, could be called unfair towards the rest of the people, and therefore would be in no way compulsory.
These very personal remarks have been formulated in the spirit of freedom of conscience advocated by Vatican II. Freedom of conscience does not mean syncretism or eclectism, but being true to oneself, to that verdict which comes from one's very soul and which dictates how one should behave.
There is nothing like examples to explain our news, Mr. Speaker. Now, I am referring to divorce and family planning. The church is more reserved than broad-minded on those two points, and it is right, because its legislation only concerns one group of persons, to wit the Catholics. But civil society, which includes various religious faiths, must draw up legislation taking that multiplicity into account. Consequently, it seems to me that its legislation on divorce or family planning must be more broad-minded, while taking the appropriate measures to control any abuses which are always possible. And let us note that, whatever may be the broadening of such legislation, it can very well not give more freedom to such group of persons.
For instance, the broadening of the divorce law in civil court will be useless to Catholics if they are faithful to their religious convictions, essentially because divorce is not allowed by the religious court.
And, if it is not allowed by the religious court, then conscience does not allow it either in the civil court.
Here is another example, Mr. Speaker. If, for a Protestant, divorce may be granted only on grounds of adultery and if, on the other hand, his religion allows only his motive, he will not be able to petition for divorce on any other grounds, if he is faithful to his religious convictions, even if civil law allows divorce on three or four grounds other than that one.
This leads me to speak of everyone's own conscience. There is a Catholic conscience as there is a Protestant, Lutheran or Orthodox conscience. It seems to me that civil legislators should not be afraid to appeal to that

Amendment Respecting Birth Control conscience and keep returning to it often. Even if civil divorce is legal for four reasons, for instance, the fact remains that for a person in particular, divorce can be legal for only one of these reasons, his conscience formally prohibiting him to use the other three. We must keep in mind that everyone's conscience is the ultimate standard of any human action. This conscience factor is of prime importance in the face of any legislation and we, as legislators, should not be afraid to appeal to it. We may thus contribute in rousing some consciences, asleep or wavering, which are only waiting for an appeal from outside to come out of its torpor.
I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that a legislator can use indirectly the sure knowledge he draws from his religious faith and that such knowledge must be a confirmation and not a justification of any legislation at the civil level. In concrete terms, this might be translated thus: I am opposed to abortion, direct or indirect, not because I am a Catholic and my faith forbids it, but simply because such a practice goes directly against natural law which forbids the murder of an innocent. It can easily be seen from the way this is said that my position does not rest fundamentally on my religious faith but rather on natural law. My faith only confirms my opinion.
Here is another example. It seems to me that we should extend the scope of the divorce law. Instead of only one ground, four or five others could warrant the dissolution of a marriage. I am a Catholic and I do not approve of divorce, except in the specific cases determined by the church. But if today I am taking such a position, I am not going against my religious convictions, but I am considering, in the first place, the common good of the country which includes a multiplicity of religions.
Now, I only have to discuss the means of preventing conception. I do not suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I am an expert on the various means, appliances, tablets or contraceptives invented by modern science; I do not have any inferiority complex and I feel all the more at ease to speak about this, because I know that medical science although it is well advanced, is still proceeding by trial and error.
However, I will merely refer to the evidence given by prominent doctors and brilliant chemists. Kindly note, Mr. Speaker that in the following comments, I do not question their sincerity-
November 17, 1967

Amendment Respecting Birth Control


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allowed to him has expired.
a (5:40 p.m.)


