1967-10-19

Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I beg leave to table a note from the Canadian government to the United States government which the Canadian ambassador in Washington presented to the Secretary of State on October 17 last. This note expresses the concern of the Canadian government regarding legislative proposals introduced in the United States congress which would have the effect of restricting trade.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I undertook to review the application of Mr. Bertram Peterson for permanent admission to Canada. It is hardly necessary to say that I would be as reluctant as anyone to send a coloured person back to South Africa. However, that is not the immediate issue. Suggestions have been made that Mr. Peterson should have been acceptable in the ordinary way and was refused because of racial bias. I have investigated the matter carefully and I must say this is an irresponsible charge against our officers, one entirely without foundation.
Mr. Peterson's application was properly and fairly assessed under the new immigration regulations. He failed to qualify by a substantial margin. I should say that the reporter who purported to make an assessment of his qualifications did not take the trouble to study the regulations carefully. For example, he wanted to give Mr. Peterson ten points for languages, whereas the maximum available for fluency in one of our
official languages is five. Again, he wanted to give credit for a relative, but the relative in question is not close enough to be covered by the regulations.
Above all, there seems to be a misunderstanding about the role of employment and occupational demand in our assessment of visitors who apply to stay in Canada. Mr. Peterson has been offered the position of a trainee-


Hon. Michael Starr (Leader of the Opposition):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt the minister but I should like to know whether he is enunciating government policy, speaking on a question of privilege or trying to straighten out a statement made in a television broadcast. I think we are entitled to know this because it is my view that the minister is certainly not enunciating government policy.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the minister is making a statement on motions.


Michael Starr: A statement of what, Mr. Speaker?


Jean Marchand: On Mr. Peterson's case, which was brought up here in the house. The answer is too long to give in the question period.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule whether the minister's statement should be made on motions or whether it should be formulated as a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: It certainly cannot be a question of privilege. We have a difficult situation in which a member asks a question and the minister, I suppose heeding the admonitions of the Chair, rather than give the answer during the question period seeks to do it on motions. I assume this would have to be done with the consent of the house, otherwise I do not suppose the minister can answer the question asked.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m)


Michael Starr: I think the proper place to answer the question is on orders of the day. If it is too long to be answered at that time, then it should be done after ten o'clock.

October 19, 1967
Immigration


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We should not get into an argument. Certainly our rules do not provide for the giving of an answer after ten o'clock, unless the question has been allowed. The answer might be given in written form, perhaps by way of an order for return. Is it agreed that this question be answered in that way?


Jean Marchand: I do not insist, Mr. Speaker. I will give it to the press. I think it is an important question, and I will do it in that way.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: On October 11, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister if he would take into consideration the case of Mr. Bertram Peterson. The minister kindly agreed to do so. He has now reviewed this case, and it seems to me the proper place for him to make his statement is on motions. It seems to me that having reviewed the case, he should be allowed to make this statement in respect of his decision.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated earlier, the minister could make a statement on government policy at this time. However, I do not believe he can answer a question which is not directly related to government policy without the consent of the house. In view of the fact that this consent does not appear to be forthcoming I suggest, as I indicated a moment ago, that the proper way to answer this question is by an order for return.



WATER RESOURCES


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, may I table the agreement signed last Monday by the government of Canada and the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba concerning the Saskatchewan and Nelson rivers?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house to permit the hon. minister to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



LEGISLATIVE RESTRICTION ON IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN FOOD PRODUCTS

Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-166, respecting the restriction on importation into Canada of certain commodities.
He said: The main need for this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is to stop unwarranted profiteering by importers who import cheap food products to gouge the public and depress local prices. Another factor is the need to stabilize and protect the market for the consumer, the producer and the processor. I should like to add, Mr. Speaker, that many of the so-called free trading countries have legislation similar to that which I am suggesting.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCE


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-167, intituled "An Act respecting Canadian dollars and coins".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, Canada being in constant turmoil, it becomes necessary, in order to strengthen a new Canadian-ism to find within our confederation a greater number of Canadian symbols.
The more we surround ourselves with truly Canadian symbols, the better we will achieve our goal: a distinctly Canadian identity and a renewed spirit.
That is the main purpose of this bill which proposes to replace the effigy of the Queen on the coins and bills of the Bank of Canada by the stylized maple leaf of the Canadian flag.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-168, to amend the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
October 19, 1967	COMMONS


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to confine the imposition of the death penalty in relation to murder to the murder of police officers and prison guards for an experimental period of five years. The bill also proposes that a person in respect of whom the sentence of death has been commuted to life imprisonment, or a person upon whom the sentence of life imprisonment as the minimum punishment has been imposed, shall not be released without the prior approval of the governor in council.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the direct challenge by the United States federal power commission to the principles of the National Energy Board Act and the recommendation of the Borden royal commission that we should not subsidize United States consumers of gas at the expense of Canadians, will the government make a statement of policy before the National Energy Board opens hearings next Tuesday on the new application of Westcoast Transmission Company for the export of additional natural gas to the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I may be wrong but I think the Westcoast case is already before the National Energy Board. However, may I take notice of the question and answer it more properly tomorrow.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the urgency of the question, the hearing being next Tuesday, it is essential that we in this house know whether the laws of Canada are going to be followed during the course of that hearing. I think we should have a statement from the minister at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Luc Pepin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think I should say it is the very function of the National Energy Board to apply the laws of Canada.
DEBATES	3257
Inquiries of the Ministry



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister of immigration what decision he has reached in the case of Mr. Bertram Peterson. Has the minister decided to allow him to remain in Canada in view of the fact that he has a sponsor, that he has the opportunity for employment, and that to deport him would likely bring upon him serious penalties when he returns to his own country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member and to the minister that the question has been answered, at least in part. Since there has been some objection and there is tacit agreement to the suggestion of the Chair that the question should be answered in a special way, I doubt whether the minister should be allowed to go into the matter further at this moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not often differ with Your Honour but I wish to point out that I asked a question on October 11; I repeated the question yesterday, and the house has a right to know-it need not necessarily know the details-whether this man will be granted permission to stay in Canada or whether he will be deported. That is all I am asking the minister. I do not wish him to make a lengthy statement; he can make that statement elsewhere on some other occasion. Surely the rules of the house permit the minister to answer a simple question about whether this man is to be allowed to remain in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether part of the minister's answer contained the information the hon. member is now seeking. If it did not contain that information I shall allow the minister to answer that part of the question.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, at this
moment I cannot answer that question because this man has a right of appeal to the appeal board. In the meantime he will be allowed to stay in Canada and work. For the hon. member's information, the department will not oppose this man's application and the humanitarian reasons he put forward in order to stay here in Canada.

October 19, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask what may be termed a related question with respect to immigration. May I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration or the Prime Minister a question about the statement which, according to this morning's Montreal Gazette, the minister is alleged to have made.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is asking two distinct questions. He is trying to sneak in his last question as a related question, thereby depriving those of the other opposition parties of a proper opportunity to ask their questions about the matter during the question period.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I shall leave it to Your .Honour to decide.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might allow the Chair to hear the question, to determine whether it is a related question. The Leader of the Opposition knows that on a number of occasions hon. members ask related questions. The distinction between a supplementary and a related question is fine, but I ought to hear the question before determining whether it may be allowed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I really wanted to ask the minister about the statement, attributed to him, that he saw no serious objection to giving Quebec control of manpower and immigration policies. Does this represent government policy?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean Marchand: I never stated that.


Mr. Ricard:: That question is related to what?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a distantly related question.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. The question is based on a statement alleged to have been made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who is reported to have said he could see no serious obstacles to giving Quebec control of manpower and immigration policies. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is now contemplating policies which are aimed in this direction, 
the effect of which will be that immigrants will need permission to cross provincial borders in Canada.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend may not know that the minister has already denied the accuracy of that statement.


Michael Starr: May I ask the minister whether he has denied it in the house?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I said I had no objection-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING PROPOSED U.S. IMPORT RESTRICTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce; it relates to a matter that was raised in the earlier tabling of a certain document. In view of the serious effects that United States legislation proposing to curb imports may have on Canada-United States trade, has the government recently discussed this important matter at the ministerial level with the United States authorities?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, as I informed the house I visited Washington recently and had a number of discussions with Secretary Freeman, the Secretary of Agriculture, and with Ambassador Roth. Other than that our contacts have been through diplomatic channels.


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that yesterday bills were introduced in the United States congress to limit potash importations into the United States, is the Canadian government making representations to the United States government concerning proposed United States limitation on imports of potash from Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member will gather from the document I tabled earlier that we have taken up with the United States government all these matters which appear to be in restraint of trade.
October 19, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE	NATIONAL DEFENCE



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING CIGARETTE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: My question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister inform the house what he proposes to do in consequence of the warning issued by Dr. De la Rue, the noted chest surgeon, with regard to cigarette smoking and the doctor's recommendations as to advertising and other restrictions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am wondering whether this question is not one which relates to general policy. I have some doubt whether it should be asked at this time.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: have a question for either the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Registrar General. Following the grave statements made yesterday both in the United States and in Canada by leading cancer authorities calling on the one hand for an end to cigarette advertising and on the other for the control of cigarette contents, will the minister not now consider adding legislation to the education effort which has so far been undertaken to protect, particularly, younger Canadians from cigarette diseases?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the question asked by the hon. member for New Westminster is closely related to the one just asked by the hon. member for Simcoe East, and for the same reason I suggest it cannot be asked now.


Barry Mather: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



MEDICARE-REPORTED STATEMENT BY N.B. PREMIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I do not
wish to appear importunate but I wonder whether the Prime Minister is now in a position to answer the question about medicare which I asked him two days ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have been unable to find any evidence to support the suggestion by the hon. gentleman that such a statement was made. If he could give me more detail, for example the date when the statement was made, I would be able to follow this up, but at present I have no information to indicate that such a statement was made by the premier of New Brunswick.



POSSIBLE CLOSING OF ARMED FORCES BASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In the light of the disturbing news report in this morning's Charlottetown Guardian suggesting imminent closure of the air base at Summerside, will the minister assure the people of Prince Edward Island and members of this house that no action is being taken and no plans are being considered with regard to the closing of the Canadian forces base on Prince Edward Island?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: I think I should repeat what I have said earlier, that a study of all bases has been going on for many months and that no decision to close any base has been taken.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Can the minister also assure us that no substantial reduction has been made or is being considered with regard to those employed at the Summerside air base?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I can say that the department has in fact developed and improved the base over the past few years.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: In connection with the minister's statement a few moments ago that no decision had been taken to close any base, will the hon. gentleman now assure us that the decision to close the Canadian forces base at Whitehorse has in fact been reversed by the department?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I would point out to the hon. member that the decision with regard to the Whitehorse base was taken in 1965.


Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Can
the minister assure the house that there has been a reversal of the decision with respect to the Rivers base in Manitoba?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see what we are getting into, and I should like to recognize the hon. member for Northumberland.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. What is the purpose of the numerous transfers of senior personnel now taking place between various bases across Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

October 19, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry EXPO '67



FEDERAL POSITION RESPECTING PERMANENT EXHIBITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ron. George Hees (Northumberland):	I
have a question to address to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the statement by the premier of Quebec regarding the attitude of that province toward the continuation of Expo, is the federal government now in a position to state its attitude in this regard?
Robert Henry Winters: We are still engaged in consultations with the government of Quebec and the city of Montreal, but if it is the wish of hon. members I shall make a statement early next week, perhaps Tuesday.



REPORTED LACK OF BOX CARS AND SHIPPING ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Due to the shortage of box cars and shipping orders in western Canada, which leaves 250 shipping points still on a unit quota, will the minister consider arranging a meeting with western farm leaders and heads of the grain companies to see what can be done to alleviate this critical situation in western Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I will take that matter under consideration and talk to the wheat board about it.


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It arises from a telegram I received this morning informing me that shipping points in Alberta which are still on a unit basis have box cars available to them but are being refused shipping orders by the wheat board. Could he explain to the house why orders are being refused by the wheat board to these points?


Robert Henry Winters: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker. I should like to take that question as notice.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I shall raise the question again at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the growing importance of housing as a matter of governmental concern, has the Prime Minister yet decided to appoint a full time minister of housing in the federal cabinet?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; no decision has yet been made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it intended to make such an appointment during this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The intention of the government in this matter will be made known in due course.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
As a result of an emergency situation created by the channelling of immigrants to certain areas of the country, has the minister received requests for assistance to new Canadians and is it his intention to take immediate steps to improve the scheduling of immigrant arrivals in various areas of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question of general policy and I do not believe it should be put at this time.


