1967-10-13

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday on orders of the day I sought to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) whether in the event that the ordinary Canadian first class letter rate is increased, as the government proposes, from 5 cents to 6 cents, he would seek to have the international postal rate governing Canadian letters increased likewise; otherwise I said it would cost more to mail a letter from Ottawa to, say, Toronto than from Ottawa to Los Angeles, the present international rate being 5 cents.
My question was ruled out of order. However, at the conclusion of orders of the day the minister rose in his place and stated, as I heard him, that the basis of my question was false. I understand the minister's views, having discussed this matter with him yesterday at the conclusion of orders of the day. However, my point of privilege is that my question, or any part of it, was not false or wrong.
The present Canadian letter rate is 5 cents and it may be increased to 6 cents. Unless the international rate is likewise increased it will indeed cost more to mail a letter from Ottawa to any point in Canada than from Ottawa to the United States. Under the circumstances the words "false" or "wrong" are not acceptable.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[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 on the same subject matter on which I questioned him yesterday. In view of the fact that there is no indication in today's Votes and Proceedings of a reference to the standing committee on
external affairs, and in view of the press statement containing a denial by an external aid office spokesman of some statements which the minister seemingly had endorsed yesterday regarding hospital equipment sent to Viet Nam, can the minister assure the house that he will today move to have the external affairs committee seized of this important matter.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Well, Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that I shared the view that it was desirable that the external affairs committee should meet, and I am willing to accept any procedure that will make it possible for the committee to meet at the earliest possible moment. The chairman of the committee is not here.


An hon. Member:: Yes, he is.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Where is he? I still cannot see him. Now that the attractive curtain hiding the chairman has been drawn, I do see him. I do not think the procedure suggested is the proper way. I do not think I have the right to move that the committee should sit, but I should like to join with my hon. friend and say to him that if he, the chairman or any other member can devise a procedure by which this can take place at the earliest possible moment, they will have my full support.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Is the minister not of the opinion that he could in fact move that the report of his department be referred to the committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: I so move.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is out of order.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I should like to ask whether his attention has been drawn to an
October 13, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry interview which the Toronto Star had with Dr. Ralph Lapp, the eminent nuclear scientist who thinks the United States anti-ballistic missile system will ultimately involve Canada. In view of Dr. Lapp's statement that Canadians could be hurt by the intercepting missiles exploding 100 miles overhead, causing eye damaging fluorescent flicker and possibly incendiary action to burn homes below, is any study being made by the Canadian government as to the effect of the thin line anti-ballistic missile system proposed, and are any representations being made to the United States government with regard to the possible effects upon Canadians as a result of the construction of this anti-ballistic missile screen?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the statement attributed to Dr. Lapp. I shall be glad to do so, and if there is anything useful I can say about it I should be glad to do so at the earliest possible moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Have there been any discussions between the Canadian government and the United States government regarding the anti-ballistic missile system, and has any information been given to the Canadian government concerning the possible effects of such a system upon Canadians?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes; there have been discussions, and reference has already been made to them in the house. All aspects of this matter were discussed with the United States government, even though the Canadian government is not directly involved in any way in this decision.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask whether any assurance has been given to the Canadian government that Canadians would not be adversely affected by the construction of this system.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, certainly if there were an attack on this continent Canada would be adversely affected.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.

According to certain sources, the Prime Minister was to announce today the appointment of the new chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Since he has failed to do so until now, is he in a position to say when he intends to announce this appointment to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday is a little more ambiguous than as interpreted by the hon. member. I have read it very carefully, and there was a certain desirable ambiguity. I cannot make a statement on this matter this morning, but I hope to do so very soon.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: In the absence of the leader of the second battle of Lundy's Lane may I inquire of the Prime Minister if the C.B.C. appointments have yet been decided upon.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend should have been in the house a little earlier.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question has already been asked.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister based on the statement made last night by ex-Commissioner Harvison of the R.C.M.P. to the effect that United States organized crime is taking over Canadian organized crime. In view of this alarming disclosure will the Prime Minister now take immediate action to set up a royal commission to investigate organized crime in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; I do not think the establishment of a royal commission would be the best procedure in respect of this matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Has the minister or his department any information confirming or corroborating ex-Commissioner Harvison's disclosure, and will he make a
October 13, 1967

statement now or at some later time in this regard?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to deal with this question I should like to say that I have not personally seen the statement. The information I have puts a different interpretation on the remarks of the former commissioner than that presented to the house by the hon. member for Bow River.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether the government is considering a decision not to order into production a high speed anti-submarine hydrofoil boat because of the high cost involved even if the sea trials of the prototype are successful.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this is an urgent matter. If it is, perhaps the hon. member will so indicate to the Chair. I feel this is a question which might properly be placed on the order paper.


John Angus MacLean: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that this matter is of grave importance to the future defence of this country, and if a decision is in the process of being taken at this time the country should be aware of it.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: I can say in relation to this question, Mr. Speaker, that all the expenditures of the defence department and every other department are now being subjected to careful review. This review will include development projects such as the one referred to by the hon. member.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will he make a statement about the results of his meeting yesterday with Premier Roblin concerning the Air Canada overhaul base at Winnipeg, and in particular will he say whether he repeated the government's assurance that the base would not be moved until 1973?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Roblin discussed the matter with me early yesterday morning. We reviewed the situation in the light of past declarations by the federal government. I emphasized that the announcement by Air Canada was as much a surprise to us as it was to him. We exchanged views as to what best might be done, and I have already taken the matter up, following Mr. Roblin's departure, with the Minister of Transport. I informed Mr. Roblin that I would get in touch with him again as soon as my discussions with the minister were completed.



EXPO '67 POSSIBLE EARLY CLOSING DUE TO TRANSPORT STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinihe-Bagof):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the possibility that Expo may be forced to close earlier than the scheduled date because of the strike of transport workers, is the government ready to take action in conjunction with other Expo authorities in order to prevent such an event?
Righf Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I hope that will not be necessary and that Expo will not close until the appointed date, October 29.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
The Prime Minister says he hopes that it will not be necessary, but if it should become necessary, is the federal government in a position to act now to stop Expo from becoming a fiasco?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems that this question is becoming hypothetical.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Berf Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister anything to report in connection with the negotiations with the United States respecting the Alaska highway? Can he tell us what progress has been made in these
October 13, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry negotiations, and is he in a position to make a policy statement in connection with the improvement and paving of this important highway?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think this is the type of information which should be conveyed to the house by way of a statement on motions.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. On Tuesday last I asked the Prime Minister whether consideration had been given, or a decision reached, with respect to a resolution passed by the Vancouver city council on October 3 relative to a reduction in the cost of housing loans similar to the bonus under the winter works program. At that time the Prime Minister said he would like to take the question as notice and reply on Wednesday. This being Friday, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to answer my question of last Tuesday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the resolution in question was received by me on Tuesday. On October 12 I wrote to the city clerk of Vancouver to the effect that I was giving this matter consideration and would be discussing it with the minister particularly concerned. I said I would write to him again as soon as I had something to report. I cannot add to that at this moment.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development about a report entitled "Indians and the Law", which I understand was commissioned under the auspices of the Canadian Welfare Council. Has the minister received this report? If so, will he table it in the house, and if so when?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The report has been received, Mr. Speaker. I have not had an opportunity of studying it. I would not want to assure the house today that it would be our intention to table the report, but I would hope to do so.



ALBERTA-DEATH FROM MALNUTRITION OF INDIAN CHILD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether his department is looking into the report of an inquest held in Lethbridge in connection with the death of an Indian child on a reserve there, and the statement made at the inquest that there seemed to be negligence on the part of the department's officials in that area.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think this question was asked and dealt with rather fully yesterday, if the hon. member would refer to Hansard.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Could the minister indicate when he expects that the board of the Cape Breton Development Corporation will be appointed, and when they will begin their work?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Some time next week, Mr. Speaker.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of any conditions that may be developing which will worsen the task of this board?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I did not get the question.


Malcolm MacInnis: Is the
minister aware of any conditions that are developing which may worsen the task with which this board is faced?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in order that we may properly direct our questions in the future I would ask
October 13, 1967

the Prime Minister this question. Has responsibility in the field of highway and automobile deaths and injuries, formerly held by the Minister of Industry, now been passed over to the Minister of Transport?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope the minister concerned will be able to make a statement on this matter next week.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of his statement yesterday that the world is losing the fight to save underdeveloped nations from poverty and starvation, can the right hon. gentleman tell the house whether the Canadian government is planning any new Canadian initiatives with a view to reversing this tide?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is much too general in scope, and cannot be asked at this time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. K. Andras (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Has any final decision been taken by the Canadian livestock feed board regarding payment of freight subsidies on feed grain shipments to northwestern Ontario?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Effective Monday, October 16, the Canadian livestock feed board will amend its regulations to designate those areas in Ontario west of the lakehead as a part of eastern Canada and grain corn as feed grain for the purposes of our act. The feed board will also amend its regulations to establish rates of freight assistance in northwestern Ontario and Kenora-Rainy River-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I think that the minister should have made his statement on motions so as to allow us at that time to express our point of view and make some remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Of course, it is somewhat difficult to determine if this statement by the minister in fact should have been made on motions. It is advisable for the Chair to hear the statement and, as a rule, it is late then to make a ruling, since the statement has already been made.
However, I would ask the minister to conclude his statement as soon as possible, because there is certainly no justification, in my opinion, to use the question period so as to make statements which normally should have been made on motions.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, last week-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is exactly what I wish to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker. Once this statement is made, we will have no opportunity to express our views.
When I saw Your Honour rise, I wanted to make it easier for you, and that is why I raised a point of order.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I could perhaps have made that statement earlier, but many members on both sides of the house have put questions to me in the past two weeks and I told them I would try and answer them today. This very brief reply concerns farmers in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes. With your permission, I will go on reading my statement.

-to amend regulations to establish-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am placed in a difficult position when the minister says that he wishes to go on reading his document; I would prefer it if he would answer the question.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker,

-to amend regulations to establish-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, the house will probably give unanimous consent for the minister to revert to motions.
October 13, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it agreed that we revert to motions for the purpose of allowing the minister to make a statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Some hon. members disagree. I suggest to the minister that perhaps he has conveyed sufficient information for his purpose, and that if hon. members want to know more they can always get in touch with the minister after orders of the day.


Maurice Sauvé: I am surprised at the opposition of some hon. members, because my statement contains good news for farmers.


Mr. Jean Berger (Monfmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, since the minister responsible for ARDA has been unable to convey the good news to all farmers because he was unable to obtain unanimous consent, could we ask him to assure us that they will be informed later, so that all our people will know the good news tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a suggestion to the minister. This is not a question.


Mr. Jean-Paul Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Has the Canadian Livestock Feed Board reached a decision about paying transportation charges of winter wheat and com from Ontario to Quebec and the maritimes?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker-



PROPOSED U.S. QUOTA RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order, please.']
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question regarding the very disconcerting news that legislation is being introduced in the United States congress to impose import quotas not only with respect to steel but also with respect to oil, textiles, meat, lead and zinc, dairy products, watches and mink. In view of the fact that the imposition of import quotas could completely nullify


all the benefits of the so-called Kennedy round under GATT, is the Canadian government aware of the pending bills in the United States congress and are any steps being taken by the Canadian government to forestall such action?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of this. As my hon. friend knows, these bills have not yet been introduced let alone converted into law. We will do our best to protect the interests of this country in respect of measures of this kind which may be introduced into the congress.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May
I ask a supplementary question. Would the government be prepared to adopt the suggestion made by Mr. Carl Nickle of Calgary, one of the leading men in the petroleum industry, to discuss with Great Britain the prospects for extending our trade in petroleum products with that country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We would be delighted to discuss this and other matters with such an eminent authority as Mr. Nickle.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the solution to the fighting in South Viet Nam lies mainly in the withdrawal of communist troops from that country, and in view of the fact that Canada's participation in the collective defence of the North American continent and our endorsa-tion of the principle of mutual security of our two countries-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should really be asking a question. I suppose what was said to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development a moment ago in respect of answers would apply to questions as well.


John (Jack) McIntosh: With all deference to you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who put the previous question started with "In view of the fact", and I thought I could do that as well. My question is this: Would the minister not agree that Canada should adopt a policy of common objectives with the United States with regard to the fighting in Viet Nam? These objectives should include, first, the
October 13, 1967	COMMONS
preservation of independence of other countries; second, the defeat of communism-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is based upon his statement concerning the need for the development of three new national parks per year. I wonder if he is in a position to indicate now that one of the first three will be the long awaited second national park in Prince Edward Island.


Some hon. Members:: Niagara Falls.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct my question to the Solicitor General. In view of the known concern of the Solicitor General with regard to the women's penitentiary in Kingston and the conflicting evidence submitted to the joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate on this matter, may I ask the Solicitor General if he will use his influence to request the co-chairmen of this joint committee to call a meeting at the earliest possible moment, in order that the committee may receive further evidence and submit a report to the minister?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the department of the Solicitor General is always anxious to co-operate with the committee, and I am sure the hon. member will attest to that fact. I will do whatever can be done to attain the objective the hon. member has in mind.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question
DEBATES	3067
Corporate and Consumer Affairs to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister yet in a position to announce the amount of the increase that will take place in the old age security pension in January as a result of the rise in the cost of living?
Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National
Health and Welfare): No, Mr. Speaker, not today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Can this announcement be made soon?


Mr. MacEachen:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the report that the personnel of the Canadian armed forces will probably be reduced to 100,000, and in view of the decision to cease C.O.T.C. activities, will the minister consider using his influence to have the defence committee called at an early date in order that the committee may hear reports and consider the policy decisions with regard to defence made by his department?
Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National
Defence): I would be glad to study that
suggestion.



CORPORATE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs; to provide for the appointment of a minister and a deputy minister and for their duties and powers; to provide that the governor in council may establish a consumer advisory council and other bodies to assist the minister and for the remuneration and expenses of the members thereof; and to provide for certain other matters related or incidental thereto.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend
to speak at any great length at the resolution
3068	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs stage of this measure. The bill itself is not yet before the house. I know that under the rules and practices of this house a resolution is required whenever there is a fiscal or monetary feature attached to a bill involving a charge upon the consolidated revenue fund. I might say, however, that the fiscal features of this particular bill are rather subordinate to its main purposes, one of which is to reorganize the Department of the Registrar General and convert it into a department of corporate and consumer affairs.
I intend, Mr. Chairman, if the committee will allow me, to make a full presentation on second reading if the house adopts this resolution today. The resolution stage has now been reduced to one day under the rules of this house. I am most anxious to hear what hon. members have to say at this stage of the proceedings. At one time the resolution was required for traditional and historical reasons, when the Commons went to the monarch and asked for permission to introduce a bill involving money, but without in any way suggesting that the debate should be restricted, I am led to wonder if this practice has not become rather an appendix of history.
In any event I intend to get down to the issues at some length on second reading, so this morning I will confine myself to saying that the principal aim of the legislation proposed in this resolution is to achieve a further rationalization of the organization of government at the federal level. I believe, sir, that a significant step was taken earlier, when the Department of the Registrar General was established in 1966, at which time we brought together for the first time a number of functions relating to corporations, combines, patents, trade marks and bankruptcies, in order to ensure the better co-ordination of policy in these fields.
XTranslation]
Mr. Chairman, the aim of this legislation is to promote co-ordination in the field of consumer affairs. In the past, the activities of the federal government with regard to the protection or information of consumers were divided between several departments, that is to say there never was any co-ordinated program or, if I may be allowed to use that term, any appeal court for the consumers who wanted help or information from the federal government 
DEBATES	October 13, 1967
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)

I think the need has now become evident, Mr. Chairman. The consumers association of Canada appealed to the government as early as 1960 and on numerous later occasions to create a department which would be responsible for the interests of consumers. Members of the committee will recall that the matter was also studied by the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on consumer credit and the cost of living during the fall and winter of 1966-67. In its interim report in December, 1966 the committee, ably chaired by Senator Croll and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, firmly endorsed the concept of a department to be responsible for consumer affairs.
During the period of the joint committee's hearings the federal government's responsibility in the field of consumer affairs was being investigated by the Economic Council of Canada. The economic council's examination arose, as members know, from the formal request by the government in July, 1966 that the council study and advise regarding the interests of the consumer, particularly as they relate to the functions of the Department of the Registrar General. There were other issues as well which were raised in this reference, those relating to combines, mergers and restrictive trade practices and those relating to patents, trade marks and copyrights.
Last summer, in July 1967, the economic council issued an interim report in which it concluded, among other things, that the primary responsibility for consumer affairs should be centred in the Department of the Registrar General. The view of the economic council, with which I completely concur, is that the federal government's consumer program could be administered more efficiently through improved co-ordination.
The opinion that consumers need a more adequate voice in government has received parliamentary support. It has received support from independent agencies as well as a wide measure of support, I believe, from the Canadian public. It is the purpose of this proposed legislation to ensure that the voices of the consumer, whether those voices be organized or unorganized, will be listened to. To our mind, Mr. Chairman, the most effective way of achieving this is to streamline and rationalize both the channels of communication and federal activities in the whole field of consumer affairs.
October 13, 1967

The house will note, as well, that the resolution provides for the establishment of a consumer advisory council as recommended by the Economic Council of Canada in its interim report of last July. I feel that such an advisory council will be greatly helpful, not only to the minister but also to the department, in our efforts to help the Canadian consumer.
I shall have more to say about that during the debate on second reading of the bill. I shall describe what we now plan for the overall program.

The proposal to include both consumer affairs and corporate affairs within one department calls for an explanatory comment once again. In my defence of the estimates before the house rose for the summer adjournment I recall that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway had a good deal to say about this question. I will not repeat what I said in anticipation of her argument at that time, sir, but I would say that corporate affairs in this context, in the context of the reorganization envisaged by this bill, refer to certain specialized functions of the federal government relating to corporations and corporate securities, to combines, mergers, monopolies, restraint of trade, bankruptcy, insolvency, patents, copyrights and trade marks.
One of the main purposes of the Corporations Act is to help protect the investing public. In the same sense the purpose of the Combines Investigation Act is to ensure that businessmen large and small and the general public are not damaged by the improper use of market power. Creditors in turn benefit from regulations governing bankruptcy and insolvency, and thus improvements have to be made there in both the administration and, of course, the law itself.


Mr. Nielsen:: And enforcement.


John Napier Turner: The rules respecting patents, copyrights and trade marks protect the long established rights of inventors and innovators, both corporate and individual. So any notion that there will be a conflict of interest between the corporate aspects of the department and the consumer aspects would, with respect, involve a misunderstanding of the kind of corporate functions that this department is to perform.
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
I said that in order to represent the demand side of the market place and to give the consumer and investor a direct voice in governmental affairs, any department charged with that responsibility would have to have some authority over certain aspects of the supply side of the market place. Those aspects of the supply side of the market place are covered within the corporate affairs functions of this department.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that at a time when parliament and the public are quite properly concerned about the level of government expenditures it is sensible and economical to convert the Department of the Registrar General into a department of corporate and consumer affairs rather than to duplicate in an entirely new department the administrative and other central services that any department must have. I think in this way we can bring to bear on the problems of the consumer some of the experience and expertise of the older branches of government, particularly the combines branch.
We will be recruiting a small number of carefully selected officials in the field of consumer affairs, but much of our work will take the form of ensuring the co-ordination of existing governmental activity; we have no intention of building up a vast new bureaucracy.

