1967-10-18

PRIVILEGE


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Questions were raised in the house yesterday concerning my speech on Monday in Banff to the national conference on the economics of unity. I should like to inform the members of the house of my exact remarks, which I feel were misconstrued during the question period yesterday. My exact words at Banff were:
Our planning problem is to synchronize the phasing out of coal mining and steel production in the greater Sydney area, the encouragement of new industrial developments along the Canso Strait and structural adjustment in rural areas in such a way that we attain the maximum regional economic development impact. This requires, among other alternatives, guiding the surplus rural population, displaced coal miners and steel workers to new jobs in the Canso area. To accomplish this will require co-ordinated structural changes in the economy.
As these remarks make clear, I was speaking about the general economic development problems in Nova Scotia and our search for solutions to these problems. At no place in my speech did I mention the announcement made by Dosco last Friday, nor did I discuss the situation which results from that announcement. I was outlining the task that faces the planners in Nova Scotia and the types of things, if a development program were agreed upon, to which they would have to address themselves. I was not announcing any government decision.
As the minister responsible for rural development one of my responsibilities is to be concerned with the elaboration of regional development plans. Discussions with the government of Nova Scotia on the establishment of such a plan for eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton were started in the spring of 1965, and preliminary reports on the area were submitted to the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia on January 31, 1967.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege raised by the minister, there is no question but that he is referring to questions I put to the cabinet yesterday. The confusion here arises from the answer by the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) when, as reported at page 3167 of Hansard, in reply to a question in respect of planning he said this:
The plan to close was announced, not as a plan of the government but as a plan of the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation. Consequently the government is not formulating plans-
I repeat "is not formulating plans."
-to close the operation. As yet we are not in a position to say intelligently what should be done. I would be not only imprudent but, I think, stupid to try to indicate to the hon. member that we now know all the answers.
The minister of forestry has raised a question of privilege in respect of remarks he made at Banff regarding the Sydney steel operation, a situation which the government only became aware of on Thursday last. I specifically draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the minister's own words when he said:
Our planning problem is to synchronize the phasing out of coal mining and steel production in the greater Sydney area-
I emphasize the phrase "phasing out". There is no question or doubt about it; these are the minister's own words quoted by him a moment ago, completely contradicted by the Minister of Industry yesterday in this house and contradicted by other ministers of the government who have implied and said publicly that they fully intend to do everything possible to keep the Sydney operation in existence.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Yesterday I asked the government whether the remarks made in Banff by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development were government policy. That question is still foremost in my mind, as I am sure it is in the mind of every member of this house, in view of the fact that there is a contradiction between the public statements made outside this house by several ministers and the statement made in the house by the Minister of Industry. Therefore if the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development feels he has a

October 18, 1967
Questions of Privilege
question of privilege, I suggest he take it up with his cabinet colleague.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Having heard the question of privilege raised and the comments made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South I think there is an obvious divergence of opinion between the two hon. members, and the matter should be allowed to rest there for the time being.



MR. GREGOIRE-REPLY TO RESIGNATION SUGGESTION BY MANPOWER MINISTER

Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to rise on a question of privilege.
It is based on the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) to the effect that the member for Lapointe must-he did not say "should" but "must"-vacate his seat, because he is a usurper in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: He made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that he was alluding not only to the member for Lapointe but also to the two other Quebec members who spoke out for the independence of Quebec, as well as to all members of parliament and of the Quebec legislature who, in the future, will endorse and support the independence of Quebec.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the charges made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, it is now his duty to prove to the house and to the public that a member who changes seats in this house or prefers to fight for his ideas instead of betraying his fellow-citizens, is compelled to resign by the procedure and standing orders. I think it is the minister's duty to support his statement by evidence. If he has no evidence, if it is merely a wish because he does not like to see independentists in the house, well I state right here that I am ready to resign and to do so immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: But I would like my gesture to be meaningful, and since it is the opinion of the electors of the riding of Lapointe that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration wants, I am ready to resign if he will do the same and stand for election in the riding of Lapointe. I will be a candidate for the independence of Quebec; let him run as a candidate for federalism, and then we will get the opinion of the electors of the riding of Lapointe.

Mr. Speaker, I never denied the minister the right to sit here even if we know that money rather than convictions helped him get elected. Therefore, I feel that he should respect also the other members of the house and I challenge him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: -to run for parliament in the riding of Lapointe.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presenting
reports by standing and special committees.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I know whether the Minister of Manpower and Immigration accepts the challenge?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must say to the hon. member that there is no question of privilege. In addition, if he so wishes, I shall inform him of the considered opinion I reached after studying the notice he gave me a few hours ago. I considered the matter in the light of citation No. 110 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, which stipulates that there is a breach of privilege in cases of libel against a member of parliament. More specifically, and I quote:
-that to print or publish any libels reflecting upon any member of the house for or relating to his service therein was a high violation of the rights and privileges of the house.
Therefore, to justify a question of privilege, the comments attributed to an hon. member must be of a libellous nature. I do not think that is the case with the minister's comments concerning the hon. member for Lapointe. The minister expressed the view that an hon. member cannot change his party allegiance without asking for a new mandate from his electors. According to the hon. member for Lapointe, nothing under our rules or parliamentary practice makes it compulsory for an hon. member to tend in his resignation under such circumstances. Obviously, there is a conflict of opinion between the two hon. members, but such a disagreement is no ground, in my opinion, for a question or privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling. All I can say is that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration shows that he is coward by refusing to take up the challenge.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
October 18, 19G7



PENSIONS


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am making a press announcement today concerning pension increases, and because the matter has been raised in the house I should like to have permission to table a copy of this announcement. The statement is rather detailed and a bit too technical to be made on motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FINANCE


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have today tabled copies in English and French of the report of the Tariff Board on reference No. 138, which relates to certain precision instruments and apparatus. The tariff items in reference No. 138 cover certain precision instruments, apparatus and tools used in metal working, surveying, prospecting and map making. I have tabled also the transcript of the evidence presented to the board at its public hearings.
I assure the house that the government will be giving detailed study to this report, and that representations from interested parties wishing to comment on the report will receive careful consideration.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Hon. Michael Starr (Leader of the Opposition) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-165, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act created a new riding named Oshawa, which consists of two incorporated municipalities. The purpose of
Questions
this bill is to give identification to both municipalities by naming this electoral district Oshawa-Whitby. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that this bill be given consideration during the present session of parliament.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 340
Mr. Sfanbury:: Of the countries whose citizens are accorded the privilege of voting and seeking election in Canadian federal elections, which ones (a) extend similar privileges to Canadians resident in these countries (b) do not?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: (a) The following countries extend the privilege of voting and standing for election to Canadian citizens: Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Guyana and the West Indies (Associated States): Antigua, St. Vincent, Dominica and St. Lucia, (b) The following countries do not extend these privileges: Malta, Tanzania, India, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Ceylon, Cyprus, Singapore, Pakistan, Zambia, Malaysia, Ireland, Kenya, Ghana, Malawi, South Africa and Lesotho, (c) The following countries permit Canadians to vote only: Trinidad and Tobago and the West Indies (Associated States): St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla.


INTEREST PAYMENT ON GOVERNMENTAL DEBTS
Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, was the gross interest payment of the federal, provincial and municipal governments of Canada for the fiscal years 1963 and 1964?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Gross interest payments of federal, provincial and local governments Fiscal year ending March 31 1963	1964
(thousands of dollars) Federal	881,597	954,542Provincial	191,489	218,605* Local	210,178	239,566
(including municipal, schools and utilities)
Total	1,283,264	1,412,713

October 18, 1967
Motions for Papers
*The fiscal year of local governments is the calendar year. For comparative purposes, the municipal fiscal years 1962 and 1963 are equated with the federal and provincial fiscal years ended March 31, 1963 and 1964 respectively.


REPRESENTATIONS ON McIVOR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Slefanson: 1.	Which provincial or territorial authorities have made their views known to the federal government in regard to the recommendations of the Mclvor commission, giving views expressed and dates received?
2.	Which provincial or territorial authorities concerned have not made their views known to the federal government?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The answer to No. 1 is that views have been received from the governments of Manitoba and Alberta during July and August and an interim acknowledgement from the Northwest Territories government during September. It would be inappropriate to make known views conveyed until returns are complete from all governments and authorities involved and there has been opportunity for any explanatory discussion needed.
2. An expression of opinion is awaited from the governments of Saskatchewan and Ontario as well as confirmation of views from the Northwest Territories government.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call notices of motions Nos. 19 and 22. I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.
INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT Motion No. 19-Mr. Knowles (for Mr. Lewis):
That a humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence or other communications between the premier of Saskatchewan and the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and The Minister of Agriculture since July 31, 1967, concerning the international wheat agreement and wheat prices.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the mover of this motion is not present. May I say I checked with all departments concerned in this motion and I have been informed that there is no correspondence in any of the

departments relating to the matter, nor any communications on file. I would have asked the hon. member to withdraw his motion, but I will simply have to indicate that there will be a nil return.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this motion be withdrawn.


Mr. Knowles:: Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think it might as well be withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


ADMINISTRATION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 22-Mr. Laprise:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of all documents or reports exchanged during the years 1965-66, between Mr. Herve Lariviere, superintendent of Indian affairs at Amos, on the one hand and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on the other, dealing with the administration or location of Indian affairs offices in northwestern Quebec.
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, by this motion the hon. member is asking for the tabling of documents and reports which were distributed wholly between officials of my department. I think it is a well established rule that such documents are privileged. Therefore I regretfully ask my hon. friend to withdraw his motion.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


NOVA SCOTIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I would ask the Prime Minister what plans the government has formulated -I emphasize those words-for the phasing out of the Sydney steel operation.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we are working out plans for the protection of the interests of the workers especially in the Sydney steel plant. Those are the plans with which we are preoccupied at the moment.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question. I would ask the Prime Minister to explain to the house whether this is support for the statement made by the
October 18, 1967

Minister of Industry yesterday and a denial of the statement of the minister of forestry, or vice versa.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister or the minister of health and welfare whether they can give the house any report regarding the discussions which were held yesterday with the government of Nova Scotia and other interested parties in connection with the closing of the steel mill at Sydney, particularly with reference to the suggestion made by the premier of Nova Scotia that his government would be prepared to pay part of the losses sustained in keeping the steel mill in operation until the end of April.
In view of the fact that it may be important to buy time until a more permanent solution can be found, is the government of Canada prepared to pay any part of the losses which may be involved in keeping this plant going for some time until a proper solution is found?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we did have a meeting in Sydney last night which lasted for quite a long time. It made possible a very long and detailed discussion about the problems that affect this particular plant, especially the notices of lay-offs.
The premier of Nova Scotia informed the meeting that he had arranged for discussions with the officers of Dosco on Thursday, at which time he intended to discuss the possibility of extending the time for another four months and to indicate that the government of Nova Scotia would consider if necessary the payment of any losses suffered by the corporation during that period. The premier indicated that he proposed to ask the government of Canada to share in any such losses. I assured the meeting and the government of Nova Scotia, as did my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that we would report this request as quickly as possible to the cabinet, and that the matter would be given the most careful consideration. Of course we also undertook that we would arrange early next week, following the meeting of Thursday, a further meeting between the government of Canada and the government of Nova Scotia.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Stories have been carried on radio and television to the effect that some parties are interested in acquiring the
Inquiries of the Ministry steel plant with the idea of keeping it in operation. Have these inquiries come to the attention of the government? Is the government pursuing them? Is the government prepared, in the event that some of these parties are interested in operating the plant, to render any financial assistance that may be necessary to keep it in operation?


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I had asked a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a point of order. May I ask whether the minister has an answer to my question? I asked whether the government has received inquiries from persons who might be willing to take over the steel plant and operate it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, those attending the meeting last night disclosed, I believe, that there has been an exploratory exchange between Japanese interests and the government of Nova Scotia. As I say, I believe the exchange was exploratory and was being followed up by the minister of trade and industry in the province of Nova Scotia.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What about the Toronto interests? Is there any word from the group in Toronto that has indicated its interest?


Michael Starr: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. It has not been made clear whether the federal government is willing to sit down with Dosco officials to discuss the ramifications of this situation and endeavour to find a way out. My question is this. Is the Prime Minister going to see that this is done, or is everything to be left entirely to the provincial government, for it to take the initiative in this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in a case of this kind where a particular concern is affected in a particular province-here it is a particular factory-the primary and immediate responsibility belongs to the government of the province. The government of the province has taken the responsibility, and we are co-operating and will continue to co-operate with the province in every appropriate way to assist in finding a solution.