Maurice Allard: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I should like to put my question to his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Byrne).
Has the C.N.R. taken steps to replace the Ocean Limited which is to stop running in the lower St. Lawrence area next October 29?
Ociober 19, 1967


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if that question should be accepted. If the hon. member feels that it is of immediate urgency, I will gladly see to it that it is considered on the adjournment motion.


Louis Guy LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, ten o'clock.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the serious decline in bond prices and thus the manifest impossibility of the government securing its borrowing needs from the market at bearable rates of interest, can the minister inform the house whether sales of this year's issue of Canada savings bonds are equal to those of last year?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, sales of Canada savings bonds are proceeding. I am not yet in a position to give the results, since there are several weeks to go before the campaign will be completed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a supplementary question, is the minister in a position to say how much new money he expects or needs to raise from this year's sales of Canada savings bonds?


Mitchell William Sharp: As much as possible, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Another week has gone by and I wonder whether the Prime Minister has had time to prepare an answer to my question, will a C.B.C. station be built in Saskatoon? He promised to answer within a few days. Now a week has gone by, because I gave him a few days' grace.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. friend would give me a few more days' grace. I
Inquiries of the Ministry hope to be in a position to answer this question next week.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF VILLAGE COUNCIL OF TWEED, ONT.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Something very unique took place in the village of Tweed, in my riding, this centennial year. An all-lady council has been elected there. I wondered whether the Prime Minister was aware of that, and is he aware that they are sitting directly behind him in the gallery today?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. friend for making me aware of this important fact. If I had known they were sitting in the gallery behind me my back would have been turned to the hon. member long before now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this should have been raised as a question of privilege.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister made, in the context of his suggested wage and price guide lines, or will he make representations to the Aluminum Company of Canada asking that company not to proceed with its plan to increase board and lodging charges to certain of its employees at the Kemano power site?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is putting words in my mouth. I have not spoken about wage and price guide lines, and I think it would be premature to think in these terms. However, I do hope that all concerned will be exercising restraint, and I hope we can have voluntary co-operation on this basis.


Frank Howard: The minister has not answered my question. Will he make such representations as I have alluded to?

October 19, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry NOVA SCOTIA



INQUIRY AS TO PROPOSALS TO PREVENT CLOSING OF STEEL MILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I ask him whether the cabinet and the federal government as a whole have been busily engaged in working out proposals that could be presented to Dosco in order to avert the disastrous closing of the Sydney steel mill next April?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we spent most of the morning on this very important subject.


Michael Starr: As a supplementary question, can the Prime Minister say when he expects to meet with Dosco and have some proposals ready to put forward for their consideration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Just as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker. As soon as I can say something in the house I will be glad to do so.



WHEAT-SALES TO JAPAN OF No. 1 WHEAT AT No. 2 PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As reported in today's Globe and Mail, Japan has accepted No. 1 Manitoba hard wheat to fill its contracts for October and November at the same price it would ordinarily pay for No. 2 wheat. Can the minister inform the house whether other importing countries will be given the same arrangements?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, if it is necessary to fill their contracts yes, that will happen.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister if he will table a copy of the draft wheat agreement which is to come into effect on July 1 next, and which is still to be ratified by the various signatories?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to look into that and refresh my memory on what has already been tabled.


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: As a
supplementary question, can the minister

inform the house why the international wheat agreement was allowed to lapse in the first place? This is the question that everybody in western Canada is asking.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the producers of No. 1 northern Manitoba be compensated for the price differential in the sale of that grade of wheat to Japan at the No. 2 northern price?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, it all becomes a matter of pooling. The difference between No. 1 and No. 2 is only one cent a bushel.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Canielon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the decision the government is going to take with respect to television satellites. Has any decision yet been taken and, if so, what is the policy that the government will follow?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a great deal of consideration has been given and will be given to this very important matter. More than one decision has to be taken, and I am not in a position to announce anything at the moment.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Since he has already stated that he is prepared to keep a very open mind with respect to any suggestion concerning the amendment of the Canadian constitution, can he tell us whether he has read the report of Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie which contains suggestions in that regard, and when will he be in a position to accept or reject the suggestions made by the committee of the provincial Liberal party?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie has submitted a report to a provincial
October 19, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	3263
Inquiries of the Ministry
party convention and I have received no perhaps is one which should be discussed at official communication in that respect.	the time of adjournment.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Then, should I conclude that if the provincial Liberal party sends an official copy of the report, the Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may not inform us of his conclusions.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have already recognized the hon. member for Battle River-Cam-rose (Mr. Smallwood).


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to put my question in another way, Mr. Speaker-



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the information revealed by an answer tabled in this house last Monday, which indicated that Canada's armed forces have suffered a reduction in personnel from 123,000 to 105,000 over the past three years, could the minister indicate whether this process of attrition is to continue indefinitely or whether there is an absolute floor; and if so, what that floor is?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: This is a very broad question. I prefer to answer by saying I hope we can have adequate forces to meet our commitments.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Is the government in a position to take action to make it unnecessary for certain pensioners who have been asked to pay to the department interest on taxes due on an instalment basis, in view of the fact that although the amount of the interest is small these people have very little income in addition to their old age security pensions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think this question is of a rather general nature, and


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I will give the appropriate notice, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingion-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that he is a former minister of national health and welfare, and in view of the fact that he has indicated great interest in a special process for eliminating the dangerous ingredients in cigarettes which is being developed in Windsor, Ontario, will the minister use his well known persuasive influence to have this matter referred to the committee of this house on health and welfare?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question which I do not believe should be asked of the minister in his capacity as a former minister of national health and welfare.



REPORTED INCREASE IN INCIDENCE OF VENEREAL DISEASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the Department of National Health and Welfare taken cognizance of the alarming increase in the incidence of venereal disease in Canada? If so, are any measures being taken to bring the problem under control?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question of a very general nature, and I doubt whether it should be answered at this time.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, millions of dollars of public funds are being spent in respect of chronic cases of venereal disease in Canada now. I think some more effective means of control should be found.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the importance of the question posed by the hon. member, but I suggest the matter is much too broad in scope to be considered at this time. If there is a particular urgency I suggest that he might raise the matter at the time of adjournment.

Oclober 19, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry



REPORTED DEVELOPMENT OF PILL TO END PREGNANCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. According to reliable news reports it would seem that medical science has succeeded in the development of a pill which will allow one to end pregnancy. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether his officials are making a study to see whether the marketing of this pill will in any way contravene sections of the Criminal Code.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is another question about which I cannot see any immediate urgency. I suggest to the hon. member that the question should be placed on the order paper.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['After the hon. member for Red Deer brought this matter to my attention an inquiry was launched at once. In the meantime I was told by an officer of the Cuban embassy this morning that his minister in Havana telephoned him to say there was nothing in this statement.']
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him whether any official notice has been taken of the landing of the Russian satellite on the planet Venus.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the two meetings, or at least one meeting held this morning between him and the Cuban charge d'affaires, and the allegation made in this house earlier this week with regard to broadcasts being beamed out of Cuba toward Canada. Can the minister tell the house the result of that meeting?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs: After the hon. member for Red Deer brought this matter to my attention an inquiry was launched at once. In the meantime I was told by an officer of the Cuban embassy this morning that his minister in Havana telephoned him to say there was nothing in this statement.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It arises from the fact that last week and on repeated occasions outside this house the minister publicly has stated his conviction that immigration laws should be changed to allow for the immigration into Canada of families having members who are handicapped. I should like to ask the minister whether he can clarify this for us.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. According to the rules of the house a minister cannot be asked to clarify for the benefit of the house statements made outside the house.


Edward Richard Schreyer: May I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he can tell us if it is the intention of the house to introduce legislation to make possible the immigration to Canada of families having members who are handicapped.


Jean Marchand: I hope that early next year it will be possible to bring in amendments to the Immigration Act so that the policy which I mentioned may be implemented.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Queens, as appears at page 3230 of the House of Commons debates, asked a question concerning the reappraisal of the design for the Northumberland strait crossing and whether a decision had been taken that the crossing would not have provision for rails.
As I advised the house some time ago, the official of the Department of Public Works and the consultants are reviewing the design and contract procedures for the Northumberland crossing project. One aspect of this review is the matter of the cost with or without a rail line. The review is continuing but is not yet completed. The answer to the hon. member's question is therefore no.
October 19, 1967


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer of the minister I wonder whether he can assure the house and indirectly, of course, the people of Prince Edward Island that there will be no removal of the rail service regardless of the eventual outcome of the redesign which presently is being considered by his department.


George James McIlraith: I do not see how this is related. How can I assure the hon. member that there will be no removal of the rail line if the recommendation should be that the service be provided by another means?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think we should have a debate on this subject at the moment.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to clear up something the Minister of Public Works said a moment ago. I did not ask the minister whether there would be rails on the projected causeway. I asked him whether he could assure the people of Prince Edward Island that there will be rail service, either by ferry as at present or by causeway; because I think the continuance of the rail service is of vital importance to the economy of that province.


George James McIlraith: I think the position of the government has been made quite clear on that point.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to reiterate my previous suggestion that we should not pursue the debate.



CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
Recently, the Minister of Justice stated that he was thinking of bringing in a bill on the rights of the French-Canadian community. Does the minister intend to introduce the bill in the house before the meeting of federal and provincial authorities which is to be held next December?
Corporate and Consumer Affairs


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Have I well understood: a bill protecting the French-Canadian community?


Martial Asselin: Protecting the rights of the French-Canadian community.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I spoke about a bill of rights which would provide the French-speaking community in Canada with effective protection. This matter is expected to be taken up during a federal-provincial conference early next year.


Martial Asselin: Could this matter be submitted to the house before it is introduced at the federal-provincial conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It could, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think it will be.



CORPORATE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, October 18, 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.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, when the debate on the bill to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs was adjourned yesterday afternoon I was in the process of pointing out that the most glaring omission in this legislation is the failure of the government to make any provision for coping with the problem of the rising cost of living. I was pointing out that the cost of living has been rising rapidly and that this rise has been accelerated in recent months.
Since the present government took office in the spring of 1963 the cost of living has gone up by some 18 percentage points, or an increase of 13.5 per cent. This means that the purchasing power of the dollar in a store today is 86J cents compared with what it was when this government took office. The most serious aspect of this situation, however, is that the rise in the cost of living has been accelerated in recent months. In the first nine months of this calendar year the cost of living has gone up by 4.7 per cent, and it is a fairly safe prediction that for the entire year 1967 the cost of living will go up by some 5 per cent.
3266	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
This is the problem that is concerning the housewives of Canada and the people of this country generally. I noticed in yesterday's Montreal Star that a Gallup poll had been held with regard to the new department of corporate and consumer affairs. Of those people interviewed who were familiar with the fact that such a department was being set up, the great majority considered that the most important problem which ought to be dealt with by the government was the control of profits and prices. It is interesting that the Gallup poll shows that only some 5 per cent were concerned about proper weights and clearer labels on packaging, some 4 per cent were concerned with the control of advertising and the need to stop misleading advertising, only 1 per cent were concerned about give-aways and fraud, but 45 per cent felt that the most important question with which the government had to grapple was the controlling of prices and profits.
This is precisely what the government is refusing to do in this legislation. It is true that the minister has shown his tearful sympathy for the poor consumer. As reported at page 3213 of Hansard, he expressed that sympathy in eloquent terms when he said:
I think in particular of the low income consumer who must use his dollar with effectiveness. He must gain fair access to quality goods at low prices and be protected against unfair selling and credit practices. There is the elderly consumer who has special health, housing and nutritional needs- needs shown by those with disabilities. Then there is the rural consumer who has difficulty in gaining full access to the urban market because of the distance he or she is from that market.
Those are very genuine concerns which the minister has expressed. Let me go on to show, however, the solution which he offers. He went on to say:
It will be our concern to search out and explore the ways of servicing these particular problems-
That is not much consolation. The minister could very well put on a soap opera in which, with tears in his eyes, he could deplore the state of the elderly, the housewives and the disabled and then finish by singing "I Can't Give You Anything But Love, Baby."


Mr. Greene:: Is love a consumer commodity?


Mr. Hees:: Very saleable, too, Joe.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister prides himself on being very modern and up to date. That, of course, is what one would expect from a young man on the make. He delivered himself of a little homily the other evening, as

DEBATES	October 19, 1967
recorded at page 3206 of Hansard, when he said:
Each new morning brings some obsolescence to some aspect of our lives. Unless we are prepared to re-examine on a daily basis, to reassess and revalue what we do and how we do it, we are in danger of falling behind and becoming irrelevant to contemporary needs. Nowhere is this more true than in dealing with our economy.
I agree with the minister 100 per cent. No one could disagree with such a general statement about the need for removing obsolescence, for changing with changing conditions. But when the minister comes to grapple with the real problems which are facing the consumer, what do we find him saying? We find him saying, as reported at page 3210 of Hansard:
-there is no intention that this department should act as a sort of controller-
On the same page he said:
-I tend to be convinced that attempts in peacetime to regulate prices by law would shortly prove to be unworkable and inconsistent with the operation of a market economy.
When the minister talks like that he is revealing himself as a Rip Van Winkle.