I trust the house will agree that the report of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, and the interim report of the Economic Council of Canada and other public bodies, pointed out the necessity of creating a department to represent and promote the interest of the consumers. I also trust this committee will give its whole-hearted support to the resolution.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, we expected the minister to deal in greater detail than he has done with the interim report of the economic council in connection with consumer affairs and the Department of the Registrar General. I may have misheard the minister, but in his remarks I thought he stated that involved in this resolution and the bill to follow is an intention to convert the Department of the Registrar General into one of corporate and consumer affairs. If I understood the minister correctly this in essence conveys, to me at any rate, that it is the intention of the government, if this legislation is given approval, to do away with the Department of the Registrar General.

3070	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs [DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
The minister indicates that this is not the case. I did not think it was. I believe we should look at this matter in its proper perspective. What in fact is being done by this resolution is to ask parliament to approve the creation of a new and separate department of government. What is inherent in the resolution is the request that parliament approve the establishment of a consumer advisory council and other bodies to assist the minister in the performance of whatever functions he may be given power to perform under the provisions of the bill.
I can well understand the embarrassment of the government in connection with the fourth annual report of the economic council. Perhaps I have an overly inquiring or suspicious mind, but to me those words in the resolution imply that the government wishes to do away with the economic council in order that in future they will suffer no such embarrassment as confronts them as a result of the council's fourth annual report.


An hon. Member:: Utter nonsense.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member says "Utter nonsense", but the words in the resolution make it clear that the government wants to establish a consumer advisory council. We already have an Economic Council of Canada which has made certain recommendations in connection with consumer affairs, recommendations which incidentally are not being followed by the government. The minister passed very lightly over the real reasons for establishing the department. He did not deal with the specific recommendations of the economic council. He did not explain to this committee why the advice of the economic council was not being followed. The economic council made specific recommendations knowing full well what were the recommendations made by the special committee which the minister praised. That committee may have recommended that a new department be set up. However, in the knowledge that the committee had made such a recommendation the economic council took pains to disagree.
There is certainly a need for co-ordination. The economic council points this out on pages 19 and 20 of its interim report. I would specifically draw the attention of the minister to what appears at the top of page 20, where the economic council has this to say:
The implementation of these recomendations does not require a vast expansion in government activity and in the size of the bureaucracy. Any such tendencies should be strongly resisted as being neither necessary nor wise.

DEBATES	October 13, 1967
The reference in the first line is to the recommendations of the economic council. In spite of this the decision of the government has been to press right ahead with the proliferation of the bureaucracy, which is about to progress in true Parkinsonian fashion, to use another of the economic council's phrases. A little further on the council has this to say:
In view of the wide scope of consumer interests and the many departments which are engaged in activities affecting consumers, there is no possibility of concentrating all these activities in a single department, nor would it be desirable to try to do so.
How well I remember those now occupying the treasury benches, particularly the Minister of Finance, castigating the previous government for its failure to follow advice. Here they are flying in the teeth of advice given to them by eminent experts in the fields of labour, economics and industry. What the economic council does recommend-and it is put into words a little later on page 20-is this:
A great improvement in present methods of co-ordination is necesary, and for this purpose we recommend the establishment of an interdepartmental committee on consumer affairs under the chairmanship of the deputy registrar general. The committee should include the deputy ministers of trade and commerce, national health and welfare, industry, agriculture, fisheries, insurance, finance and justice and such other departments as have a continuing interest in consumer matters.
Note that the council does not recommend the setting up of a new department. The minister may very well reply to this argument by saying it is not the intention of the government to appoint a separate minister but that the department will be administered by himself. This is no guarantee that a separate minister will not be appointed at some time in the future. The government might change its mind. The hon. gentleman cannot in honesty rise and give an assurance that a minister will not be appointed at some time in the future to handle the affairs of this department. He cannot do so, if only for the reason that if the bill passes, subsequent governments would not be bound by such an assurance.
There is, however, to be a deputy minister, according to the resolution and it does, in fact, represent a proliferation of the bureaucracy. The council went on to recommend- This committee should have a permanent secretariat within the department of the Registrar General which would asist in the work of the committee and in keeping the minister informed of federal government activities in the field of consumer affairs.
October 13, 1967

The minister took pains to say it is not the intention of the government to propagate bureaucracy, if I may paraphrase his words but this in effect is what he and his colleagues are doing. The government can almost be described as promiscuous in this area of propagating new departments. If they need advice they get it. They receive specific recommendations, but they do not follow those recommendations. One would almost be constrained to prescribe the pill for them to end this profligate conduct of the government.
On page 22 the economic council goes on to say it has-
-carefully considered the advantages and disadvantages of transferring responsibilities for other existing federal government functions to the Registrar General and recommends that at the present time only a few such transfers be made. This decision should, however, be subject to review after a period of experience in the operation of the new Department of the Registrar General.
Not, hon. members will note, of a department of consumers affairs.
At that time, in the light of what has been achieved in the way of improved performance-
Having regard to the past performance of this government I doubt whether the optimism of the council here can be accepted
-and co-ordination of consumer functions by the federal government, the question can be considered whether further transfers of such functions to the Registrar General should be made.
[DOT] (12 noon)
The next phrase is very important. The council says:
If the present recommendations of the Economic Council are accepted, they should not require any significant net growth in the federal public service. Our emphasis is on the improved organization, rearrangement and co-ordination of activities, and not on the proliferation of staff engaged in these functions.
How in the world can the government justify itself in flying in the teeth of that kind of recommendation?
In the fourth annual report of the council they were quite concerned over government expenditures. On page 260 of that report they expressed their concern in these words:
It is also a striking fact that, in spite of the very large increases in defence expenditures which took place in the United States in 1965 and 1966 as a result of the increased involvement in Viet Nam, government spending rose more rapidly in Canada than in the United States in these two years. Over the period 1963-66, total government expenditures at all levels of government rose by about 25 per cent in the United States and about 35 per cent in Canada. Total non-defence government expenditures now represent nearly 30 per
Corporate and Consumer Affairs cent of gross national product in Canada, but only about 20 per cent in the United States-a difference reflecting, among other things, relatively higher expenditures in Canada for social welfare, transportation, interest on the public debt and subsidies.
On page 261 of the report these words appear:
These developments have led to a growing uneasiness in Canada about the current pace of the over-all advance in government spending. The council shares this uneasiness-
And they refer to the Parkinsonian buildup of the bureaucracy. I commend this report and these recommendations to the minister and to the government. Why are they not being followed? It seems to me that the recommendation of the council that a very careful approach be made to the problem of organization and co-ordination is an extremely reasonable one, but the government leaps in with both feet and is again incurring large expenditures in the creation of a separate department.
The minister might say, "Well, your fears are unfounded." He might even give us an estimate of the amount that is going to be spent, the anticipated cost of the functioning of the new department. However, we had that experience at the time of the creation of the Department of Industry when we in this house were led to believe that it was only going to cost $35 million to operate that new department. Now the cost is well over $100 million and is still rising. This is what is going to happen here.
The economic council put it this way on page 27 of their interim report:
In summary, the proposed functions of the emerging Department of the Registrar General in the field of consumer affairs are co-ordination, research and information activities, representation of the consumer interest, and the administration of a limited number of laws affecting both trade and financial matters. It is not anticipated nor intended that a substantial increase in the size of government staff should be necessary to perform these functions satisfactorily.
The council concludes on page 29 of its report:
The above recommendations constitute a number of practical steps towards better organized and more effective consumer policies in Canada. Among other things, they give to the Department of the Registrar General, in the field of consumer affairs, a central co-ordinating role within the federal government and a coherent group of operating responsibilities. This should help to provide a sound administrative base for the future pursuit of consumer policies.
Flying in the teeth of those recommendations the government sets up a new department. When the minister closes this debate he
October 13, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs may make, as I am sure he will, the most honest and sincere attempts to reconcile our fears that this new department is going to result in what the council calls a Parkinsonian growth of the bureaucracy. But he cannot allay mine. I would really like to be convinced.
There are 24 ministers now and this new department will mean 25. Another for housing and urban development will increase the number to 26. The race is on, and all the time the consumer price index is going up. This government is one of high costs.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to intervene in the very interesting argument of the hon. member for Yukon, but as he has not seen the bill I quite understand how he might have been led into error. There is no new department. The present functions of the Department of the Registrar General will be assumed under a new department of corporate and consumer affairs. The Registrar General's functions will be continued and the only new responsibilities will be those for the co-ordination of consumer affairs and corporate securities. So there is no new department added to the list of government departments.


Erik Nielsen: Of course we have not seen the bill. If that is what the bill says then it will go a long way to allay my fears. The minister says there is going to be no new minister but that is not what the resolution says. The resolution says:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a Department of Corporate and Consumer Affairs; to provide for the appointment of a minister and a deputy minister and for their duties and powers-
I know it is probably the initial intention of the government to appoint the Registrar General as the minister of the new department if the bill passes, but I am saying to him that there is no guarantee that there never will be a separate minister for this department. Why is it necessary to have a separate department? Why is the economic council not right? Why are these eminent gentlemen, led by Dr. Deutsch, not right in suggesting there should be an interdepartmental committee?


John Napier Turner: There is.


Erik Nielsen: They have expressed fears that proliferation is going to happen. On page 13 of the interim report they set forth the myriad of branches, divisions and activities in the various departments of government which

involve the consumer spectrum, and they suggest that the approach be slow and cautious and that all these functions not be transferred immediately. They recommend that some of them be transferred now and that, in the light of improved organization and co-ordination, reconsideration should be given at a later date as to what further functions should be transferred.
I cannot understand, and I am sure we are all in the same quandary, why the government is not following the advice of the economic council. As I say, the government is a high cost government, a high tax government, and all the time the consumer price index is going up.
I think it pertinent to place these figures on the record. In 1963 the consumer price index was 133.0, in 1964 135.4, in 1965 138.7, and in 1966 143.9. I have not got the most recent index but there we have a rise of almost 11 points in three years. The government's answer is: Establish another department. The government's answer is that the Economic Council of Canada is wrong, that its members obviously do not know what they are doing, people like Dr. Deutsch and those associated with him who prepared this report, all men eminent in their fields.
I wonder whether the minister has yet seen an article concerning him in Canada Month.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: I hate to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has terminated.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Maurice Rinfret: Does the committee give unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
e (12:10 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: I will send this article to the minister after I quote from it. It is an article about the minister and there is quite a nice picture of him. It says:
This is a high-powered young man who is taking over the cabinet-level regulation, protection and what have you on behalf of "the consumer" in Canada.
If you concede-and many Canadians seem to-* that a truly free market cannot work, then this young man, and his new job, will appear quite sensible.
My great fear is that the minister is going to be riding a wild mustang that will be soon galloping all over the corral of consumer affairs in the government. This is what is
Ociober 13, 1967

going to happen. I have a speech here by the minister on the public demands on advertising made at the annual meeting of the Canadian Institute of Advertising in Montreal on September 22, 1967. The Canada Month article quotes the minister as saying:
"There's a difference

He is referring to advertising.
-between honest exaggeration and deception.
I think everyone is entitled to puff up his own product". Turner adds-oddly enough, just at the point where I was wondering how the misleading advertising legislation might apply to political parties.
This is a very interesting observation. I wonder whether there will be contained in this legislation, or whether the government thought of embodying this principle in it, provisions which will prohibit the kind of advertising we saw during the last and previous election campaigns when $2 wheat, $1,000 scholarships to students and all sorts of hairy promises were made. It seems to me it is a little difficult for the minister to make this kind of speech on advertising in the face of that sort of condition.
In essence we on this side of the house believe that the government is not following a prudent course in setting up a new department to deal with the growing and vexing problem of consumer affairs in this country. We believe that the advice given to the government by the Economic Council of Canada, advice which has cost the Canadian taxpayer a good deal of money, should be followed. It seems to me that this advice is reasonable and must be eminently sound because of the calibre of the individuals who are giving advice to the government.
They have stated specifically that it is impractical, if not impossible, for all of these functions to be handled by a single department. That is the position we on this side take. We will not stand in the way of the government if it insists on proceeding in this fashion, but we will make every effort to bring the government to its senses so that it will accept advice, which hon. members on that side of the house so often criticized us for not accepting when they were in opposition. The advice they have received is not that a new department should be created but rather that there should be a reorganization and co-ordination which could be accomplished without any proliferation of the bureaucracy and by simply setting up an interdepartmental committee. That is all they recommended. This seems to be eminently practical and reasonable both in terms of administrative efficiency and in terms of cost.

Corporate and Consumer Affairs


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, as we debate this resolution the cost of living is rising steadily. The hon. member who has just preceded me has drawn attention to the figures in the index. I have here the issue of the Financial Post for October 7 in which it is pointed out that there has been an accelerating decline in the value of our dollar and what it will buy in Canada now. The article states that the Canadian dollar of 1925 is barely worth 50 cents today and that inflation is clearly evident on the housing front where the price of new houses financed under N.H.A. has risen by almost one third during the past four years. It mentions that after a slower rise last fall and winter consumer prices are again moving up quickly and that the rate of advance now is almost as rapid as it was in the inflationary months of 1965-66. The article goes on to say:
Higher food prices were behind most of the big rise of consumer prices in 1965-66 and, although edging up again, are not as big a push force as other components of living costs.
The heaviest pressure now on consumer prices comes from services. Most stable prices for a decade have been those of manufactured goods. But with narrowing profit margins, producers are currently pushing up the prices of a widening range of items.
The Financial Post sums up by saying:
Consumer prices are rising quickly once again and this time it's an across-the-board advance.
What does this mean? It means that the consumers of Canada are finding themselves naked and defenceless before the winds of heaven. They have appealed to this government for help time and time again over the past few years, and they have appealed with increased urgency as the cost of living has been rising. As the minister pointed out, since 1960 the consumer association of Canada has been asking for a department of consumer affairs. In 1964 my colleague, the hon. member for Danforth, urged in the house the need for a department of consumer affairs. In 1965 it was my colleague from Bumaby-Richmond who again put forth the demand of consumers for a department to manage their affairs. Last year I was the spokesman in respect of this demand. Outside parliament many other voices have been raised.
The consumers of Canada have consistently and urgently appealed to this government for help but again the winds of heaven have left them naked and defenceless. What are they being given? They are being given more wind, and some of the wind has taken the form of pretty severe and harsh blasts. I refer to the rise from 7J per cent to 8i per cent in
3074	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs the N.H.A. mortgage rate. I refer to the complete ignoring of the plight of the consumers in the budget and in the government's explanation of that budget. I refer to the stubborn delay and resistance in respect of dealing with matters such as veterans' pensions, an increase in old age pensions and every other attempt on the part of the consumers to protect themselves by getting their incomes raised to meet the onslaught of rising prices and the cost of living.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
The consumer has never been so helpless as far as the market place is concerned as he is today. The consumer has lost control of the market place. Those of us who were members of the consumer committee understood things very plainly. We found that no longer is there any real competition in the market. At the present time three or four major corporations dominate every field in the market place. They control the situation completely. They plan everything down to the finest detail and completely control the consumer. In the tobacco field there are four companies. In the meat packing business there are three companies. Three companies dominate the soap business and five companies dominate the farm implement business, although not each of them has the same power.
Let me refer to an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail on December 20, 1966 in relation to chain store merchandising. The heading is "New Figures Show Weston's World's No. 2 Merchandiser." It begins by stating:
The Garfield Weston world wide food empire, which sprouted from a bakery shop in West Toronto, now ranks second in profit among all merchandising organizations and third in sales.
Only Sears, Roebuck and Co., with annual sales of $6 billion and the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. (A and P), with $7.1 billion, take in more than (Weston's) $4.2 billion. Among merchandisers, Weston's profit of $72 million is exceeded only by Sears, with $323 million.
The article then goes on to describe the Weston empire which has its tentacles now in the United States, Canada, Britain, South Africa, Australia, Germany and France.
The minister said that he was anxious not only to help the consumer but to help the consumer help himself. What sort of help does he propose in view of the situation
[Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway).)
DEBATES	October 13, 1967
which I have outlined? The minister is a very able and personable man, but when he conceives of the work of the consumer department as being that of a glorified town meeting or citizens' forum where individuals will gain bits of information on whether one brand is a little better than another-he does not even want to offend a company by naming the brand-that is not good enough.
So far the minister has played his cards so close to his vest that no one knows what he has in mind. He has done the same thing this morning. He indicated he would make a short statement in order not to waste time. I hope that he will soon outline his plans to assist the consumer. So far the peeks we have had through the curtains have not been reassuring.


An hon. Member:: The plans are beginning to become clear.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Perhaps they are beginning to show through. But the minister has a great deal of ability to hide them. It is ability on which I congratulate him, but which should be put to better use. All he has done so far is to pour heavy cream smoothly over the situation without interrupting the flow, with the hope that everything will become creamy and silken and under control.
Last April 14 the Toronto Globe and Mail carried the following article from which I should like to read a bit:
Mr. Turner emphasized that he does not want to frighten business. The private enterprise system prevails and the legislation that is brought forward will be designed to make the system work well for everyone.
"Persuasion if possible, regulation if necessary" is the motto, he says.
I am sure everyone has perused Canada Month and now realizes we have passed the point where persuasion is the answer. Apparently the minister is not of this opinion because he has yet to mention anything about compulsion. We have now reached the point when there is no longer freedom of enterprise in the market place. There are only two or three big companies in each field, completely dominating the market. As a result of automation they have placed labour under tight control. They also have the financial sector under control. They withhold dividends to maintain the ability to regulate capital and growth. These companies certainly have the consumer by the throat. They decide what is a desirable profit and then adjust production to obtain that profit.
October 13, 1967

These large companies control the consumer through vast advertising and promotion programs which can only be classified as methods of brainwashing. They use the best devices developed by modern technology. This advertising is subsidized by the consumer who thus assists these corporations in keeping him fettered. This is true because advertising costs are deductible from corporate income taxes. The consumer is actually maintaining the chains which bind him to the giant corporations.
The market place today is a field dominated by a few giant corporations which control the consumer for two purposes, to develop and grow and to eliminate their competitors. This whole business costs a great deal of money and the consumer is paying the shot. For years the consumers have cried to the government for help. Now, instead of being given help through the establishment of a department of consumer affairs they are to be given a department of corporate and consumer affairs. The minister is busy pouring heavy cream in order to obscure the fact that the government has ignored and brushed aside the demands of consumer organizations in Canada. It has brushed aside these demands for at least the last seven years and has ignored the recommendations of an all-party committee of this house and the Senate. That committee recommended the establishment of a department of consumer affairs to be headed by a full time minister.
The hon. member for Yukon suggested that the minister would have enough to do in respect of corporate affairs without having responsibility in the field of consumer affairs. Perhaps that is a good argument but, from my point of view, there is a much stronger one. Putting corporate and consumer affairs under the same minister is like mixing oil and water. Let me give a more homely illustration by referring to a limerick which was in our school books when I was a child.
There was a young lady from Niger,
Who went for a ride on a tiger.
They came back from their ride With the lady inside,
And a smile on the face of the tiger.
That is exactly what will happen when corporate and consumer affairs are put under one department. Regardless of whether the minister interprets corporate affairs in his de-27053-1951

Corporate and Consumer Affairs partment in the same way as outside it, the fact is that they involve protection of the investor. Widows and orphans have always been used as an advancing shield behind which the government has protected big investors and big business.