Michael Starr: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does not the Prime Minister think that unemployment in Canada is a

October 18, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry national responsibility, and that this situation will create a great deal of unemployment in that part of the country?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether the shut-down of the Dosco plant in Nova Scotia and the outflow of capital from that province are due to the presence of separatists in Nova Scotia? Moreover, could he tell us whether he intends to appeal to unity as in wartime in order to cope with the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I think this question is far too important for hon. members to make facetious comments about it. May I ask the responsible minister-and I assume that the government, in view of the serious situation affecting steel at Sydney, has designated one or more spokesmen-whether a Mr. Herbert B. Noble of Toronto has been discussing with members of the cabinet, over a period of months, the purchase of the Sydney steel mill?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. He certainly has not mentioned it to me. I shall consult with my colleagues. I have already made preliminary inquiries and nobody seems to be aware of any such discussions, but I shall look into it.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if, in a telephone conversation alleged to have taken place yesterday, he gave encouragement to the group that is said to be interested in acquiring the steel plant?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I read a press account to the effect that a Mr. Noble had been in touch with me; that is the first I heard about the matter. I did receive a telephone call over the week end which I regard as not being of a nature as to warrant the speculation suggested in the hon. member's question.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to repeat a question which I directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration one week ago today, on October 11, as reported on page 2985 of Hansard, concerning a Mr. Bertram Peterson, a coloured South African newspaperman who had been asked to leave Canada by October 16. The minister was good enough to say at that time he would look into this matter. In view of the fact that sending a coloured person back to South Africa might have serious repercussions, may I ask the minister whether after a week's deliberation he has reached any conclusion as to the possibility of allowing this gentleman to stay in Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I think I stated last week when the question was asked that I was reviewing this case. I hope that tomorrow I shall be in a position to give an answer to the house in regard to it.
I regret that last night on a C.B.C. show the fact was not mentioned that I had stated in the house my intention to review the case. I regret, too, that the C.B.C. did not get information from my department which would have obviated a certain number of the mistakes they made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Norihumberland):: I
have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the price levels to which government bonds have fallen in recent days, particularly the sharp decline yesterday, is it the intention of the government to take immediate steps to re-establish public confidence in this important means of government financing?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure that when the hon. gentleman read the newspapers this morning, he noticed as I did that this was a movement of bond prices which has spread throughout North America. While, of course, it is of very serious concern,
October 18. 1967

it is not a problem which lies wholly within the control of the Canadian government.


George Harris Hees: I am sure the minister will agree that it does fall within the responsibility of the government. May I therefore ask the minister again whether the government intends to take immediate steps to re-establish confidence in this method of government financing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is reiterating a question he has already asked.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the newspaper reports this morning that the president of a Canadian bank called the financial policy of the government a "massive swindle", I should like to ask the minister, first, whether he is aware of this very serious charge and, secondly, whether he intends to refute it publicly as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question is out of order.


Mr. Mongrain:: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: My
question is directed to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the Prime Minister or the minister received protests from Canadian Pacific Railway federated trade union officials in Calgary with reference to the lay-off this week of 400 men from the city's C.P.R. terminal shops?


Jean Marchand: I am not aware of any. I will check with the department to find out whether such a protest has been received.


Harold Raymond Ballard: Would the minister of manpower investigate this matter together with his officials in the manpower office at Calgary, with the object of getting the C.P.R to find alternative employment for these men?
Inquiries o} the Ministry FORESTRY


INQUIRY AS TO RESTORATION OF DOMINION-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. In view of the charge made by Mr. D. I. Crossley, president of the Canadian Institute of Foresters at their annual meeting at the Chateau Laurier hotel yesterday that the government is inactive in the face of an urgent need to increase forest productivity, and that it has resisted all attempts to restore the federal-provincial forestry agreements terminated over a year ago, can the minister inform the house what are the government's intentions with respect to these agreements?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the impression that this question is of such a general nature as to require the minister to make a statement on motions, and for this reason I suggest to the hon. member that his question should not be asked at this time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With all respect Mr. Speaker, there is an important conference taking place in Ottawa now, and those attending are most concerned about federal-provincial agreements with respect to forestry development in this country. The question is urgent from their point of view, and I have been requested by several good sources to ask this question.


Maurice Sauvé: These agreements came to an end on March 31, 1967, and no consideration is being given to their re-establishment.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fullon (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister whether he is in a position today to answer the question I asked him yesterday with regard to a reported statement by Premier Robichaud, in connection with discussions between the federal and provincial governments on the subject of medicare.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I have made inquiries to find out whether such a statement was made, and in what terms. I have not yet received the results of those inquiries. As soon as I do I shall be in a position to give an answer.

October 18. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


CO-OPERATION TO ACHIEVE STABILITY IN PRICES AND WAGES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: May
I ask the Minister of Finance a question. Have the leaders of management and labour now rejected the idea of voluntary guide lines which he put forward a few days ago?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 have never used the words "guide lines" in any statement I have made, but I am confident that both management and labour will respond to the government's plea for restraint in present circumstances. It is most important to the jobs that men have and to the profitability of our industry that our costs and prices should not be rising as rapidly as they are.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the Minister of Finance confirm or deny, now, that this does not apply to people working in the public service?


Mitchell William Sharp: This is a question which, of course, will have to be dealt with in due course when we come to negotiate with the public service employees. I am quite sure they will be dealt with fairly, and I would expect that with respect to its own employees the government would have to apply the sort of policies which it advocates and will continue to advocate to the public in general.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BROCKVILLE, ONT.-REQUEST FOR STEPS TO OVERCOME REPORTED HAZARD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey Norih):: I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Will the government take immediate action toward correcting the hazard which exists on that portion of the trans-Canada highway known as death alley, near Brockville, where five people were killed yesterday, bringing the total who have met death there to 16?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt whether this matter comes under federal responsibility. If it does, the minister might reply.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Under the trans-Canada highway agreement, and as a matter of law, responsibility for the highway falls within the ambit of the provincial governments. The federal

government makes a very substantial contribution toward the cost, but it does not lay out the routes.


Percy Verner Noble: I think if the minister could take some initiative, bring some pressure to bear on the provincial government, this real hazard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have only 30 minutes, and I have the impression that there are sufficient federal matters to be raised within that time without embarking on provincial ventures.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainf-Hyacinlhe-Bagof):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the prime minister.
In view of the statement made by Premier Daniel Johnson yesterday in respect to the extension of the Montreal subway as a counter-measure against unemployment in the Montreal area, does the government intend to grant financial assistance to the government of Quebec or to the city of Montreal, as the case may be?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I certainly wish to take notice of that question.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, and it is based on a news report yesterday with regard to transactions by the Bank of Canada in order to depress the Canadian dollar at least close to the pegged level. In view of the conflict that is bound to arise between these two obligations of our government, the maintenance of the reserve limit of $2.6 billion, has the government considered instituting discussions with the International Monetary Fund with a view to restoring the floating exchange rate for the Canadian dollar?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.
Oclober 18, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	3227



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport but in his absence will ask the acting minister whether he or the Department of Transport can confirm that the department has ordered the private radio station at Pond Inlet, in the Northwest Territories, a small Arctic community 2,000 miles north of Montreal, to stop broadcasting. If so, what were the circumstances relating to that order?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this is not a question that should be asked at this time.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, this radio station services a small group of approximately 350 people. It provides-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: -community services, community news to the community and to the Eskimo people living in the nearby camps-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: My question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have no doubt that the hon. member can obtain that information from the minister if he thinks there is great urgency in this matter.



WHEAT-DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING SALES TO JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Yesterday in reply to a question from the hon. member for Bow River the minister said that Japan was getting ready to start trading again in wheat with this country. During his trip did the minister receive any assurance or commitment from the Japanese government as to the amount of wheat it would be taking during this crop year?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the Japanese have never discontinued taking wheat from Canada. The amounts recently were not as great as we would wish, but they recently told us the quantity they will take in December and it is pretty well up to their normal imports from Canada. They are now working on their allocations for January and February, and I hope they will be in the normal range.



TEXTILES-SUGGESTED RESTRICTION ON IMPORTS FROM JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
As Japan has reduced considerably its purchases of wheat from Canada and has ignored Canada's protests concerning textiles imports, is it the intention of the minister, with a view to assist many Canadian industries, to impose quotas on textiles, and especially Japanese synthetic fibres?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I deny the premise of the question asked by the hon. member. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has dealt with the question of wheat sales to Japan. I have had an opportunity of speaking to Japanese authorities about restraints on their export of textiles and fibres to Canada, and I hope to be able to make a statement on this matter early next week.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF GATT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of Mr. Eric Wyndham White, who is director general of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, a gentleman to whom we all owe a great debt for his outstanding work on trade liberalization, and particularly the success of the Kennedy round.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

October 18, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



MONTREAL-REPORTED AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Have the health officials of the city of Montreal brought to his attention the serious air pollution problem that has developed in the city of Montreal in the last few days, asking that exhaust control features on motor vehicles be made a national standard the same as they will be in Ontario and the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering if the hon. member is not repeating a question he asked a few days ago.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I am not repeating a question I have asked in this house previously. Because of conditions in Montreal that are obvious to all hon. members of the house there is an urgent situation in that city, and I have asked the minister, because of that specific condition which has arisen in the last few days, whether city health officials did bring representations to the government of Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such representations, but I have been away for a short time and I will check when I get back to my office.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the worsening economic situation on Cape Breton island may I ask the hon. gentleman whether he is yet in a position to give further information to the house concerning the Cape Breton Development Corporation, specifically with regard to personnel and so on.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the government approved today the nomination of four members of the board. They are R. B. Cameron of Balderwood, Halifax county, N.S.; R. I. Grant, of Port Hawkesbury, N.S.; D. O. Hartigan of Sydney Mines, N.S., and M.

Alex Leishman of Toronto. I might add that there are two more to come, and that Mr. Grant and Mr. Hartigan were recommended by the government of Nova Scotia.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister when this board will take over and the corporation will begin to function. Further, has any figure been agreed upon to be paid to Dosco for the mining properties that are to be acquired and, if so, what is that figure?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the corporation came into legal being on October 1. With respect to the second question on the acquisition of the mine I might say that the procedure of acquisition has already started because an inventory of Dosco property is being made, as foreseen in the legislation. People in charge of this had a meeting in Montreal yesterday on that subject.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question and I do so because of the attitude of Dosco in its recent announcement about closing its steel mill. I would ask the minister, as he was also asked during passage of the corporation legislation, if he will assure hon. members of this house that any price paid to Dosco will first be approved by this house, and the matter will not be left entirely in the hands of the board.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the legislation anticipates three ways by which the purchase of the mine could be made. The first is by mutual consent, the second is by arbitration, and the third by expropriation. I think it would not be rational not to begin with discussions between the corporation and the company in order to find out if they could come to mutual agreement.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I direct a further supplementary to the Minister of Justice. Would the Minister of Justice take a careful look at the recent agreement signed by Dosco with the provincial and federal governments, whereby financial assistance was made available to Dosco? Would he examine that agreement as to whether or not there has been a breach of contract?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a suggestion to the minister that I am sure will be taken into account.
October 18. 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	3229


Malcolm MacInnis: I will put a direct question to the minister. Will the minister examine this latest agreement for a breach of contract?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, the matter is being looked into.



EXPO '67 REQUEST FOR SEVERE PENALTIES FOR THEFTS FROM PAVILIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Justice which may not be of the importance of some previous questions but to me it is most important. As a brief introduction to my question may I say that Expo '67 has been a brilliant success and has brought honour and prestige to Canada. The image must not be tarnished in its closing days by thefts from pavilions of the many countries which have made Expo such a success. Will the Minister of Justice make it known in this House of Commons that whilst the Criminal Code is federal and the administration of justice is provincial, he will call for the fullest investigation of all thefts and for the severest penalties against those who by their irresponsible and illegal actions would bring the name of Expo and Canada into ill repute?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can we have a statement from the government outlining its attitude in regard to an over-all policy on steel production, something which is so vital to the future of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member is asking for a type of statement that should be made on motions, and for that reason I do not think the question is in order.
Inquiries of the Ministry OLD AGE SECURITY



REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF PURCHASING POWER OF PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Challerion (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The news release he tabled a few minutes ago indicates that the monthly old age security pension will be increased by the large sum of $1.50 next year, and that the supplementary pension will be increased by 60 cents. In view of the large rise in the consumer price index is the government giving consideration to a formula which will restore the purchasing power of those old age pensioners?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker it is evident from the statement that under the present law we have a method for updating pensions through effective increases as a result of changes in the cost of living. We have made an adjustment in accordance with the maximum allowable under the law. As the hon. member must realize, these will be annual adjustments which will have significance in respect of these changes.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have a related supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should like to ask him whether in this current session of parliament the government is going to correct the gross injustice which occurs to old age pensioners' supplement payments in respect of changes in their income status during a calendar year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Now that it is official there is to be a $1.50 increase in the old age security pension, will the minister take the necessary steps to make sure that war veterans allowance recipients who also receive the old age security pension will not lose the $1.50 from their war veterans allowance?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minisier of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we will of course give consideration to this matter and make an announcement at the appropriate time.
3230	COMMONS DEBATES	October 18, 1967
Corporate and Consumer Affairs [Later:]


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked a direct question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Your Honour recognized another member before giving the minister an opportunity to reply. I am not sure, but perhaps Your Honour ruled my supplementary question out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a reasonable conclusion.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Last week he indicated in this house his responsibility in relation to the welfare of a small group of Canadians. What plans does the minister have for the alleviation of the welfare conditions that exist on Indian reserves in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking a question which again is much too wide in scope to be answered at this time.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct my question to the triumphant Minister of Public Works. However, in view of his departure perhaps his parliamentary secretary will answer. My question is prompted by a seemingly authoritative article in a leading construction journal. Will the minister advise whether his department in its reappraisal of the design for the Northumberland strait crossing has decided that the structure will not have provision for rails?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I will make sure that the minister sees this question so that he can make an appropriate reply.