An hon. Member:: Who is not yet awake.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely the minister ought to know that the day when the market could be considered as the arbiter of man's economic destiny is long past, if it ever did exist. Surely the myth that the free play of the market will protect the producer and the consumer is as dead as the dodo. In his recent book "The New Industrial State" J. K. Galbraith points out quite convincingly that we no longer live in a day when the free play of the market provides any protection whatsoever. The only people who still believe that the marketplace is allowed to operate freely are those who are mentally living in the era of nineteenth century Liberalism.
As Mr. Galbraith points out, in the United States alone some 500 corporations produce over 50 per cent of all the goods and services of that country. He said that these corporations, because of the fact that they require very large sums of capital, because they require highly skilled and specialized labour forces, and because they must do long-term planning both with respect to their supplies and to the demand for their products, have now reached the point where they manipulate the market and control the supply and demand. They exercise influence upon buying patterns so we no longer have a free market, and the market cannot possibly provide any protection for the consumer.
October 19, 1967	COMMONS
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
For any person today to talk about intervention by the government with respect to prices as being inconsistent with a market economy is to reveal that that person has ideas that are as out of date as Methuselah. I say to the minister that he must modernize his thinking. We live in a technological society in which giant corporations control the market, set prices and manipulate supply and demand, and the consumer is left defenceless and helpless in that situation.
We cannot resolve this problem by turning back the clock of history. Big corporations cannot be reduced to small corporations. Bigness itself is not a vice. Big corporations are an essential concomitant of a technological society. This is particularly true in regard to the mass production of steel, automobiles and most of the extraction industries. Our economy now requires large corporations with a large amount of capital, long-term planning, research facilities and highly specialized technical skills. It is not possible to go back to the nineteenth century with innumerable small corporations. The giant corporations are here and the economic concentration of power is in their hands. There is no way that this trend can be reversed. But what the government can and must do in that situation is intervene to protect the consumer and unless the government is prepared to do so then, of course, the consumers will be exploited as they have been over the years.
Who else is going to protect the consumer in this country unless the government does so? Who else is going to do something about the fact that we are manufacturing cars in this country under the Canada-United States auto trade agreement and the companies are selling Canadian made cars in the United States for less than they are sold in Canada? Who else is going to protect the farming population whose average price index has been more or less stationary ever since 1951, while in the last three years alone the cost of the things they must buy in order to produce has gone up by 17 per cent? Who else is going to protect the farmer from the rapid increase in the cost of farm machinery so that Massey-Ferguson, for instance, could increase its profits between 1964 and 1966 from $18,100,000 to $45,200,000, an increase of 150 per cent, although its sales increased in that period only by some 56 per cent? Who is going to protect the consumer against unconscionable profiteering by the pharmaceutical companies and the exorbitant prices which they charge for drugs which are absolutely 27053-2071
DEBATES	3267
Corporate and Consumer Affairs essential to the life and well-being of people who suffer from prolonged illnesses? Who else is going to protect the housewife who has to buy in the great chain stores where prices are maintained by what has now become a virtual monopoly of the food industries? Who else is going to protect the public against fixed retail prices, particularly for electrical appliances?
All along the line the consumer finds himself in a marketplace dominated by gigantic corporations, and the government has the responsibility to protect the consumer. That is what the consumers asked for when they were urging this parliament to do something two years ago. It was to meet this problem that a committee on consumer credit and prices was set up.
All we now have is a piece of legislation which deals with the peripheral problems and fails entirely to deal with the problem of the rising cost of living. There is nothing in this legislation which will protect the housewife, the person buying drugs, the farmer paying exorbitant prices for farm machinery, the consumer paying a very high price for automobiles compared with the price of automobiles in the United States.
I invite the minister, before he closes this debate, to tell the house where in this legislation the Canadian consumer has any protection at all with respect to inordinate and unconscionable profiteering on the part of these large corporations. The minister of course takes refuge in the constitution. He says that the federal government does not have the constitutional power to enter this field. I have been listening to the Liberals excusing their inactivity for a quarter of a century by finding refuge in the constitution. We were told for years that we could not have a wheat board to handle the farmers' wheat and their coarse grains because there were constitutional difficulties. But we found a way through those constitutional difficulties and we now have a wheat board. We were told for years we could not have universal old age pensions and we could not have family allowances because there were constitutional difficulties. The fact is that we found ways of amending the constitution so as to overcome those difficulties. I listened for years to successive governments saying we could not have medicare in Canada because there were constitutional difficulties, but when governments really want to carry out a program they can find the constitutional solution to those difficulties.
October 19, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs
I think the government has to begin byremembering that the constitution was made for man, not man for the constitution, that there is nothing sacrosanct about a constitution. It is not the law of the Medes and the Persians. The constitution is the framework within which we operate and, as the minister himself has said, we live within a society where the basic law is the law of change, and with technological change there must not only be social and economic changes but there must also be constitutional changes. The constitution really does not offer any insurmountable obstacle to grappling with the problem of the rising cost of living, e (3:40 p.m.)
The minister, in speaking of my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), said she was apparently trying to bring about a reincarnation of the wartime prices control board. That is an indication of antediluvian thinking. Nobody is suggesting to the minister that he should set up a wartime prices control board. We in this party have suggested two things to the minister which he should do and which he can do within the constitutional framework of this country. The first thing we have suggested is that there should be set up within the department of corporate and consumer affairs a prices review board. The function of that board would be to investigate to what extent increases in prices of basic commodities are justified. We readily admit that if an industry finds its costs have risen, its labour costs per unit of production, its fuel costs, its raw material costs, its transportation costs, then that company must have an increase in price. No company can stay in business and show a loss year after year.
But what we are saying is that industry should have to justify its price increases. The laws of this country require that when a trade union is in the process of bargaining collectively it must go before a conciliation board and seek to justify its demands for increases in rates. Is there any reason why the basic industries of this country which increase prices to the consumer should not be required to justify the price increases that they are going to levy upon the Canadian public?
Let us take the steel industry as an example. The last time they raised the price of steel it was shown that the labour cost per ton of steel had actually declined by $5.36 per ton. The steel industry, during a five year period, had increased its profits by some 106 per cent. Hon. members know that

increases in the price of steel affect the whole economy. They automatically mean increases in the prices of cars, tractors, trucks, farm implements and even houses. There is hardly a commodity that either does not contain steel or is not made by machines which contain steel. Consequently, an increase in the price of steel has an inflationary effect on the whole economy.
The International Nickel Company, which has a virtual monopoly on the production and sale of nickel, increased its prices despite the fact its profits are higher than at any time in its history. Farm implement companies raised their prices at a time when their profits had reached record heights. Surely the Canadian people are entitled to some protection. Surely the government has the constitutional power to at least require an investigation to ascertain whether or not these companies are justified in raising their prices or whether the increases in prices simply represent taking advantage of the fact they are in a seller's market.
The Canadian people have the right to know whether price increases are the result of certain economic factors such as increased costs or whether those increases are the result of greedy, exorbitant profiteering. This is what we ask the government to do. We ask them to set up a prices review board. We have been making this request for the last four years, but the government has failed to act. There is no constitutional obstacle which stands in the way of setting up such a prices review board. This information would then be available to the Canadian people. The Canadian people would then know whether or not price increases were justified or unwarranted.
The second thing the government could do, if they found certain industries were taking advantage of the public, were fleecing the consumer, would be to ask the provinces for concurrent legislation to compel that particular industry to put its price back to the former level. We are not suggesting for a moment that we should have a wartime prices control board. The situation which exists now is not similar to wartime when there were shortages of certain materials which were essential for defence production. What we are saying is that there may have to be selective controls in respect of certain basic commodities if it is revealed by the prices review board that there have been unwarranted price increases.
I cannot see any provincial legislature in Canada refusing to give assent to concurrent
October 19, 19S7	COMMONS
legislation requiring an industry to reduce its price to a former level if the prices review board revealed beyond any doubt that the price increases were unjustified.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member to bring to his attention and the attention of the house that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to continue beyond his allotted time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should say a few words on Bill C-161, an "Act to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs." In my opinion, this department may become the biggest and the most important one we have, since it will be responsible for informing and protecting the consumer, for it must not be forgotten that although we have about seven million Canadians who work, seven million Canadian producers, there are more than twenty million consumers in Canada. These consumers need to be not only informed but protected, for at the present time most of them are being victimized, beginning with all those who eat bread.
It is a known fact that in Canada, bread is made with wheat flour, from wheat considered the king of cereals. It is also known that wholesome and easily digestible bread should be made with whole wheat flour. But at present, that flour is reduced, then vitamin-enriched and even lime-enriched, because lime makes it easier to store flour, whereas regular flour is very difficult to store. Under the pretext of eliminating preservation problems, millers think they can do anything they like, even remove from wheat the most important, the most beneficial part for a normal digestion.
Lime can be used to paint a barn and will certainly do a good job. Lime can even be used to fertilize land, to make it more productive. But I do not think health benefits in any way from it. I do not believe it is beneficial for the people to eat bread to which lime has been added.
In the field of prepared meat, the same thing is true. Under the cover of the Food and Drugs Act, all kinds of operations are tried providing the results are not poisonous. The gimmick I would like to bring to your attention is used often enough throughout the year, but more so during the fall or the winter. I am referring to fresh minced pork
October 19, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs that is being sold to the customers, to the Canadian consumers. It is not mentioned very often because it is mostly poor people's meat, the meat of the small man, and when those people are involved it seems that anything goes. Right now, the common gimmick concerns everything called pork, all the fat of fresh pork meat which should normally be sold for the production of soap. Nowadays, butcher shops collect this pork, this fat, store it in freezers and, at the same time, store any red meat the colour of veal; all that too is frozen in large blocks of one foot by one foot by three feet and sold in the cities and throughout the rural areas as veal scrap. Such carrion, such hide-call it what you will- is sold at 35 cents a pound; to it is added the soap fat frozen by the butchers, and an average price of 50 cents a pound is arrived at for something costing 22 cents a pound.
As far as sausage meat is concerned, the same thing is true only more so. There again, no publication, no newspaper dares talk about the process because sausage is also the meat of the poor. Those products are prepared with ordinary meat, coloured to the highest degree, to which is added one part of soap fat, which I mentioned a minute ago, and corn meal. So, with 35 cents a pound for ordinary coloured meat, 10 cents a pound for soap fat and 8 cents a pound for corn meal, which makes 53 cents for three pounds, you have a product that is now sold $1.29 for three pounds-on special-which means a profit of 76 cents for the seller.
Mr. Speaker, under existing laws, it may be said without fear of contradiction that chickens are better protected in chickencoops than children in their own family, because when a poultryman buys a bag of chicken feed, a tag is affixed on the bag, showing the content in animal protein. And in the case I am referring to, there is no law that forces those people to indicate the composition of their product.
As a result, I hope that the new department will see that the housewife is shown the percentages of meal, soap-fat and flour contained in the meat she is buying at the butcher shop.
Great improvements are required with regard to labelling and I think that labels should state clearly the weight or the quantity as well as the quality, because that is not always the case at present. Standardization of containers should also be carried out so that the housewife can easily compare prices.