An hon. Member:: Oh, for goodness sake.
e (12:30 p.m.)


Winona Grace MacInnis: Perhaps you were not around here at that time. I will not say it started before you were born, but the government began doing this long ago. What does the minister intend to do, other than conduct a little campaign to educate the consumers, in order to correct the abuses to which the consumers are subjected. I mean abuses in regard to labelling, packaging, the handling of quality foods, and that sort of thing. The consumers' association has done a good job in this respect, as has the food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare. They have done well in these fields.
I understand that these matters will be transferred to the new department of corporate and consumer affairs. That will be all right. Nobody is gainsaying the importance or value of this work the department will carry out. But I suggest that what the consumers need now, above everything else, is a department that will deal exclusively with urgent consumer affairs. Most important, there should be a department that will deal effectively with the rising cost of living and prices in general. This is what the consumers need and are demanding.
In the interview to which the hon. member for Yukon referred, a report of which appeared in Canada Month, the minister was most evasive. 1 forget the word used by the hon. member for Yukon to describe it.


Erik Nielsen: Urbane.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, urbane.


An hon. Member:: Glib.


Winona Grace MacInnis: And
glib. I am getting help from all over, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just like Paul Martin.
October 13, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
quote now from that interview:
"The attitude of the French speaking purchaser as compared with the English speaking purchaser, his market attitudes," Turner says, stretching a bit into what seems like rather thin air.
Then he gives the following examples of what his department will be doing:
"The role of advertising in the community: is it a competitive feature or a burdensome feature?"
The answer to that question depends on whom you are talking to. The minister goes on to ask:
"What is happening to the ratio of disposable income?"
If the minister had read the evidence presented to the committee that dealt with consumer affairs he would know what is happening to the ratio of disposable income. In that committee we heard evidence that people were having to spend up to 50 per cent of their income for food. There was evidence that many families have to spend a very much greater percentage than the 20 per cent or 25 per cent that social workers consider a proper percentage of income to pay for housing.
Disposable income is being channelled more and more into the price of the basics of living, namely, food, shelter, clothing, transportation and health care. Much, much less income is left for education and those other things which lift a person out of the ranks of hewers of wood and drawers of water and put him into the ranks in which the minister, myself and many others like to be, where we can use our heads and not be reduced to the grind of making just enough money to provide bread and butter and pay the rent for our families. I return to the article in Canada Month. The interviewer says:
We pause for a moment. But that seems to be all he wants to offer by way of example. Does he mean-
The minister.
-to get into something like "Consumer Reports"? Good heavens no!
Why shouldn't these inquiries be made by the economic council, or by industry itself? "Too detailed for the economic council. And by giving the corporations material and information that will help them act more sensibly in the market place we are benefiting the consumer." Does he propose to legislate in such areas? Again a quick (and apparently horrified) negative.

The report on the interview continues:
Taken straight, without too much philosophical sauce, it can do no wrong. "If industry regulates itself and responds to these pressures," he says at one point, "it's Just fine by me."
Industry is not only regulating itself but also regulating the consumers of Canada in practically every detail of their lives. We believe it is time the government of the people took a hand in protecting the consumers against being regulated. The minister was asked about a prices review board, and the interview continued in this way:
Is this likely to satisfy the N.D.P., I ask as guilelessly as I can. Well, he answers, what does the N.D.P. want? It wants consumer programs "with teeth." It wants a prices review board- "but", says Turner with justifiable triumph "where's the constitutional authority for that?"
In his speech this morning the minister said that he knew we had to have a debate on a resolution preceding a money bill but he thought it was high time we did away with this practice because it had outlived its usefulness. I suggest to the minister that it is high time we made some constitutional changes and with the common consent of the provinces and the federal government, after negotiation, put some of these things back into the limbo of history where they belong. Let me ask the minister this question. The real problem-


The Chairman:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. lady to advise her that the time allotted to her has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall not take much more of the time of the committee. Let me ask the minister this question. Suppose we had a prices review board and held an inquiry into steel prices in the full light of publicity. Suppose this inquiry gave publicity to the fact that sales of farm implements between 1962 and 1966 increased by 56 per cent and profits increased by 150 per cent.


An hon. Member:: That is for just one company.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, it is for just one farm implement company. If this information were made available to the
October 13, 1967

public, what would be the effect on city consumers and farmers alike? Would they not take steps to see that their provincial government permitted Ottawa to deal with unjustifiable price increases of that kind? Would they not force the provincial government to pass concurrent legislation in the provincial field to deal with these unjustifiable price increases? I challenge the minister to name a single province that would withstand pressure of that kind from its citizens.
Now I come to a matter that concerns the housewives of this country. Suppose the prices review board gave publicity to the fact that between 1960 and 1966 one large fruit and vegetable canning company in Canada increased its sales by 26 per cent and at the same time increased its profits by 396 per cent. I ask, Mr. Chairman, which minister, including the present one, of a department of consumer affairs would be hamstrung by that kind of publicity? Rather, he would be free to deal with these prices and roll them back in the way in which they should be rolled back.
This measure is just the usual Liberal window-dressing, a desire to pretend that something is being done when in reality nothing much is being accomplished. Even our friends in the official opposition do not need to be too worried, because this department will not be a new one. This measure will mean that the poor little consumer will be tacked like a tiny, little tail on to the big corporate dog inside the department of corporate and consumer affairs. So the official opposition does not need to worry about this measure adding greatly to the cost of government.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. member to wait until I have finished my remarks because the committee may not give me time to complete what I want to say. As I have said, this measure is just window-dressing. It is the same sort of thing that happened last fall when the housewives of Canada boycotted the stores to such good effect that a parliamentary committee was set up to look into these questions. The committee did good work in this respect and indicated some of the teeth that we would like the new department to have. This government, not liking that recommendation-I hope the hon. member for Yukon will ask me a question in this respect-got the advice it wanted from the economic council. The government received the advice it wanted to receive from the
Corporate and Consumer Affairs Economic Council of Canada and decided not to establish a separate department of consumer affairs but to throw the consumers into the same department with the corporations, where presumably they could fight it out.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I hope, Mr. Chairman, I shall get a chance to deal with this matter more fully on second reading. However, regardless of whether I do I want to say once again that I feel the consumers of this country have asked the government for bread and have been given a stone. So far as I am concerned that stone will not be left unturned.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the matter of consumer credit is nothing new. In fact, it was raised in the house several years ago and it has been discussed year after year. Today, a resolution is placed before us, which reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs; to provide for the appointment of a minister and a deputy minister and for their duties and powers; to provide that the governor in council may establish a consumer advisory council and other bodies to assist the minister and for the remuneration and expenses of the members thereof; and to provide for certain other matters related or incidental thereto.
That resolution is introduced by the Registrar General (Mr. Turner). It is not a bill, it is not a piece of legislation, it is simply a resolution asking, as it were, for permission to introduce a piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, for the last few years, we have witnessed the creation of various bodies as, for instance, the Economic Council of Canada, study commissions and consumers organizations, to consider consumer credit, but we have never come to a conclusion or found a solution to the problem of consumer credit.
Still, we who support the creditiste doctrine have repeatedly proposed a solution that could be put to the test so that we might see its results. We know the results of present procedures; they are disastrous and prove clearly that the Canadian consumer now faces debts for years to come.
The average worker mortgages his salary for two, three, four, or five years, or even for 10, 15 or 25 years when he buys a small property.
Mr. Chairman, we all know that producers stand on one side, and consumers on the other. There are middlemen between the two
3078	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs who provide services, or enable the goods to reach the consumers. Everyone understands that. Some blame the middle man and say, like the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), that the big fellow makes too much profit while the little fellow pays too much for the goods he buys, so that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Would direct intervention by the government in placing a ceiling on prises and wages solve this problem? Prices and wages were controlled in this way during the war, and the immediate result was the birth of the black market, an inevitable phenomenon on any market or in any country in the world. The black market arises from coercion or control exercized by the government on production, wages and consumption.
Mr. Chairman, there is a difference between a person who can pay cash and one who must ask for credit in just about every sphere of economic activity. If a Canadian consumer buys goods worth $1,000, whether it be furniture, or a car, or anything else, he will get a 20 per cent discount if he pays cash.
: Everyone more or less agrees with this. However, if the same consumer must buy on credit or finance his purchases, the same goods worth $1,000 will cost him at least $1,180, because of the interest on his loan or instalment plan. This means a difference of $380 for $1,000 worth of goods.
This means a 38 per cent difference between paying cash and buying on credit. Some may say that people have to buy on credit. Yes, they have to, because they do not have the purchasing power necessary to pay cash. That is the reason. No one would buy on credit if everyone had the money to pay cash.
That is where the creditistes suggest a solution. There is only one way to enable Canadian consumers to buy products made in Canada or existing products, and that is by giving them more purchasing power without at the same time raising the price of goods.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Today, there are several strikes going on. They are called for better working conditions, of course, but mostly for higher wages; however, as soon as a salary raise is granted, it must be added to production costs and, as a result, prices go up. Once more, salaries lag behind prices and the whole process starts over again. It is a vicious circle from which we can never hope to extricate ourselves.
Mr. Chairman, a new department of consumer affairs may be created, an da consumer
[Mr. Caouette.l
DEBATES	October 13, 1967
advisory council, but I think we have no need for all that, because we already know what the consumer wants. In fact, we could appoint ten ministers of consumer affairs but we would get the same results if we retained the same system.
No matter how many ministers or advisers are appointed, how many commissions, committees or advisory boards are created. I still believe that so long as we keep the present financial system, no solution will be found for the problems facing us and we will keep on witnessing this spiralling race between prices and wages and wages and prices.
Even if the ministers and all the civil servants of this new department go ahead with the establishment of wage and price controls, the black market will remain and will push the cost of living even higher.
Mr. Chairman, for a long time now we have been explaining the situation in parliament and the search is still going on; dilly-dallying, looking for solutions within a system lacking the possibility of settling the problem. The government is the first to suffer from this system because it is not in a position to give one cent to the people or to the Canadian consumer without having to pay interest to the Canadian banking system. The government is not in a position to undertake any construction whatever without having to kneel before the financiers to beg permission to develop our country. Yet, there is talk of helping the consumers to improve their living condition and preventing evil capitalists from making profits.
Mr. Chairman, we have a solution to offer in order to restore order between production and consumption, between prices and the people's incomes: firstly, a compensated discount on retail prices allowed by the government, but charged to the Bank of Canada rather than being included in taxes. Such discount would not be included in the price of goods and would compensate the retail price. Thus, the consumer would get a rebate and his purchasing power would be increased without injuring anyone. Retailers, dealers and manufacturers would still be making profits, because it is not manufacturers' or dealers' profits that prevent consumers from sharing in the Canadian production, it is the monetary system.
If profit is an incentive for individual effort, for private enterprise, for the economic development of our country, one should consider it rather favourably, instead of forever attacking it.
October 13, 1967

We sincerely believe, Mr. Chairman, that the compensated discount paid by the Bank of Canada through a national credit board, would considerably help Canadian consumers to maintain a balance between purchasing power and production.
Secondly, so that all Canadian consumers, from the social, economic and political standpoints, obtain and receive the assurance of a guaranteed vital minimum, we would suggest the distribution of a national dividend based on national production and distributed through the credit board; the latter would request the Bank of Canada to issue the required cheques in order to increase the consumers' purchasing power, but this dividend would not be added to the cost of goods. Thus, we would increase the consumers' purchasing power without raising prices. This is the opposite of what is happening today.
But, Mr. Chairman, when we speak of these two important points of the creditist doctrine, people find the solution strange, stupid, even silly. And yet, the present administration offers no solution, everyone knows that. The solution we have had, that is the application of the present monetary principles, we have to put up with it now; we are experiencing the results, the consequence: misery in the midst of abundance. Products are now being destroyed, in 1967, throughout Canada, while Canadian citizens live in slums, do not have the bare necessities, have no security at all and only have the freedom to starve while sitting on heaps of wheat. That is the present situation.
Mr. Chairman, it is all very well to laugh at solutions brought forward by others. However, let us start by considering how matters stand. For ten years and even since the end of the war-for more than ten years, for twenty-two years-we have been hearing about consumer credit. Things are getting worse all the time. It is getting worse in every field. Since the war the national debt has been increasing. The interest paid on that debt has been increasing to such an extent that this year we will pay $1,279 million in interest alone on that debt.
And we are studying here ways to help the consumers. Think of the good example the government is setting for the Canadian consumers, producers, farmers, workers, etc. And after that we are surprised to see that strikes are called, such as the dreadful one now going on within the Montreal Transportation Commission, where the workers defy the authorities, where the workers indicate that
Corporate and Consumer Affairs they are completely dissatisfied with their living conditions, and the workers are right, yes. Even if they are right, will their strike solve their problem? Of course not. I have yet to see in Canada or elsewhere in the world a strike which solved the problems of the working people.
The fate of the worker or the labour problem have never been settled by strikes. And after a strike there begins another within one, two or three years. Why? Because we wallow in a system that does not make sense and we refuse to change it. Who is paying the piper in Montreal for this strike? Is it Marcel Pepin, the president of the C.S.N? Certainly not. He has not taken a salary cut. It is the workers who yesterday received $20 to feed their family and the others who got $10 who pay for this strike, who will have to pay for six months, one year, two years or three years. It is neither Marcel Pepin nor the Quebec government that will pay for it. It is the general public who will suffer from it.
In regard to the automobile industry, at the Ford plant, it is the same thing. The purpose of all those strikes at Ford, Chrysler, General Motors is to obtain salary increases, a pension plan. This is why a car which sold for $1,800 or $2,000 a few years ago costs $4,000 today.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member has two minutes remaining, so perhaps the committee would agree to carry on for two more minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Very well, I will go on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In conclusion, I will simply say that we are suggesting a solution. Instead of looking at it askance, let us examine it seriously and see the problem for what it is. Let us not run away from it, but do as a great general said not too long ago: Let us go to the bottom of things. But let us do that. We will discover that at the bottom of things in Canada lies the monetary system. It is responsible not for taxation, which is a secondary matter, but for the creation and destruction of money or credit in the country.
The solution which we advocate is a discount compensated by a national dividend which would create a certain order or balance between purchasing power and Canadian products.
October 13, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs [English]


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair. The committee will resume at 2.30 p.m.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, it is customary, or has been so, for the governments of certain countries in the world, when they wish to set up an important but vaguely defined department to look after a broad range of domestic affairs, to designate that department as the ministry of the interior. As I listened to the Registrar General this morning it seemed to me that this might have been a better title for the new department than the one suggested-ministry of consumer affairs.
There is something about the designation "ministry of the interior" which strikes an alien note. There is a foreign connotation to it. Departments with "affairs" attached to their names are too routine. Our external affairs policy has neither changed nor accomplished anything for the last 15 years and no one expects that it will over the next 15 years. Indian affairs makes a steady but barely visible progress-we do not get excited over it very often-and as for northern affairs, we do not think about it at all.
"Department of Consumer Affairs" has, I am sure, a pleasant and satisfying sound, particularly to the government. The minister refers to the setting up of this department as "a rationalization". This, too, has a satisfying sound to it because, after all, we are rational people and we expect governments to function on a rational basis and to move only after logical thought and much discussion. But a desire for rationalization is not, of course, the reason for the formation of a department of consumer affairs. It comes about as a result of an emotional demand. There may even be some Canadians who feel that this emotional demand was that made by the housewives who protested some months ago in their anger-in many cases it was justified anger-against rising prices. The decision of the government to set up a ministry has nothing to do with anger at all but it has everything to do with fear-fear that hon. gentlemen opposite may be replaced in the very near future by the New Democratic party if they fail to move swiftly enough into the areas indicated by that party. This is the

real reason we are debating today a resolution concerning a department of consumer affairs.
No hardier contestant has ever entered the political arena than the idea of this department. The hon. member for Yukon spoke about the hearings of the committee on consumer credit and prices. He told us about the number of times this champion was dusted off by the N.D.P. and put into the ring again. Expert after expert demolished it and laid it lifeless on the floor only to find that the next day it was alive again and still around. It would not lie down though it was defeated before the committee which was looking into the whole question of consumer goods and their prices. I am sure that if this party were handling the real boxing championships, Canada would have the world championship in its possession. As I say, this idea would not lie down. Finally, the minister himself raised its hand and when we get to third reading it will be crowned as a champion, a new department, one which could have a most significant effect not only on the career of the hon. gentleman but on the government of Canada as well.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I was amazed at the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway this morning. I had expected that she would rise and simply say "Thank you, kind sir" before sitting down. But she sailed into a pseudo-attack on the very objectives which she and her colleagues have sought for so long. She had to work hard to find something to attack, because I am sure the minister has worked his hands to the bone putting forward this idea, getting it accepted by the cabinet and preparing this resolution for presentation today. But the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway found the one damned spot, which happened to be the word "corporate", and she sunk her teeth into it. I do not for a moment accuse her of biting the hand that fed her, not at all, but I would say she bit the hand that bled for her, and Mr. Chairman, who would have thought that the minister and the government had so much blood in them?


Mr. Herridge:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Howard Earl Johnston: Certainly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the hon. gentleman not realize that the minister to be in charge of this department was raised in the Kootenays? He is made of good stuff.


Erik Nielsen: Stuff and nonsense.
October 13, 1967	COMMONS


Howard Earl Johnston: I would quite agree. Certainly there is iron in the Kootenays, and eventually there may be a steel mill there to steel the minister to further endeavours on behalf of socialism in Canada, because this government will continue to bleed for the cause of socialism until there is no further necessity for the party that calls itself socialist to continue in existence. This was the source of the agitation expressed so eloquently by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
One would like to think that the transfer from the Department of the Registrar General to the new department of consumer affairs would be smooth and all-embracing, but I have very grave doubts that it will. I can imagine the furniture in the offices going up and down the elevators as the department changes, as well as the personnel.


Erik Nielsen: Escalation?


Howard Earl Johnston: I doubt very much that the people who have been handling the duties connected with the department of the Registrar General will be able to move swiftly and easily into the department of consumer affairs. I am sure they will not be phased out of the government service but will be moved to other offices, and we will see a gradual shifting over until the new department becomes one of the major ones in the entire governmental set-up.
I say this because the new department is going to do battle. There may be Canadians sufficiently naive to assume it is going to do battle with big business or with the tariff legislation of the government, but I doubt very much that it will do much battle with them. I believe it will do battle with some of the other government departments. It will do battle with the Department of Industry and with the Department of Agriculture. What a war that is going to be.
The other day a newspaper columnist, Douglas Fisher, wrote that the Minister of Agriculture is looking tired and as though he had his eyes on a Senate seat or a judgeship somewhere in the Ottawa valley.