CORPORATE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner

for the second reading of Bill No. C-161, to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs.
Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: Mr. Speaker, last evening I described at some length the reasons for the creation of a new department of corporate and consumer affairs which would replace the Department of the Registrar General. I talked about the organization of the department and explained the reasons why we regarded it as necessary to have a department concerned with consumer affairs and the reasons it was logical to combine it with responsibility for the ground rules in the corporate field. I was describing the program on consumer affairs when the house rose last evening. For reasons which are easy to understand we did not have a full house at that time. More exciting events were engaging the attention of many members on both sides. For this reason I think it might be worth while if I recapitulated one or two points I made last night.
Let me say a little more about the importance of a new government response to the problems of the consumer. Government measures to protect consumers are as old as history. In ancient Athens there were functionaries who paraded fully armed through the market place to see that there was fair dealing. In mediaeval Europe the welfare of the people was a dominant concern of the rulers and in part this showed itself in rigorous rules governing market behaviour. The old rules against "forestalling, regrating and engrossing" were widespread and were even embodied in the market regulations of some Canadian towns in the early nineteenth century. Simple rules may have been suitable in a predominantly agrarian society but the growth of industry and cities and the complexity of consumer markets demands a more sophisticated approach. A few years ago a housewife could buy a fat hen or a farmer could buy a horse without requiring any guidance or advice from the government. A good buyer could look into a horse's mouth or look a hen in the eye as well as or better than any government inspector.
Today the consumer's view is often blocked by a cardboard or plastic curtain. Many things today come in packages. Many are often appealing examples of the designer's art and it is clear that modern packaging has made great contributions in terms of convenience and cleanliness. Sometimes technology may triumph over conscience and this is why the government must be prepared to
October 18. 1967

play a role in the market. Generally speaking the role is to ensure better visibility for the consumer. The doctrine of visibility is important in many areas and in the case of consumers it restores the balance in the market to some degree.
Today we look at an economy that is undergoing a series of major changes in all aspects of development. Market practices are being altered; industrial organization is being transformed significantly; there are major changes in technology and communications, and the power of advertising creates new stimulus and demand. All these major changes create new opportunities and new problems for the consumer. The consumer himself has become more sophisticated, better educated and is expecting, indeed demanding, more service and information not only from his suppliers but from governments as well.
In the program I was describing last evening I believe the house will see the first positive steps toward an effective response by the federal government to the real needs of the consumer. When the house rose I was speaking about the fact that under the Canadian constitution no single level of government has jurisdiction over all the matters in which consumers are interested. I also mentioned the fact that there are a good many areas in which federal and provincial authorities have current or separate jurisdiction in closely related fields. In the area of fraud and misleading advertising, for example, provinces frequently have regulations covering used car dealers, collection agencies, racing commissions and so on, while the federal government has certain responsibilities under the Criminal Code and the Combines Investigation Act.
In the realm of food and drugs, most provinces have regulations affecting milk, margarine, farm produce and so forth, and they have jurisdiction over retail trade in both food and drugs, while the federal government through the Department of Agriculture has many responsibilities for food products, and through the food and drug directorate it has jurisdiction in the field of manufacturing and importation of drugs. Both federal and provincial governments are concerned with consumer credit regulations, with packaging and labelling, with research, testing and the setting of standards.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I could give many more examples to illustrate the fact that each level of government undertakes a number of activities affecting
Corporate and Consumer Affairs consumers. Consequently, the degree of protection afforded any individual Canadian can and does vary significantly from one location to another within the country. The Economic Council concluded, therefore, that it was clear that a satisfactory, over-all approach to this important area of public policy could only be fully developed through effective coordination and co-operation among the federal and provincial authorities concerned. We are in full agreement with this conclusion. The need for co-operation is manifest. Therefore I intend to write to each provincial government to solicit their assistance. I intend to send our officials to every provincial capital across the country to find out-


Mr. Nielsen:: What about the territories?


John Napier Turner: And to the territories. I will send them to find out what problems are facing the provinces and the territories, which of course fall under federal administration at the present moment.


Erik Nielsen: It will be a jolt to the territories.


John Napier Turner: I hope as well to be able to visit the provincial capitals and examine jointly with provincial leaders the problems of the consumer and methods of solving them on a broad base. A number of provinces already have substantial consumer programs in operation. They have given leadership and have recently made important advances in the field of consumer affairs. There is a clear need, however, for the greatest possible legislative uniformity right across the country. There is, in addition, clear advantage in a reciprocal exchange of information. I hope that these visits will lead up to and prepare the ground for a federal-provincial conference on consumer affairs.
The Economic Council recommended as well that the department's information program should be supported by a program of research into consumer problems, those which exist now and are likely to arise in the future. The council emphasized that in a society where dynamic technological, economic and social change have become a way of life, new problem areas which cannot be foreseen now will inevitably emerge in the years ahead. This requires, first of all, continuing research into developments of direct, immediate concern to consumers. Second, it requires a flexibility in the development of policy and institutional arrangements as new needs arise. Accordingly, the Economic Council
Oclober 18, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs recommended that the development of suitable research programs and facilities should become one of my responsibilities. This recommendation is to be found on page 21 of the interim report of the Economic Council.
The joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons also recommended that this department conduct research into a number of important matters. We fully intend to discharge the responsibilities thus recommended by the Economic Council and the joint committee. Although some parts of the department, such as the combines branch, already have an important research capability, our research responsibility applies to the whole department and our research thrust will be designed to serve the common, fundamental economic and social objectives of the department. The house will note that clause 6(2) is not confined to consumer affairs but extends research to general application in the department.
Consumer affairs is a broad concept, and it will be neither possible nor desirable to assemble in one department experts who can deal satisfactorily with the entire range of economic, sociological and technical issues in this field. We will have to ask for advice from many sources. Clause 7 of the bill will give the governor in council fairly broad authority to provide for advice and assistance to the minister from outside the government service. In particular, it is the intention of the government to establish an advisory council on consumer affairs.
The Economic Council looked into this matter with some care and reviewed the experience of the consumer council in Great Britain and the consumer advisory council in the United States. The Economic Council of Canada recommended that an advisory council be created, and the government's intention is based on this proposal.
The recommendations of the Economic Council concerning the nature of the council have not, however, been adopted unchanged. We intend to appoint a part time rather than a full time chairman, but the chairman and all the other members will be from outside the government service. Furthermore, because of the difficulty of acquiring qualified personnel at the same time for both the department and the advisory council, the secretariat of the council will be provided from departmental resources.
I have no closed mind about the future development of the advisory council but I do not think an elaborate initial structure for the council should be built up before our

own organization is in place. Moreover, if I am right in believing that the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate will again be sitting to study the general area of consumer affairs, that committee will be in a position to undertake some of the investigation of problem areas that the Economic Council appeared to have in mind for the advisory council.
It is our intention, nevertheless, that the consumer advisory council shall have an independent and important role to play. It will meet at whatever time it considers necessary. It will decide what topics to deal with. I would naturally expect to be able to ask it for assistance in dealing with specific problems. The advisory council on consumer affairs must be broadly representative of many points of view. I want, therefore, to dwell for a moment on the composition of the council. Its members are not to be appointed as representatives of special interest groups. Their selection will depend, rather, on their personal characteristics, which would include some knowledge of issues affecting consumers. Inevitably, of course, some of the council members will be associated with legitimate economic interest groups of one kind or another, but it is hoped that their views will reflect their individual convictions as well as their representational convictions.
The appointments will be for limited terms and there will be no fixed representation geographically or otherwise. I should add, Mr. Speaker, that this consumer advisory council will replace the present consumer advisory council to the food and drug directorate. We fully expect that the council will provide a balanced and well informed view of problems affecting consumers in this country.
I have tried to give the house an outline of the development of the consumer program and this will have made clear the essence of our plans. We are involved in what I think is a challenging responsibility which I have to discharge in co-operation with the provincial authorities, because I am sure we all consider ourselves as advocates of legitimate consumer interests. We are involved in the challenging responsibility of designing a blueprint for the Canadian consumer, setting goals and designing a structure to meet the needs and concerns of the modern Canadian market. Our goals are simple, and I wish to summarize them.
We wish to ensure, first, that the Canadian as a consumer is afforded full protection
October 18. 1967	COMMONS
against fraud, deception and unfair trade practices; second, that he is offered the maximum standards of quality, safety and protection in the services and goods he buys; third, that he is provided with full and accurate information on which to base his purchases; fourth, that he is given strong and active representation in the councils of government; fifth, that he becomes involved in debate and discussion on those decisions affecting his vital consumer interests; sixth, that he is able to make maximum use of the amazing storehouse of riches in the Canadian market. To do this we are trying to build a department that will, first, make use of the best of modem organizational and program methods to get the best value for the dollar spent in government service.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


John Napier Turner: I should like to finish my remarks, Mr. Speaker. Second, the department will analyse and co-ordinate federal activity; third, the department will ensure effective enforcement of existing legislation and where necessary initiate new legislation; fourth, the department will function in cooperation with the provinces, business and consumer groups; fifth, it will undertake research into the intricate and complex problems of our market; sixth, it will distribute the best information available on matters of consumer concern; seventh, it will receive and respond to consumer inquiries and complaints, pass them along to the appropriate federal department or channel them into the provincial jurisdictions if the provincial department has this jurisdiction. Finally, the department will act within the government to influence the creation of favourable legislation on behalf of the consumer.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
As is the case with all blueprints, ours will be subject to change and alteration. We will suffer from growing pains and we will be faced with many limitations, but make no mistake, sir, I intend this blueprint to become a reality and to see that the consumers of this country are given the service and attention they deserve.
I want to deal briefly with the corporate side, but perhaps I can now entertain a question from my friend, the hon. member for Bow River.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question to the minister is as follows: Although his objectives may 27053-205
DEBATES	3233
Corporate and Consumer Affairs be quite commendable, does he believe seriously, as a minister and as a good lawyer, that this new council and the new department will have the ability to control and even freeze prices in view of the fact that the high cost of living is a problem facing every Canadian today?


John Napier Turner: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that my views on that subject were expressed fully at the resolution stage and last evening. However, I think the hon. member is aware of the constitutional limitations facing us directly within the price area. We do have some influence over the competitive factors affecting prices within the combines legislation and we do have the influence of public opinion, but the direct constitutional authority for price regulation in peacetime lies with the provinces.
I now turn to the subject of corporations and corporate securities and I do that because clause 5(b) of the bill deals with them and they constitute a very important part of this department. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the subject of corporate securities is also new in this bill.
The operations of the capital market in Canada make a vital contribution to our economic growth. The efficiency and reputation of our securities markets are a major national interest. We are now studying the present structure of securities regulation in Canada and are examining the gaps as well as imperfections that exist. We are considering what federal legislation may be needed in this field.
The house may know that we are also studying an interesting proposition put forward by Mr. Langford, chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission, for a joint federal-provincial regulatory agency in the field of securities regulation. We will have to decide what kind of agency will serve best to administer any federal legislation without undue duplication, delay or expense.
When I spoke during the federal-provincial conference on securities matters last April, I envisaged that the federal initiative would lie in four areas. First, the federal government should encourage the provinces to adopt uniform legislation across the country and do everything it can to bring about uniformity. Second, we should establish a central depository of information on security matters, and this we have undertaken to do. Third, the R.C.M.P. would establish a fraud investigation squad, and their services in this field would be available to all provincial securities
October 18, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs commissions. Fourth, we should contemplate the establishment of a federal presence in relation to international and interprovincial trading in securities. My own view is that a federal presence in some form is necessary in the national interest. The co-operation of the provinces is essential and we will be proceeding in close consultation with the provincial governments.
I also wish to say something about the work that is in progress to prepare amendments to the Canada Corporations Act. Basic revisions in the act are needed to bring it up to the most modern standards in terms of the responsibility of corporate management to the public and the protection of the rights of individual shareholders.
For this purpose we appointed Dr. R. V. Dickerson, a distinguished lawyer and accountant, to call together a task force of academic experts and practising lawyers to prepare recommendations for the amendment of the act. We intend that the new amendments to the act will enable it to be applied in concert with, rather than in isolation from, the general economic policies of the government. Dr. Dickerson and his colleagues have been hard at work for the past few months preparing their recommendations. Problems of insider trading, minority shareholder rights, the form of incorporation, proxy solicitation, and the duties of directors and auditors are all being considered. As the recommendations are prepared they are being reviewed by an interdepartmental committee of government officials so that they will be consistent with the policy objectives of all the competent departments. The recommendations will also benefit from the expertise of such departments. When the interdepartmental committee has completed its work, a panel of practising lawyers from across Canada will then review the recommendations. A similar group of practising accountants will also be asked to review the recommendations. A group of leading business executives will also be called upon to give their views on all the suggested amendments. When all these ideas have been collated a bill will be prepared for submission to parliament.
I was disturbed to see one press comment to the effect that the government was not proceeding in this matter with a sufficient sense of urgency and that the revision of the act was still at least a year away. This is not the case. We intend to have this bill ready for introduction in parliament early in the spring.