[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Today, whether we like it or not, information as to quality, variety and quantity is often greatly lacking. Several chain stores do not mention pounds, in fact not even ounces; they simply offer portions. Is it a morning, noon or evening portion? Is it a portion for a 51-pound child or for a 250-pound wrestler? At any rate, containers must be standardized.
In the directory distributed by the government two weeks ago, measures are mentioned, for instance. Quarts, and gallons are mentioned, in short we are told somewhat what is used in Canada. There too, we realize that fraud exists, because I remember for instance, that when my father was not yet known as a creditiste, when he was presented with a gallon of whiskey before election time, it was an Imperial gallon.
Today, when I purchase a gallon of antifreeze for my car, it is an Imperial gallon. But when my wife buys a gallon of fruit juice, it is an American gallon, and everyone knows that the American gallon contains three quarters of a quart less than the Canadian gallon.
So, all fruit juices now available to the Canadian housewife, whether orange, lemon or tomato juice, are sold in American measures when they come in gallon cans; however, these juices for sale in quarts are in Canadian measures, or Imperial quarts.
Moreover, children still learn in school that there are four quarts in one gallon, while the housekeeper still gets only 3| quarts for her gallon.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the new department will arrive at a standardization of containers and that when the housewife buys a gallon of fruit juice, she will get as much as the head of the family when he gets his gallon of whiskey.
The day before yesterday, the minister told us how much he wranted to help the small people. The previous speaker repeated what the minister said, that much needs to be done for those people.
They will be protected against bad salesmen and high interest rates, and I suppose it is very good to appear to protect them in that respect, but I have yet to see in the bill that the minister intends to protect them against taxes, indirect and hidden taxes, although they account for 25 per cent of the increase in the cost of living since 1960.
October 19, 1967

Does the new minister intend to disclose the secrets of the tax burden? Will he make public, for the benefit of the people, the many hidden taxes? Will the public finally get to know which taxes are paid by the manufacturer and which are paid by the retailer? Will it finally get to know about all the taxes imposed on buildings, about all the taxes charged here and there?
Since neither the miller, the baker, the grocer, the shop owner, the truck-driver, the railways nor the manufacturer ever pay taxes but just add those taxes to the price of their goods, we come to the conclusion that the only one who pay taxes are the people. Does the minister therefore intend to inform the people of the multiplicity of those hidden taxes and is he going to tell them through what kind of clever jugglery those taxes are collected?
As reported on page 3213 of Hansard, the minister also spoke of minority groups like those with low incomes who find it harder to make ends meet.
Well, let me tell the minister here that he should try to be better informed because if he wants to look after people with low incomes who can hardly make ends meet, he will find they are not a minority but the majority.
For his guidance the minister should read the May 5, 1967 issue of Travailleur cana-dien. In the city of Montreal-the minister may perhaps not be too well acquainted with that little corner of Quebec-where the threshold of poverty has been set at $2,250 per family, it is proved that 1,032,000 persons or 48.6 per cent of the total population in greater Montreal and the city itself, live in destitution, in extreme poverty or in want.
Had the threshold of poverty been set at $2,500 a year for a family of four, that percentage would be 68 per cent.
When the minister speaks of helping the small wage-earner I trust he will think of the 68 per cent of the population of the city of Montreal and all the others across the country.
Since it has been shown that taxes take up one third of our revenues, it is obvious that for low income workers, hidden taxes are much more costly than income tax.
Again, I hope the minister will warn the public; he will no doubt do so by saying: Dear citizens, we are protecting you against wolves and various monsters.
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
In reality, where are those wolves, those monsters? It is easy to say to manufacturers and dealers: we will protect you. But against what, against whom? In the manufacturing, wholesale and retail sectors, the governments' take is several times larger than that of corporations, in one fiscal area alone, such as sales tax.
Take for example the 11 per cent tax on building material. Since the wholesaler only gets a 3 per cent commission and the retailer only makes 5 per cent profit, this means that the two tradesmen who take care of the financing and transportation of these materials the two business concerns, the two associations and the two companies involved only make 8 per cent profit, while the government alone takes 11 per cent-not to mention the 8 per cent provincial tax which is added to all this.
The same happens with regard to car sales. About $800 must be paid in excise and federal sales tax on a car assembled in Sainte-Therese and sold for about $3,500 in Quebec. The 8 per cent provincial tax which is added to this amounts to about $300. This means that the federal and provincial governments together take in about $1,100 in tax while the salesman, who has to face competition and an uncertain future, has to make do with a small profit of only $125.
Fortunately, there are still some honest manufacturers and dealers who are conscientious and eager to serve their clients properly. It is useless to hope to serve a client properly when taxes account for a third of the bill.
Unless legislation is passed to remove 50 per cent of taxes, the creation of this department will lose 75 per cent of its effectiveness. The department may attempt to protect future home owners, by giving them some information on the quality of materials used, but it will be to no avail, the price of materials being prohibitive as a result of heavy taxes included in the price.
Recommendations may be made to prospective home owners, but they will be of no avail if the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will not make loans at an interest rate lower than 8j- per cent.
I wish to remind the government that it would be appropriate for the Bank of Canada to supply Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with the funds needed in order to enable the C.M.H.C. to finance housing loans at a lower interest rate.
3272	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs [DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
At this stage, I am pleased to mention that the Creditistes are not the only ones to ask for a reform of the present system, and I want to quote from a brief presented by the Co-operative Council of Moncton to the joint committee on consumer credit at its sitting of March 21.
As recorded on page 2941 of No. 39, that association dares make recommendations to the government concerning the function of money and credit, and I quote:
In the field of trade, the function of money or credit should be to move goods or services. It should not be controlled as a commodity. Even now the chartered banks are largely bookkeeping institutions, and have the control of the creation of money or credit as a commodity which has tremendous influenoe in the business world and can set our interest rates. The cost of money or credit should not be more than the bookkeeping costs that are involved in keeping the records, but, when it is controlled as a commodity, it is used to restrict or expand the movement of goods at the will of those who control it for the purpose of making gain, and not solely for the purpose of servicing trade.
A little further, it is recommended in the brief:
That the Bank of Canada assume more control of the creation and distribution of needed credit (money).
The new department will be efficient, provided the consumer is in a position to consume and to pay for what he needs for his maintenance, which is not the case at the present time for large families. They should be the best consumers but to deserve that title they should receive family allowances three and even four times greater than what they are now, and as soon as possible.
The unemployed also are poor consumers at the present time. In order for them to get their share and to give them a place on the labour market, the government should lower the eligibility age for retirement pensions as soon as possible to make it available to all those people who have earned a well deserved rest after 40 and 45 years of hard work.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish the minister well in his new functions and, for his information and for the benefit of all the Canadian consumers, I recommend the perusal of No. 39 of the proceedings of the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on consumer credit, especially the report of the sitting of Tuesday, March 21, 1967. I invite him to read this document over and over again because

DEBATES	October 19, 1967
he will find in it all the arguments and all the information necessary for a just and efficient administration.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the measure now before the house represents the response of the government to increasing demands on the part of the general public for assistance in meeting some of the problems which face consumers in our country today.
It appears that the marketplace, like everything else, is becoming an ever more complex institution and those who make purchases are faced with a great many confusing situations. It is my belief that within this new department of government there will be ample opportunity for activities designed to meet a great many of the problems which face our people at the present time. If the government looks upon this new department solely as a means of quietening public protests, I suppose not very much will be achieved. On the other hands, if the new department is regarded as a means of meeting a very real challenge in our society, I believe many of the problems we face will be overcome and that in a number of ways the department will make an important contribution to the welfare and well-being of Canadian consumers.
There are many considerations which should occupy the attention of the new department if and when it is set up, and it appears to me that a number of these are of vital importance since they come so close to the consumer and have caused the consumer such concern and bewilderment, particularly in recent months. First, I should like to refer to the cost of living as we find it today. When we look at the charts we discover that the cost of living is constantly increasing. On the other side of the coin we find, of course, that there is a corresponding depreciation in the purchasing power of the dollar. This is causing our people a great deal of concern, unhappiness and in many cases hardship.
I do not intend today to discuss the effects of the cost of living in detail. This has been done on many occasions in the past. Indeed, whole debates in this house have been given over completely to discussion of this subject. But we have to remind ourselves that even though increases in pay have offset the effect of the rise in the cost of living for many of our citizens, there are still great numbers of people who are obliged to live on fixed incomes. These people, certainly, are caught in an economic squeeze.
October 19, 1967

We have heard on many occasions about the situation in which superannuated public servants find themselves. We are aware of the difficulties experienced by those who live on veterans allowances, disability pensions and other types of pensions. All these people are faced with an ever-increasing problem in procuring even the basic necessities of life. In some instances, at least, the government has seemed to be oblivious of this problem and its delay in seeking a solution is most disturbing to those involved.
I should like to refer to the promises which we have been given on many occasions in connection with possible increases in veterans pensions of various kinds. Whenever this question has been raised, and it has been on a number of occasions, the minister responsible has indicated that increases are under consideration but that because of delay in the completion of various reports it has not been possible so far to meet the demands of veterans organizations or those speaking on their behalf. On a number of occasions the minister has told us that if these reports were unduly delayed consideration would be given to the introduction of interim increases. He has told us this more than once, and the reply is now becoming monotonous since we all know that the reports have in fact taken far longer to complete than might reasonably be expected.
Hon. members have been told that the matter is under consideration. Meanwhile, these pensioners must continue to face an almost impossible situation in endeavouring to provide themselves with the necessities of life. In this area the minister responsible for this new department and his officials will have a job on their hands endeavouring to meet the needs of those who are directly affected by the increase in the cost of living which is taking place.
I should not like to take at face value statements which have been made to the effect that the federal government does not have jurisdiction or competence to deal with this problem. The constitutional limitations have been referred to today but I believe the minister and the government do have at their disposal some means of persuading those who are responsible for the price increases to take a careful look at their actions and endeavour to bring them more in line with reality and the requirements of our day. This is one thing which is very close to the hearts of the people since it affects the day to day living of all of us. For this reason I would urge the minister and the department, if and when it

Corporate and Consumer Affairs is set up, to give these matters prior consideration.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I should like to refer now to one of the recommendations of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, to be found on page 2184 of the committee proceedings. The committee recommends (a) that a department of consumer affairs, headed by a minister, be established and (b) that immediate steps be taken to promote standardization and simplification of grades, nomenclature and packaging for commonly purchased consumer items.
Here again we have a situation that is very confusing so far as the consumers are concerned. I would like to refer to a matter brought to my attention by one of my colleagues. He went into one store where he saw instant coffee advertised at a certain price. The product bore only one price. A short time later he went into another store and saw the same product labelled "30 cents off", yet its price in the second store was a little higher than the price in the first store. Consumers have great difficulty figuring out such things, and these are matters that should receive attention.
Packaging also gives rise to confusion. Reference was made this afternoon to the example of a large, beautifully coloured package of soap flakes which, when it was opened, was found to be only two-thirds filled with the product. A consumer looking at such a gigantic package in a store would think he was getting a good bargain but when he brought it home be would find very little of the product in it.


An hon. Member:: The rest would be filled with Canadian air.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Yes, filled with Canadian air. Another matter worthy of consideration is that manufacturers are resorting to half ounce and quarter ounce measures; yet their packages containing such measures are practically the same size as those holding a greater weight of their product. I do not say that these people are deliberately trying to confuse and mislead the public, but I can think of no other motive which would prompt them to use such types of packaging.
I should like to relate an incident which happened to me just last Saturday. My wife and I were driving back to Ottawa at about the time stores were closing and so we went into a store in a small town not too far from Ottawa to do some shopping. In it I noticed a
October 19, 1967


Philip Bernard Rynard: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member on his elevation to the portfolio of corporate and consumer affairs. I was very interested in his classical torrent of words. He ended up with a witch's brew which reminded me of an old professor who described a fellow as having obstipation of thought and a torrent of flowing words. This is about how I would sum up the speech of the minister which took an hour and 40 minutes. I give him marks for trying to put on a good face, because he did his best and nobody will deny that. I hope that in this department the minister will be able to exert a lot more influence on the government than he has indicated he has power to do to date. Perhaps he should have been appointed to the portfolio when the government came into power.
I am one who believes that a government, as well as the retailer and businessman, should be held responsible for its excesses. It is no secret that the consuming public, the voters, certainly have needed protection from this government over the years it has been in power. I should like to mention a few things in respect of which the public might have
3276	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs been protected-the highest interest rates in the history of this country, the highest cost of living, the highest mortgage rate, up to 8J per cent, and on top of that the 11 per cent sales tax which falls on the consumer.
The government apparently has now had a little change of heart. Is it a change of heart or is it just a little window dressing? Today young couples cannot afford to buy their own homes. The consuming public is paying higher taxes than ever and yet we have been living in a very favourable economy, almost boom times. The government is in debt in the amount of $750 million on trade alone. One good reason for the setting up of this department, if there is any reason at all, would be to give the government an opportunity to watch itself and protect the consuming public in respect of what the government is doing.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The minister mentioned the low income consumer, the old age pensioner; and those who are receiving other social security benefits or pensions, all of whom must use their dollars effectively. Does the minister not realize that every new tax or tax increase imposed, no matter whether it is at the municipal, provincial or federal level, affects the purchasing power of the people of this country as much or more than some of the things such as price increases about which he spoke yesterday and the day before? The minister is adding personnel to the bureaucracy in establishing this new department. These additional people will have to be paid from taxes. I hope the minister will not forget that Parkinson's law is operating rather insidiously in the government. All the minister has to do is look at the record to realize that this is so. We hope he will employ in the department only that staff which is essential.
We must bear in mind in this connection that the Economic Council of Canada did not recommend the setting up of this department. Does the minister know how many departments of government, provincial and federal, are now duplicating their work, carrying out the same check-ups and providing the same services across Canada? Does he know how many departments at different levels of government are fringe-duplicating services in respect of checks on industry and the stores across this land? I think it would be interesting if the minister would outline what programs he intends to launch or assist. Is this to be done through the medium of the newspapers, television or radio? Is it to be done at the provincial or the federal level?