Erik Nielsen: Is that the minister of eastern agriculture?


Howard Earl Johnston: I am quoting Mr. Fisher, and all he said was the Minister of Agriculture. I hope this is not the case. If it is and he is tired, he had better take his rest now as we debate this legislation because once the consumer affairs department is set up he will
DEBATES	3081
Corporate and Consumer Affairs have to battle head on with it. I say this because there is a basic flaw in the proposal of a department of consumer affairs. That is the assumption that almost everybody in the country is a consumer, period, and somewhere there is a villian who is the producer and he needs to be controlled. There is still a minority of our people who are solely consumers and they have not been treated right by this government or any of its predecessors. I speak of the old age pensioners, the retired, the disabled, the blind and the handicapped who through no fault of their own cannot contribute in full measure to the economy of the country. But everyone else is both a producer and a consumer, sometimes in the one capacity and sometimes in the other.
We had the sad spectacle of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway shedding tears for the farmer because of rising costs of farm machinery. We know those costs are rising rapidly, but we also know there is at present more than sufficient government machinery in existence to do something about the problem.
I believe the new department of consumer affairs will have to listen to some of the hardest attacks imaginable on the agricultural industry. The minister gave us his word this morning that he will listen to such attacks. I trust he will listen to them with a great deal of scepticism.
I was not a member of the consumer credit and prices committee but I did attend one hearing in the city of Vancouver and listened to an attack made by an organization calling itself, "The Women Against Soaring Prices." It was an attack on the fruit industry of the Okanagan valley which, had it been listened to, would have wrecked that industry forever. It was an unreasonable attack, an attack which made the assumption that a luxury product was somehow a basic right and somehow should be provided out of national revenues.
I would hope that when the minister listens to such attacks he will carefully differentiate the targets for his department's activities. I hope he will consult with the Minister of Agriculture, but I suspect there will be sharp and bitter conflict and that ultimately the agricultural industry will suffer from the setting up of this new department. That industry need not look for any help from the N.D.P. because we all recall that during the emergency session of the house last year the farmers were told that they should be standing shoulder to shoulder with the people whose actions at that time were destroying them. So
3082	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs I say there will be no help for the farmers from the N.D.P.
In his new department the minister can probably do some good in respect of matters covered by the Combines Investigation Act, but an entirely new department is not needed to tackle those problems. That section of the department has probably been understaffed, but it has existed for a long time and did not require the setting up of a new department to do the things that are necessary so that businesses which conspire to fix prices can be charged and brought to justice.
This happened recently in the case of fruit wholesaling companies which over a period of 20 years fixed the prices of Japanese oranges coming from Japan to British Columbia. When I read the accounts of that trial I knew that all of the evidence that should have been presented was not presented. There were too many people who were afraid to testify against their own wholesaler because their position, if the trial had resulted in an acquittal, would have been most delicate. I doubt that the new department will really be able to tackle some of the problems that exist in the area of combines-


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Howard Earl Johnston: -because it will not be able to guarantee the people required to give evidence that their position relative to their wholesaling companies will be the same after the trial as it was before. The department will not be watchful enough long enough to see that a subsequent injustice is not done.


Mr. O'Keefe:: Why not give the minister a chance?
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Howard Earl Johnston: I would point out that I have congratulated him on the work he has already done. I am saying simply that he does not need an entirely new department with the hopeful sounding but misleading name "consumer affairs" or the politically advantageous name "consumer affairs" in order to carry out the duties spelled out under the Combines Investigation Act which are already in his care.


Erik Nielsen: Misleading advertising.


Howard Earl Johnston: I was interested in the speech of the hon. member for Yukon, but I was disappointed when he said that he and the members of his party were washing their hands of this matter. I gather that there will be no down the line fight against it. If all the

DEBATES	October 13, 1967
things we have been hearing in the past few months from the candidates for the leadership of that party were true, this would be the place to take a stand, because this is one area where the civil service will proliferate and where the government will interfere probably more harmfully than helpfully in the affairs of this nation.
Here we have something which will pose a threat to the agricultural industry which is represented here in large part by members of the party of the hon. member for Yukon. If he and all the members of that party could stand firm on this issue they would challenge the New Democratic party and the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway when she suggested that this was not what her party wants. Here is an issue on which he and the members of his party can take a stand.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member obviously misunderstood my remarks.


Mr. Laflamme:: Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to take part for a few minutes in the consideration of the resolution now before the committee, that is the establishment of a department of corporate and consumer affairs with powers of co-ordination and other additional powers to be more definitely stipulated in the bill which will be introduced after the resolution is passed.
I have listened to various speeches on this resolution. I wonder whether there is not a distortion of the main objectives to be achieved by the establishment of this new department by endeavouring to assign to it things which will have no relation to the new department.
When for instance, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) talks about consumer credit, when the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) brings up the matter of price controls or when the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) worries about an increase in bureaucracy within the department, I feel that we are getting quite far from the main objectives set down by the government when it decided to create that department.
In fact, as the Registrar General (Mr. Turner) said, with great calmness and objectivity I think, one should not hope that a new department of consumer affairs will be able to solve all the problems which might exist in our society, nor was it the intention of this government to create this department merely
October 13. 19G7	COMMONS
to show off. I think the government has accomplished a great deal to date in the way of research and analysis, and has made serious studies. I have had an opportunity for several months to study and examine many briefs prepared by civil service officials and outside individuals and corporations. It should also be recognized that a large number of hon. members are really interested in this matter, as there are now, on the orders of the day, no fewer than 22 public bills dealing with the consumers' manifold problems. However, I think we should come back to the idea that the government has attempted mainly to coordinate the specific and detailed efforts of various departments. In fact, on page 13 of the interim report published by the Economic Council of Canada, it may be seen that practically all departments are required to apply laws dealing specifically with consumers' problems, but there was lacking exactly what has been recommended by the Economic Council of Canada and proposed by this government, that is this co-ordination essentially needed to insure action from a designated federal department responsible for directing research as well as providing information on various policies developed in order to protect the general interests of the consumers-


Erik Nielsen: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Ovide Laflamme: Yes.


Erik Nielsen: If this is the objective, and it is an extremely laudable one, can the hon. member explain why the government is not following the recommendation of the economic council to set up an interdepartmental committee rather than a new department?


Ovide Laflamme: As a matter of fact there is an intergovernmental committee to study the matter, as well as an interdepartmental committee. It is absolutely essential if we consider the fact that almost every department is involved in consumers' problems and that an area of those jurisdictions will come under the new department. It is essential that the interdepartmental committee continues to operate and that a new department of consumer affairs be responsible mainly for the protection of the consumers.
In that respect also, I contend that the department-
DEBATES	3083
Corporate and Consumer Affairs [English]


Erik Nielsen: 
Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Chairman, when my hon. friend has seen the bill, I doubt that he will say that the government intends to group, within the new department, all the powers and legislative measures related to consumers' problems generally. I maintain that this cannot be done logically. Once again, the main object, the main purpose that is sought is not to concentrate, or to centralize all jurisdictions within a department but rather to create a department, the function of which would be to provide the co-ordination which has now become absolutely essential and to help generally consumers to help themselves.
And now, Mr. Chairman, reverting to the argument I was trying to submit, I must say-and these are my own personal observations-that, bearing in mind what studies and surveys have been made, as well as the main objectives and the very basis of the measure, it all boils down to the fact that on the one hand, the consumer is entitled to information and, on the other hand, the government must inform the consumer.
Speaking of this question of information, if we want to appreciate the merits of the overall objectives of the public bills already entered in the order paper or of the purposes of the new department which is going to be organized, we come to the conclusion that the essential objective which should be sought and attained, in order to really help the consumers within the jurisdiction of the central government, is to educate the consumer. This, of course, will require the general co-operation of the legislatures which have this power. May I also respectfully submit that it will be necessary to teach the child, right from his early years, that is from primary school, how to protect himself in the midst of an affluent society; it will be necessary to make him familiar with the analysis of a personal budget, with sound management, so as to enable him to plan his own budget and especially to make a wise choice among all the facilities
October 13, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs available to him to get this or that through finance companies, etc.
Considering this whole situation, one must readily admit that such co-ordination will have to take place within the various federal structures, in short, within all public powers.
I feel it is illusory and useless to think that the government is able, by creating a department of consumer affairs, to cure all the ills and relieve all the miseries of the people, as the hon. member for Villeneuve is blaming the government for not doing.
We are living in a free society. I respectfully submit that it is neither possible nor advisable to apply strict controls to an economy of abundance and production. The Economic Council of Canada precisely suggested that within a production first geared to our capability, production itself was the best protection for consumers, through employment, and that within that abundant production, some governmental action was essential so as to guide consumers and, in short, help them to help themselves.
Must the government seek, as a rule, to exercise a control over advertising? Is it to analyse the various means of protecting the consumer, to change the structures, even to change some jurisdictions? For instance, when my hon. friend from Villeneuve speaks about the evil effects of the system, let us say, of the finance companies-it might be the impression which was left in our province on many occasions-I say that the House of Commons is not the proper place for a full discussion of that problem, because the central government does not have the necessary powers to control the agreements entered into by corporations and individuals since it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.
It is obviously within the legislatures that these demands must be made when we are concerned with fraud, false pretences, exchange of notes and promissory notes, contract transfer or contract financing. All these, except the Bills of Exchange Act, are under provincial jurisdiction and obviously, whatever the good will of the central government may be, it is necessarily up to the provinces to apply their own legislation in this field.
The hon. member for Yukon was here a minute ago. Now he was suggesting, on the one hand, the creation of an interdepartmental committee but, on the other hand, he seemed to blame the government for not strictly following the proposals of the Economic Council of Canada which on page 22 recommends the creation of a department of
fMr. Laflamme.]
corporate and consumer affairs and advocates further co-ordination in research in every field to permit dissemination of information.
The Registrar General of Canada has already summarized the general objectives which might constitute the basis for a policy of consumer assistance which obviously comprises recognition of the right of the consumer to be informed, protected, heard and defended.
I once made a personal analysis of an act -as a lawyer, of course, I had the opportunity to practice-for instance, the Bills of Exchange Act for which the central power is responsible. And when you talk about the possibility of amending this act, especially sections 56 and 60, to restrict the freedom of transferring exchange bills or notes which are attached to a conditional sale contract, you must be wise enough, I think, to wonder to what extent this impinges on the freedom of individuals to buy what they want or what they can afford.
When you think of all that while practising your profession, you feel that in most cases there has been fraud, misrepresentation and that people are certainly the victims of a sharp deal. This results from a certain kind of ignorance or laziness among people who are often unable to judge by themselves the use and the actual quality of certain products which they buy.
We must also admit that it is easy to buy goods, which means that a certain section of our people lives above its means.
I do not know whether it is the policy of her party but the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway is evidently advocating price controls. Now, price controls, do not come under federal jurisdiction except in wartime. Now, I am sincerely wondering what would be the results of such controls. Would it really be possible for the central government to establish an efficient price control system within various jurisdictions? I do not think that the department of corporate and consumer affairs could be most useful. I think it would be especially valuable within its own framework by attempting to arouse the attention of the people on the main problems confronting them, namely the matter of publicity and of free choice, through the creation of that consumer advisory council. The same department would also be in a position to inform, educate and set some standards by which any ordinary citizen could be enlightened and would freely and sensibly choose when purchasing products.
October 13, 1967	COMMONS
Shall we have, then, a real control over prices? The hon. member for Villeneuve spoke about a continuous rise in the cost of living and prices; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway spoke about controlling those prices. First, I do not think it comes-in fact, I am sure it does not-under the jurisdiction of the department.
Secondly, those are not the main purposes sought in the establishment of that department. They have already been formulated by the Registrar General. They are mainly a matter of initiative, of co-ordination of efforts.
When all the tabled public bills concerning the rise in the cost of living, have been studied during this session as well as the legislation concerning the setting-up of this department, then it will be possible, I think, to indicate more specifically what are the main objectives of the department, which, I am convinced, meet an ever growing need. The central government, in the framework of its own jurisdiction, decides to set up a body which will make it possible for the people as a whole to be better informed, better heard and better protected. That co-ordination could also call our attention to some deficiencies in our legislation which later on could be corrected in the interest of the people as a whole.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, we have all listened with great interest to the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Que-bec-Montmorency. He represents an area of which I will have very pleasant memories as a result of being there this summer. I was particularly interested in his comments about the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the position taken by the party to which that hon. lady belongs in connection with price controls. I agree with the hon. member, although I have some difference of opinion as to the law in that only in case of a national emergency can price controls be imposed. It seems to me that a very good case could be made that as long as the present government stays in power there is an emergency in this country.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have often considered appearing before a court with 12 Hansards taken at random from the term of office of this government, and a list of the legislation
DEBATES	3085
Corporate and Consumer Affairs passed in that time. I think that any good, competent judge would say: Quite right, Mr. Baldwin; I think your position is very accurately taken in the legal sense.
We all wish the minister luck in this new enterprise. He is one who has been courteous in his answers to us. Those of us who have had the occasion to deal with him have obtained a good reception. We think he is doing a good job in the capacity in which he is engaged at the present time. It is too bad that he is not to stay in his present capacity because I fear he will get into very grave difficulties in spite of his ability in that he is carrying some tremendous handicaps apart from his associates in the cabinet.
I have often thought that the resolution stage of financial bills should be omitted. It is true that the British North America Act requires that a bill involving the expenditure of money first must be submitted by a member of the Privy Council in the form of a resolution. But I have often thought that if the government ever saw the light of day and let us deal with bills in committee before second reading, we could omit the type of discussion we are now having in which we are only shooting in the dark. We are not certain what provisions the bill will include. We have an opportunity, of course, to make suggestions and recommendations in respect of the principle of the legislation. However, I think that a rescheduling-I say this parenthetically because I have made these observations before and I think they should be seriously considered-of the procedure in respect of an important bill of this type should be considered. This type of bill should be considered in committee before second reading. It should be sent to committee well in advance of the time the government intends to introduce it.
This would provide an opportunity to discuss in committee the provisions of the bill, to call witnesses, examine the purposes of the bill and understand it in detail. This procedure would permit a far better type of debate than that in which we are now engaged. I believe the government would be well advised to consider proceeding in this way before second reading and let the bill be discussed in committee before the principle is adopted. Many important recommendations might come from the committee after discussion of the bill.
I do not envisage long committee hearings of the type we have had in the past. I believe that too often our committees have taken the bit in their teeth and having a new toy, are perhaps playing a little too extensively with
October 13, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs their powers. But I think that short, succinct committee hearings, with proper witnesses called before them, would permit opposition members as well as private members on the back benches of the government to make useful suggestions as to the form proposed legislation should take. This is a matter to which our party may well give serious consideration at the time the bill is introduced for second reading.
In reply to what was said by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, it should be said that the hon. member for Yukon did not say we were just taking a passive attitude in regard to this legislation. The hon. member for Yukon said that we want to see what is in the bill and are reserving our position until the bill is introduced. We do not know what is in it; the minister does. I do not think that the observation of the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke was a proper one in the light of what was said by my colleague the hon. member for Yukon.
I now wish to deal with an observation made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway when she dismissed, I thought rather cavalierly, the very strong argument advanced by the hon. member for Yukon with regard to the interim report on consumer affairs and the Department of the Registrar General by the Economic Council of Canada. Because my time is short I shall go only this far in replying to the hon. member. The Economic Council of Canada is composed of people who represent those engaged in industry all across Canada. It is composed of business people, labour leaders, academics, and so on. Included in those appointed to the council are the following: Arthur R. Gibbons, vice president and national legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen; W. Ladyman, international vice president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Stanley A. Little, national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees; R. R. Atkinson, president of the National Farmers' Union; William Mahoney, national director for Canada of the United Steelworkers of America, and so on.
In other words, I do not think anyone's arm was twisted in making this report. It is a very intelligent and succinct report going to the pith, substance and heart of the issue with which we are dealing. The statements quoted by the hon. member for Yukon cannot be easily brushed aside. They were valid comments and criticisms which must be taken into account. On the Economic Council of

Canada were representatives of farm organizations who signed the report and accepted its contents.
I sometimes wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether we are not getting away from the real search for the answers to some of the problems which so plague us today. The consumers of this country have problems; there is no question about that. I do not think that legislation of this kind will provide the answers to these problems. I do not think it will provide even a very small part of the answers. I do not believe the consumers of Canada will sleep any more soundly after this legislation is passed and steps taken to implement it than they did before, in spite of the very careful administration that I am sure the legislation will receive from the minister.
There is a fallacy in the minds of governments and many people that by passing legislation of this kind, by moving to create new departments and government agencies, we can solve problems. We can no more solve problems in this way than we can by repeating cliches when talking about them. The difficulty is that there are just not enough of the right things, produced in the right way and at the right place, to consume. I believe it is more a matter of production than consumption. I believe my hon. friends to my left would agree that during the war one of the most important departments created in this country was the Department of Defence Production. That department was created to firmly, and if necessary even ruthlessly and brutally, brush aside all the conventions, mores, usages and customs of people engaged in the business of production and direct and divert the production of the country to a more specific purpose.
In the light of what was said by the Economic Council of Canada I do not believe the creation of this new department will serve the necessary purpose. I agree with the minister and his parliamentary secretary that there is a useful part to be played by a department that will look at some of the collateral and subsidiary problems which plague consumers. But the answers to the real problems will not be contained within the four corners of legislation of this kind.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I should now like to speak about some matters with which the new department will be able to deal when it starts operating, although I have some doubts about it. What are some of the things which restrict production and the cost at which goods are produced?
October 13, 1967

There is no question that this is what affects us. As I said the other day, you can tax for the purpose of redistributing wealth but all it does is to consume wealth. It does not produce one single item more of wealth. Wealth is produced only by the application of labour to natural resources.
Let us now consider the restrictive trade practices legislation. Here we may have to look at the application of this legislation with regard to the future course of consumers and of production in this country. We may have to examine the extent to which there exists a sufficiently broad base under our constitutional system on which to found a valid and workable system to deal with combines and restrictive trade practices and misleading advertising.
The question of patents is tremendously important. There has been no meaningful attempt for dozens of years to look at the patent laws in the light of modern conditions and modern needs. It is in areas of this kind that the minister and the department may be able to make a very useful contribution. At the present time I doubt it, but I will sit back and wait until I see the legislation and see what powers are contained in the bill.
Then there is the question of taxes. Much has been said in the house about the production tax. One of the problems which faces consumers today is the limitation on the production of goods and services which they need as a result of the inadequate and obsolete system of taxation which prevails. That does not mean that I support the Carter commission.
Let me give an illustration of a matter which may not be completely under federal jurisdiction. One of the problems with which we have been dealing here is housing. To what extent does taxation affect the problem of housing and the availability of housing? I can recall the first house I built 35 or 38 years ago. At that time I paid $30 for three lots and about $2,500 for the house. When I came back from overseas in 1946 I paid $600 for a lot and about $8,000 or $9,000 for the house. What does one have to pay today in the large metropolitan centres and in most of the urban areas in Canada? Anywhere from $6,000 to $10,000 or $12,000 for a lot and from $15,000 to $18,000 for a house.
These are problems which an inadequate system of taxation has made possible. Under the present system of municipal or provincial taxation improvements on land are taxed as well as the land itself. If only the land were taxed this would make available
Corporate and Consumer Affairs tremendous areas of land at lower prices on which houses could be constructed. The taxation system which would be required to do this might prove to be one of the solutions to the housing problem. I am not suggesting, of course, that the federal government can do this, although it can certainly exert some pressure in this direction. What I wish to say is that this problem affects not only the consumers but also affects the question of production, the availability of products, of land, of services and of commodities at a range in price that Canadians can meet and in quantities they require.
Then there is the question of tariffs in international trade. How can we speak about doing things for the consumer when we have a tariff system which imposes burdens and restraints on the consumer? The picture looks pretty black from here. I was reading today a press dispatch from Washington. A joint resolution is being introduced there by a Republican and a Democratic senator to seek the approval of Congress to impose restrictions upon the import of steel and steel products into the United States. A trend has developed in the United States and in other countries which is very ominous in the light of the situation which brought about the great depression of many years ago. If there ever was a country which must flourish and whose people would be the beneficiaries by reason of a system of freer trade, it is Canada. This is one of the areas in which the energies of the government should be concentrated in an effort to help the consumers.
My comments have been very brief. One always enjoys the quiet and peaceful Friday afternoons when, after the battles and struggles of the previous days, we make our contributions in a chamber of great, open spaces. In that connection I think I should say that if the government gives to this bill the importance which I am sure their supporters will be claiming for it all over the country, it is shocking to me that not one single cabinet colleague is sitting with the genial minister to support him in this matter. Undoubtedly this subject matter and the question of national unity are the greatest problems which confront us. If the government is sincere and not cynical in its protestations as to what this bill will achieve, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Trade and Commerce should all be here giving that strength and support to my hon. friend which I am sure he will need before this matter is completed.
3088	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
We look forward to reading the bill. We have grave doubts as to the virtues and values which it will contain. We hope that an opportunity will be given us to examine in more detail in committee some of the proposals which are being advanced, and we will reserve our judgment until that time.