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, on rising to comment on this proposed bill of the hon. member tor Buma-by-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) I would like to ask in the first instance what else is new, when he quotes as an example the fact that the Department of National Defence is spending money on contraceptives although this is against the law of the land? I presume the former minister of national defence had to O.K. those expenditures, and I would point out that he used to sing in the choir of a large United Church in Toronto. I notice that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has been quoting some statements issued by the United Church of Canada in support of his stand on this matter. It is interesting to note that the former choirboy in the United Church in Toronto is following the policy of his church in this regard, even though it may break the law of the land.
The breaking of the law of the land by the Department of National Defence is a poor example to set as one that everybody else should follow. Really we except the cabinet, to set an example to all the people in the observance of the law of the land as passed by parliament. When the cabinet proceeds to kill the intent of the capital punishment statute by commuting every death sentence that is imposed, and then tells us in its self-righteousness that it is exercising the quality of mercy, and that this makes it possible for members of the cabinet to set aside the law of the land, do not forget that the cabinet can also quote the Bible to the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond when they buy contraceptives against the law of the land by simply saying to him, "Don't let your right hand know what your left hand doeth". When the cabinet is following the injunction contained in the sermon on the mount I say it is very poor policy on the part of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond to let the right hand know what the left hand does, among the 25 members of the cabinet. If he had not brought that to the attention of the members of the cabinet they would have followed the biblical injunction, and the other members of the cabinet would not have known what the former choirboy had been doing in the past.

Also do not forget that under the Department of Public Works they were throwing illegal fill into lake Ontario despite the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. But I am counting on seeing that act enforced in the future because, by order in council, its administration has been transferred from the Department of Public Works to the Department of Transport, and the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) happens to be the former minister of national defence. Now since he was buying contraceptives against the law of the land I can see that in his new position as Minister of Transport he may continue to kick the law of the land in the teeth, just to set an example to the people of this nation so that they can see how the cabinet observes the law of the land, so that if the public want to break the law of the land that will be O.K.
I must express sympathy to the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond in that I have looked up the first occasion when second reading of this bill was called, and I regret to draw the attention of the house to the fact that the second reading of this bill first came on September 11,	1964. Here it is now
November 17, 1967, more than three years later. If this country wants a perfect example of the importance that the cabinet attaches to private members of parliament, this is it.
I admire the sincerity of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. I know that he has spent a lot of time and thought on this question and everything he says rings with sincerity, but to think that the cabinet of this nation, which controls the agenda of this parliament from day to day, should never make it possible for him to speak on such a subject in more than three years is a clear indication of the attention members of the cabinet want to pay to private members of parliament, and it is a clear indication of how little attention they do pay to private members of parliament.
I am not one who feels that because a private member of parliament is sitting in the opposition, absolutely no attention should be paid to him. the same way they treat the private members who sit to the right of the Speaker. I maintain that all members of parliament have the same equal rights and, foolish as it may seem, I feel that a private member when elected to this house should represent his people in the same manner as members of the cabinet represent the people who sent them down to this house.
November 17, 1967


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. I have been listening very attentively to the hon. member and I am afraid he has gone a little way from the bill under study by the house at the present time.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that I have at least one attentive listener. Sir, I would point out that during second reading of this bill on September 11, 1964, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond stated that the present law "is a bad law because it is so widely disregarded by such a large element of the population...." He then went on to say:
We all know that the majority of the Canadian people pay very little attention to this law.
If the great majority of the Canadian people pay little attention to this law, then the passing of this bill which has been brought forward today would not help very many. And since the great majority of the Canadian people pay very little attention to this law, there does not seem any great urgency in passing the bill today.
As the hon. member said, private bills that were introduced dealing with this question of contraceptives were referred to the standing committee on health and welfare, of which he is a member and of which I am a member. It is correct that that committee presented a report to the House of Commons, but as we all know the House of Commons has not been given the opportunity by the cabinet to concur in that report. That report is sitting on the table. That is where they intend to have the report of the new board of broadcast governors-I have forgotten what the new intended name of that body is. It will be sitting on the table, too. It does not have to be concurred in. The report of the standing committee on public accounts, with regard to the manner in which the contingency fund was handled a year or so ago, is also sitting on the table. It has not been concurred in. The fact that the health and welfare committee has brought in a report with regard to four private members bills-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman again, but I do listen to him very attentively. I cannot see what the present bill has to do with fill in lake Ontario, and with other subjects that the hon. member has brought up that actually are not pertinent to the question.
Amendment Respecting Birth Control [DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Sir, I was filling in time. I was referring to the report of the committee on health and welfare to which the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) had made an allusion. He commented that the committee's report had been sent to the house. I was pointing out the importance the cabinet attaches to that report, and that parliament as a whole has not been asked at all whether it wishes to concur in the report. It has merely been tabled.
I should like to point out that we have many ministerial pronouncements-there is nothing more august or ethereal than a ministerial pronouncement-that parliament is going to be allowed to deal with the question of contraceptives within the very near future. I can only say, since parliament is under promise that it will be allowed in a free vote to deal with the question of contraceptives, that to present this bill on November 17, 1967, after it has lain in abeyance for over three years smacks of a little bit of hypocrisy on the part of those who have allowed it to come forward now, after having been choked off for three years.
We will be discussing this same matter in great detail when the bill is presented on this very earthy subject. We have been told we will have a free vote on it. A free vote is one in which the members of the cabinet go around among the private members asking how they are going to vote before the vote is taken, or the messengers from the cabinet offices ask what our opinion is. That is what a free vote is. We are going to have another free vote on this question of contraceptives. I would suggest that the private member's bill that is being brought forward at this time, and pressed with such fervour by a very, very sincere man, be withdrawn, giving precedence to the bill which will be introduced from the government side of the house. No doubt it will be introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), since it is a health and welfare subject, and we will have a free vote, as we are now being given a free vote on capital punishment.