DEBATES	October 19, 1967
With respect to the cost involved in establishing this new department, I notice that the minister says it will not be very much, only $2 million. That may not sound like a great deal of money but it represents ten cents more in respect of every man, woman and child across Canada. That is what is involved, and it is just the start.


Erik Nielsen: What's two million?


Mr. Turner:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member read or listened to my remarks very carefully when I said that this was a considerable sum of money.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I thank the minister for telling me that, Mr. Speaker, and I am very glad he appreciates it. This is one of the reasons why we will be very careful to see that the minister watches all those expenditures of government which have got out of control. This is why it may be a good idea that we will have a minister to control government expenditures and protect the consuming public.


Erik Nielsen: What is he going to do?


Philip Bernard Rynard: I should like to ask the government what is wrong in this country today. Canadians are today buying more securities from foreign sources than ever before. They do not believe our management is good enough. In one month alone $45 million more securities were bought in Canada from the United States than were bought from Canada by the United States. And we must remember that the population of the United States is ten times that of this country.
I hope the government realizes the very serious position in which they are putting us. No country in the world today has the natural resources per capita that Canada has. Our natural resources per capita are much greater than those of the United States. This government needs top-level management. We do not need so many commissions or departments but rather top-level management.
The Economic Council of Canada has indicated that the government is a pretty bad spender. Perhaps this was the reason the government decided to appoint a minister to look after consumer affairs. If that was the reason, perhaps they have hit on something for the first time. If anyone thinks that we do not need consumer protection in this country and control over the money the government spends, let him consider the situation in Canada against that of a comparable country.
October 19, 1967

Let us examine the period from 1963 to 1966 when this government was in power. We find that in this period public spending in the United States rose by only 25 per cent. In Canada public spending rose by 35 per cent in the same period. There is a differential of 10 per cent, and it is a good indication that we need somebody to protect the consumer.


Erik Nielsen: And we are not fighting a war.


Philip Bernard Rynard: And, as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) says, we are not fighting a war as is the United States.


Erik Nielsen: We are only fighting a war against the government's high spending.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The consuming public certainly requires protection from the spending of the government, and we hope this minister will provide that protection. There is another area in which we need consumer protection. In 1949-this is a bit of a shocker-the price index stood at 100 and government expenditure was only $283 per capita. Today the price index is 150 and government spending is $1,000 per capita.


Erik Nielsen: An increase of 11 points since this government has been in office.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Perhaps I am making the minister's job more solid because I have indicated that we need him. We badly need somebody to watch the spending of the government. I hope the minister will take these remarks in good spirit because I really mean what I am saying. It is also interesting to note that this government collects approximately twice as much in income tax as was collected in 1961. This is the No. 1 reason why the consuming public requires protection. I hope the minister will give top priority to this aspect of his responsibilities.
Let us consider the situation of the consumer who purchased 3 per cent perpetual government bonds in 1937. I can see by the minister's expression that he knows what I am coming to. I do not know whether he has looked at the record, but I would tell him that today those bonds are bid at 47 cents on the dollar. If there is one thing that can create an aura of dishonesty and default in this country, it is when government bonds are bid at 47 cents on the dollar.
The minister could tell his colleagues in the cabinet that this situation might come under the heading of fraud and deception,
Corporate and Consumer Affairs which is one of the matters he will be investigating. We look forward to seeing that these bonds are paid for pretty promptly when the minister assumes his new responsibilities. I hope I do not have to remind the minister that in 1961 the Conservative government had a positive trade balance and today we have a trade deficit of over $750 million.
I notice also that four fields of government activity were classified by the Economic Council of Canada as being fields which should be investigated. The first was protection against fraud and deception; second, protection of health and safety; third, protection of products standards and grades; and fourth, preparing consumer information. This is a large field, and dozens of provincial and municipal governments across the country are now licensing and legislating in these areas.
What is the minister going to do about consumer credit? A great deal of consumer credit is now under provincial control. Will this department be another bureaucracy created to make people think the government is doing something, when in the long run it will mean they will be saddled with the expense of another bureaucratic department? Could not all these things have been accomplished by the Registrar General (Mr. Turner)? I believe we all have quite an admiration for the Registrar General, this young man from Montreal. I think he is a likeable fellow. I just wonder whether he as Registrar General could not have accomplished every solitary thing that he says he will accomplish in this new portfolio.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In financial affairs there is no difference between the government and the people from whom it collects taxes except that it has a little more collateral. This year the government will still have to find, after it has sold its Canada savings bonds, $300 million or $400 million of new money with which to meet its present commitments. I do not say this in a partisan spirit or in a spirit of antagonism. What I am saying is that we are in a bad situation and it is about time we started to get down to brass tacks and to think of the Canadian consumer and the Canadian taxpayer, the little fellow who is making Canada and keeping the wheels turning. I say this in all sincerity.
Further, I should like to know what tinkering the minister proposes with the patent laws, particularly as they affect drugs. We must remember the general principle that if all imports were allowed to enter Canada
3278	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs free of tariff we would have little secondary industry in this country. There are certain reasons for this but I do not intend to go into them at this time. The Economic Council of Canada sounded a warning in this regard in its interim report. I hope the minister has read it.
If the minister does tinker with the patent laws concerning drugs, how many people is he going to throw out of work? Will it be 2,000, 5,000 or 10,000? In the last few days we have all been gravely concerned, as we should be, about the 3,000 people in Nova Scotia who may lose their jobs. I hope measures will be taken by the government to see that a solution is reached which will enable these people to continue working.
I wonder whether the minister knows that Mr. Henry-I am sure he knows Mr. Henry very well-who proposed the changes in the patent and trade mark legislation to the Harley committee, based them on the assumption that we could get along very well without a drug industry in Canada. I hope the minister understands that because it is a very important point. Before the minister changes the patent and trade mark laws, will he indicate to the house how many firms might well close up shop in Canada and manufacture in the U.S.A. where productivity is about one third higher per worker or, for that matter, manufacture drugs in European countries where labour costs are lower? If these companies did move out and we imported our supplies, what would become of the nearly 3,000 university graduates who work in the industry in Canada, each of whom has cost the taxpayers a great deal of money from the baby bonus onward and represents at 30 years of age a potential earning capacity of nearly $1.5 million to the country to which he might go?
Do we give up our own research and depend on some other country, or will we be stuck with paying through the nose to the country that does our research in lifesaving drugs which are not in common use but are needed occasionally? I wonder how much this will increase our already unfavourable trade balance? However, I will not pursue this subject further at the present time as there are several other matters which can be explored. My only desire is the safest of drugs at satisfactory prices.
About 50 years ago 60 per cent of the retail sales were made either on a cash basis or on a credit basis with accounts payable at the end of the month. Today we operate on a basis of 60 per cent credit or more. Some of

DEBATES	October 19, 1967
these sales are made on revolving credit accounts whereby we establish credit for the articles we want to buy and make monthly payments thereafter. If the payments are kept up one may from time to time make additional purchases on the same account. What are the finance charges under this credit arrangement? I wonder whether the minister can tell us. Does the buyer know and does the government know what these charges are?
About 50 years ago one could obtain a cash discount. Today there are no cash discounts. We buy on credit more often from companies which can establish their own credit terms if and when they require them, sometimes at 6 per cent on the present market. These companies are often large outfits which use this money to make loans and in this way make money on money. It is only fair to say that the administration costs must be taken out of the 12 per cent profit. It is also only fair to say that once a person obtains a revolving credit account he tends to continue buying from that company without shopping around and he often pays prices which he would not pay if he were able to compare prices and had not established that line of credit.
Would the minister give us an idea as to what he proposes to do in this regard? Are the largest department stores going to be allowed to run their own credit business as they like? What is to be done with the finance companies which have gone into the car rental business and have cut into car sales? Should supply and demand rule here? What is to be done with regard to those companies which build homes and sell them completely furnished? They are interfering with the furnishing business and with the suppliers of electrical equipment. How is the small businessman to be helped in order to compete?
We know that the use of money must be paid for, but this was not always the case. At one time the collecting of interest was an offence. It was not until the sixteenth century that interest became an accepted fact and it is only in the present century that consumer credit became a fact of life. Consumer credit is profitable in many cases and keeps the economy moving. It is a service to many young people who wish to get married and acquire the necessary household effects. It is an accepted method of conducting business. However, it happens quite often that the consumer buys where he has established credit without checking or comparing prices.
October 19, 1967

In many instances he does not have the incentive to shop in other stores for bargain sales which are often held during certain seasons of the year. A justification will have to be made for the establishment of this department.
I should now like to go on to the subject of advertising. 1 am particularly concerned about this field. Today a question was asked in the house with regard to cigarette smoking. Cigarette brands are being advertised extensively. We hear about long cigarettes and long filters. We are told this is the cool cigarette, this is the right smoke, one that gives you a lift. What are we doing about it? The department of the Minister of National Health and Welfare has done a little work on this subject in the last three or four years ever since this matter was brought up in the house. I should like to ask the minister what his ideas are on that subject and what is he going to do about it. If anything is needed to spur him on, it is this article which appeared in today's Globe and Mail, part of which reads as follows:
A Toronto surgeon who has made a study of lung cancer, yesterday accused the tobacco industry of "callous disregard of public safety" in introduction of the 100-millimetre cigaret.
Dr. Norman C. Delarue, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto, said this action focused clear light upon the industry's intent: the long cigaret was purely a sales gimmick.
Dr. Delarue told the closing session of the annual meeting of the Ontario Chapter of the College of General Practice of Canada that government, industry and physicians should take certain steps.
I hope the minister will listen carefully to what I have to say now because it is important. I believe the government should immediately outlaw 100-millimetre cigarettes and should set the maximum tar content of cigarettes at 15 milligrammes and the maximum nicotine content at 1.6 milligrammes. It should also insist on more straightforward labelling. I wonder what we will have to do to stir the government out of its apathy and get some action.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I want to say that I believe that now we have this young, ambitious minister he may be able to find solutions to some of these problems. I say that again in all sincerity. He and I have been friends ever since he came into this house. I have admired him and his capabilities. But I was a little bit ashamed the other day when we had to listen to him for an hour and forty minutes saying nothing. He really let me down. Nevertheless, I do like him and I think he is generally liked.
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
If we need to add to this evidence, Mr. Speaker, we can cite the fact that the directors of the American Cancer Society have recommended that cigarette advertising be ended. I want to tell the minister that this is his cue. Let him act right away. Let him make a name for himself by ending the advertising of cigarettes right now. It is stated that advertising is too persuasive, too valid and too vital a part of the life of the American continent to be used in the sale of such a lethal product as the cigarette. This, Mr. Speaker, is the key to the whole problem. If the minister listens, if he catches on, he will immediately start to work with his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) to put an end to this advertising. We have to stop this nefarious trade. In another article, in the Gazette for October 16, 1967, it is stated that the death rate has been cut down but the number of lung cancers in women is increasing as the effects of cigarette smoking are being felt.
I should like to conclude by saying that the minister will justify the establishment of this department only if he proves to us he is doing something for the working people of this country. He will have to prove that he is sincere in what he is doing. I hope he will not end up, as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said, sitting in his goldplated Cadillac. We would not like to see this handsome young man-he has been blessed with good looks-sitting in his goldplated Cadillac with no gas in it. We would not like to see him, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam (Mr. Douglas) said, riding that old winded horse. I am sure none of us wants these things to befall the minister. All of us wish him the very best, but when I heard that hour and 40 minute speech I could not help but think of those words of Oliver Goldsmith, I believe, which I will paraphrase this way: "As on and on he went, the wonder grew how one small head could carry all he knew." As I said before, I have high regard for the minister. I hope he will not let us down and I wish him the very best in his department.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us deals with the establishment of a department of corporate and consumer affairs.
We note in reading section 6, that one of the main purposes of that department will be to promote the interests of the consumers, to protect them and see to it that they are
3280	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs better informed. Certainly everyone approves and commends all these objectives because everyone is of the opinion that the government must do everything in its power to ensure better protection for the Canadian consumer.
When General Eisenhower was still in Europe and he was approached and offered the candidacy of the Republican party in the United States, reporters asked him: What do you think of the rise in the cost of living? Do you think that citizens accept it? Do you think that it is normal? And General Eisenhower replied: When my wife comes back from shopping, she feels that the cost of living is increasing and that it costs a lot to live today.
That was many years ago and today we are still faced with the same problems. But the government has decided to set up a department which will deal specifically with ways to improve the lot of all Canadians.
The problem of protecting the consumer is not simple and easy to solve. In fact, it is an extremely complex problem, which has ramifications in practically all sectors of the economy, and it is of course a problem which creates a lot of interest since the ordinary citizen has each day the opportunity to realize its implications.
Everyone agrees on the objectives the government has set itself but some parties obviously disagree about the ways to achieve more successfully the objectives sought.
The Conservative party has made known its official policy through its spokesman, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who, during his whole speech, has maintained that the minister's powers were inadequate-they should be increased and should have more teeth. He made his point so well that one wonders if the Conservative party has not initiated a new policy, if it is not drifting towards direct price control as was done in wartime.
And I should like to quote part of the speech delivered by the official spokesman for the Conservative party. As it is recorded in Hansard, on page 3239, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said:

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.