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief because I believe in brevity. But I believe also that it should be pointed out to the hon. member who just sat down, who incidentally is a member for whom I have a great deal of admiration and respect, and also to the hon. member for Yukon for whom I have a great deal less respect and admiration, that the report of the Economic Council of Canada which they take as their bible is not infallible any more than is the hon. member who just sat down and, to an even larger degree, the hon. member for Yukon.
I am very happy that the consumer affairs department is being headed by the dynamic minister who represents the riding of St. Lawrence-St. George. I have no doubt at all that it will be of tremendous benefit to the people of Canada. My plea to him through you, Mr. Chairman, is simply that we give careful consideration to the recommendations made by the consumer affairs committee of which I had the honour to be a member, particularly the one in connection with small interest free loans for consumers for certain stated objectives. I know that many of my own constituents and I am very sure many other people in Canada are being gouged by usurers who are in some cases literally taking the shirts off people's backs in the guise of businessmen anxious to help young families obtain money easily.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I usually present my comments in this house in the French language. The reason for this is transparent. Since French is my mother tongue I speak it more easily. However, occasionally I should like to present my remarks in the English language. I do this to set an example, if I may say so, for all Canadians to believe in bilingualism. In my opinion, bilingualism is the one way of helping people of good will to understand each other and to get along together. I want to take advantage of this opportunity to thank those of my English speaking colleagues who occasionally do their best to say a few words in French.

DEBATES	October 13, 1967
I think the best way of understanding what this resolution proposes is to read it:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs; to provide for the appointment of a minister and a deputy minister and for their duties and powers; to provide that the governor in council may establish a consumer advisory council and other bodies to assist the minister and for the remuneration and expenses of the members thereof; and to provide for certain other matters related or incidental thereto.
Is there a problem? After having listened to members of this house for nearly two years, I am sure there is a problem in connection with consumer affairs. First, there is the high cost of living which everybody has been denouncing. Another aspect of the problem is easily observed in the kind of social disorder we are experiencing now in connection with the escalation of strikes. There is a new attitude on the part of strikers. In the past they used to strike peacefully but now they appear to be revolutionists. Their general attitude, for instance, is one of disregard for the requisites of the laws of this country. This is a dangerous attitude, I feel, but it results from the exasperation experienced by most of our people in connection with the rising cost of living. Certainly there is a problem. The point at which we disagree is when we try to find a solution to this problem.
I want to make some comments on another matter which is not really related to this subject. There are some members of the house to whom I like to listen because every time I listen to them I learn a little from their logic and the way they express themselves. These members belong to all parties but one I relish listening to is the hon. member for Peace River, who just spoke. He made one remark with which I agree, that in this country there is a state of emergency which requires drastic action by the government.
I am sure that the parliamentary secretary to the minister, who has the famous city of Montmorency in his riding, knows what he is saying when he speaks on constitutional matters. He says it is not the business of the federal government to fix prices. I believe, however, that means can be found for getting together with the provinces to try to find a way of controlling prices which are always rising and are causing desperation amongst our population. I am one of those who believe we have a real emergency. As proof of that statement I mention the escalation of strikes and the revolutionary attitude one notices on the part of delegations coming to this parliament to protest against what they term the
October 13, 1967

inadequacy of government measures to cope with this problem.
Is there a better solution than the one proposed by the government? There may be. I am sure there may be as good a solution, perhaps even a better one, but who can swear that he is infallible? What counts, I believe, is that we do something and that we do it as fast as possible. This is one solution, and although it may not be as drastic as I would have liked I believe that the minister who will be in charge of this department will have everything he needs to make a success of this enterprise. He is dynamic and openminded. I am sure that of the candidates to head this department he is one who is well prepared to do a good job.
However, if he does not do a good job he will And that the opposition will be watching him closely. They will take every opportunity to offer him suggestions to help make a success of this endeavour to cope with the high cost of living and the problems of consumers. In addition to the high cost of living, there is the problem of advertising abuses, false representations. I understand, of course, that some members of the house prefer the complete socialization of our economy, the complete control of our economy. I would not be against that in principle but we might not be ready for such action now.
I suppose the good service that the New Democratic party renders to this country lies in the fact that their suggestions may be three or four years ahead of time. When the time is ripe governments, Conservative and Liberal, take these ideas and translate them in the way they understand them. Even if our friends in the New Democratic party do not have the advantage of forming a government, they are really rendering a good service to this country by their suggestions for the improvement of the lot of all Canadians.
I should like to mention now a special category of consumers who are the victims of some brainwashing. They are not really protected as they should be. Before going any further I should apologize, Mr. Chairman, and warn you that I may not be completely in order when I try to prove that these consumers consume something that is not material but has a lot of influence. I refer to the voters of this country. They are the victims of candidates or parties that have a lot of money with which to wage their campaigns. These candidates or parties can buy pages of advertising in the newspapers and can buy a lot of time on television and radio. They organize a real
Corporate and Consumer Affairs brainwashing. The result in some ridings often is that somebody is elected who is not well prepared to do the job, who has no experience and is only a partisan.
I want to put this as gently as I can, Mr. Chairman. I will say that there is none of these people in this house at the present time. However, this is something that can happen occasionally. I do not believe we should permit in our democracy the buying of voters with a lot of advertising. You can buy a lot of advertising when you have millionaires backing you. They will give you the money needed to do the brainwashing and then come here and lobby to influence the legislation the government presents. I believe I have given an example of consumers who are abused by too much advertising. I know the minister has good intentions but he should exert all his influence toward reforming our electoral laws, and the sooner the better. In this way we will have elections in which men will be pitted against men and not money against men which may result in the election of a man who lacks experience. We have seen a lot of exaggeration, a lot of humbug written not only to sell goods but to sell candidates who are not well prepared to represent the people of this country. This is an example of consumers being abused and they should be looked after.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I merely want to say that I believe this resolution should be adopted. I believe there is a sincere effort being made to improve the lot of the Canadian people. It might not be the best effort but it is at least sincere, and I am ready to vote for such efforts at any time. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister is well prepared to do a good job and I am also sure that the opposition will be watching so closely that he will not be allowed to make even the smallest mistake.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Chairman, this being the resolution stage of the proceedings on this measure I intend to be very brief and mention only a few points that I want to put on the record. First of all I want to congratulate the government on introducing this resolution and taking the decision to establish the department of corporate and consumer affairs envisaged by the resolution. To the minister who will be taking over that new position very soon I wish success and good wishes as minister of corporate and consumer affairs.
I think the decision to set up this department comes in large measure from the
October 13, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs recommendations of the joint Senate-House of Commons committee on consumer credit and consumer prices which sat all last year. I think the members of that committee, all of whom worked so hard, can take a good deal of pride in the resolution that is before the house today as well as a good deal of pride in the legislation which will be introduced into the house. The joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons recommended in its interim report of December 16, and again in its final report of May 8, that a department of consumer affairs be established to concentrate on the protection of the Canadian consumer.
There has been much discussion here this afternoon about what was said by the Economic Council of Canada in its report about consumer affairs and the Department of the Registrar General, and it seems to me important to bear in mind one statement of the Economic Council which is to be found on page 21:
It is clear that there will be timely implementation of appropriate policies in the field of consumer affairs only if informed spokesmen for consumers are present to participate in the early stages of the government's consideration of these matters.
In my view, Mr. Chairman, in spite of the mechanics that the economic council may have put forward later in its report, this is an indication that the Economic Council of Canada certainly accepted the premise that there must be in cabinet and in government somebody to speak out on behalf of consumers. That, of course, was the basis of the joint committee's recommendation, both in its interim and in its final report. They indicated that the time had now come when there should be a person of cabinet rank sitting in cabinet and participating in government decisions who would represent and act as spokesman for the Canadian consumer.
If there should be some conflict between the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada and the recommendations of the joint Senate-House of Commons committee, my support will go to the recommendations of the joint committee. In this regard I should like to inform the hon. member for Peace River, who seemed to place such reliance on the views of the Economic Council of Canada, that the joint committee which recommended this department consisted of 36 members drawn from all walks of life in Canada. I think they formed a fair representation of Canadian opinion, and they came to their recommendations after hearing witnesses representing business, trade associations, universities, consumer groups and the

public generally. The evidence the committee heard was given by a very broad cross-section of Canadian public opinion. At the conclusion of this very exhaustive evidence this committee, composed of members from all parties in the house, recommended the establishment of this department.


Gerald William Baldwin: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am limited in my time, Mr. Chairman, but I would be happy to.


Gerald William Baldwin: I realize, of course, that the hon. member cannot speak for the government or for the minister in advance, but would he tell me whether he thinks the government should pay the same degree of attention to the recommendations of the consumers advisory council as they are now paying to the Economic Council of Canada?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I do not know, but I want to say something toward the end of my remarks about the consumers advisory council.
Much was said this morning by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, to whom I listened with interest, about her great disappointment that this department is going to be called the department of corporate and consumer affairs. May I, with respect, suggest to the hon. lady that this criticism is something of a red herring. She expressed disappointment that the recommendations of the committee, which were simply and solely for a department of consumer affairs, were not being implemented but that instead we were going to have a department of corporate and consumer affairs.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, the committee was solely concerned, and its terms of reference were solely concerned, with consumer affairs. Therefore its recommendations dealt solely with the establishment of a department of consumer affairs. Second, and more importantly, if the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway will review, as I am sure she has, some of the recommendations of the joint committee she will see there were recommendations dealing with public disclosure in regard to corporations and with the whole area of corporate law. She will also see there were many observations and recommendations dealing with concentration in the food industry and in other industries. She will see there were observations and recommendations dealing with, for example, unfair trade practices. All of these were matters dealt with by the joint committee. All of them are now matters
October 13, 1967	COMMONS
that will be falling under the jurisdiction of the department of corporate and consumer affairs, and I submit they fall logically within this same department.
Let us consider bankruptcy for a moment, Mr. Chairman, which is also a matter over which the Registrar General has responsibility and over which the new minister and his department will have responsibility. It seems to me that unless our bankruptcy laws are efficiently and effectively administered no one loses but the consumer because the ultimate cost of bankruptcy has to be borne by the buying public. Therefore it seems to me logical to put such matters as combines, corporations, securities, bankruptcies and so on under the same jurisdiction as matters relating to consumer affairs. As I say, unless these respective pieces of financial legislation are properly administered no one but the consumer himself will suffer hurt.
In addition, it seems to me there should be a logical, co-ordinated and consistent approach to corporate and securities legislation and to matters affecting financial institutions in the same way as there is to what I call the more narrow, simple consumer protection matters. Therefore, to criticize the government for combining these two functions seems to me something of a red herring indeed.
This being the resolution stage, Mr. Chairman, I have not, of course, seen the legislation which will be introduced on passage of the resolution. Nevertheless I am hopeful that it is sufficiently strong enough to deal with the recommendations that the joint committee made and sufficiently strong enough to be able to carry those recommendations forward.
I now want to say a word about consumer protection. It seems to me that in spite of what is being said in this house today against the establishment of a department of consumer affairs and even by the most violent opponent-and there are some in the country-of a department of consumer affairs, this government or any other government has a duty, one which has often been recognized, to protect members of the public against hazards to health or safety or against fraud or deception. Of course, both at the federal level and provincial levels, a number of pieces of legislation have been passed with that duty or obligation in mind, namely, legislation which does protect people against hazards to health or safety or against fraud.
DEBATES	3091
Corporate and Consumer Affairs [DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I refer, for example, to certain sections of the Criminal Code which while under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice are actually administered by the ten provincial attorneys general; to the Food and Drugs Act administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare; to the Agricultural Products Standards Act, administered by the Department of Agriculture; and to the Weights and Measures Act administered by the Department of Trade and Commerce, to name only a few. Without in any way reflecting on either the ability or the conscientiousness of the civil servants operating these acts I think it can be clearly shown that because of this hodgepodge of legislative and administrative responsibilities and duties there is a lack of co-ordination between one administration and another. All the evidence before the joint committee went to show that this was the case. Certainly the report of the economic council in connection with consumer affairs points out that there is a great lack of co-ordination in the administration of the various acts now in force designed to protect consumers.
Without attempting to discuss in detail legislation covering, for example, automobile safety, or the flammability of textiles, which are areas where legislation may be required, it seems to me eminently sensible that there should be a much greater degree of co-ordination of the existing statutes, and this kind of organization could best be achieved through setting up a department of corporate and consumer affairs.
Much has been said in this house recently about voluntary restraint, voluntary action and voluntary codes of ethics. I wish to express a caveat. While much can be done as a result of industry voluntarily restraining itself by adopting codes of ethics and the like, I believe we would be making a mistake if we thought this was the best means by which the public could be protected. We in this house should not be lulled into thinking that voluntary action can be relied upon to solve the problems of consumer protection. The submission of the Better Business Bureaux which made representations to our committee could be summed up, it seems to me, by the words: "Leave us alone and we will protect the consumer." Without in any way reflecting on the work the bureaux have done across Canada-and they have done excellent work -there are still consumers who need protection; there are still consumers who are being
October 13, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs gypped by unscrupulous operators, and I think it can be shown time and time again that there are occasions when it is necessary for government to intervene.
I should like to give two examples. The first has to do with the Association of Canadian Chemical Specialty Manufacturers. This is made up of companies which manufacture some of the household cleaning solvents and solutions we use domestically. This association has drawn up a code of ethics, a very good code which provides for the proper labelling of the goods they produce, indicating which substances are dangerous and listing antidotes to be used should they be taken internally by young children, and so on. Members of this industry deserve thanks and credit for acting in this responsible and socially conscious way. The flaw is that nonmembers of the association do not need to comply with the code and, as a result, there are available in our stores household chemicals and cleaners which, in fact, are not properly labelled with appropriate warnings where necessary. Thus, while voluntary action is successful to the extent that those who agree with the code comply with it, there are unfortunately still those who refuse to comply with such provisions.
Let me offer another example. A man came to me a while ago and accused me of supporting a government which was keeping him up at nights. He brought me a number of cans of processed meat from various countries including New Zealand, Denmark, Australia, the United States and Canada. He told me that if he bought a can of meat from New Zealand, from Denmark or from Great Britain he knew from the label what was contained in the can. This was important because his son was an allergenic who could eat only certain types of meat, and if the food was not chosen correctly he was kept awake all night. Mr. Chairman, I have not noticed the meat packing industry in those other countries I have mentioned going out of business because they were required to state on the labels of these cans exactly what was contained inside the cans. It seems to me a national disgrace that here in Canada when we buy processed meat in a supermarket we should have no idea whether it contains beef or pork or liver or heart_


An hon. Member:: Or horsemeat.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Or horsemeat. This man argued that here in Canada we are surely sophisticated enough to require manufacturers to state on their labels exactly what is contained in their product. It seems to me

that for the sake of allergenies there is immediate need for a minister to assure that attention is given to the proper labelling of food, cosmetics, and other products.
As I promised the hon. member for Peace River, I will say a word about the consumer advisory committee. The resolution proposes the establishment of such a committee, and it seems to me it would be a useful and worthwhile body to give advice to the minister, as suggested by the Economic Council of Canada. It will consist of possibly 15 persons drawn from various walks of life in Canada-representatives of consumer groups, merchandisers, academics, businessmen and so on. The presence of this advisory committee concentrating on consumer affairs would assure that the government was responsive to the needs of the country and that its actions were in line with the demands both of the consumers and of the economy.
There are two questions which I hope the advisory committee will take under study right away; they are mentioned briefly in one of the reports of our joint committee. First, there is the question of taxes and tariffs which was referred to by the hon. member for Peace River. The committee report referred to the incidence of taxes and tariffs on the prices of goods to the consumer, and I believe the consumer advisory committee would do well to commission some studies along this line to find out how some of the costs to the consumer might be relieved. We shall all of course have to continue paying taxes, but I think it can be shown that some taxes have a greater impact on prices than others.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I think that would be a very worth-while study by the committee. Also, there are some commodities on which we have tariffs and I can find no logical basis for tariffs being on them. For instance, I see no reason why Canada imposes tariffs on bananas. I am not aware of any Canadian banana crop that needs protection, yet we have a tariff on bananas.


Erik Nielsen: There are a lot of bananas on the treasury benches.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I see the hon. member for Yukon speaking. I did not know they are growing bananas in the Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: You are talking about our leader's favourite food.
October 13, 1967	COMMONS


Stanley Ronald Basford: I think the consumer advisory committee should examine the existing list of tariffs in order to eliminate those which are providing no measure of protection. All they are doing is upping costs to the Canadian consumer. The committee should give further study to the whole question of tariffs. It seems to me there are many logical reasons, as pointed out by the hon. member for Peace River, why we in Canada will be better off if we have the freest possible trade and the lowest possible level of tariffs. This would give encouragement to industry to specialize and improve, thus putting it in a competitive position in international trade.
It can certainly be shown that, the lower tariffs are, the better off are consumers when they go to the supermarkets and spend their dollars. If we in Canada can reduce our tariffs we will effect considerable saving to the purchasing public. Last night I was delighted to read a speculative article in the Financial Post indicating that even Ontario manufacturers are beginning to see the benefit to Canada and themselves of lower tariffs and free trade. I would hope that article is correct and that the Ontario manufacturers, who traditionally have been opposed to free trade, will reverse their position and support those of us who believe in low tariffs and free trade. This is one aspect of protection that the consumer advisory committee could look into immediately on its formation.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, I am going to be brief in my observations at the resolution stage of the legislation. I am delighted the government has decided to establish a department of consumer affairs. I wish it well. I look forward to seeing the bill, and I hope its provisions will be strong enough to implement the recommendations we made in our joint committee.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, once again we have the Registrar General, a young minister, coming forward with new ideas.