Finally, I want to make a brief comment on another division of the department, to which I referred incidentally. Naturally, the Combines Investigation Act is intended to maintain competitive markets, in order to ensure the efficiency of operations and a better distribution of the resources in the private sector of the economy. Of course, it is essential that our combines policy be closely related to our general economic programs, including those concerning tariffs and those which will probably be proposed following the study now undertaken by the government on the structure of Canadian industry. As the house may see, the Economic Council has undertaken a comprehensive study of our legislation and our program with regard to combines, which might lead to suggestions concerning new legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I think I should mention one or two sectors where there are problems. One of those problems is the fact that most services are now exempt from anticombines legislation. Moreover, I am sure the council will examine the part played by amalgamations in Canadian industry. It will want to see to what extent amalgamation is necessary to ensure efficient operations and to develop a spirit of competition in a particular concern. It will undoubtedly study the sort of criteria and discretionary powers which would be best for the enforcement legislation concerning amalgamations.
More generally, the council will doubtless want to find out to what extent there could be more flexibility in some sectors of the program on combines, provided civil procedures rather than penal legislation could be depended upon. This involves complex legal matters that include constitutional problems.

While we are waiting for the studies and recommendations of the Economic Council we will continue to make the enforcement of the present act as effective as possible. The Attorney General has now adopted the practice of instructing legal counsel for the crown to recommend severe penalties for offenders under the act when given an opportunity to do so by the court. It is important that the level of fines imposed must not be so low that they become an "acceptable cost of doing business". At the end of the fiscal year the combines branch was conducting 57 formal inquiries into suspected contraventions of the act. In addition, 21 preliminary inquiries of an extensive nature were under way which
October 18, 1967	COMMONS
had not yet reached a formal stage. The current report of the director is now in the hands of members.
I do not want to speak at much length about bankruptcies because there will be another occasion when my estimates will be considered by the committee of supply. The smooth and efficient working of the economic system can be impaired by economic dislocation and waste resulting from unnecessary or fraudulent bankruptcies. Wasteful bankruptcies have an adverse effect on investor confidence. They bring about a reluctance to take risks and innovate. At the same time they are a source of grave injustice to the creditors. We are keenly aware of the serious nature of this problem. As a result, the bankruptcy branch has been enlarged and modernized over the past year. Administrative practices and supervision have been tightened. Speedier investigation by the department has been undertaken. The work of an advisory committee on bankruptcy is progressing satisfactorily, though a draft bill completely revising the federal legislation in the field of insolvency and bankruptcy will not be ready until late in 1968.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
We have set up, as many members know, three regional offices of the bankruptcy branch. They have been established this year in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver and are staffed by bankruptcy investigators and accountants. These offices should assist the work of the bankruptcy branch with a systematic audit program of trustees. They also investigate alleged cases of irregularities connected with bankruptcies, whether these have taken place before or after the bankruptcy. This is possible, of course, in view of the recent amendment to section 3A of the Bankruptcy Act. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are co-operating closely with the bankruptcy branch in cases where fraud and other offences of a criminal nature are involved.
We have continued our careful review of trustees operations, and the licences of more than 60 trustees have either not been renewed or have been restricted to the administration of the estates in their hands. No new trustees were appointed between April, 1965 and September, 1967. We now have a new licensing policy for trustees; a release giving details has been sent to all members. From now on candidates for licences will be required to possess qualifications of a high order. They will, in addition, 27053-205J
DEBATES	3235
Corporate and Consumer Affairs have to submit to a formal examination before a board of examiners. This board will be made up of four members appointed by the superintendent of bankruptcy from the legal and accounting professions and public service.
The patent system can have a profound effect on our development policies, and this is another area under full study by way of a reference to the Economic Council of Canada, as hon. members know. Perhaps it would be best dealt with on another occasion.
Perhaps my remarks about these other branches, Mr. Speaker, are enough to demonstrate the need to have all aspects of the department's work carried out on a consistent basis in line with the general economic policies of the government. This is the rationale, as I attempted to explain last evening to the house, for the regrouping of the agencies which has been achieved by the creation of the new department. To recapitulate, we are concerned with setting certain ground rules for business activity. These are to be tested by the extent to which they encourage maximum efficiency and responsiveness to the needs of the public at large. We are concerned to see that the people have the best information available on which to make valid decisions about what they buy and what they do. In order to give the consumer what protection we can, within the limits of federal government responsibility, we must be able to influence both the demand and supply sides of the market relationship. We have here an opportunity to make the department of corporate and consumer affairs the most advanced of its kind in the western world. No other nation of which I know, sir, has earmarked a cabinet Minister with full responsibility for consumer affairs. We are going to do our best to respond to the challenge of this opportunity.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is either a feast or a famine. We listened very attentively the other day to the minister at the resolution stage and we have listened to him with great interest yesterday and today for an hour and a half. He has cleared up some of the ambiguities that were present at the resolution stage but he has left a good many others unexplained. It was difficult to discern for a while just what the government was working toward in designing a bill to create a department of corporate and consumer affairs. I believe it is now clear. The government is not creating a new department at all. What the bill is doing is abolishing
3236	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs -here the minister could have been more frank with us at the resolution stage but perhaps that was unintentional-the Department of the Registrar General. It is as simple as that. The new department retains the duties that are now performed by the Registrar General by virtue of its creation originally under the Government Organization Act. The duties which were given to the Registrar General at that time by that act have been carried over into clause 5 of the bill before us.
Only two functions have been added by the bill before us which are not included in the existing functions of the Registrar General. One is in the area of corporation securities, which is an entirely homogenous function to place under his jurisdiction. The other is consumer affairs referred to in clause 5(a) of the bill. The Economic Council, as was stated at the resolution stage, recommended that all that would be necessary at this stage of the development of government intervention in consumer affairs would be the creation of an interdepartmental committee with a permanent secretariat to serve under the general jurisdiction of the Registrar General. The government has seen fit to fly in the face of that recommendation. I believe the only reason the government has adopted this course of really putting the cart before the horse is to acquire a new name for the up and coming young minister, the present Registrar General. He is spoken of, and I dare say with a great deal of justification, as a serious contender for the leadership of his party. Perhaps this explains another thing.
Normally the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is the one who introduces a bill to set up a new department. Here we have departed from that precedent and we have the young and personable Registrar General introducing a bill to set up a department which he is going to head. This leads me to one of two conclusions. Either the minister has such a degree of importance in his own party that he has been given this honour or the Prime Minister simply does not care enough about consumer affairs to introduce the bill in accordance with precedent. A moment ago the minister spoke of a horse and a hen. He referred to the practice of the prospective purchaser looking in a horse's mouth and testing it in other ways to see whether or not it was sound before buying it. There is no doubt in my mind as to which end of the horse the consumer thinks he is on. Perhaps these observations help to explain this so-called new department and the practice that

DEBATES	October 18, 1967
is being followed by the minister in introducing the bill to establish it.
The objection we have to this bill is that it is weak. How is it going to bring down the cost of a pair of shoes to a breadwinner who has to buy shoes for seven pairs of feet? How is it going to bring down the cost of a pound of hamburger, which has gone sky high as a result of the high-spending policies and conduct of this government? How is it going to achieve these things? How is it going to bring down the cost of a pound of butter, a loaf of bread or a quart of milk? I suggest that clause 6 is the only operative clause in the bill. Many high-flown phrases are used but there is no provision with teeth in it. There is nothing in the bill that will protect consumers against increased prices. There is nothing at all in the bill which would provide for some kind of enforcement against abuses which the new department is going to attempt to cure.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The bill is another example of window dressing on the part of this government, the same kind of window dressing to which the house was subjected when the now Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) told us during the debate on the setting up of his new department that it was going to spend $25 million or thereabouts whereas this year it is spending over $140 million. Yet hon. members opposite, Mr. Speaker, wonder why we show concern, the same concern shown by the Economic Council, at the proliferation of government departments.
Yesterday I was astounded to hear the minister say, as reported on page 3211 of Hansard:
I have already told the house that the steps we are taking here constitute a reorganization of the existing responsibilities of government. I also said that after deducting the revenues of this department from its expenditures the net cost to the taxpayer this fiscal year will be less than $2 million.
That, as true as it may be, leaves a grossly unfair impression not only with members of the house but with the public at large. The revenues which the minister speaks about are taxes. They are revenues derived from the operation of the Patent Act, the Copyright Act, the Corporations Act and so on.


John Napier Turner: They are charges for services.


Erik Nielsen: Charges for services, says the minister. I do not think the minister can call
October 18, 1967	COMMONS
a fee payable on the incorporation of a dominion company a charge for services. It is a direct tax payable to the government.


John Napier Turner: For services rendered.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is a pretty expensive certificate.


John Napier Turner: Do you want the department to pay for itself?


Erik Nielsen: The provinces, the territories and the federal government charge this kind of fee and it is a direct tax. The minister tries to leave the impression that there is only going to be a net cost to the taxpayer of $2 million, but that is not the case at all. The cost to the taxpayer is represented by all of the money that he has already paid as a result of direct taxation or indirect taxation, whatever the minister wants to call it, plus any additional costs which are going to accrue as a result of the expanded operations of the department.
As reported on the same page the minister went on to say:
I do not expect any appreciable increase in our net expenditures as a result of this legislation, if it is to be adopted by parliament.
The minister gives the house no indication whatever what he anticipates will be the cost of the operation of the advisory council. In fact, clause 7 not only refers to the creation of an advisory council but includes that great omnibus expression "and other bodies".
What are the government's intentions in this connection? How much is this new department going to cost the taxpayer? Whatever it is, it is going to be an additional cost, and that additional cost will be paid by the taxpayer. If the minister can convince anybody in this house, even those on the other side, that food prices, for example, are going to be lowered by reason of the fact that the taxpayer will be putting more money into the coffers of the government, then I would be very grateful to him. As I say, this legislation is another example of nothing more nor less than Simon Pure window dressing. The minister was in difficulty and he had to speak for an hour and a half to try to create the impression that something useful is being done here. However, it was an empty attempt, just as the attempted war on poverty has been a futile exercise in government expenditure.


An hon. Member:: That is what you say.
DEBATES	3237
Corporate and Consumer Affairs


Erik Nielsen: I did not hear the hon. member. If he wishes to make an interjection let him stand up and do so.
Another example of useless and wasteful, expenditure that has produced no result is the Company of Young Canadians. Medicare-is yet another example of this window dressing syndrome of the government. We were asked to sign a blank cheque for medicare postdated two years, and what are we getting? The minister will doubtless recall that amendment after amendment was introduced by members on this side of the house, most of which were completely rejected by the government. So the answer put forward by hon. members opposite that we voted for the pension plan and that we voted for medicare does not hold water because the government was faced with constructive suggestions by way of amendment and discarded them like so much chaff.


Mr. Basford:: You voted for it on third reading.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, and let me say right now that we will vote for this bill. But we are going to put forward suggestions and criticisms. We are going to make those criticisms because the government has flown in the face of the recommendations of the Economic Council. The taxpayers of this country have paid several thousand dollars to provide the government with advice that has been rejected.


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


Mr. Regimbal:: Make your own speech afterwards.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member has criticized members on this side for not following the recommendations of the Economic Council. He has also criticized as being expensive the creation of a consumer advisory council. Is he not aware that this was recommended by the Economic Council?


Erik Nielsen: I know the hon. member was here during the resolution stage at the time I read into the record the recommendations of the Economic Council. However, I forgot to read one that I intend to read today before I am through.
The Economic Council resisted the creation of a new department. The minister shakes his head, Mr. Speaker, so I suppose that this is a good time to put it on the record. If the minister says that what I say is not true, then
3238	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs I point out that at page 20 of the Economic Council's interim report this statement appears:
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.
I put that reference on the record during the debate on the resolution, but there is another quotation on page 28 that I overlooked which reads as follows:
It is clear that the range of consumer interests is so wide and so diverse that it is not possible for a single department of government, or indeed even a single level of government, to deal effectively with all of them.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question at this point? I have already dwelt at the resolution stage on the difference between co-ordination, initiation and centralization of administration. I wonder whether the hon. member has had an opportunity to look at page 25 of the report of the Economic Council, where this statement appears:
We therefore recommend that legislation be drafted to provide for an administrative unit in the Department of the Registrar General whose chief concern will be the efficient administration of these provisions.
It is the drafting of this administrative unit that we are talking about.