DEBATES	October 19, 1967
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)

This is proof that the Conservative party through its official spokesman would like the government, if not directly at least indirectly, to implement a price control policy.
Is it the result of the last convention? Would the official leader of the Conservative party be ready to support his spokesman in the house and state that he unreservedly approves his policy? Is it really the new policy of the Conservative party? This is still doubtful and the answers are yet to come.
While the same hon. member says that the bill does not contain sufficient power and that the government will fail to attain its objectives, he adds that it is absolutely useless to increase the number of officials and to increase expenses to achieve the government's purpose.
What does the Conservative party want exactly? Does it want legislation giving broader powers but without providing the required staff to implement it? Does the Conservative party want to resort to political expediency? Does it simply wish to throw a smoke screen? This would be quite consistent with the new image of the Conservative party. This would reflect exactly the policy of Mr. Camp when he told the Canadian people: We must put an end to all our military alliances. And in the next paragraph, but with much less emphasis he added: That program could be carried out over a ten-year period.
This is exactly the same policy now being advocated by the Conservative party, when they say: We want the government to have much broader powers, but not the staff to administer the department, to support the minister.
It is an inconsistent policy and, surely, the people of Canada will not accept it gratuitously and without discussion.
As for the N.D.P., by repeated references to the fact that they do now want to revert to wartime and pursue a policy of direct price control, they lead us to believe, although indirectly, that the government should have had a price control policy.
Why not come out with it if a direct price control is being advocated? Why beat around the bush and suggest to the people that something should be avoided but that nevertheless every means should be employed to achieve it?
This is still an expedient lacking frankness and realism.
October 19, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs increased tariffs, because of the adverse effects of undue competition, mainly from Japan, to the extent that 50 per cent of the shoes sold in Canada last year originated from foreign countries.
Now, does the hon. member for Yukon suggest that Canada, by rejecting overnight all tariff limitations, would better protect the consumer? Would such a solution help the consumer? Rather, would it not create unemployment in Canada? Would it solve the problem, to bring overnight the whole industry to the brink of bankruptcy?
In other words, consumer problems need and will continue to require concerted effort on the part of several departments. That is why it is clearly stated in the bill, among the powers stipulated, that the new department will have to co-ordinate the activity of several departments in this field because one department alone would never have all the powers necessary to protect the consumer adequately.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the new department will fulfill its duties splendidly. But, once again, we Canadian citizens should not depend entirely on the government. The consumer should strive to be better informed and to protect himself better. This is one of the very important tasks of the present government. It could not assume all responsibility for the Canadian people in this field. It must keep the consumer well informed so that the latter will know what he buys, how to buy and the quality of the goods he buys.
It is most important-it is our civic duty as parliamentarians in this country-that we make the citizens realize their own duty, their own responsibility. It seems to me that leaving everything to the government is a very easy way to solve the problems of Canada.
On the contrary, we should appeal to the understanding and the good sense of the citizens. If the minister could at a very early date, achieve a nation-wide public information policy, which would give the country complete and accurate information, a lot would have been achieved for Canada because we are not the only country having to face tremendous problems as far as consumers are concerned.
Once again I quote the Economic Council of Canada report which stated, in its conclusion:
It is clear from the experience of other countries that there are many methods of dealing with problems in the consumer field, and that a flexible

approach emphasizing effective solutions would be more appropriate than one characterized by rigidities and doctrinaire formulas.
Such is government policy, in short such is the challenge to the new minister and I am sure he will take it up.
[English}


Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the bill. I have been interested in the statements that have been made, particularly by the hon. members for Yukon (Mr. Nielson) and Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). There is no point in my repeating what they said as they expressed themselves more clearly on the subject than I could hope to.
I wished to speak about finance, retail credit, interest charges and related matters. As the hon. member for Simcoe East also dealt with such matters thoroughly I need not go to great lengths to repeat what was said. I am interested in Bill C-161, to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs. I am in favour of establishing the department if it will do some of the things we expect of it. We hope it will render a genuine service to the consumer and, in a proper sense, protect him. The consumer today, as never before, needs protecting. Some may say that the bill will protect consumers against themselves. I do not hold with such thinking.
I could support this bill wholeheartedly if the department which it will create could check inflation. Inflation is not easily cured and it is not sensible for us to expect the new minister or the new department to cure it. That is not within the bounds of possibility. Nevertheless, if the new department could in some way prevent the ever-increasing upward spiral of food prices, hold food prices in check and help those who own or rent homes by keeping the costs they have to meet within reasonable bounds, we should all be grateful. I contend that the moneys paid out by consumers for groceries and rent represent the greatest expenditures that they must meet today.
I had the privilege of being on the committee that dealt with consumer credit from the day of its inception. I attended almost all the committee meetings and I wish to pay tribute to the chairmen of the committee, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Bas-ford) and Senator Croll, two dedicated men who took their task most seriously. I do not believe that the bill now before the house
October 19, 1967

contains in its provisions the recommendations of that committee.
I wish to raise a point and ask the minister what he intends to do for the individual food processor. Since the matter may be difficult to follow, may I cite an example. I suggest that the minister and his department will wish to inquire more deeply into the subject matter I am about to raise. I know of a food processor in eastern Canada who for many years supplied the large food chains with many items of food that were sold under their private labels. Eventually he decided that he would introduce his own brand of product under his own private label. The big chain stores thereupon informed him that he must pay for the right to display his merchandise in their stores.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
This processor was told it would cost him $2,500 before his merchandise would be displayed. He was further told it would cost him a certain amount of money to support an advertising program. They would not guarantee him anything. They would order certain amounts of merchandise in lots to be delivered if, as and when they decided they wanted them. They made various other requests of him. This man said he would not go along. They said: "That is all right; we will discontinue ordering your merchandise. As a result, his merchandise was not displayed. He was in a position where he found himself being squeezed out of business by these large firms. I should like to know what the minister intends to do about this type of blackmail. He does not need to look far to find a concrete case. I refer to a firm known or formerly known as Pyramid Canners; some of these people may still be around. I understand they were squeezed out of business in this manner.
Let us consider the price maintenance factor. I know that some people will say: We do not have price maintenance any more. I think we do. Take, for instance, a large firm-I will not mention names-which has what I would call its own stencil line. It is selling this line at its own price. It can establish whatever price it wishes on this line because it is not available to any other retailer; none of the other retailers or merchandisers can purchase this line because the factories which manufacture it are owned by this large interest. The company can therefore establish whatever price it wishes. This, I contend, is price maintenance. I could enlarge on this and mention many different items which the company sells using this
Corporate and Consumer Affairs system. I do not think it is fair to the consumer. This is a matter which I am sure the new department will wish to consider thoroughly.
I should like to turn for a moment to a report which has often been quoted in the house, the interim report by the economic council on consumer affairs to the Department of the Registrar General. On page 20 we find the following:
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. A great improvement in present methods of co-ordination is necessary, however, and for this purpose we recommend the establishment of an interdepartmental committee on consumer affairs under the chairmanship of the Deputy Registrar General. The committee should include the Deputy Ministers of Trade and Commerce, National Health and Welfare, Industry, Agriculture, Fisheries, Insurance, Finance and Justice, and such other departments as have a continuing interest in consumer matters. In such matters as food, pesticides, consumer credit, consumer goods standards and trade practices, where responsibilities are widely distributed, such co-ordination is imperative for efficient administration. This committee should have a permanent secretariat within the Department of the Registrar General which would assist in the work of the committee and in keeping the minister informed of federal government activities in the field of consumer affairs.
My contention is that since each of these different departments is responsible for certain facets of consumer affairs the minister should recruit his staff by transferring personnel, with their co-operation, to the new department of corporate and consumer affairs. I should like to quote the minister's words as reported in Hansard on October 13. He said then:
Mr. Chairman, the aim of this legislation is to promote co-ordination in the field of consumer affairs. In the past, the activities of the federal government with regard to the protection or information of consumers were divided between several departments, that is to say there never was any co-ordinated program or, if I may be allowed to use that term, any appeal court for the consumers who wanted help or information from the federal government.
The minister went on to speak very constructively, I thought, on this subject. I contend that people could be transferred to the new department from the Department of Industry. I am concerned about this mushrooming of departments. The Department of Industry was established some four years ago and today it has 783 employees. Many of the things now being done by the Department of Industry will be handled in future by the new department of consumer affairs. Aspects
3284	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs of the work now carried on by the Department of Trade and Commerce are also involved. The same could be said about some of the work now done by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of National Health and Welfare. Many of the staff presently employed in those departments should be brought under the umbrella of the new ministry.
Let us simply transfer these people. Let us not hire new staff. We have gone far enough in that direction already and I think it is time we got away from this empire building tendency. I do not see how we can afford it any more. I think we should get away from this idea of government by bureaucracy. In 1939 there were some 30,000 employees in the public service. Today, according to the figures I have, there are 372,890. It just does not make sense that there should be more than ten times as many public employees today as there were 30 years ago. I know the people cannot afford it. I know we cannot afford an expensive type of government like this any longer.
I would refer hon. members to an item which appeared in the Globe and Mail yesterday. It reads as follows:
A strongly worded criticism of government monetary and fiscal policy by Neil J. McKinnon, chairman of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, was delivered yesterday to an international conference of the Financial Executives Institute.
Mr. McKinnon warned that an increasing rate of inflation only could end up causing a painful readjustment in the economy.
"All experience in history has shown that inflationary trends, from whatever source they may arise, if not firmly checked, lead to serious harm to the great mass of people including all of those whom government spending programs of various kinds are intended to benefit."
The chief executive officer of Canada's second largest chartered bank wasted little time in identifying the source of Canada's inflationary problems.
"The fall in the value of money always stems from continuous government deficits, especially those in time of high employment, accompanied by an increase in money supply which tends to monetize at least part of the deficits."
It is not too much to say that government deficit spending, combined with a permissive monetary policy that allows continuous inflation really involve a massive swindle-a swindle perpetrated on the great majority of the populace who are least able to protect themselves against the consequences.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Farther on he quoted Bernard Baruch as follows:
"People who talk about gradually inflating might as well talk about firing off a gun gradually."
Very pertinently I would like to ask the minister what will this new department do

DEBATES	October 19, 1967
that might, and I emphasize might, control inflation? Where are the teeth in this bill? I see nothing set out as penalties. What are the minister's plans? How can this new ministry render a service and be of service to the consumer? What exactly will this new department offer?
Let us consider weights and measures which are important so far as the consumer is concerned. What will this new department do that is not now being done by the weights and measures branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce? What will the new department do in the important field of retail inspection that is not already being done by the appropriate agency under the Department of Trade and Commerce? What will it do so far as deceptive and restrictive trade practices are concerned, matters which are now handled by the Department of Justice and other departments? What will it do in connection with food and drugs? These are things which were touched on this afternoon. In connection with food and drugs what will the new department do that is not already being done by the Department of National Health and Welfare?
I hope we will receive answers to some of these questions. I am very interested in these matters. I think everyone in the house should be interested in them because they have to do with the general welfare and well-being of our country. I would like to support this bill but first I want to know how the proposed bill will assist the consumer.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that I get up to praise a minister but I am going to do so on this occasion because I have great faith in this minister-young John. Of course, if I had previously praised him when he was a backbencher that might have been the kiss of death and he might not have been moved from the back benches. But now this minister is safely esconced in the seats of power-


Mr. Baldwin:: Not too safely.