An hon. Member:: The new leader.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody said he will be the new leader. I am not going to get into that phase of the matter, but I suppose he could be categorized as a young man with a quick mind and as quick an ambition. I can understand what has gone on in his mind, because he is one of the younger generation in the Liberal party and he is ambitious, and he knows his ambitions might fade if his party does not do something about two major problems facing the Canadian people. These
DEBATES	3093
Corporate and Consumer Affairs problems are of great magnitude. The first problem concerns the highest cost of living ever experienced in the history of Canada. I suppose that is what the minister had in mind when he sponsored this resolution.
The second problem is that Canada today is facing a very serious financial crisis. This crisis is being somewhat hidden from the Canadian people because the Minister of Finance not only has the name Sharp but he has a sharp mind and a sharp way of being able to cover up the crisis the Canadian people are now experiencing, but of which they will have full knowledge in the very near future.
In the introduction to my remarks I think it would be good to see what the resolution has to say. We have not got the bill which will follow, and so it is difficult to criticize that. Therefore I must speak in reference to the principles involved. The resolution says that -
-it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a department of corporate and consumer
affairs-
I notice the minister is contemplating putting the department into two branches, corporate and consumer affairs, and in the near future it may be that those will be divided. The resolution continues:
-to provide for the appointment of a minister and a deputy minister and for their duties and powers; to provide that the governor in council may establish a consumer advisory council and other bodies to assist the minister-
I suppose to advise the minister.
-and for the remuneration and expenses of the
members thereof-[DOT]
It is not so long ago that the House of Commons heard from the government that it was changing the nature of the Economic Council of Canada. This council was to be the advisory body that would advise the government. I wonder whether the minister can tell us-probably at another stage of the debate he will-when the economic council fell out of favour with the government. Its members were his appointments, or his government's appointments. The members of the council were to be the great men who would guide the government, who would advise how to control the cost of living, and how to control the large government bureaucracy from extending like an octopus into every facet of Canadian life.
What did that council say, and what advice has it given the minister and the government? This advice has already been read into
October 13, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs the record, but I think this might be a good time to review it because alter listening to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard one would almost think that this was the beginning of a new era to bring down the cost of living, control it, and do something about the financial crisis the nation is facing. Let us see what the economic council said. At page 20 of its interim report it said:
In view of the wide scope of consumer interests-
Consumers are sure interested because on orders of the day the Minister of Finance said he went to a store and found the prices were going down. He must have been shopping in a different store from that used by any other Canadian. He is unique in that regard; he has his own monopoly in his own private store. The report continues:
In view of the wide scope of consumer interests and the many departments which are engaged in activities affecting consumers, there is no possibility of concentrating all these activities in a single department, nor would it be desirable to try to do so.
That was the advice of the wise men appointed by the government to advise it. But the moment these wise men measured up to their responsibilities as economic statesmen and advised the government of the trend it has been taking, a decision was taken to change the nature of the economic council.
Before I sit down I am going to endeavour to prove, and I think I will prove, that the government is partly, if not totally, responsible for the high cost of living. It is certainly responsible for government spending. I recall the days during the 1963 election when Liberals used to get on platforms and talk about the deficits incurred by the Conservative government. They were just like infants, babies in prams, compared to the deficits of today. If one reads the full report made by the economic council he will see that government costs in Canada have gone up 25 per cent more than in the United States, even though the United States is fighting a war in Viet Nam.
But let me return to the point I was making, that it was the government which appointed these wise men. Now it is throwing out the same wise men saying, "We are politicians, we know better. We will set up another council. We will line up Liberals. This time we want to make sure they are real Liberals. The other fellows may have been Grits. They have put us in an intolerable position with the public and we may be defeated in the next election. So we will set up another body to assist us, to advise us."


Erik Nielsen: "Tell us nicer things."


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, "Tell us nicer things." That is absolutely correct. But here we have the economic council saying it cannot be done.
Let us talk about the high cost of living for a few minutes. 1 have always been one of those who believe that not only do we have a crisis in this nation at a time of war, but there are also times when we have other crises that are just as severe in the sense of survival-economic crises. I know that some of my hon. friends to my left will agree with me on this.
The courts have interpreted the constitution-and I know the minister appreciates this line of the law-to mean that in times of crisis, "peace, order and good government", to use the phrase which appears in the B.N.A. Act, override property and civil rights, and so the government can bring in controls such as we had during war. But there is another line of thought which holds that an economic crisis is comparable to a time of war, even though the state is not being threatened by a foreign power. This line of thought holds that in such case the federal government has authority to control prices, to control wages and to control profits. If the government had some real spunk it would bring in regulations to control those things which are causing the cost of living to spiral.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
For a solid year and a half I have asked the Prime Minister where the Woods report is, the report which has reference to the relationship between management and labour. This session he told me, as he did last session, that it was very important. He said that they would be rushing it in, in two or three weeks. I do not know what the finding of the Woods report will be, but soon some government some time-not these people, some hope-will have to measure up to its responsibility to this nation in reference to the labour-management relationship, because you cannot have a Pearson formula of 30 per cent, have it duplicated the next year in respect of the S.I.U., have costs spiralling and everything going up and expect to set up a department which will control prices.
I have not seen the bill, but if I had to vote at this moment I would probably vote in favour of it because any little bit is better than nothing. But the government is not even scratching the surface of this problem. This is strictly window dressing to try to show the Canadian people that they are going to do
October 13, 1967	COMMONS
something about the cost of living. What has caused the costs to rise so quickly? No government has been such a free spender as has this government. Take a look at the budget of 1963 and the budget of 1966. When you do that, you will see what has happened. We have heard the boloney-we in western Canada call it boloney-that the great Minister of Finance has pared off $700 million. This is sophistry. We know what he is doing. This always has happened in the past. The minister comes in and presents his estimates. Trimming always takes place. But they have not trimmed anything off the estimates which actually gets into the budget. They just blow up a great big piece of propaganda.
If these wise ministers, who they believe are wiser than the members of the economic council, had trimmed their estimates before they came in or, to put it the other way, had enlarged them, the minister could say that they have saved the Canadian people $2 billion or $3 billion. This is straight sophistry. When we came back with a new leader we were organized and we were doing our homework, but they called us the same old gang. This might bring headlines; but I say to them that the "same old gang" is running the Liberal party.
Let us look at the headline in the Toronto Daily Star of October 5, 1967. I could not say that this paper is unfriendly to the Liberals. If it is, then this is something new, because it says, "Stop wage-price climb or I'll up taxes-Sharp". Do you know what Sharp said? I do not know what he said to the members of the cabinet, and I should like to hear what he said to my friend the young minister who said, "free this and free that". He mentioned 15 free items when he appeared on T.Y. He thought everything would be free. Sharp told the Canadian people that if they do not behave themselves and stop doing this, that or the other thing, if they do not stop spending money, the government will increase taxes and bring on unemployment. Then they will let the Tories come in, so that they again can say that a Conservative government brings in hard times, as it was alleged to have done in 1957.


Erik Nielsen: They are applauding you.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, because they know that is the plan. Fancy the audacity of the Minister of Finance in saying, "Stop spending or we will tax you". This is the same group; they are the same kind of people who were turned out of office in 1957, and they came back talking about the same things in 1962.
DEBATES	3095
Corporate and Consumer Affairs


Mr. Waison (Assiniboia):: They started on wheat.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, but for the moment I should like to talk about their spending. The spending by this government is 25 per cent higher since these wise men of the Liberal party took office; it has increased 25 per cent, compared to the United States which is fighting a war. They have just poured out money.
I should like to know whether the minister has used the new provisions of the Bank of Canada Act which were brought in so that they could pad the statutes to avoid another Coyne affair, and so that if they do not have enough money flowing the cabinet can write to the governor of the Bank of Canada and say, "We want more money flowing". I have not spoken to the governor of the Bank of Canada, but my guess is that it is the governor of the Bank of Canada who told Mr. Sharp and the cabinet to slow down and not to put any more money out, because too much has been put out already and this has aggravated inflation. When the minister goes into cabinet I wish he would say, "We will cut back on government spending". But what is he actually doing today? He says he is going to set up a new department, which basically is only going to investigate, take a look, and obtain some information.
We might take the example of the Department of Industry. It started with a little group, and all of a sudden it is large. It is no wonder that the estimates have gone up. This is the growth of bureaucracy. This country is over-governed. We have more people working for the government than has any nation in the world. The new minister says that we need another department because we have a problem and must set up another department through which to funnel information. I do not think the minister believes that what he is doing today will control the high cost of living. He must start right now to cut down on government expenditure and stop threatening the people with increased taxes.
What is wrong with the economy? My friend from Assiniboia mentioned wheat. In June we heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce say that the price of wheat would be set at 21 cents a bushel more. They had an agreement and all they had to do was have it ratified in the parliamentary institutions of the 52 countries; but that evening when he reported he never said that the agreement had lapsed. The United States then dumped
Ociober 13, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs about 67 million bushels into Japan. We lost our market.
They say they will subsidize grain. They know and I know there will never be a subsidy paid because the Canadian Wheat Board will never sell at prices below the minimum. If they did, how could they go back in the fall and obtain an agreement which would be ratified by the 52 countries taking part in the conference? So, we know that not a dollar will be paid out of the treasury. As I said before and as I say now we were until recently the chief wheat exporting nation of the world. There are 219 delivery points in Alberta to which the farmers were able to deliver only 400 bushels of wheat when the S.I.U. strike was on. Mr. McNamara said that it would not have mattered whether the strike was on or off because they would not deliver any wheat.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
What kind of nonsense is this? This government told us the price of wheat went up 21 cents a bushel, and now it is gone down 22 cents a bushel and we are not selling our grain. This government talks about financial problems. Let me remind them that the production and sale of wheat is the most important industry in this nation, and the problems in respect of balance of payments which exist today would be much greater where it not for the fact that wheat sales have been increasing since 1962. I think it is fair to say that these sales took place under the Conservative and Liberal governments because the markets were opened by the Conservative government. The fact is that these sales are now disappearing and this financial prop has gone. In spite of this the government goes on spending money as though there was no end to the amount available.
This government has received many warnings from the governor of the Bank of Canada about excessive spending. We have in this nation today the highest interest on mortgages we have had in 40 years. Conventional mortgages are now being drawn in law offices across this country at 9 per cent. Even in 1929 before the crash the interest rate was only 8 per cent per annum compounded every three months. We know that people trying to get second mortgages in urban centres, about which the minister talks with great affection, are paying as high as 20 per cent. The government is doing nothing about this situation.


An hon. Member:: It couldn't be 20 per cent.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Someone says it could not be 20 per cent. Let me remind him that they increase the principal just as they lower the cost of bonds and increase the interest. This government must come to grips with the problem. I would be happy if the government set up a department that had the gumption and guts to do something about this situation, but this government will not even make a move. It merely hangs window dressings and curtains while the cost of living continues to rise. They have fenced in the Minister of Finance.
Who in Canada today would want to be the Minister of Finance?


An hon. Member:: Mr. Hellyer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He might make a good Minister of Finance; he would unify and integrate; but who actually would want to be the Minister of Finance at this time when at least two thirds of the budget is set aside by parliament and regulation? The Minister of Finance has only one third of the budget to play with and utilize. This government brought in medicare. I asked on many occasions-and my questions were ruled out of order by the speaker-what medicare would cost. The Prime Minister of this country said the government had not calculated the cost. This government puts up beautiful curtains and window dressings so the Canadian people will think it is doing something, and apparently waits until afterwards to worry about finding the money.
What is this government now doing about medicare? I suggest it is hoping and praying each night that the provinces will veto medicare so that it can say it tried to bring medicare to the people but the provinces objected. Perhaps the government will say it even tried to blackmail the provinces by promising to pay 50 per cent; but even at 50 per cent it would still cost over $600 million per year. When I asked the Prime Minister about this two years ago he said he did not know what the cost might be. I suggest he did know but still hoped the provinces would not accept it.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted times has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am just about finished.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the committee to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
October 13, 1967	COMMONS


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Prime Minister knew what this program would cost but his government was busy hanging up window dressings. My Mends to my left might not like this suggestion but the government has adopted the program advocated by the N.D.P. It is true that the N.D.P. is not in office or in the official opposition and need not be quite so responsible, but the fact is that the government has followed the N.D.P. plan in bringing in this grandiose program, without any thought as to how to finance it. The N.D.P. members now in Ontario are asking the people to consider the high cost of living but they do not tell the people that the plan they advocated as adopted by the government, is one of many plans which help to keep up this high cost of living. In my opinion, as I have said before, this is the failure of socialism at work.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How much has medicare cost the treasury so far?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The answer to that question is nothing; and it will cost the treasury nothing a year from now because the government has no intention of bringing it in. My hon. friend is aware of this, because the provinces will veto the plan. This government can then go to the people and say it brought in a medicare plan but the horrible provinces would not adopt it. That is how this government campaigns; but its members must now realize that we are in the House of Commons debating these things.
There is another aspect of medicare that must be considered. It would be easy for the government to bring in such a plan, but it would be useless because we do not have enough doctors, nurses or hospital facilities. There has been no planning or organization.


Erik Nielsen: And no government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are right, there has been no government. I could continue for some time but I should like to end my comments with these words. This government has placed this country in a terrible mess as a result of its fumbling and bumbling. I suggest the government should heed those very words, because it has been fumbling and bumbling. There is only one way the government can get the country out of this mess: It must be brave enough to reconsider its election promises; it must stop hanging window dressings.


Erik Nielsen: The government should resign.
DEBATES	3097
Corporate and Consumer Affairs


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This government would never resign. All it ever does is quietly get out of office when things are difficult. We then have to come in and mend the fences.


John Napier Turner: That has not happened often.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We have had several recessions. I should hate to go into the facts of the matter, but this government must have the courage to bring in controls now. It may not think this can be done under federal authority but I suggest it should try, and let this be tested by the Supreme Court of Canada. The country is suffering from one strike after another. Profits are rising and wages have now begun to catch up. Bonds and debentures are increasing in cost. Bonds which cost $100 three or four years ago are now selling for as low as $68 because of high interest rates. That is not the case today. The government must bring in controls in spite of its opinion that this is not within federal jurisdiction.
I should like to see the Woods report. My guess that it is now on the Prime Minister's desk but he does not want to make it public. We have witnessed one crisis after another in this country and this government inevitably waits for a crisis before it acts. I suggest that the government must cut back on expenses. We are about to face winter unemployment, and I should like to hear what the minister intends to do in this regard. Let me predict that if it continues as it has been doing this government will be in a worse mess next year than the mess it is in at this time.
This government is now setting up a new department. The economic council has stated that this will not solve the basic problems. Every member of parliament must adopt some attitude and must go along with some program, but we on this side feel that the government is now trying to kill an elephant with a flyswatter.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Coivichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, I am glad I won an argument with the hon. member for Bow River a little earlier this afternoon when I persuaded him as the more prestigious member of parliament to speak before I did during this debate. He has fired quite a lot of ammunition and I now find myself in the unfortunate position of having to deal with the arguments of two of my fellow members of parliament, that hon. member and the Registrar General, both of whom are men of great charm. I find it rather difficult to resist that charm on occasion, but I do my best. The minister may remember that I gave him
October 13, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs some warning a few months ago about hoping to achieve his purposes merely by means of charm. I think he is doing a little better now although I was somewhat alarmed when I learned he was not prepared to tell us very much about what he proposes to do with this new department of which he is to be the head. In fact, his whole attitude this morning was that he was going to say as little as possible and have the rest of us speak our minds. Then presumably at a later date he would make comments on what we had said.
The sad part of it, of course, is that the minister has not made the mistake that is considered to be absolutely fatal for a politician, namely, that of writing a book; but he has done something almost as bad. He has allowed himself to be interviewed by a reporter of this particular periodical which arrived on my desk the other day. So we have some idea of what he is planning to do, and an even clearer idea of what he is not planning to do. He tells us what the department will not do, but he does not tell us what it will do. He tells us that this department will intervene only in the following circumstances.


Erik Nielsen: It is a department not to do things.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Yes, it is a department not to do things; I think that is it. You might almost call it a non-department. So I really do not know why my hon. friend from Yukon was in such a fuss about this department. This morning the hon. member complained about the establishment of another department, but if it is a non-department he should not be worrying about it.
The minister tells us that this department will do nothing except where the competitive forces have not been allowed to play. Second, this department will intervene only where there has been a lack of fair market practice, or fraud or deception. Third, the department will intervene only where public health or safety are concerned, and where the consumer needs information in order to equalize the market relationship.
Let us examine those four areas in which the department, I suppose by implication, is going to act. It will act where the competitive forces have not been allowed to play. What is it going to do? The minister did not tell us what it is going to do with regard to the sections of our economy outlined earlier today by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, that is, sections of the economy in which there is no competition at

all, areas in which to speak of competitive forces is just nonsense.
What is this department going to do with regard to lack of fair market practice, or fraud or deception? What is fair market practice? I may be merely a cynical old man, but it seems to me that market practice is to get as much as you can and give as little as possible. Is this what the minister thinks is fair market practice? He had some rather interesting things to say with regard to fraud and deception, which is another area in which this department will intervene. He drew a very fine line of distinction-I was very interested in this-between honest exaggeration and deception. I wonder whether when he said this he was defining the position of the Liberal party? Some things are permissible to them because they are merely honest exaggerations. They are not perfect, but they are almost perfect. If the minister said they were perfect, it would be deception. I do not quite know exactly where we can expect the minister to take us on this score. He draws some line, which he does not define very well, between honest exaggeration and deception. I hope that later in this debate the minister will tell us precisely and definitively just what that line is.
As far as public health or safety are concerned, will the minister take some action with regard to air pollution? Will he take some action against the large corporations in this country which with impunity are pouring all manner of pollution into the air and waters of Canada? Is he going to do anything about those problems? The pollution of our air and waters is perhaps our major threat to health at the present time.
Will the minister take any action with regard to the car manufacturers, in line with the demands of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi who for the last-it seems a long time-two years, anyway, has been demanding that some action be taken by the government to protect the car traveller by the installation of proper safety devices in automobiles? The minister did not suggest that he would do anything about this problem.
I now come to the final area in which this new department will intervene. This is really the pay-off, when we consider it in the light of the minister's interview. This was a most unfortunate interview for the minister. He should not have allowed himself to be cajoled into being interviewed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He is fairly elusive.
October 13, 1967	COMMONS


Colin Cameron: No, he was not at all elusive in his interview; he did not elude at all well. His new department is going to intervene where the consumer needs information in order to equalize the market relationship. Yet on page 17 of this magazine, Canada Month, the very same page of the report of this disastrous interview, the minister says:
As for consumer information from the government, it seems superfluous in a day when the media are crowded with product advertising and editorial comment; when good consumer magazines that report laboratory tests are on every newsstand; and when the level of education is presumably at the highest point it has ever been. Fish recipes and lists of camping grounds are hardly what we pay taxes for.
Nor, apparently, are we going to pay taxes for providing the consumers of Canada with definitive information about the products that are advertised, even though the minister lists as No. 4 that this department will intervene where the consumer needs information in order to equalize the market relationship. Right below that statement, on the same page, the minister states that there is no role for the government to play in this matter.