Mr. Andrew Chatwood (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill I should like to say that it has been with interest that I have found that the government intends to bring forward, or already has brought forward, a bill on this subject so that the situation we now have will be corrected. In order to be a good law,
November 17, 1967

Amendment Respecting Birth Control a law must be enforceable. The present situation is one in which sales are being made which are not legal. The explanatory notes state that this section of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to supply any information on the subject of birth control or family planning in Canada. Section 150 (3) of the Criminal Code states:
No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if he establishes that the public good was served by the acts that are alleged to constitute the offence and that the acts alleged did not extend beyond what served the public good.
This section of the code has been tested in the courts. I believe in 1937 in the Ottawa area a lady who had been giving out family planning information carried on her defence under this section, and it was found that under the laws of Canada, taking that section into account, it is legal to supply such information.
The question of birth control or family planning is something which has been considered by civilizations, down through the years. When we look back quite a number of years ago we find that the methods perhaps were different then. The Greeks or the Romans had methods in their time. One was the wearing of amulets, the tooth of a child, glass from a marble quarry, part of a cat's liver or the womb of a lioness. These, of course, would be difficult to acquire today. In North Africa a Koranic formula was bound to the wrist. In many places precious stones were worn in rings. In the thirteenth century a Dominican friar, and doctor, Albert the Great, recommended that a woman spit three times into the mouth of a frog. When one considers how a frog moves around he can appreciate how difficult that would be. In Japan a pebble of jasper was held in the hand, or dead bees were eaten.

I mention these things to indicate that down through the years this has peen a subject of deep concern to all civilizations. The reason for family planning is perhaps twofold; first, on the basis of a whole world proposition and, second, in the way it affects the individual family unit. I would suggest that any legislation we pass on this or any similar matter should be geared to the family unit in order to strengthen it and ensure a better life for our people, if we can. In recent years we have sent food to other countries, the depressed areas of the world. This has not resulted in the desired objective of a better life. It has improved the health of people so that they can die from starvation instead of from disease. Nature itself has a way to take care of population. I should like to cover that further; but to get back to the question of the family life and the necessity that many parents control the size of their families, I believe this is a very real and important thing, and that there should be no legislation to prevent it.
When a husband and wife desire to contain the size of their family unit, in order to ensure that the child growing up has a better life, is better fed and clothed and has a real opportunity to gain a good education which is not curtailed because of a large family, I believe this is something which is desirable, and I believe also that we should do all we can to see that this result is obtained.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members business has now expired. It now being six o'clock p.m. this house stands adjourned until Monday next at 2.30 in the afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 20, 1967