Erik Nielsen: But surely, Mr. Speaker, the recommendation of the Economic Council that a permanent secretariat be set up is the administrative unit to which the report refers. Certainly it is not a new department.
In addition to these recommendations and observations of the council there are references in the fourth annual report which express grave fears about the "Parkinsonian growth of the bureaucracy". We have before us a bill embodying a new department whose functions are already being carried on fairly successfully by other departments. There is no doubt in my mind, sir, and I am sure in the minds of most members, that co-ordination is necessary. But we do not need this vast structure that the government is attempting to create to achieve the co-ordination envisaged by the Economic Council.


Edward Nasserden: Another empire.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member says it is another empire. I like to think of it in terms of another case of a cuckoo in the nest, like

DEBATES	October 18, 1987
the Department of Industry which began with a modest budget of $25 million, that now runs to more than $140 million. We are being asked to accept another little bird in the nest, another little bird which soon will grow into a great, swelling monster that will shove around and dwarf all others in the nest.


An hon. Member:: An albatross.


Erik Nielsen: That is what will happen.


Mr. MacEwan:: It will be a cross between a chicken and a horse.


Erik Nielsen: I think this new department is for the birds. Its purpose of protecting consumers is laudable in principle; no one can argue with that. Goodness knows, after four years of this kind of government the consumer needs protecting. This government is the highest spending in the country's history. Under it we have seen the highest cost of living in the country's history and the highest taxes in the country's history.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And the highest level of propaganda.


Erik Nielsen: This is a highfalutin' government living high off the hog. The only reason for creating another department at this time in this field is to provide protection for consumers against inordinately high prices. That is what we are concerned about, the protection of the consumer, not the creation of more soft leather seats for bureaucrats.
This bill does not provide the consumer with that protection. The minister cannot point to any clause in the bill which gives him the power that he has under the Combines Investigation Act, for instance. The provisions of this bill give the minister no enforcement powers.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Existing law covers much that the bill ought to cover.


Erik Nielsen: No power is given to the minister to deal with high prices or to prevent the manipulation of food and other consumer prices. No power is given to the minister to prevent the exploitation of wage earners by profit-hungry corporations. Let us face the fact. Food prices are going up and will continue to go up. What will the government do about this? What provision of this bill will prevent food prices from rising? What provision in this bill will empower the minister to prevent food prices from rising?
October 18, 1967	COMMONS
The economy of the United States is still on the upswing and the editor of a leading market journal stated the other day that food prices in that country were about to increase once more. It is true, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) said the other day, that food prices in this country have dropped slightly, but that was the only factor in the consumer price index that showed a drop. That drop, I submit, was not caused by government action but by hundreds of housewives and little old ladies running around with placards and bringing pressure to bear on the food distributors. The fact that food prices went down is an indication of the extent to which those prices can now be controlled by the dozen or so marketing organizations which control the major volume of food distributed in this country. If there is any doubt about that let me draw the attention of the house to the recent analysis in the Financial Times of October 16, with respect to Steinberg's. The sales of that company in 1959 amounted to $178 million but in 1968 they will amount to $490 million. This story may be duplicated for other companies, including Loeb's which controls Allied and I.G.A., the gigantic Weston interests which control Loblaws and a number of other food chains.
The independent grocer, the fellow in the comer store, has been eliminated. He does not count in this network of corporations controlled by giants. His interests and hands are tied. A few major chains are now in a position to exercise monopoly control in the hunt for profits. The hunt for profits is always a legitimate exercise of corporate enterprise, but a hunt for exorbitant and inordinately high profits is not. I am sure the minister is aware of this and I expect that the government wishes to come to grips with this problem.
This bill will not do that. This government,
I suggest, is aiding and abetting the monopolies by creating a featureless facade such as this department. I do not refer to the minister when I speak of a featureless facade. If I may coin a word, the minister is only too featurable. How much more glamourous is the title "minister of corporate and consumer affairs". After all, who is the Registrar General? Yet the minister speaks of misleading advertising.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: One has only to look at the name of the new department and one has the feeling that we are on the brink of action-in
DEBATES	3239
Corporate and Consumer Affairs capital letters with exclamation marks-and are about to come to real grips with the problem of the high cost of food and other consumer products. Where in the bill is there any indication that there is to be this kind of action? No action is being taken by the government.
The Minister of Finance sits pat in the face of the increasing demands of his colleagues. Another demand is now being made. The titans of monopoly will laugh at the Minister of Finance and at the friendly persuasion he will try to employ. He has asked us to believe that friendly persuasion will work. There are to be no guide lines. Everybody else has spoken of guide lines and we were left with the impression that guide lines were to be tried, but there are to be none. The government is going to try to persuade everybody in a friendly fashion to toe the line. That is all the minister can do under this bill. He can cajole, threaten and persuade, but he cannot enforce. The legislation has no teeth.
Hearing the minister speak about the enforcement provisions of the Canada Corporations Act and the Bankruptcy Act left me a little cynical, to say the least, as I know that in both pieces of legislation certain sections are not being enforced.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A lot of bull was spoken.


Erik Nielsen: Certain sections have not been enforced. Despite representations by dozens and dozens of creditors, no action is being taken with respect to the enforcement provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. Under those provisions of the act the creditors are consumers. If that is the kind of action the minister contemplates taking under this bill, then I am afraid the consumer will not benefit much. The consumer will not see much action.
Had the bill been drafted by the operators of the big chain stores and the marketing organizations it could not have suited them better. It promises almost everything but does nothing.
Referring again to the Financial Times, it is interesting to note that the profits of the Steinberg corporation were reduced this year because of the expenses incurred in eliminating trading stamps, starting new Miracle Mart stores, and because of consumer boycotts. The prices that went down after the consumer boycott are now going up. What is the government going to do about this? What will this government do once this bill becomes law? Will it encourage boycotts?
October 18, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs [DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: May I ask the hon. member a question? I always listen to him with great interest and I was listening to him last Friday during the resolution stage when he said in essence that he and his hon. triends believed the government was not following a prudent course in setting up a new department to deal with the growing and continuing problems affecting the consumers of this country. Today he is suggesting that the department is one without any power. What has made the hon. member such a tiger over the week end?


Erik Nielsen: There is nothing inconsistent between what I said last Friday and what I say today. We still say the government is following the wrong course in setting up a whole new departmental structure to handle consumer affairs. I might also say that since last Friday we have seen the bill. I would have expected the bill to contain some kind of provision giving the minister power to do something about consumer prices. Where is it? Let the minister tell us where there is power to do anything about consumer prices. Let him refer to the bill and tell us where it is.


John Napier Turner: Would the hon. member tell me where the federal power is?


Erik Nielsen: Well, if there is no power in the bill to control consumer prices, what on earth is the point of the exercise?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Ridiculous nonsense.


Erik Nielsen: With respect to food costs the decrease which was brought about by consumer picketing was fractional while the increase which has been going on steadily for five years is substantial. The cost of living index has risen more in the four years during which this government has been in office than at any comparable time in Canada's history. That is some record for a government. I never get violently partisan but I cannot refrain from referring to the kind of statements which were made by people like the minister, his colleagues sitting behind him and the Minister of Industry, while a Conservative administration was in power. I can remember them flaying us alive for not balancing the budget, for being a high-spending government. The Prime Minister referred to us as "spending money like drunken sailors". On the treasury benches now are the

people who advertised themselves as belonging to a party which had all the answers. Remember the pamphlets? They had all the answers. Well, where is the answer to the high cost of food? Where is it in the bill? Talk about hens! These chickens are certainly coming home to roost!


John Napier Turner: The hon. member laid an egg with that.


Erik Nielsen: I think the government laid an egg when it produced this bill, and it does not smell nice. I am convinced personally that the increase in food prices is being brought about not in accordance with supply and demand but as a result of monopoly or near monopoly. The general tendency has been for a steady and continuing rise in prices at the consumer level. The packers have not received all the gravy because the wholesale price level has remained remarkably stable in the last five years. The farmers and those who produce garden crops are seeing their prices go down. Yet these goods are costing more and more in the stores. If the producers are not raking off inordinately high profits, where are those profits being made? The farmer is not benefiting from the meteoric rise in prices; otherwise he would not be here with his friends battering on the doors of parliament to try to get in and speak to hon. members about these things.
There is no sense in mincing words. I wish to speak bluntly and, without offence to the minister, I do not intend to take an hour and a half in which to do so. The uncontrolled and undeniable rise in pr'ces is not in response to the law of supply and demand but rather in answer to decisions made in board rooms.
Where is the provision in this bill which will get the minister and the government inside those board rooms, even if this were desirable? How does the government propose to protect consumers against inordinately high prices? This measure is an empty shell. The fact that prices can be brought down when housewives and other ladies across this country picket and boycott stores is ample witness to the truth of the statement I have just made. Certain board room decisions were taken as a result of which prices went down. But when the pressure was off, up they went again.
Here is a little more information from the Financial Times concerning the Steinberg operation. In 1959 the net income of that operation amounted to 56 cents a share. In 1966, seven years later, the net income was
October 18, 1967

$1.11 a share, or just double. The net income in 1967 is estimated at between 90 and 95 cents a share. The drop is explained by the facts I have already put on record. The Times goes on to say that a sharp upturn in profits is expected in 1968. All indications are that prices, particularly in the food line, will continue to rise. In the event they do not there is no problem. If prices do not rise, and if the same applies in the case of other consumer products, there is no need for this bill. But if they do rise, as I am sure all of us, including the government, anticipate they will, what is the minister going to do about it? Not a sausage, I suggest.
The government's answer to constantly rising prices is likely to be the appointment of still more committees. As we know, whenever an undesirable situation arises, whether in Sydney in connection with industry or out west in connection with wheat, the ministers huddle around the cabinet table and ask themselves: How can we get out of this? The answer comes immediately: Let's have a study; if we begin a study the whole thing can be pigeonholed for months and maybe by the time it is completed the problem will have gone away. Or they may say: We will not adopt this intellectual approach because everyone may not understand it; instead we shall be bold, aggressive and imaginative; we shall set up a task force. By George, there are so many task forces marching around this country today that the Minister of National Defence will have to unify them shortly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: The fact is we have now reached the point at which low income families are being priced right out of prosperity. It is a great thing for the government to talk about the expanding economy and the rising standard of living in this country, but try and put those on the table before a family of six or seven or more. Prosperity should not be something for the rich alone. Prosperity is the rightful heritage of all Canadians, particularly in the economic atmosphere in which we find ourselves now.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
This government has a record of protecting the big shots at the expense of those who are defenceless. The parliamentary secretary shakes his head. What protection did the consumers, the creditors-the name is interchangeable in these situations-of Prudential Finance get? In my view the minister should take steps to see that teeth are put into this

Corporate and Consumer Affairs bill and, once they are in it, to see they are clamped shut when the need arises and take a chunk out of some of these particular kind of birds that are offensive to the small consumer, to the medium and low income families. If teeth were put into a bill of this nature gigantic corporations would not be permitted to squeeze the families of wage earners in order to make huge profits.
I do not know whether this is a laughing matter but I am serious when I suggest it is not conscionable for a huge corporation, by distributing food stuffs, to make a net profit on each of its shares of $1.11 by doubling its profits in seven years. There is only one fellow paying that shot and that is the guy who cannot put enough food on his table to feed his family. In justification some people say that these profits are not above 2 per cent. I think I have heard that said in this house. But take 2 per cent on $500 million- this is just one company, not the largest -and that means a profit of $1 million. That is not to be sneezed at. The point is that the profit is being taken from the pockets of those who just cannot afford it. In many cases it represents an unjustifiable rake-off by those in a position to control the market and prices, with no visible return to the farmer and the householder.
That is why there should be teeth in this bill and that is why the minister should have the necessary powers at his disposal in case of need. If the powers are there and if the minister shows he is willing to use them, then they will not be needed. But if they are not there then the offenders are just going to laugh at his efforts, his friendly cajoling.
The most important single concern at this moment when we are considering this bill is the rising cost of consumer goods, the cost of a pair of shoes, the cost of everything put on the table which is necessary for the sustenance of life, and likewise the cost of what goes on the backs of the breadwinners and their children. These costs have been rising for months and months. The government sits and does nothing and costs continue to rise.
Yet this is the area into which this so-called new department, with all its glowing objectives described in such colourful terms and at such length by the minister, cannot enter. He cannot enter the very area where the need cries out for him to enter. Under this legislation the department can do nothing about prices. Indeed, sir, the word prices is not even mentioned in the bill. Despite all the highfalutin' phrases that have been used
October 18, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs by the minister I say this bill is a betrayal ol the Canadian consumer. It gives him no assurance of protection from the monopoly situation, none whatsoever.
The minister asked me to point out the constitutional authority. That is what he is going to do when this bill becomes law. He will ask, "What constitutional authority have I to act"? That is what he is going to say when prices go up and up and up. He will say, "I cannot do a thing. I have no power. There are no teeth in the bill and if I do something it will be construed as unconstitutional because I will be invading a field that constitutionally belongs to the provinces. However, I have got a beautiful bill. The title sounds real glamorous". That is the beginning and end of it. A beautiful bill all tied up with ribbons.
As recorded on page 3211 of yesterday's Hansard the minister said:
-I believe we are following implicitly the recommendations contained in the interim report of the Economic Council,-
Then this queer phrase followed as part of the same sentence in which he said he believed implicitly he was following the recommendations of the Economic Council:
[DOT]-in some cases less and in some cases more.
He is implicitly less and implicitly more. The fact is that the minister has put the cart before the horse. If it was not for the desire of the government to create this glamourous facade with which to cloak the young and personable minister, to picture him as a kind of white knight riding with lance levelled to the aid of the consumers, all that was really and honestly required was to put clause 6 of this bill in the existing Government Organization Act which created the minister's department. That is all.