Erik Nielsen: He is going to co-ordinate the chaos.


Colin Cameron: He is going to co-ordinate something;
I do not know whether it is chaos. I suppose he is going to co-ordinate the jungle created by the information and advertising media of this country. I hope the minister will be able to resolve the conflict between his statement at one place on this page and his statement at another place on the same page.
I wonder whether the minister really intends to do very much about our economy. The interviewer was quite pointed in this respect. He asked the minister a very interesting question and one of which I think the people of Canada should take particular note. The interviewer asked:
Is this likely to satisfy the N.D.P., I ask-
That is the reporter interviewing the minister.
-as guilelessly as I can.
Do you know what the answer was? The minister is reported, anyway, to have answered:
Well. .. what does the N.D.P. want? It wants consumer programs "with teeth." It wants a prices review board-"but", says Turner with justifiable triumph, "where's the constitutional authority for that?''
DEBATES	3099
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
I ask the minister, where is the constitutional bar to the government of Canada setting up a board to which any consumer can refer for review, examination and research prices that have been charged him? I suggest to the minister that it would be a very bold citizen of Canada, in the business world or elsewhere, who would refuse to answer the questions that this department ought to be asking with regard to prices. This seems to be, again, a complete abdication of the responsibility of government that we have experienced again and again from the Liberal party and the Liberal government. It is the typical, traditional, classical escape hatch of the Liberals. They say, "We cannot act. We do not want to act. It would be dangerous, so we cannot act. We would love to do something for you, but unfortunately there is a constitutional bar that we are not prepared to bark our shins upon."


Erik Nielsen: They say, "We will have a study."


Colin Cameron: Yes, they say, "We will study the constitution, but we still will not do anything."


Stanley Howard Knowles: "It will make it look as
though we are doing something."


Colin Cameron: It may. I wonder whether it really does. I continue quoting from this very unfortunate interview given by the minister:
Weak or not, Turner, I judge, is no lightweight. The prospect of starting what is virtually a new department excites him.
He did not sound very excited this morning.
o (4:40 p.m.)
He wants it to be efficient, economical, a credit to his reputation. He is not riddled with class frustrations, nor stiffened with embittering experiences.
After all, the taste of a silver spoon is supposed to be quite pleasant.
He can see political advantage positively glowing in a portfolio whose scope involves everyone in the country who buys groceries or cars or shoes. Indeed, everyone in the country, period. He can see the glorious prospect of pleasing both halves of the economy and he hasn't yet fallen into any of the beartraps.
I do not know what he fell into this morning. It may not prove to be a beartrap; it may just prove to be the usual Liberal slough of despond. If he really thinks that he can
October 13, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs represent and please both halves of a conflicting economy, then I am afraid this young man is due for a very sad disillusionment.
I want to stress this point to the minister, for whom I have considerable regard although he may not think so at this particular moment, that even though I am an old man I am delighted to see young men coming forward in our political life. Occasionally they have to be slapped back a little, but I am glad to see him doing this. However, I would like to ask him to consider the implications of a statement which horrified me, which was made by my friend, Mr. Charles Neapole of the Montreal Stock Exchange, who, I suppose, is known to the minister. Perhaps he is aware of Mr. Neapole's comment about the Carter commission report, that it was a really foul plot, it was simply going to undermine the whole concept of democracy in our society and it was going to turn the business community into merely agents of the government.
I ask the minister, what is wrong with that? What other purpose should we consider reasonable and justifiable for any business enterprise in this country, except to serve the purposes of the people of Canada as represented by the government?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the other way around.


Colin Cameron: Yes, now it is the other way around, and I suggest the minister should study this statement of Mr. Neapole to realize that it is actually a statement of the position that he and his government are taking that they are not prepared to subordinate the business and productive enterprises of this country to the services of the Canadian people.
Yet, through the new department which the minister will head he will have the opportunity to do something about this. But this morning he did not indicate he was going to do it. In fact I suspect he accepted the viewpoint of the Economic Council of Canada. I was disturbed when I saw the interim report of the council on consumer affairs and the Department of the Registrar General because I have always had respect for the Economic Council of Canada and its personnel, many of whom are known to me personally. But this report seemed to be nothing short of a disgrace. The council asks questions which it does not answer. Let us consider some of them, for instance the following one which appears on page 7 of the report:
The following questions, for example, need to be answered before it can be known whether higher standards of living are likely to result from an increase in output:
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).!

-What form has the increase in output taken?
Would the consumers have preferred something else?
Did consumers have sufficient information to make informed choices? Could the same products have been made available at lower prices?
-Supposing the consumer has bought what he wants, how well does the article function in use? What is its frequency-of-repair record? Does it expose the user to unnecessary hazards?
Such questions indicate that the performance of the economy cannot be judged exclusively by the behaviour of total output and income.
Having asked these questions the council gives no answer whatsoever. Instead, on page 8 of the report it goes on to make statements which I think are open to very serious doubt, such as the following one:
...''the interests of the consumer, in the light of the government's long-term economic objectives", are only served to the degree that the growing productive capabilities of the economy are in fact converted into improvements in living standards.
Whose living standards are they referring to?
The major responsibility-
This is something that I am afraid the minister has swallowed hook, line and sinker.
[DOT]-for seeing that an efficient conversion of this kind takes place devolves in our society upon business and consumers themselves. But there are certain government policies which help the process along. These are policies which are not primarily directed toward raising total income and consumption expenditure but toward enhancing the probability that household money incomes will be efficiently transformed into desired goods and services and that productive resources therefore will not be used wastefully.
Obviously the minister and his colleague, the Minister of Finance, took this as their guide line of action and really believe that we can, in the present modem age, leave to business and to consumers these decisions as to the nature of our society. I suggest to the minister, who is a young man, who will be in politics long after I am dead, and who has a tremendous opportunity, that he should realize that today in Canada the government is facing a challenge created by modem technology which makes a fool of all conventional wisdom, that the addiction of this government and all the governments we have had to date to a devotion to the free enterprise system and to the glories of profit-making are irrelevant in the modern age.
If this government is not prepared to subordinate every segment in our economy in business, in the professions and among the consumers, to the common good, then it will disappear as other governments have disappeared in the past. I hope that this minister,
October 13, 1967	COMMONS
who in part at least comes from my own province and who is a young man of great ability and great attainment-I was merely being rude and facetious when I suggested he relied on charm and I believe he has much more than charm; he has great ability and great brains-will lead Canada and the Canadian government in the task of controlling our economy to serve, not merely the purposes of the Canadian people, but to undertake the responsibilities and duties of the people of Canada in the world today. We have to serve that purpose if we are to survive and we shall not do that unless the government is prepared to intervene and to participate in the operations of what should be the most prosperous and productive economy in the world. Unfortunately it has not yet reached that stage.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Laiulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to say a few words on this proposed resolution.
According to the resolution, a new department is to be established, whose purpose and duty it will be to balance our economy so that consumer goods can be disposed of and the people can enjoy them.
I doubt that the creation of a new department will cure all our economic ills. Our economy is completely out of balance and the creation of several departments before this one has not succeeded in boosting the economy of our country. The more the present system is applied, the more it throws our economy out of balance and, as a solution, the creation of new departments is suggested. By creating new departments you increase the cost of the products and right away you will have to increase taxes immediately to meet the expenditures of that new department. One knows how much it costs the nation to administer a department. There are some whose administration costs almost 60 per cent of their budget. There are others that probably spend even more. The department of corporate and consumer affairs which will be set up will not escape all that. Like the others, it will have to open new offices, put up new buildings, hire a great number of bureaucrats and pay them large salaries, and all that costs the nation a lot of money.
I think that, at the present time, we have enough departments. I do not think that it is by the creation of a new department that we
DEBATES	3101.
Corporate and Consumer Affairs will add to the purchasing power of consumers. If a department makes a few practical suggestions in order to increase the purchasing power of consumers, the general economy will object and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) will say that revenues are not sufficient.
I do not think that it is a practical solution. The best one is still to increase the purchasing power of the consumers through the existing departments. The Department of Finance would have to deal mainly with this situation since it is the one responsible. There is no consumer credit and the consumers have no money, no purchasing power, the goods remain in storage and in the stores, and the citizens are further deprived of them.
Then, Mr. Chairman, if we put more buying power in the consumers' hands, we can conclude with certainty that production will not be found wanting in Canada. Canadian production is financed to the tune of about 75 per cent and even at that, we have piled up surpluses. Production is finance but not consumption.
The buying power which is distributed through work and capital, is not sufficient to put in the hands of every individual, of the unemployed, of those who do not have buying power through capital assets or work, what is needed to provide the necessities of life. We must put in the hands of consumers adequate buying power if we want to consume our products.
Our surplus production stood at $18 billion in 1966-67 and exceeded $15 billion in 196566. We have had surplus goods ever since the end of the war, since 1945. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if our surplus production is so high, the problem is not with production, because it has already been settled.
No problems either with regard to transportation. Why is transportation so costly? Because everything related to transportation is so heavily taxed: trucks, tires, gas, and this makes for an increased cost of living.
I wonder what the new department of consumer affairs will do in all this. Will it reduce transportation costs? Will it reduce interest rates? Will it reduce income and other taxes so as to lower the cost price of goods and enable consumers to purchase a certain amount of goods with the same dollar?
So, Mr. Chairman, I hardly think that this department will perform miracles and I feel that creating such a department is a pipe dream.
October 13, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs
I have here a report showing that almost all citizens, public bodies or associations that have presented briefs have come to the conclusion that we need a new department of consumers.
The same report also indicates that there are other citizens who also have made studies and all kinds of suggestions. In fact, some of them are very practical. For instance, the Maritime Co-operative Council of Moncton, New Brunswick stated, as reported on page 3111, that:
For the purposes of this presentation, we say there are two fields of credit: purchase of merchandise on credit and the borrowing of direct purchasing power. We believe that consumers are being exploited in both these fields.
That is what we have been saying and repeating for a long time, Mr. Chairman. I continue:
Not so many years ago, individuals tried not to become indebted particularly for the purchase of merchandise. Thus, those who could lend money realized that individuals did not then constitute a very good market but that their institutions could be used to advantage in that area. As a result, credit was built up in all public institutions such as schools, cities, municipalities, provinces, the Dominion, etc. and all that is needed is to look at the interest charges on the national debt which now exceed 1 billion dollars yearly (see Appendix 1) to understand the cost the consumer must meet through all kinds of taxes collected at the source or on the price of merchandise, the price of labour or other corresponding factors.
It was stated that the consumers had been opposed to borrowing, but in the last few years it seems that the situation has changed, in that consumer credit has reached what we consider to be an alarming level where debts amount to several billions of dollars. The related credit charges push up prices and, incidentally, further depreciate the dollar and cause inflation.
I wonder what the departments are going to do about inflation and deflation. Now, deflation is never discussed because it only affects the small fry, the poor; it is not worthwhile discussing it. But inflation is discussed, because it affects everyone.
And now, back to the quotation:
Federal legislation providing for the complete disclosure to purchasers and borrowers of interest rates and other charges on loans. (Legislation to bring loans out in the open.)
Role of money or credit.
In commerce, money or credit should help the flow of goods or services. It should not be controlled as a basic material. Even today, chartered banks are rather accounting institutions which control the creation of the monetary mass or credit, as if it were a raw matrial having a tremendous influence on the world of business, and they can set interest rates. The cost of money or credit should not exceed that of accounting, but when money or credit are controlled as one would a raw material, it is used to brake or stimulate
rMr. Latulippe.]
the flow of goods according to the wishes of those who control it, with a view to making profits and not solely to serve business.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
We have been talking about those things for so long that at least today we feel some support in the claims we have made for years. Therefore, I continue:
Royal commission on banking and finance.
The report of the royal commission on banking and finance explained on page 105 how the banks create the money supply or credit. After explaining how the Bank of Canada authorizes the chartered banks to create more money or more credit, the report of the royal commission continues with this statement.
This is taken from the report, Mr. Chairman, the words are not mine.
Thus if the first bank finds its cash increased by $8 million by the initial Bank of Canada purchase from one of its customers and grants a loan of $7 million to a customer who spends it on additional supplies, the suppliers will re-deposit these funds in other banks which will in turn find themselves with extra cash with which to add to their assets. At this point, the banks as a group will find that their deposits have risen by $15 million-$8 million from the original security purchase and $7 million from the proceeds of the loan-but their cash has increased by $8 million. Since their cash ratio is still higher than it need be, this process of expansion will continue, only coming to a halt, all other things being equal, when the liabilities of the banking system have increased by $100 million. At this point the statutory cash ratio of 8 per cent has been restored and any further expansion would bring the ratio below the requirement.
It is to be noted that the requirement in regard to the 8 per cent reserve with the Bank of Canada has been reduced to 7 per cent shortly after, which in fact has empowered the chartered banks to increase credit to that extent on the basis of their deposit with the Bank of Canada. It should be remembered that interest is being collected on these amounts entered in their books as loans.
That the Bank of Canada have greater control of the production and distribution of necessary credit (money).
Financing through cooperatives.
A major solution available to consumers who wish to solve their financing problem or succeed in paying expenditures they must incur could be and in fact already is, the creation of cooperative financial institutions.
Such institutions could include among others the caisses populaires (credit unions), the credit cooperatives, the cooperative insurance companies and cooperative trust companies.
There is nothing magical about all this. In the case of the caisses populaires, the members cannot borrow more than what is deposited as savings, which is not the case for banks. A number of people invariably manage to save up money, and these savings are then available at a reasonable
October 13. 1967

interest to those who need them. In every cooperative financial institution of this kind, those who contributed to the build-up of capital retain only a limited control on its use, whereas other institutions use it for profit and exploitation. This type of activity and organization, which helps its members (users or consumers) to save up money, should be encouraged by the joint committee and benefit from government support.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask myself again, what will the department of consumer affairs do in all this? What will it settle in all this?
When the Conservatives, Liberals and N.D.P. members voted for the increase in interest rates, they did everything possible to give high finance all the necessary powers for further exploitation of the people.
When we moved amendments to the Bank Act for the purpose of freezing interest rates at 6 per cent, most members in all parties, old and new, voted against them, then they call themselves the defenders of the people. On the contrary, they are the defenders of high finance, of hypocrisy, that is what they are, the members of every other party in this house. No other member, except us, called for any financial readjustment. It is imperative that our economy regain its balance, yet this will never be achieved by continuing to allow economic imbalance, by allowing higher cost of living in every economic sector, by maintaining the same attitude in the fields of strikes, wage increases, taxes, fiscal levies and interest rates. These members allowed all that and they claim to be the defenders of the people; as Our Lord said, they are only hypocrites, white sepulchres.
I do not want to dwell longer on that subject, Mr. Chairman. The minister knows and all the members know that things are going badly. Nobody proposes solutions except to try this and that; they try all sorts of things, which gets them nowhere, instead of balancing the wheels of the economic mechanism. We have a big wheel and a small wheel on the economic chariot, so that the system turns in a circle. Instead of using two wheels of the same size to attain the objective, they enjoy loading the chariot, unloading it and doing all kinds of repairs except changing the small wheel which should be balanced with the other, so that the system might go straight and balance the economy.
The economy is always kept unbalanced and no one wants to make the necessary adjustments to the economic wheel so that it will turn in the right direction and give our economy a balance which might satisfy every Canadian.

Corporate and Consumer Affairs
In our country there are people who make money and there are some who live by their work and their capital. There are 7,400,000 citizens who receive an income from their work and their capital, but there are also 13 million citizens who have no income from their work or their capital but who are taxed and have to pay the same taxes as all the others. On the other hand, out of those 7,-
400,000	citizens who derive an income from their capital or their work, 2,400,000 do not earn enough to pay income tax.
So what is that new department of consumer credit going to do about those problems? Is it going to plant potatoes, to grow potatoes? Is it going to distribute the produce of the land? No. The land will continue to produce. No one worries about tomorrow, to the extent that production is not lacking.
But if, as I said a while ago, we were to finance 100 per cent of our whole production, all the means of production, we could double it: it would jump from $62 billion to $124 billion.
This would be possible in Canada since, at the present time, one third of the population, of the working class, is not working; it could produce, help production whereas, now, it is unemployed and lives at someone else's expense.
They steal from those who work to give to those who do nothing.
So, Mr. Chairman, we have a complete lack of balance, to the point that the worker is as poor as the unemployed. The parasite living off society gets as much as the worker, because the latter sees his pay dwindle on account of income tax and the various other taxes deducted from his salary.
With all those association and union dues, the various taxes deducted from his pay, the worker is as poor as the one receiving social assistance.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
There is a deplorable imbalance that should be corrected. I wonder what action the department of corporate and consumer affairs will take.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has now expired. Is the committee unanimously agreed that he should continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed, continue.
October 13, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs


Henry P. Latulippe: 
Barry Mather: Rising to say a few words on the proposition which is before us calling for the establishment of a department of consumer and corporate affairs, I should like first of all to acknowledge the compliments which have been paid by some previous speakers to the New Democratic party for, as one of them suggested, having been responsible for encouraging the government to introduce this legislation.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I did not hear those compliments.


Barry Mather: Had you been in the house earlier you would have done so.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I was behind the curtains.


Barry Mather: The other speakers said in effect that the New Democratic party introduced some very good ideas, but brought them forward four or five years too soon. That is another way of saying that the older parties are four or five years behind the times. In the present case in connection with the establishment of a department of consumer affairs, the leader of my party put this idea forward in 1964 or 1965, as I recall it, and the suggestion was greeted at that time with scepticism and scoffing by the leaders of the older parties. Of course we in our party do not mind other organizations stealing our clothes, but we do object to the way in which they sometimes wear them after they have stolen them.


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


Barry Mather: I will permit several questions at the end of my remarks. In fact, I will hold a question period if hon. members wish.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Would the hon. member be sufficiently generous as to concede that the
October 13, 1967

idea came originally from the Canadian Association of Consumers?