Steven Otto: -and I want to say I fully support him not only on the grounds of the speech he made when introducing this legislation but on the grounds of previous speeches he has made. I was very impressed with one statement made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). It was a very good idea he expressed, one which I had not thought of previously. Possibly he made the statement facetiously, but he did indicate that there is a certain quality of leadership in the minister,
October 19, 19G7	COMMONS
that there are ambitions toward leadership. I think there is nothing wrong in contemplating that idea. It may be a very good idea for Canada to have a young, vigorous, intelligent, keen man to get Canada going and get away from all this contemplation of races and such things.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Steven Otto: Therefore I am indebted to the hon. gentleman from the Yukon for seeding the idea. I hope it takes root.
The hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) said something which sort of took me by surprise. He said that management is no longer exploiting labour and has now swtched to exploiting the consumer. Somehow I get the impression that the hon. gentleman divides consumers and labour into two groups. He thinks of labour as a separate group and of the consumers also as a separate group. To me labour and the consumer are one and the same thing. In fact labour, management, all of us, are consumers.
I question all the hue and cry about there being no teeth in this legislation. Pray, what teeth? Let someone get up and give an example of what is meant.


Erik Nielsen: The teeth in the minister's hand.


Steven Otto: Corporate and Consumer Affairs corporation. This is a great problem today. I am sure this is what the minister is trying to get at. It is something which cannot be put in a bill. If hon. members would read some of the comments which the minister has made over the past few years they will find that he is quite aware of the problem and the root of it.
I have a brotherly feeling toward the minister because, as you will recall, my fight has been with the establishment and his fight has been with the mandarin class, which is really the same thing. I hope he does not give up that fight.


An hon. Member:: He is getting out.


Steven Otto: There is no intention of getting out of it. I am sure that by the time his establishment gets down to business they will follow a good leader. I am sure they will take their direction from him instead of vice-versa. We must break the evils of corporate structures today and some of the very rotten foundations which underlie them. We still have some good companies, and I am speaking of public as well as private companies. There are also problems of financing, but I will not deal with those at the moment.
As I have said these companies have lost their continuity of ownership and indeed the directors and shareholders of a corporation today really are not interested in the production of that company. One would be amazed at the number of directors of large corporations who are really interested in whether or not the company makes a profit or has a good product. They are, however, very interested in any avenue by which they can romance-if that is the right word-the shares so they can make money on the sale of the shares. Ownership of the corporation is merely a method of gambling. It is difficult for management and labour to find any incentive to do a good job, because who cares when this attitude on the part of the directors is known. I have looked at the record of the directors of several corporations. They do not receive very much in directors' fees. Indeed, $500 a year or something of this nature is being paid to directors of five or six companies. It always amazes me how they can drive large Cadillacs and live in such a luxurious manner. Surely they are not doing it on $500 a year.
The rights to subscribe for new issues of shares are handed down from father to son and from uncle to nephew. These rights to buy shares are placed on the market. The directors do not issue the shares until they
[Mr. Otto.l

have made money on the rights. The emphasis is not on whether the company has conducted an honourable business but rather on how they can sell the shares to make a buck. This, of course, corrupts all business. These are the problems we must face. A recent and perfect example of this, of which all members are aware, is the great Atlantic fiasco. I do not think there is any other set of circumstances which so clearly explains the play of share take-overs. No product was involved in this whole thing, so it could not be said there was a good product which was making money. A well-established man could walk into any bank and say, "Buy some of these shares; they are a good thing." The reason for a take-over is not to make a company more successful. Take-overs or amalgamations are merely for the purposes of enhancing, either fictiously or otherwise, the value of shares in order to make a dollar for the large shareholder.
Surely I need not go further than to say that when this situation exists among the owners of shares it is difficult to avoid corruption or ensure that the business will be conducted in an honourable way. How can these evils which are evident today be avoided? The most one can do is to pass a law. We may say that they cannot do this, but they will do it in another way. I think the root of the problem is the whole corporate structure and I believe that with revision and reform of the corporate structure we might expect some improvement in competition.
In line with this, and as a complementary thing, we have the structure of our stock exchanges. About a year ago, I believe, the minister pinpointed some of the problems which exist as a result of each province having its own stock exchange. I believe this speech was made in New York, although I do not remember now. However, this is a great problem because the one complements the other. Any hon. member who has had experience in trying to put stock on the public market will know what the cost of such a promotion is. It is amazing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Steven Otto: In the field of mining, regardless of how good the vein of iron or gold is and regardless of the advisability of bringing it into production, 80 per cent of the money received from the shares will go into promotion costs and will wind up on Bay street, Bridle path, Post road, or St. James place. Twenty per cent of the money invested will actually wind up in the mine. I am sure the
October 19, 1967

hon. member for Yukon knows this very well. I see him smiling. He is a very specialized lawyer in this field and I am sure he will support what I have said. Of course this is a speculative thing. We expect mining to be speculative, but the tragic part of it is that the industrial shares are being put into the hands of public shareholders. About 38 per cent or 40 per cent of the money contributed, and sometimes higher, will go toward promotion costs. Consequently, if the shareholders pay $10 million for shares, about $5 million will end up in the company and yet that $5 million is expected to pay a reasonable sum to the shareholders. The promotion costs are out of line.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Air Canada-Winnipeg-reported intention to phase out overhaul base; the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange), Radio Station at Pond Inlet, Northwest Territories; the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald), Northumberland Crossing.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions for papers and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. S-9, respecting the Empire Life Insurance Company-Mr. Ryan.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I thought there had been unanimous consent that the house would rise at six o'clock and reconvene at eight o'clock in compliance with the wish of Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If there is unanimous consent among the parties in the house it will have to be expressed while the Speaker is in the chair.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to stand in the way of the house adjourning, but there are private bills which have been
Private Bills
on the order paper for a great length of time. One of these bills is of great importance to the part of the country from which I come and I should like it to be proceeded with. As this bill received second reading in the last session, I see no reason why we should not give it second reading now and then adjourn for the purpose for which the house wants to adjourn. The bill received second reading in the last session and was referred to the committee.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, we would all like to comply with the request of Mr. Speaker that we do not sit between six o'clock and eight o'clock. In order to reach a conclusion in this regard, could the hon. member indicate that there is a willingness on the part of the house to deal with his bill?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I completely understand the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Starr).


Michael Starr: I will put it in a way that the hon. member can understand. Has he any assurance that his bill has an opportunity to pass?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not that assurance.


Michael Starr: Then why do you want to hold us up?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am somewhat taken by surprise, Mr. Speaker, because I thought the understanding was that we would sit for this hour to deal with private bills. As I said, the bill I am interested in received second reading in the last session. I would hope the house could agree to give it second reading now and then we could adjourn until eight o'clock.



COMMERCIAL SOLIDS PIPE LINE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Deach-man (for Mr. Basford) for the second reading of Bill No. C-113, to incorporate Commercial Solids Pipe Line Company.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This bill was moved for second reading on June 1 last at a time when the hon. gentleman sponsoring the bill was, as his colleague pointed out, moving from a state of bachelorhood to one of marital relationship. As a result the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford), the sponsor of the bill, did not have the opportunity

October 19, 1967
Private Bills
to explain the bill in his own words and from the point of view of his own interest, although his colleague did give reasons why it should be passed. I wonder whether the house would consider giving the hon. gentleman the right to speak to the bill on second reading and explain its purpose, because he has not yet had that opportunity. Perhaps the hon. member could be allowed to do this without by so doing closing the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will understand, of course, that when second reading of this bill was moved it was done by another hon. member on behalf of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. Normally, if the hon. member were to speak now he would close the debate. The unanimous consent of the house is required for the hon. member to speak without closing the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have not asked for that leave, Mr. Speaker.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Speak now and close the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on this measure before and I propose to speak on it tonight in the same vein. I think the house must realize how very series is this proposition that is placed before us by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford). I would remind hon. members that not quite 100 years ago in Canada-


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there is possibly some confusion here. I proposed to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Starr) that if the house agreed to give this bill second reading, as it did in the last session, we could then adjourn. If the house does not agree to giving the bill second reading perhaps hon. members would like to consider whether we should adjourn now.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard is suggesting that the house be asked whether it wishes to adjourn at this moment and waive private members' hour?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the request were made to the Chair that we adjourn I should be very pleased to put it to the house. But at the moment we are to proceed with private members' hour.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard is trying to test whether there is any willingness on the part of the house to adopt his bill at this time. If there were, the hon. member would be prepared to go on with it. If not, I think he would acquiesce in the desire of the house to adjourn.


Frank Howard: Then it is obvious that we are going to adjourn.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: The hon. member is saying no, so we might as well adjourn; we are not going to get this bill through.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I understand from what the hon. member of the New Democratic party has said that the bill will not be passed during this hour. Therefore, perhaps the house would agree to the bill retaining its place on the order paper. If this were agreed I would not oppose adjournment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the private members' hour shall now be suspended and that order No. 2 on today's order paper shall retain its place on the order
paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The sitting is suspended until eight o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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.
Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned this afternoon for the consideration of private members bills I made some remarks with regard to part of the bill dealing with corporate affairs. I know that other hon. members have spoken on consumer prices and I wanted to make a connection between the problem of consumer prices and the necessary reforms in the corporate field. I do not suggest for a moment that the only answer to the problem of the ever increasing inflation is a complete reorganization of the
October 19, 1967
corporate structure, but I do say it has a great deal to do with it and I tried to show the connection between these two matters. I know the minister will agree with the points I am going to make. These are recommendations which the establishment will not like, and by establishment I mean the establishment as outlined by Professor Porter, namely the family compact. Hon. members will be surprised to know how strong an influence the family compact has on business and financial affairs. Indeed a very small number of people in Canada control about 85 per cent of the finances in Canada. I am sure that these members of the establishment will not like to hear what I recommend, but then the minister will not care particularly whether they like it or not because he is not one who caters too much to the wishes of the establishment.


Mr. Orlikow:: The hon. member means part of the establishment.
Corporate and Consumer Affairs everyone so as to make the distribution of shares wider. Investors will not invest in companies that are secretive. That is one reason why in the last year over $800 million in Canadian money was invested in industrial growth in the United States rather than in Canada. Our corporate and share structure is very bad.
The third recommendation concerns government guarantees. This should not be as surprising as it seems because we do have government guarantees on mortgages. I have already proposed a bill on this. In other words if we invite Canadians to invest in brick and mortar we will say to them "If you invest in bricks and mortar, we will put a government stamp on it". This should be made available to good, honest corporations which would have an insurance scheme under which their shares will be guaranteed, at a fee, so that the shareholders will know they have a good investment.


Steven Otto: The recommendations that I wish to make are as follows. First, that an up to date share register be considered essential in corporate procedures. If any shareholder or any other person wishes to know the names of the shareholders of large companies he will have to wait six months before he gets them at a fantastic cost. There is no reason for not making a share register available on a day's notice. This will give people a chance to contact the other shareholders. The present procedure is that the directors forming a nice family establishment write to the shareholders whom they know and send them proxies of which 80 per cent always come back. Therefore the directors and their families are guaranteed a directorship forever. That is one change which is badly needed.
It should be possible for a company to become public without having to pay the great cost of promotion. I was speaking earlier this evening to one of the hon. members opposite and I found that it was a matter of great surprise to most people that if a company or a business enterprise wishes to go public the brokers may sometimes have to pay a bonus of approximately 30 per cent of the share structure, and the cost runs sometimes from $250,000 to $300,000 in cash. There is no reason for that. The new department should require a prospectus so that a company would not be allowed to say "we expect profits of untold millions j this is our future". This is the procedure in the United States where prospectuses containing only facts are filed. These should be available to
One of the great faults of the Canadian corporate structure is that companies do not have a fair representation of the internal
management. In other words, most of the directors of large Canadian corporations do not have anything to do with the business at all. The directors of banks are not necessarily bankers and they know nothing about banking. The United States system is a little different and is much more successful. At least 50 per cent of the directors of most successful corporations are internal directors. They might be the sales managers or the vice presidents in charge of sales, production or advertising. The majority of the directors have a vested interest in the success of that company. They want to make sure they have a future and a job. Greater participation by internal management in the directorship of a company is badly needed.
I hope that other departments will be taking interest in the fantastic capital gains made by speculators on the stock market. I cannot for the life of me see what is wrong with the Carter commission report so far as that issue is_ concerned because this money is not earned, it is taken out of the corporation.
The following is a statement made by the minister, on which I based my remarks:
-	.