George Harris Hees: It is a rubber lance.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, his lance is a rubber lance.


John Napier Turner: Remember the night of the rubber knives, George?


Erik Nielsen: In brief, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house want the Canadian consumers to know whether the price increases from which they are suffering such hardship are justified, and if they are not justified we on this side of the house believe that the consumers are entitled to have something done about them. There is nothing in this bill to satisfy either of those criteria.

It is all very well for the minister to raise constitutional issues and say it is not proper for him to enter these fields. I would remind him that parliament is not a body without power. Under clause 6(2) there is provision for co-operation with the provinces on research. What is wrong with making a similar provision with respect to the increasing costs of consumer goods? We want the facts on these matters and if a serious abuse of privileges exists, as a result of which the Canadian consumer is being squeezed by monopoly groups, and if the farmer is being left out in the cold by the same groups controlling the distribution of essential food stuffs, we want to know and we want the government to bring remedies before us for consideration and passage, remedies upon which parliament can act. If these things are not so, we want to know that too. We are asking the minister, as we have asked the government so many times in the past, even as recently as the budget debate, to take responsibility. Instead of creating another study or another task force, or another council or another body, why does the government not take responsibility?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We received today and last evening a tremendous public relations edifice from the minister filled with beautiful phrases, laudable targets and, indeed, golden objectives, but completely lacking in any means to bring these things about. If I am wrong I am sure everyone will be pleased to hear the minister rise in his place to indicate how we are going to control food prices. I should like to hear him say how he intends to bring prices down and how he is going to prevent unconscionable profits. How is the Canadian consumer going to be protected against inordinately high food prices? Apparently the minister cannot tell us this.
To borrow a phrase from political history, if I dare, the minister has produced a solid gold Cadillac which has no gas. He has his foot down to the floor on the accelerator with the back wheels jacked up and he is going nowhere. He has even got a horse but his horse is going in the wrong direction. He is expecting the cart to be pushed by the horse instead of pulled. All we are asking the minister to do is to gas up this vehicle and get it rolling. We are asking him to do something about high prices. The situation is much too serious for meaningless phrases and empty public relations facades such as this bill represents. The consumer needs protection but this bill is not going to provide that protection.
October 18, 1967


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic party approach this bill to set up a department of corporate and consumer affairs with mixed feelings. We had hoped for such a department but an examination of the bill shows it does not fulfil our hopes. The great Dr. Johnson once said that a widower who remarries represents the triumph of hope over experience. Certainly we should have been warned that when the Liberal government talked about legislation to protect the consumer the experience would certainly not warrant the high hopes we held.
For five years members of this party have been asking for the establishment of a department of consumer affairs because we believe that in a monopoly dominated society the only protection the consumer can hope to have is that provided by the intervention of government. We feel we have some consolation in the knowledge that our repeated demands over the years for a department of consumer affairs helped to create some public demand for such a body. Certainly the outcry of the consumers of Canada, particularly of the housewives, about two years ago was for a department of consumers affairs, and for some government machinery that could grapple with the steadily rising cost of living.
This government did what it always does. In this case it referred the matter to a parliamentary committee. Having given itself a little time in this way for the storm to abate it now brings down legislation, but this legislation only gives the pretence of doing something when in reality it will do virtually nothing that has not been done before.
The problem of the consumer is probably one of the foremost problems facing Canada today. The Globe and Mail of June 1, 1967 carried an article on a speech made by Sidney Margolius of Port Washington, New York. He is one of the outstanding writers on consumer affairs on this continent. He is quoted in this article as having said:
Consumer exploitation has replaced labour exploitation as the real problem of our times.
Later on in the article he is reported as having said:
Big banks and food, drug and auto corporations are just as guilty of consumer exploitation as smaller high pressure companies-
As the minister pointed out in his address last night, the consumers of this country spend some $37 billion a year. If there could be even a 3 per cent or 4 per cent saving for the consumer this would greatly increase the
Corporate and Consumer Affairs purchasing power of the people and would certainly raise the living standards of many people across Canada. I am sure those of us who have been advocating the setting up of a department of consumer affairs and the general public who have looked forward with great hopes to this legislation are bitterly disappointed. There is virtually nothing in this bill which gives the consumer any hope that the government is going to grapple effectively with consumer problems. The government is doing what the government has done about every major issue it has faced. It is burying its head in the sand like an ostrich with the hope that the problem will go away.
I was really sorry for the minister during his speech last night and today in that he was trying valiantly to make something worth while out of this legislation. It is certainly true in this case, as it has been in most other cases, that the longer the speech the less the bill contains. This was an attempt to blow up a balloon which looked colourful and enticing but was really full of hot air. The only justification for voting for this bill is that at least it will set up a department to which parliament will some day give the necessary power and teeth to really become a protector of consumer interests in this country.
I should like to make two points. The first is that the measures which are provided in this legislation for the protection of the consumer are not at all new. The government is merely gathering together various acts designed to protect the consumer against products which are injurious to health, against false weights and measures, against misleading advertising and packaging and to provide combines legislation which is supposed to protect the public against market manipulation. However, this is merely a gathering together of existing legislation. Will this be any more effective now because it is all under one minister than before when this legislation was under several ministers? Will this legislation have any more teeth now than it had before?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is a gathering system.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister said this afternoon that this is a new approach by the government to consumer protection. What is new about it? What new protection will the consumer have now when this legislation, most of it useless and ineffective, is collected under one minister? What more protection will it give than was the case when it was
3244	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs scattered under half a dozen ministers? I refer to the minister's statement of last night as reported on page 3208 of Hansard when he said:
The combines branch has a duty to protect consumers and producers, particularly the small businessman, against the unfair use of market power.
Where is the legislation here that will give these people that protection? Is it to be found in the combines act? That act has not given such protection in the past. Is there any reason to think it will give it now?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It takes ten years to get a combines case to court.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What changes will there be in the combines act that will do what the minister says, namely, protect consumers and producers, particularly the small businessman, against the unfair use of market power? If the minister takes the trouble to go to his office he will find it littered with reports of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission containing complaints about the manipulation of prices and the control of the markets in baking, flour milling, car batteries, tires, sugar and a score of other items. Nothing has ever been done. Where in the few instances the complaints of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission have been acted upon, the paltry fines which have been levied against the offenders have constituted a farce.
In 1963, for instance, the three largest sugar companies were charged with and found guilty of making an illegal profit on some 80,000 tons of sugar. They were each fined $25,000. a total of $75,000 for making an illegal profit on 80,000 tons of sugar. This represents less than a dollar a ton, less than one-twentieth of a cent per pound. As I said at the time, it was not a fine; it was simply a licence fee to commit piracy on Canadian housewives.
What is there in this legislation that will be any more effective in protecting Canadian producers, consumers or small businessmen against the unfair use of market power? What is there in this legislation that will protect the consuming public against predatory pricing? Predatory pricing has been going on for a long time. If the combines act can prevent the fleecing of the public, why has it not been used? If it will not protect the public, why should the government now go through the farce of saying that the public will be protected by putting the combines act under a new minister? Or are we to assume that this minister will be more diligent in the

DEBATES	October 18. 1967
discharge of his duty than were previous ministers? If that is the implication, it is a serious reflection upon previous ministers.
This bill will, of course, co-ordinate the activities of those administering the legislation protecting the public against products which are injurious to health and against misleading advertising and packaging. That is fine, but what is new? The same powers are involved. It is the same legislation. It is a different minister with a new label, that is all. If the housewife has been complaining, as she has for years, about misleading advertising, misrepresentation and the lack of any unified system of packaging, what reason is there to think that she will be any better protected now under the same legislation that failed to protect her in the past? No wonder the minister said, as reported at page 3211 of Hansard:
-we contemplate no substantial increase in government expenditure.
Well he might not anticipate any increased expenditure, because this department will not do any more than was done before. There will be some advantage in bringing these various pieces of legislation under a single minister and attempting to co-ordinate their administration. With a ministerial interdepartmental committee we might have a little better administration of these acts. But in so far as setting up a department to cope effectively with consumer problems, this legislation is a snare, a delusion and a farce. We are now facing the kind of thing for which this government has become notorious. After evading a problem for two or three years it finally brings in legislation which provides a facade behind which it can continue to do nothing.
The second and most important point I want to make about this bill is that what it does not contain is much more important than what it does contain. The outcry of the housewives of this country which resulted in the setting up of a parliamentary committee on consumer credit and prices was not directed mainly against misleading advertising, packaging or the lack of uniformity of weights and measures. The outcry of the Canadian housewives was against the steadily increasing cost of living. They were protesting against the rise in the price of the essential things they needed, food, clothing and shelter. The increase in the price of these necessities has of course continued. It has continued at an accelerated rate even since the housewives made their protest two years ago.
October 18, 1967

The cost of living index went up from 145.1 in September of 1966 to 150.7 in September of 1967. This is an increase of 5.6 percentage points in a period of 12 months.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. It being five o'clock p.m. the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to amending the Unemployment Insurance Act, to the effect that persons wishing to continue employment beyond their normal retirement age be not required to pay any unemployment insurance.
He said: Mr. Speaker, ever since the government took office in 1963 we have heard promises that the much needed revisions to the Unemployment Insurance Act would be brought about. In fact, there was a reference to this effect in the speech from the throne in 1963, again in 1964, and traces of it again in 1965 and 1966. Had these revisions taken place this motion would, of course, not have been necessary at all.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The Gill commission report has been available to the government as background advice ever since November, 1962 when it was tabled. It certainly found plenty wrong with the system. However, to date the government has done nothing at all to effect some of the most useful of the 45 listed recommendations and changes contained in the report of the commission.
Throughout the past year the minister has been travelling about the country promising further revisions and talking about higher benefits and expanded coverage. As early as February 8, 1967 the Globe and Mail reported: "Time Ripe For Increasing Benefits To Unemployed, Nicholson Says". I have a host of newspaper clippings but I will only refer to a few. In a clipping from the Fredericton Gleaner of May 20, 1966 we read the heading: "Now Is The Time". Another heading on a clipping from the Globe and Mail of August 22, 1967 reads: "Higher Jobless Benefits Delayed Until Early '68". In the light of such procrastination and lack of action it seems there is nothing else for members on this side
DEBATES	3245
Review of Unemployment Insurance Act of the house to do but to put forward their own motions to effect earlier changes, because certainly a revision of the act in more ways than my motion intends to effect is long overdue.
We are told that an interdepartmental committee is studying needed amendments. We would be very interested to see the proposed amendments that the committee intends to put forward. In fact there have really been no proper amendments to this act since 1959 at which time it was established that persons earning up to $5,160 a year would be covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act and anyone earning over that figure would be excluded. It is clear to all of us in this house that wages have risen during the last eight year period, and in fact many people in the labour force have been excluded from the benefit group because of increasing salaries, not that salaries are increasing too much but because this limit is unrealistic. Therefore needed changes not only to raise the limit but to increase the benefits are long overdue.
There is some concern on the part of many Canadians about the manner in which increased benefits will result and also about the classes which will be included in the much talked of expanded coverage. I know that there is a rough justice in the basic principle that everyone pays, everyone benefits. So far as hospital insurance and various forms of medical insurance are concerned, we do operate on the principle that everyone pays, everyone collects. However, I think it is a very rough measure of justice if this principle is applied to unemployment insurance.
If we are to include almost two and a half million additional workers from professional groups such as civil servants, high executives in business and industry, bank presidents and perhaps even prime ministers and politicians, then it certainly seems that we will be including persons who will stand little chance of ever collecting from the unemployment insurance fund. I would make the statement that such professional groups as teachers, social workers and nurses are almost guaranteed continuous employment and therefore would never really be able to claim benefits under the act. Therefore I caution the government against expanding coverage to include those classes. I think that any group of persons or any individual earning a substantial salary would not sit back and be content with the rather meagre benefits possible under the insurance plan. So, as I said,
October 18, 1967
3246	COMMONS
Review of Unemployment Insurance Act the government should be careful in planning any expansion to include professional groups.
In effect what would happen is that the professionals would be taxed exclusively while the government would be able to maintain the appearance of not having raised taxes and still keeping the fund in a strongly solvent position. If that is all the government intends to do to ensure the solvency of the unemployment insurance fund, I believe it will lay itself open to severe censure. In fact, it seems to me this is a back-door approach to the minimum guaranteed annual income scheme, another question altogether which I do not have time to discuss now.
I submit there is a great need to restore the unemployment insurance fund to its original structure of an actuarially sound plan based on insurance principles. Social security and other welfare plans have no place in an insurance scheme.
This leads me to my resolution which affects one of the grievances and abuses about which we hear so much in regard to the unemployment insurance fund. It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to amending the Unemployment Insurance Act, to the efleet that persons wishing to continue employment beyond their normal retirement age be not required to pay any unemployment insurance.
While I could cite individual situations where this situation has worked extreme hardship on specific persons, I still think we must look at the broad picture as it affects larger groups of workers and I call to witness evidence contained in the Gill commission report. On page 25 there is a letter which the commissioners studied. Let me remind hon. members that this was in 1962. In the letter there is the following statement:
Throughout the last 15 years the claims statistics and the information derived by the commission from its experience in administering both the unemployment insurance scheme and the national employment service have steadily indicated that the group 65 years of age and over draw benefit in a far higher ratio than that which their own numbers bear to the rest of the insured population. The differential is so substantial that the inference can only be that many of these older persons have retired from the labour market and are drawing benefit as a supplement to or substitute for a pension.
It is to be expected that the impact of claims from the older group should be somewhat heavier, as these persons find it harder to get employment than younger persons. The impact is likely to be heavier both in regard to the percentage making claims and in regard to the length of time they stay on benefit. For example, a ratio higher than