Barry Mather: I have said that I will welcome questions at the end of my brief remarks. I will certainly entertain that one then. In my opinion, at least, the New Democratic party is primarily responsible, as some other speakers have said, for our having this legislation before us.
I repeat, we do not mind other people stealing our clothes, but we object to the way in which they sometimes wear them. For example, we question very much the tops of pyjamas being worn when the bottom of the garment is not worn at the same time. As we look at the proposal before us we are bound to think it is a weak type of legislation we are being asked to consider. But having played a large part in getting this vehicle on the highway, underpowered as it may be, we shall do our best as a group to see that it goes in the right direction in the interests, we trust, of the Canadian consumer. I wish the minister well in his endeavours and I am hopeful that he will at least bring energy to his new task.
I should like to devote the rest of my remarks to a subject which I hope he and the department will take up rapidly, namely the protection of a large number of Canadian consumers from the effects of advertising. In particular, I wish to refer to a matter connected with consumer advertising which has prompted me to introduce three separate bills into this house, each one being, I would hope, a protective measure for Canadian consumers of tobacco products, specifically cigarettes.
It is a known fact that cigarette companies are spending millions of dollars every year to induce young Canadians to begin smoking, this at a time when every health department in the world is agreed that there is a link between cigarette smoking and cancer, heart troubles and related afflictions. I think a good step to further protection of the consumers would be for the new department to take up this question and see to it that until the cigarette industry can produce a safe cigarette its advertising be examined and, if necessary, regulated by the appropriate department of government.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I wish to quote briefly from a statement made by Norman Delarue, assistant professor in surgery at the University of Toronto, published in Health which is the organ of The Health League of Canada. He says:
The death rates from heavy smokers are 30 to 50 times those in non-smokers and, as a recent 27053-197
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
Canadian study of the risk demonstrated, the overall death rate from lung cancer is 1,400 per cent (15 times) higher in smokers than in nonsmokers ...
However, despite the tremendously increased frequency with which lung cancer may develop, the cigarette smoker is at still greater risk from chronic bronchitis and emphysema, both of which show an identical statistical relationship with the cigarette smoking habit.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to give another brief quotation on this subject, from the New York Times of Monday, August 21, last. This refers to a United States government report strengthening and extending the findings of its 1964 report on smoking and disease, and one paragraph of which reads:
Further, the report states, the new evidence indicates that cigarette smoking is responsible for 11 million cases of chronic illness in the country, 77 million days lost from work and 306 million days of restricted activity each year.
We can get the approximate Canadian figures by taking 10 per cent of the American figures.
In brief, I think that one of the great consumer protection fields which needs attention is that in which millions of Canadians are smoking a product which is unsafe, which advertising induces them to do, advertising which is permitted and indeed carried by a public agency of the government, the C.B.C. I urge that action be taken by the new department of consumer affairs in that area. As I said earlier, I wish the minister and his supporters well in getting this new and overdue organization on the road, and we will do our best to keep it going in the right direction.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member would answer the question he promised he would answer. Would he not be sufficiently generous to concede that the Consumers Association of Canada came up with the idea of this new department long before the N.D.P. jumped on the bandwagon?


Barry Mather: I would be glad to answer
that. To my knowledge many of the members of the Consumers Association of Canada are N.D.P. supporters and I would suggest the idea probably germinated simultaneously in both organizations.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed this day in the house listening to what I think was a good debate. I knew when I entered politics that I was not going to be
October 13, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs able to please everybody. Having sat here this morning and this afternoon, and having been given new responsibilities in a department which will be called the department of corporate and consumer affairs I now know it will be difficult to please anybody.
On the one hand I listened to the official opposition, with its talented array of speakers. In a philosophical way they advanced the argument that there really was no need for such a department, that it was clearly more government expense, more bureaucracy, intervention in the marketplace where this was not required because, after all, business has as its prime motive looking after consumers, because business sells to consumers. In other words they said this was a rather useless exercise but they would go along with it because there might be some useful corrolar-ies or accessories to it if only by way of co-ordination.
On the other hand I listened to the N.D.P. who felt that the resolution and the suggestion of legislation did not go nearly far enough, even to the extent that the hon. member for New Westminster had me running around without my pants by the time he finished his speech this afternoon. May I say that I think that in most elections we have taken them to the cleaners.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are topless too.


John Napier Turner: The N.D.P. seems to want a department that will intervene at any time, anywhere, for almost any reason, in any domain of the economy or any phase of our national life. The hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands suggested that I ought to take up the cudgels against pollution. This of course happens to be the responsibility of a department of government, and further the responsibility is shared between federal and provincial jurisdictions. The hon. member also wanted me to take up the cudgels against automobile manufacturers. That properly falls within another portfolio, and again there is divided jurisdiction with respect to highways and automobile safety.
The whole constitutional problem never seems to enter the minds of the N.D.P., and the fact remains that any department of corporate and consumer affairs will be facing certain limitations because of divided jurisdiction. In fact probably the greater share of the responsibility for the consumer in this country lies at the provincial level, particularly with respect to the retail and distributing end of the marketplace.

Then, of course, in the eyes of the N.D.P. I found myself solely responsible for the cost of living. In so far as the federal government is responsible, I suppose that is a joint and several responsibility. I think there is no doubt that the cost of living is the major concern of the Canadian people at the present time, and despite the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon and of the hon. member for Bow River we in the government have read with great seriousness the fourth annual report of the Economic Council of Canada.
I may say that we have sliced millions of dollars off our contemplated spending, and I think Canadian taxpayers should be well aware that only one third of the total tax dollar is spent by the federal government at this time and that over two thirds-and that proportion has been rising in recent years-is now being spent by provincial and municipal governments.
I think an economist of the stature of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is aware that the cost of living and price rises are due to other factors than government, that they depend on international economic developments, on international trade, the laws of supply and demand in the country, the shortage or the availability of capital, the extend and rapidity of growth in the country, our efforts to maintain full employment, and so on. So, flattered as I am to be singled out for attention, I want to assure him that the new department cannot in reasonable circumstances be held solely to account for these.
We again heard talk about a prices review board, but no talk about a corollary which would have to be added to that, a costs or wages review board, and no suggestion how any enforcement would be made, or where the constitutional validity for that would be, even if we were to accept the rather hesitant suggestion from the hon. member for Peace River that economic crisis might constitute a sufficient emergency within the decision of the courts so as to bring the control of prices in such a time within federal jurisdiction.
On the one hand we had the philosophical approach that suggests we do not need any government representation for the consumer at the federal level, and the other approach that the new department should virtually be a big brother to the consumers, all 20 million Canadians, in almost every aspect of national, provincial and municipal life. I want to say in answer to the opposition-
October 13, 1967	COMMONS
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: Would the minister permit a question at this point?


John Napier Turner: If I could clear up this point first, I would be glad to do so later. I should like to say to the hon. member, particularly, that the measure which is contemplated by the resolution is not providing for a new department in the strict sense. The present Department of the Registrar General and the agencies now grouped within it will be continued under a department with a new name, the department of corporate and consumer affairs, to which will be added two further responsibilities; first, the responsibility to coordinate programs for consumer affairs at the federal level, initiate new programs, and so on; second, the responsibility for representing the federal government in the area of corporate securities. That fulfils quite properly the recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada in its interim report on consumer affairs.
If the hon. member for the Yukon would look at page 25 of this report he would find the recommendation that legislation be created to provide for an administrative unit in the Department of the Registrar General whose chief concern will be the efficient administration of these provisions, namely the pi'ovisions relating to consumer affairs. This legislation provides for that administrative unit in the Department of the Registrar General who, hereafter, will be the minister of corporate and consumer affairs. The recommendation is being followed to the letter.
I should like to say to the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Bow River in particular, in answer to some of their suggestions, that this department will not be a bureaucratic monster. On one occasion I said that if you want to use the vocabulary of the octopus of government, this is not a new tentacle; it is a rearrangement of the existing tentacles, and no more. It will provide for co-operation between all existing agencies of the government which are now found in other departments. It is not a centralization at this stage.
The hon. member for Yukon is right in pointing out that the Economic Council of Canada suggested that we look very carefully at the matter of which agencies should be grouped together. We have made no prejudgment concerning whether the food and drug directorate, whether the weights and measures branch of the Department of Trade and 27053-1971
DEBATES	3107
Corporate and Consumer Affairs Commerce, whether any of the inspection services of the departments of agriculture and fisheries, or whether any other areas which now have proper concern over and review in respect of consumer affairs should be grouped administratively in one department.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but the time allotted to him as terminated.


An hon. Member:: Continue.


Maurice Rinfret: Is there unanimous consent of the house that the minister continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: I am very grateful to the committee. I will attempt to summarize my remarks as quickly as I can. In other words, we will be responsible for co-ordination and initiation. Administrative centralization will be left to future judgment. This is the reason we will await the judgment of the interdepartmental committee of which my parliamentary secretary spoke, which is now in operation grouping together those departments which have an interest in consumer affairs. When we have the advice of that interdepartmental committee we will be able to determine which agencies might be best administered by the new department.
I should like to say also that this department will not involve more government spending. When I spoke on my estimates I said that this year the department would have an expenditure of $8 million, less $6 million by way of revenue in respect of patent applications, bankruptcies, incorporation applications, and so on; so, the cost to the Canadian taxpayer will be between $1.5 million and $2 million. There will be no additional cost of any significance because, as I said, aside from the hiring of certain specialists in the area of consumer affairs most of the staff is available in the various agencies of the federal government.
I should like to say to the members of the New Democratic party that as best I can within the constitutional responsibilities given to me, and with the responsibilities given to me under the legislation which will be deposited and tabled in this house, I intend to represent the demand side of the market, and equalize the market forces between consumer and investor, on the one hand, and the supply side on the other, in order to give better bargaining strength to the demand side of the market. They suggested I am not prepared to
October 13, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs intervene as much as I should. They recited some areas where I thought intervention would be justified and where I would be prepared, and would have the power, to intervene. These included collusion in pricing, monopolistic prices, areas where there might be deception or fraud, areas where public health or safety is concerned and areas where more education or research is needed to equalize the relationship between supply and demand. I am prepared to do that. At no time during the afternoon did they suggest where that statement was wrong or where it should be supplemented. I look forward on second reading to hearing their suggestions in that regard.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that on second reading I will be glad to take the house through the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada as they affect the department of corporate and consumer affairs. I think I will be able to establish to the satisfaction of the house, when it sits as a house, that each one of the recommendations on page 19 and following has been considered and is reflected in the bill, and how it is reflected. In certain areas we have not accepted the whole breadth of the recommendations, but in many more areas we have gone beyond the recommendations. An interdepartmental committee has been set up. The department will represent the consumers' point of view; there will be sections for information and research. There will be that co-ordination, I hope, for which the Economic Council called, and so on, through the report.
The members of the house certainly will receive from me the information to which they are entitled, not only concerning the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada, but also concerning the recommendations of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons of which my learned friend from Vancouver-Burrard was the cochairman. Finally, I should like to say to the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke that he need not be disturbed about my not being able to get together with my seatmate for the moment, the Minister of Agriculture. This department will not have as its purpose the displacement of any other interests. The other economic interests in this country already are represented by government departments. The farmers are represented by the Department of Agriculture; the fishermen are represented by the Department of Fisheries; the businessmen are represented by the Department of Industry and the Department of Trade and Commerce, and so on.


Erik Nielsen: Who represents the taxpayer?


John Napier Turner: As I say, this is the only department which represents the demand side of the market, particularly in having as its pertinent reference the investor and consumer. There is no question that the other interests which already are represented will in any way be displaced. In establishing a department which will have among its responsibilities that of consumer affairs, we will not be displacing other interests; we will be adding a new dimension in government to meet what we think is a public demand for new services, new information and fresh guidance. I feel that each Canadian in his capacity as a consumer is now moving forward, insisting, and demanding that his or her interest be represented by government, just as the workman, the businessman and the farmer are already represented here.
Protection of the consumer is not new in the federal government. He or she is represented already in several agencies, but the new complexities and great proliferation of products in so many areas, and in new areas, demands a new look at the policies which are necessary to protect the consumer. My parliamentary secretary recited some of the basic rights which we will recognize and which President Kennedy in his first message to Congress in 1962 related to the consumers' interest. I might say that what we are trying to achieve here by increasing ministerial authority on the one hand or ministerial responsibility on the other goes far beyond what has been accomplished in the United States. He spoke of the right of safety, the right to be informed, the right to choose and the right to be heard. I hope that this department will be responsible to the consumer, will represent the consumer and give the consumer a new voice at the ministerial level of the federal government.
Resolution reported and concurred in. e (5:40 p.m.)
Mr. Turner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-161, to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that consideration be now given to order of business No. 26 which is Bill S-10. We would be agreeable to deal with this if this suggestion meets with the unanimous consent of the house.
October 13, 1967	COMMONS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must remind hon. members of standing order 61A and standing order 15(4) before deciding what should be done with the private members hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have already used about 45 minutes of the allotted time I suggest we suspend private members hour for today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to the suggestion that we suspend private members hour for today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADA CORPORATIONS ACT


John Napier Turner: the second reading of Bill No. S-10, to amend the Canada Corporations Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the house for suspending private members hour and for allowing me to introduce this bill once again. The bill constitutes amendments to the 1934 statute, the Canada Corporations Act, which received its first major amendments in 1965. In 1965 it was necessary to bring in a few so-called housekeeping amendments. We have since found after a little more than a year of operation that the act requires a few more housekeeping amendments. There is nothing of significance or policy in this bill.
The bill has 10 clauses. Clauses 1, 2 and 9 are long overdue and have no connection at all with the 1965 amendments. Clauses 3 and 7 are required to clear away difficulties unforeseen in 1965 but which are posing major problems to the public and the department. Clauses 6 and 8 are the most important ones. They deeply affect the interpretation of the amendments made in 1965 to section 121B and 128A which were drafted separately. There was little opportunity to make the necessary and consequential amendments in order to correspond with the general interpretation section of the act.
Clauses 4, 5 and 10 are merely corrections of clerical errors or oversights that have been found over the years. After we get into committee I will be able to explain the reason for each amendment as we consider the individual clauses.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Tardif in the chair.
DEBATES	3109
Canada Corporations Act
On clause 1-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to include the Small Loans Act within the exceptions of the governing section of the act. The Small Loans Act was enacted later than 1934 so that loan companies, trust companies and so on are not affected by the Canada Corporations Act. The purpose of this amendment is in keeping with the general spirit of parliament that the Small Loans Act be treated in the same way as other acts. We want to include them under the operation of this measure.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Perhaps I may be permitted
to ask the minister a question. There seems to be an undue number of house-cleaning amendments as a result of the 1965 amendments, and I am wondering whether anyone has spoken to the drafting branch in order to make sure that this sort of thing does not occur again.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is a lawyer and knows as well as I that not even lawyers can foresee everything.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-When series to be issued.
John Napier Turner: Clause 2 is required to cure a deficiency in the act which lumps the present availability of companies having power in letters patent or supplementary letters patent to issue series of shares at this moment. The section is so drafted that only the first series of shares can be issued under letters patent. There are many instances when letters patent apply to several types of shares and unless we put in these words "any such series", only the first series of shares would fall within the purview of the act. This amendment is intended merely to set out the situation more clearly.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 7-Failure to file for two consecutive years.
Erik Nielsen: In respect of this clause, Mr. Chairman, there is a provision relating to the imposition of penalties against companies which fail to file an annual summary or return. I think the subsection is No. 4, if my memory serves me correctly. I am wondering about the policy of the department in the past in connection with the enforcement of this penalty, which I believe is $20 per day

October 13, 1967
Canada Corporations Act for each day the default is continued, during which time the public is denied access to the disclosure document which is required to be filed and made available for inspection. When that document is not filed by a dominion company the information is not available. I assume that is the reason for the penalty. It is my understanding that this clause is not enforced by the department, although it certainly has teeth. If corporations fail to file these required returns it seems to me the law should be invoked and the penalty imposed. I am wondering what the attitude of the new Registrar General is going to be in this connection.


John Napier Turner: I agree with the hon. member. When I was the acting minister to the late Hon. Guy Favreau I asked for information about the total number of companies on record and the number in default. I was informed that as of January 23, 1967, of 15,872 federally incorporated companies there were 2,888 in default.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Glorious private enterprise.


John Napier Turner: I have asked for a complete review of this situation. As the hon. member for Yukon knows, we are also examining the whole of the disclosure provisions of the Canada Corporations Act. I hope by late spring to have a general amendment to the whole of the disclosure provisions. This is one of the elements of the legislation that will be tightened up, I can assure the hon. member.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I would refer the minister to section 125 of the act. I appreciate the good intentions of the minister, but the law is there now; it does not need any tightening up. Section 125 (4) of the act provides as follows:
Where a company makes default in complying with any requirement of this section, it is liable to a fine not exceeding twenty dollars for every day during which the default continues, and every director and officer of the company who knowingly and wilfully authorizes or permits the default is liable to the like penalty, and such fines may be recoverable on summary conviction.
I believe that the stipulations set forth in section 125 of the act are there so that the public can be informed of at least the fundamental structure of the company. This is a document that is publicly displayed so that those dealing with corporations incorporated under the act will at least know the names of the directors, the manner in which the company is incorporated, whether it is a company in good standing, and like information. In my

submission, Mr. Chairman, there need be no tightening up of the law, because the law is there now. All that is required is that it should be followed up by one of the officials in the department whose responsibility it is, and must have been for several years, to do so.
It is surely a simple matter to diary-date the due dates of these returns and red flag those that do not send in the annual returns on the due date. If they are not submitted, the company should be written to and told [DOT]-as a matter of courtesy they are entitled to a warning-that if the return is not completed within a week, proceedings will be commenced against them. I know, and the minister knows, that for years some corporations have been negligent in this respect. This is one of the reasons I am delighted to see that the amendment stipulates a period of two years. But they can still go back two years without having this section come into operation. However, subsection (4) of section 125 provides for a penalty to be imposed in the case of companies that fail to file a return on the due date.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member probably already knows this, but I have been advised by my officials that of these defaulters by far the greater majority of the companies are no longer operating. They become mere shells. Of course, if they were operating they would have to file returns in order to stay in business. But they are not operating. The directors are spread all over the place. The advice I have been given-and I am looking into this matter-is that it would cost the Canadian taxpayers far more to prosecute people all across the country connected with dead corporate shells, which are no longer dealing with the public or anybody else, than the revenues obtained from such prosecutions.
I have asked that the entire enforcement sections of the act that are linked with the disclosure areas be rationalized, if I may use that term. I can assure the hon. member that in by far the greater majority of these cases the public would have little interest in disclosure, since the companies have gone out of business. They have failed to surrender their charters. If they have charters they would of course have to bring themselves up to date.


Erik Nielsen: There must be several of the kind of operation the minister describes. I am glad to hear him say that he is looking into
October 13, 1967

the information with which he has been supplied, to the effect that many of these companies are mere shells and are no longer operating, because it is my belief that this is an assumption that has been made simply because the companies in question have not filed annual returns.
I know that upon occasion, on communicating with the branch in Ottawa and inquiring when the last annual return of a particular company was filed, the answer given has been that it was six, seven, or eight years ago. This is simply because there has been a failure in the follow-up procedure. If the government is in need of money, here is a provision that could be invoked to bring substantial revenues to the treasury. If one multiplies 2,800 companies by $20 a day for each day in default, and considers also that each director is liable to pay a fine on summary conviction if this is not done, one sees that a great deal of money is involved. There is no excuse for the government not enforcing this section, and I am very glad to hear the minis-
Canada Corporations Act ter say that he is personally looking into its enforcement.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8, 9 and 10 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, by leave.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hurrah. We have got something through.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the house very much for its courtesy.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 16, 1967