the average by say 50 per cent or 75 per cent would not be surprising. In fact, however, it is. about 250 per cent as regards the number of claims and about 300 per cent as regards the amount of benefit drawn.
The problem still remains unsolved. In talking with some of the officials at the manpower centres I was told that persons in the upper age group constitute less than 3 per cent of the labour force and yet they claim more than 10 per cent of the amount of benefits. So obviously something is going wrong.
As I said earlier, it looks as though this-plan is not really insurance in the true sense. Some type of social security is working its way into the scheme. I am not suggesting that persons over 65 years of age should be barred from the labour market. If the principle of insurance is to be applied, I think these persons have a right to expect benefits when they do not find employment.
In another section of the report dealing with pensioners the following statement appears on page 36:
The complaints relating to the abuse of the plan on the part of pensioners are largely of the same type as the complaints relating to married women as noted above. The fact is that persons who have retired on a pension are, if their pension is other than a very small one, free to accept work or not as they choose.
It is optional; they are not really required to work daily. In fact the whole principle of pensions is to give to those moderately advanced in age the freedom from having to attend to daily work. I think it is not proper to include this group in the unemployment insurance plan.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I must point out that at the time the Gill commission report was tabled the old age security pension was available to persons reaching the age of 70. As we know, the eligible age has now come down to 68 and by 1970 people will eligible to receive the pension of $75 when they reach 65. Persons who normally would be in receipt of that pension would not be totally without means. I am not suggesting that the pension is adequate, but they are not completely without income and perhaps therefore not so much in need of protection as are other employees.
In order to be brief and come to the point, I would commend to the government recommendation 185 of the Gill commission report.
October 18, 1967

This recommendation is found on page 159 and reads:
We recommend, therefore, that eligibility for extended benefits be limited to persons covered by the unemployment insurance plan exclusive of persons over the age of 70 who are in receipt of pensions under the Old Age Security Act-
I point out again that the age of 70 is no longer valid because of the decline in the pensionable age that has been legislated since the tabling of the Gill commission report. The wording of my resolution, therefore, refers to normal retirement age which I really intended to tie in with the declining age eligibility for the pension. I feel that many revisions are necessary but I should like to commend to the government serious consideration of my motion.


Mr. Keith Hymmen (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing my remarks to the notice of motion introduced by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns), I should like to suggest that the question before the house may be expressed succinctly as whether or not people of retirement age who seek other employment should be exempted from the provisions of unemployment insurance. In this connection, I believe we should particularly refer to section 27 of that act which lists those in excepted modes of employment. I am sure that whether or not hon. members are for or against this motion they all have a great deal of sympathy for the group referred to, those of retirement age who are becoming part of a special segment of our society, the senior citizens. At one time there was the belief that a person who retired should be, so to speak, put on the shelf and forgotten. This is not the situation today.
Many hon. members in this house have met some of our centenarians during this centennial year. I had the privilege of meeting four such people. We are all aware of a certain member of the other place who at the age of 90 has contributed a tremendous amount of work and effort to an important piece of legislation which we expect in this place in the near future. Today, 65 is considered the normal retirement age when a person can look forward to some rest, relaxation and an opportunity to do some of the things which he never seemed to find time to do.
However, there are situations when, because of circumstances or temperament, a person finds it necessary to seek employment in his declining years. To cut him off from possible benefits from unemployment insurance by voiding his participation in this
Review of Unemployment Insurance Act program would, I feel, be discriminatory against those who need the income protection in the event of loss of employment through no fault of their own. I have one person particularly in mind in my constituency to whom I have been talking recently. I know there are many more. At the same time, any change may be discriminatory against other employees in the same line of endeavour who may not yet have reached retirement age.
The introduction of this notice of motion, Mr. Speaker, of course gives hon. members an opportunity to discuss the Unemployment Insurance Act, its past, present and future provisions, and the exceptions to this program previously mentioned as being covered in section 27. This whole matter must be, and I am sure will be, considered with a great deal of interest prior to and when the amending legislation is introduced. The present Unemployment Insurance Act, as hon. members well know, was introduced in 1940. The plan adopted was an insurance plan to provide compensation to the individual against loss suffered through temporary inability to obtain employment and was not meant to be a plan of unemployment assistance or a form of social welfare.
Important service has been rendered by this act over the years. The sum of $5.5 billion has been paid out in total benefits. In this quarter of the century amendments have been introduced and changes have been made to the regulations. However, no major change has been effected since 1959. The contributions paid by employers and employees have increased somewhat and certain classes of employees have been excepted. Coverage has been extended to others. The maximum weekly benefits in 1941 ranged from $12.40 per week to $14.40. Since 1955 maximum benefits have ranged from $27 to $36 per week. We all realize that wages and salaries today are considerably higher than they were in 1955. Then, too, there is the serious matter of the cost of living about which we heard so much earlier today. Many questions have been asked and a great deal of concern has been registered from time to time in this connection since I have been here. Of course, I understand that this matter has been considered by a standing committee. The wage ceiling for insured employment has been increased about $2,000 for those employed other than on an hourly, daily, piece, mileage or other rate per unit of work to the present amount of $5,460 per year.
I have already mentioned the importance of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I do not
October 18, 1967

Review of Unemployment Insurance Act believe this can be stressed too strongly. However, before we go too far with regard to benefits or drastically change the presently accepted classes, I suggest we should take a good look at other programs and examine other legislation which has been introduced over the years and even recently. During the past few weeks there has been a great deal of discussion in this place in connection with Bill No. C-150 which relates to the adult retraining program. There have been many problems connected with the changeover to the new program under which the federal government has accepted full financial responsibility. The purpose of this act has been to upgrade the skills of men, the lack of which has caused many unemployment problems. There is the manpower mobility program as well as the technical assistance program. There have been many pieces of legislation directed to social welfare benefits. I do not suggest that these will eliminate the necessity for unemployment insurance. However, they are programs provided by this and previous governments which were not available and in all probability were not considered at the time the Unemployment Insurance Act was introduced.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I should like to quote paragraph 5 of the Gill commission report to be found at page 2:
Our studies have shown that the system of unemployment insurance in Canada as it now operates will not and cannot meet the problems and requirements of either today or tomorrow. We are living in an era of extraordinarily rapid change. Revolutionary advances in technology, new conditions of foreign trade and a continued marked expansion of the labour force will have far reaching effects on the operation of the economy and on the occupational structure of the population. In these circumstances it is obvious that there is an urgent need to re-examine the procedures of the past and to devise new approaches commensurate with the realities of the future.
Paragraph 6 reads as follows:
In developing our recommendations we have sought to devise a program of support for the unemployed that will be economically and financially sound and at the same time deal adequately with the social problems that lie ahead. First and foremost, we place great emphasis on the positive solutions to the problem of unemployment. There is no system of unemployment insurance that can cope with heavy and prolonged unemployment in a manner that is at the same time financially practicable and socially defensible. In so far as this vital but larger matter comes within our terms of reference we are proposing a basic reorganization in the role and operations of the national employment service. In our view it is essential that this service be used more effectively, as part of a comprehensive and forward-looking manpower policy, to expand employment oppor-

tunities and to assist individuals to make the best use of their skills and abilities. Such a reorientation, along with the pursuit of a positive concept in respect of emerging employment and manpower problems, is the foundation stone upon which a program of support for the unemployed should be built. The development of adequate opportunities for employment and the fullest use of human resources is a prime concern of the community; support for the unemployed when work is not available is a necessary and important social obligation, but it is never an end in itself.
We all know of abuses of the Unemployment Insurance Act, Mr. Speaker. I am also sure that the unemployment insurance commission is well aware of the problem. Too many individuals participating in the plan feel that unless a collection is made and benefits are received they are losing something, and they operate under this assumption. However, they should appreciate that they are protected against probability, if not against eventuality or certainty, and this is the principle of any insurance scheme. At the same time we should not criticize too seriously those who have not participated in the plan if they look forward to a retirement benefit.
We have had the benefit of the report of the Gill committee to which I have already referred. This committee of inquiry was appointed by the previous government to investigate difficulties, problems, inadequacies and abuses of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and it reported in November, 1962. A point of interest to hon. members is that one of the commissioners was Dr. J. J. Deutsch, who has just completed a rather productive term of office as chairman of the Economic Council.
The Gill report is a rather sizeable document and this is not the time nor the place to examine it in detail. However, there are one or two basic recommendations in the report to which I should like to refer, and one of them is in regard to financing. The report says:
-with the exception of administrative expenses the unemployment insurance plan be financed by contributions shared equally between employees and employers, with no contribution from the government except in its capacity as an employer; the administrative expenses arising in connection with the plan be met by the government from general taxation revenues.
This, as I understand it, is not the procedure that is followed at present. Under current arrangements the employee contributes two-fifths, the employer two-fifths and the government one-fifth. The latter is in turn covered by a statutory grant which for the current year 1967-68 amounts to $74 million.
October 18, 1967

Administration accounts for $42.5 million, making a total government expenditure for the program of $116.5 million for the current year.
A great many people, Mr. Speaker, are of the opinion that the unemployment insurance fund is not solvent. This is not quite the case. At the end of the first fiscal year, 1941-42, the fund had accumulated $44 million. This amount rose to a high of $881 million in 1953-54 and fell to a low of $66.5 million in 1961-62. Since that time I understand there have been one or two occasions when the fund was actually in deficit. The fund does have seasonal fluctuations; however, at the end of August of this year the unemployment insurance fund stood at $300,566,000.
Under these circumstances it should be possible to increase to some extent the benefits without greatly increasing the coverage. If it is the intention of the government to withdraw government participation, aside from administrative expenses, this would be extremely difficult, if not well nigh impossible. On the other hand, it would be unwise to remove from coverage those referred to in this notice of motion who require the benefits which have been provided.
I should like to turn, Mr. Speaker, to a second basic recommendation of the Gill committee dealing with the question of universality. This question has caused a great deal of concern in my riding and I am sure other hon. members have experienced the same problem. I know of no other occasion when I have had so many letters from self-employed professional people, particularly medical doctors. For example, I should like to put on the record part of a letter received from one doctor. It is addressed to me and reads:
I wish to register my strong opposition to the proposal concerning the involvement of self-employed persons in the unemployment insurance fund.
There is no conceivable circumstance under which a professional or self-employed individual could collect from the fund and this would then appear to be discriminatory taxation.
If the fund is in financial difficulties, as we understand it to be, the most logical approach would be to re-examine the circumstances under which benefits are paid rather than to continue to pump money into a leaking sieve.
This concern was no doubt prompted by some press releases this summer of indeterminable origin. However, in all fairness not even the Gill report, which may or may not be the basis for anticipated legislation, connects universality with self-employed persons. It does, however, recommend that
DEBATES	3249
Review of Unemployment Insurance Act coverage be extended to all persons in an employee-employer relationship, and at page 107 of the report the following recommendation is made;
We recommend that the existing earnings ceiling on coverage he removed and coverage be extended to all persons who are in the position of employees in an employer-employee relationship, without regard to their income. We believe, however, that the insurance plan should extend only to a certain proportion of the income of those in the higher income brackets and consequently we contemplate a maximum limit on the contribution and the benefit.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Perhaps hon. members have, as I have, heard from another group with respect to amending section 27 of the Unemployment Insurance Act which deals with excepted classes. I refer to the teachers. Teachers presently are in the excepted category. Paragraph (i) of section 27 of the act, which is headed "Excepted Employment", reads as follows:
(i) employment as a teacher, whether engaged in a school, college, university or institution or in a private capacity;
Members of the teaching profession are concerned, with justification, about the possible implementation of some of the recommendations of the Gill commission. I shall again quote from the report of the Gill commission. In paragraphs 12 and 13 on page 106 the following words are found:
12.	The traditional reason for the exception of groups such as government employees, policemen and teachers has been that unemployment is essentially a feature of industry and consequently coverage should be confined to those who are engaged in industrial employment in all its many varieties. The view was that employments such as government service, teaching and police work were apart from industry and were not subject to risk of unemployment. However, activities of governments at various levels have now extended so widely as to be virtually indistinguishable in many cases from employments that fall within industry. Also, there is active movement of employees between such excepted employments and employment in industry. We believe, therefore, that the traditional reason for excepting such groups, whatever validity it may have had in the past, is not valid now.
The next paragraph is interesting.
13.	In our opinion, the fact that these or any other groups carry virtually no risk of unemployment is not a valid reason for excepting them from coverage. Already covered by the scheme are many groups of employees who have secure employment, indeed employment no less secure than that offered by the excepted classes and perhaps in some cases more secure.
As a member representing an Ontario constituency I received a telegram from the
3250	COMMONS
Review of Unemployment Insurance Act president of the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario. I shall not read it. The federation represents 27,500 teachers.
I have in my hand also a resolution from a much larger body, the Ontario Teachers' Federation, which has some 85,000 members. The Ontario Teachers' Federation makes four basic recommendations which are as follows:
1.	The federation feels that if the government includes teachers as compulsory participants few, if any, would ever be in a position to derive benefits. Consequently, from a teacher's point of view, the federation would not accept unemployment insurance as true insurance.
2.	The federation is prepared to accept the view that unemployment insurance is a welfare measure and, as such, the government should re-name it, should include all citizens, and should obtain the necessary moneys from general taxation revenue.
3.	The federation feels that inclusion of teachers in the fund would be an unwarranted additional educational expenditure. If the annual contribution of each teacher were approximately one hundred dollars (forty-eight dollars for each of the teachers and the employer), the approximate cost in Ontario for approximately eighty-five thousand teachers would be eight million, five hundred thousand dollars.
4.	The federation requests that if the government makes amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act it continue to include teachers under non-insurable employment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Siegfried John Enns: Might I ask the hon. member a question? Would I be in order, Mr. Speaker?
I realize that many of the hon. member's remarks were not immediately relevant to the motion. Since he raised the question of whether teachers should or should not be included, would he say whether he favours the inclusion of that group in the unemployment insurance fund? Should they or should they not be excepted?


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: Had I been allowed to finish I might have answered that question. Personally, I favour retaining teachers in the excepted category.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is welcome, particularly as it has been a long time since steps were initiated to change the Unemployment Insurance Act. The act, as its title suggests, provides insurance against unemployment. It does not work that way. I suggest that under the act a bonus is paid to some who are not employed and that the entire legislation ought to be revised. I support this resolution because,

DEBATES	October 18. 1967
were it adopted, it would begin to revise the legislation.
The unemployment insurance legislation does not meet our needs. I accept some responsibility for this as a member of parliament because the act has endured in its present form for a long time. I submit that many suggestions of the Gill report ought to be implemented. I do not accept the report in its entirety, but I do submit that we ought to discuss it and try to arrive at some reasonable position with respect to it.
I submit that if the words "suitable employment" were omitted from the act, wherever they appear, the insurance principle on which the legislation is said to be based would be restored. When a man is said to have suitable employment it means that he has employment or work which he is capable of doing. I know that the unions will not agree with my contention. They feel that if a man is a carpenter the government has a responsibility to see that housing legislation or mortgage legislation is so tailored that the carpenter will have employment during all seasons of the year. I do not agree with that. The unions ought to co-operate with the government and ought to make sure that every available worker in Canada, regardless of his vocation, is employed. We have gone to ridiculous limits when we expect a man to work for six or eight weeks at the height of the fishing season and to be unemployed for the rest of the year. By taking out the words "suitable employment" wherever they appear the act will be changed in a way that will give it a true insurance function.
It may also be necessary to amend the act to cover those who are employed seasonally. Those who work in the woods of Canada can only work when snow is on the ground. Snow is needed in order that the logs may be slid along the ground and ice is needed to get equipment across muskeg.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
If I followed the last speaker correctly he thought that school teachers should be exempted. My own feeling is that all those who work in the labouring field in certain categories should pay into the unemployment insurance fund, but only if they are able to draw benefits from their contributions. I should like to see the Unemployment Insurance Act tailored to encourage full employment. One way in which to do this would be to introduce a sliding scale of contributions. If a man worked steadily for five years, say, his contributions would be reduced by half.
October 18, 1967

It might also be possible to give contributors an equity in the fund. If a man had paid in for 20 years he could become entitled to a paid-up government bond in return, or it could be arranged that people who had paid in for 20 years need make no more contributions.
I am entirely opposed to the idea that self-employed people or members of the higher paid professions should contribute in the way suggested. They contribute in their own way. The income tax scale is adjusted so as to require such people to pay very high amounts into the treasury. Again, such people are not usually liable to be unemployed. I understand it has been suggested in some [DOT]quarters that members of parliament should be included as contributors to the fund. I do not know exactly what this would involve. Suppose one lost an election in January; one would be given the same treatment as a fisherman, I presume. Having been paid at the rate of $1,000 a month, one would be entitled to draw unemployment insurance for the rest of the year. I do not believe in this at all.
I do not see why an able-bodied man should not be encouraged to be fully employed or why he should not, in one sense, be penalized if he is not. He could be penalized to the extent that he would be unable to take advantage of the sliding scale of contributions to which I have referred.
Unfortunately, we cannot make this apply universally because those who need help most are those who can least afford to pay. So I suppose the usual policy of taxing the deep pocket will continue. But I am sure that the harder a man works in Canada today, the more he will get. The taxpayer in Canada is a very patient man. He is already carrying a staggering burden, and I am endeavouring as best I can to think of him. This fund should be self-supporting. I think it would be selfsupporting if we made the necessary effort to ensure that all men able to work in Canada are encouraged to do so. This would not be easy. I do not think we can put through a perfect act here in the House of Commons. But I do believe that every segment of the population should contribute its share. The well paid members of society are contributing already through the tax structure and I do not understand why working men who are asking for an insurance principle, a form of guaranteed basic income, should not lean over backward to accept any suitable employment. I come back to the phrase "suitable employment" over and over again. I think it
DEBATES	3251
Review of Unemployment Insurance Act implies a willingness on the part of every man in Canada to pull his weight in the boat.
I agree that this government and perhaps all governments have not tried sufficiently hard to spread the work load over the whole year in order that those who do want to work can find employment on a 12-month basis. I believe the former administration had the right idea when it brought in the winter works program which created hundreds of thousands of man hours of work in the off season by encouraging municipalities to carry out their projects during the winter months when construction normally slackens off due to the rigours of our climate. Under this program the municipalities were encouraged to see that heavy construction work was carried on under tarpaulins or cellophane protective covering, the additional cost being covered by contributions from the federal government. As a result, people were able to find employment all the year round.
I see no reason why this fund should not be self-sustaining. It certainly would be so if there were full employment. I think the act itself should be tailored to achieve this result. It was an experimental act when it was first brought in. I have listened to many speeches during the years asking for changes to be made in it. I myself have asked for changes. Three times I have put my name to a proposal that farm labour be covered by unemployment insurance.
This proposal does not meet with universal approval. It would mean, to begin -with, that the farmers concerned would have another set of books to keep, and, goodness knows, they have enough paper work already. But I put my name to this proposal because I know the farmers are experiencing great difficulty in finding skilled labour to operate tractors and help on the land. Those who are best qualified for this work are not coming forward because the farmers are not able to put stamps in their books. There are two sides to every question and that is why I am willing to go on experimenting with this legislation in order to incorporate well recognized improvements.
It is difficult to find fault with the argument as to universality. On the other hand, it could lead us into some ridiculous situations. For example, there are people in this country who follow highly specialized trades. Take fur cutters who work an average of six weeks a year. What are they to do during the other ten and a half months? I see no reason why a person as skilled with a needle and
3252	COMMONS
Review of Unemployment Insurance Act scissors as a fur cutter should not be prepared to work as a tailor or as a mender in a dry cleaning shop or something of that kind.
Again, consider the position of those who work on the Great Lakes. We know perfectly well that for many months of the year the lakes are frozen. Who is to say that a man who is skilled enough to be a lake pilot or a stevedore should not be willing to pull his weight in some other category by doing other work which encourages him to use his brains and ability?
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The Canadian people are versatile and I think if we present the problem to them fairly, if we gather together the unions and management, representatives of the farmers and fishermen, of the owners of the boats and even of private industry, we can solve this problem. In many instances we have to get right down to individual cases. I do not know why the Unemployment Insurance Act Administration should not have the machinery to handle this. Goodness knows, we have enough tribunals and enough civil servants working in the unemployment insurance office that they could handle a lot of work in the way of counselling.
If the bottleneck is the unions let us bring them to the table and ask what they are going to contribute, what is their solution. I do not think we have all the answers here in the House of Commons, and in areas where we do not have the answers let us bring all these others into the picture and put the burden on them. I do not want to strait-jacket the unions in any way but I do want them to tell us what they are going to do to make sure people are fully employed, because when people are fully employed the Unemployment Insurance Act will look after itself.
With a judicious use of the carrot and the stick we can help those people who are lazy to go back to work and encourage the majority, who want to pull their weight in the boat, to get employment. I do not think those in the majority should be penalized and placed in a category which offers no benefit when their pay is stopped. Therefore I have no hesitation in backing the suggestion of the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns) that something be done immediately to improve the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are indebted to the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns) for introducing a resolution which

DEBATES	October 18, 1967
provides us with an opportunity to debate the Unemployment Insurance Act at a time when that act and proposals to amend it are coming under criticism and at a time when there is a considerable amount of public interest in the subject.
On July 17 the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) gave an address to a conference sponsored by the Unemployment Insurance Commission at Queen's University, Kingston. I wish to quote a sentence or two from that address because it highlights some of the criticism which has been levelled at suggestions and proposals for amendment of the act. At one point the minister said:
The goal of universal coverage Is one which has been long sought after and It has already caused a number of difficulties-notably in the case of extension of coverage to fishermen and more recently to horticultural and agricultural workers. Nevertheless, the goal remains a legitimate one.
Further on he said:
Whatever the motive, unemployment insurance as part of our social security system seems to be destined to extend its coverage into many untouched areas of employment.
Those remarks precipitated a deluge of briefs and representations to the minister and to members of parliament from people all across the country. Some of those representations have already been alluded to in the course of this debate.
On September 26 in an address to the Central Lions Club of Ottawa the minister alluded to his previous address and made some additional comments. I want to put these on the record. He said:
-I used certain words which, I now realize, guaranteed a strong response. One set of these words was "social security"; the other "universality".
He added:
The essence of what I did say at that time was: (a) The government no longer believes the unemployment insurance rates of 1959 are realistic today. It believes that $36 for a married claimant with dependents and $17 for a single claimant should be increased.
I certainly cannot quarrel with that and I would be prepared to support it, as I think would all other hon. members. The minister continued:
(b) The government also believes that to hold the income qualification level to $5,460 per year is no longer realistic and should be reviewed appropriately.
Certainly I cannot disagree with that. Everyone knows of many classes of labour where wages have gone through the ceiling
October 18, 1987

of $5,460 so that unemployment insurance is no longer applicable to them unless they agree to carry the premium payments themselves. One can think of many such people in the service trades, drivers on city bread routes and milk route deliveries, warehousemen and the like, whose wages today exceed the ceiling of $5,460. Therefore it is reasonable that the act be amended to raise the ceiling and again include them under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I continue with the quotation from the minister's address:
(c) In the light of certain new concepts being considered it is evident that a greater degree of universality-a broadening of the base-within the employer-employee relationship would be beneficial to the act's future health and ability to contribute to society.
So the minister does not drop the idea of universality, and I have certain differences with him on that. He added and this is important:
What I did not say nor imply was that proposals for such a degree of universality would extend to include the self-employed businessman or the doctor, or the lawyer or any who were not functioning as employees on wages or salaries, or their employers.
In other words, he specifically denied that he intends including doctors, lawyers and such self-employed persons in his proposals to amend the act. But that does not settle the question of whether or not teachers are to be included. I hope the minister will take an opportunity to enlarge upon what he said in his speech on September 26 and clarify how
Business of the House
far he proposes to go in the direction of universality, because it is not yet clear that teachers are to be included. Why should one want to include a class of people such as-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time for private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Could we have a statement from one of the house leaders about the business for the next few days?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we hope to continue tomorrow with the second reading of the bill to set up a department of corporate and consumer affairs. If that is disposed of we would also like to take the second reading of the emergency gold mining bill and the third reading of the manpower advisory council measure tomorrow. If this is not possible we would try to have the third reading of the manpower and immigration measure on Friday and then take the postal resolution. These are the items for the rest of the week. I will fit them in as I have outlined.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it too early to ask about
Monday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I hope that early in the day tomorrow I will have the program for all of next week ready, and I will convey it to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 19, 1967