 -	government nas
assumed a major responsibility for keeping our economic system competitive, stable and productive.
That is the essence of that portion of the bill dealing with corporate affairs. I have tried hard to understand the criticisms made by the opposition. When the opposition says the bill has no teeth, if they mean price and
3290	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs wage controls then I am quite sure the minister will not accept that criticism.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
If they mean safeguards against fraud and other odious methods of advertising, then there are already laws to combat them and I am sure the minister will do whatever is in his power to enforce these laws. I think that if hon. members really examine the bill setting up this department they will find it contains three items which are really interconnected. These items are not related to other departments. There have been cries from all sides to have a special department and a special minister in charge of these matters.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, except for myself, I can think of no other person better qualified than the minister to give this department the vigorous, intelligent leadership that will be necessary.


Edward Richard Schreyer: It is always interesting, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) and today has been no exception. He delivers his remarks with such vigour and such confidence that one gets the impression he could learn a lot, and very often does. However, I must say that certain of the remarks he made this afternoon and this evening only serve to confuse. I am not referring to his remarks concerning the corporation's securities aspect of the bill before us, nor am I referring to his remarks concerning corporate affairs generally. When he spoke earlier about his views as to why there is some undue exploitation of the consumer-the words are his-he left the impression he felt if there was undue exploitation it was caused by some process of decay in corporate structure.
I must admit that I did not take prolific notes. I cannot recall precisely the words he used, but he left the impression with me, at least, that he felt the problem resulted from a process within corporate organization whereby management was going more and more into the hands of people who have no direct interest; that ownership is not concerned with the ethics of the business operation but concerned almost exclusively with the profit that can be made from dealing with shares. If I have not quoted the hon. member accurately, I apologize, but I believe a reading of the record tomorrow will bear me out.
If the hon. member really meant what he said, I am surprised. This process has been

DEBATES	October 19, 1997
going on during the entire post-war period. In fact, it could be seen at work as early as 1920. Therefore, if we have problems in the field of consumer affairs, the undue exploitation of consumers to use the hon. member's own words, these problems result from a process which has been at work for several decades. It is time we came to grips more tangibly with this problem than we have up to now.
I want to say to the minister that I should like very much to compliment him on quite a few things. I desist from doing so, since he has received so many compliments already from the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) and the hon. member for York East. We must not forget the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), because I believe some of his remarks were meant to be complimentary.
I wish I might say something positive about this government and its actions to date in respect of protecting the consumer in the marketplace and in connection with the borrowing of money. Only a few days ago this government did proclaim regulations requiring the full disclosure of interest rates both in the absolute amount and in a percentage rate sense as well. I believe that this will do some good by way of protecting the consumer from abuses. This is positive action, Mr. Speaker, and I refer to it in order to point out something else, that is that this government has shown in the last few days that there are two ways of going about tampering with a serious problem. One way is to step in and deal with the problem with a minimum of fanfare, proposing legislation or proclaiming regulations, thus getting the job done. This is the course the government took in respect of the disclosure of interest rates, for which most members would give them credit.
The other way of tackling a problem is the course the government has adopted in respect of consumer affairs generally. Instead of setting to and grappling with it without too much fanfare, they are doing just the opposite. They are giving the appearance of wrestling with the problem, when in fact they are only fussing with form, fussing with organization and really doing nothing new at all about the substance of the problem. There has been, I feel, sufficient reference already to just how the legislation before us will not be very effective, will not serve the consumer's interest in the marketplace.
The bill before us is to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs. Members on my right from the Conservative
October 19, 1967

party have been referring to it as an indication of more red tape being served up by this government. Some of my colleagues have referred to this bill as window dressing. I think they are both right. This government is dressing its windows with red tape. They hope to create the impression amongst the general public that they are really determined now, in 1967, to pass meaningful legislation that will stop some of the abuses currently existing in our business life. If this is the intention of the government, I fail to see where it is being given legislative effect. The only part of the bill which deals with the powers of this new department of corporate and consumer affairs is clause 6, and it does not specify in any concrete way just what the government will do that is new in the field of consumer legislation.
I do not apologize to the hon. member for York East when I say that I would be enthused about the prospect of establishing a department of consumer affairs if I could be assured that accompanying that there would be recommended to this house legislation that would have some teeth in it. I know that in the past the federal government, as well as the present minister who will head this department, have stated time and time again there is a constitutional problem resulting from the division of powers. Almost everyone realizes that today. At the same time, as the minister said, the general public to use the minister's expression are becoming more educated, and therefore they expect more from government in the way of meaningful consumer legislation. If it is not forthcoming they will expect this impasse which has been caused by the constitutional division of powers to be solved somehow. The minister said that the people of Canada expect governments these days to organize themselves in a better way. He is certainly right. This is the feeling I have as well. If the people expect governments to organize themselves better, it follows they will expect governments to organize better in the sense that they can close the gap of the constitutional no man's land that has existed between the two levels of government from 1867 until now. Perhaps this more than any other single issue may cause the federal government to take the initiative in the calling of a constitutional conference so we can "get cracking" with revising our constitutional law.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
In my estimation the minister is perfectly correct when he says, as he did on Tuesday,
27053-208J
Corporate and Consumer Affairs that the consumer, being better educated, is coming to demand not only better organization of government but better organization between the two levels of government. Like the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Ry-nard) I too noticed in the speech of the minister, not a preoccupation with but an interest in ancient history. The minister made reference to the Athenian marketplace and how it was an historical fact that there was an attempt even in the days of ancient Greece to provide a measure of consumer protection in the form of organizing bands of investigators to roam through the marketplace.
I was wondering why the minister was showing such interest in matters classical and historical, and then it occurred to me that these days he has been provided with a very able and efficient former political scientist from the University of Manitoba, who I am sure helps the minister with his speech writing, all of which is very commendable. If I do not allow myself to compliment the minister, may I at least take this opportunity to compliment his executive assistant.
I understand that in years past the minister of transport in the former government was blessed with a very effective and efficient executive assistant whose name, I believe, was Mel Jack, and the Registrar General certainly has cause to be thankful for having an executive assistant capable of writing speeches with such fine style. The content of course is another matter.
To be more serious, Mr. Speaker, the minister made one specific statement when dealing with the speech that was made by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Maclnnis) that I think deserves some repetition and mulling over in one's mind. I refer to the statement of the minister that appears in the bottom left hand corner of Hansard at page 3210, where he is reported as follows:
It follows from what I have said and from the judgment made by the joint committee that there is no intention that this department-
The minister means the new department of consumer affairs that is being proposed.
-should act as a sort of controller-
I stop there, Mr. Speaker. The minister is recommending to the house that we agree to the establishment of a department of consumer affairs, but he is there telling us that it will not act as any sort of controller. But, Mr. Speaker, this is the very point; if there is to
3292	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs be no greater degree of social control exercised in the marketplace on behalf of consumers, what in Sam Hill is the point of establishing a department of consumer affairs?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me to ask him a question. I am enjoying his reasoned speech very much indeed, but I am sure that the other words in that paragraph to which he referred have not escaped him. I was speaking of the word "controller" or control in terms of price control, not in terms of intervention in the marketplace.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, if my making reference to this statement of the minister has served no other useful purpose, it has at least brought him to his feet to clarify just what inference he did hope to leave when he said that this department would not act as a sort of controller. We are now to understand that it will in fact act as a sort of controller but not with respect to price control; and so the process of clarification goes on.
I have already said, Mr. Speaker, that the minister was so right when he suggested in the course of his speech that he sensed that the public was demanding a more active involvement on the part of government in consumer affairs and consumer legislation. The vast majority of the Canadian people realize that there is a problem here which has to do with constitutional law. But after all, Mr. Speaker, as my leader pointed out earlier today, the common sense of most people will tell them that constitutional law exists to serve human needs. Therefore, for how much longer wiE they passively accept the excuse that is given in an effort to fob off their complaints, that up until now it was not possible to take any effective action in regard to consumer affairs owing to the fact that while one aspect of the problem fell within federal jurisdiction another aspect of the problem in another sense was a provincial concern?
Up until the early 1950's we ran up against the same kind of problem in the thinking of government with respect to the marketing of agricultural products. In most instances it had been found through the decades that it was not possible to form an effective agricultural products marketing board because the jurisdiction was divided. Any attempts to set up provincial marketing boards, which were easier than those to set up federal marketing boards, were doomed to failure unless there was enabling federal legislation as a result of concurrent federal action.

DEBATES	October 19. 1967
It was not until the early 1950's that some concrete action was taken to overcome this constitutional impasse, and in large part the impasse was broken in the matter of agricultural products marketing. Now in the late 1960's I fail to see why greater initiative could not be taken by the federal government in regard to a similar course of action to break through the impasse in relation to consumer goods marketing.
It seems that during the past two years the federal government of the United States has been more concerned to come forward, or if not more concerned at least more successful in coming forward, with tangible legislation to deal with the very problem that is under discussion, namely consumer affairs. In the United States more effective consumer law is being passed than is the case in Canada. In their federal system they also face the problem of divided jurisdiction. But at least in fields where there is power for the federal authority to act they have taken action, and I suggest that this government could do likewise in the matter of packaging, and weights and measures.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Is the minister trying to say that constitutional obstacles prevent the government from passing legislation affecting weights, measures, standards, and what is known as truth in packaging. Under recent legislation passed by the United States Congress it is now mandatory for the appropriate department of that government to publish certain regulations. I wish to read some of these into the record. I quote from document H. R. 7493 of the first session of the 89th Congress of the United States. Page 2 of the regulations reads as follows;
(1)	require the net quantity of contents (in terms of weight, measure, or count, or any combination thereof) of consumer commodities to be stated upon the front panel of packages containing such commodities, and upon any labels affixed to such commodities;
(2)	establish minimum standards with respect to the prominence of statements of the net quantity of contents-
(3)	prohibit the addition to such statements of net quantity of contents of any qualifying words or phrases;
(4)	specify such exceptions to the foregoing requirements-
(5)	prohibit... upon any label... any printed matter stating or representing by implication that such commodity is offered for retail sale at a price lower than the ordinary and customary retail sale price,-
October 19, 1967

I believe that this paragraph relates directly to what the hon. member for Fraser Valley alluded to earlier today. Continuing:
(6)	prevent the placement, upon any package ... any illustration . .. likely to deceive ... as to the contents of that package.
The next part of this legislation is most important. The federal trade commission and the secretary of health, education and welfare shall:
(1) establish reasonable weights or quantities, or fractions or multiples thereof, in which that commodity shall be distributed for retail sale,-
I pause here to make this observation. Many hon. members have received complaints from housewives and shoppers about the difficulties of exercising judgment- which the minister called on them to exercise-in order that they may make an efficient choice in the marketplace. Those words are the minister's. Because of the proliferation of ways in which different commodities are measured it is difficult for the housewives to exercise judgment. If one goes to the supermarket he will find soaps and different foods on the shelf in cans or cartons, and hardly ever will he find these items in standard sizes. Almost always fractions of ounces or fractions of pounds are involved. In my estimation the situation is contrived, to make more difficult the task of the shopper, to make it more difficult for her to make an efficient choice.
It is all very well for the minister to say that shoppers ought to make efficient choices; yet their task is deliberately frustrated by concerns that sell food and other consumer goods in containers, and mark those containers with weights that involve fractions of ounces, and so on. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask the government to take steps to remedy this state of affairs.
The minister may plead that there are constitutional difficulties; I doubt whether this is so. Today, when there is such overwhelming public support for the reform of marketing practices I doubt whether anyone would wish to oppose such a logical step.
The commission to which I have previously referred, and its appropriate officials, are authorized to prevent the use of packages of sizes, shapes or denominations which are likely to deceive consumers as to net quantity of contents. As the hon. member for Danforth said earlier, there is a tendency on the part of those who sell packaged products to include in the package a liberal quantity of Canadian air.
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
On page 6 of document H.R. 7493 the following is found:
(3)	establish and define standards... of size (other than statements of net quantity of contents) which may be used to characterize quantitatively the contents of packages containing that commodity;
(4)	establish and define-
-a serving. The next paragraph is:
(5)	establish and define standards for... any consumer commodty.. .which cannot meaningfully be designated in terms of weight, measure, or count; and
(6)	require ... that sufficient information ... be placed in a prominent position upon packages ...
This clause is to prevent consumers from being deceived.
All parts of the legislation I have just referred to are not equally important, though most parts are of some importance. Some of its provisions have been adopted in various ways in Canada, though others have not. There is no good reason, constitutional or otherwise, to prevent this government from enacting in Canada legislation similar to that enacted, in this field, in the United States.
I say, with some justification, that it is not fair or reasonable for the government to ask those on this side to support the establishment of a department of consumer affairs unless the government says what this department is to administer and what legislation or regulations are to be introduced to regulate its workings. If the government will not introduce legislation with respect to the department in the coming months, the proposition we have before us is not attractive. At the moment I am not too enthusiastic about establishing the department. Unless I can be shown that the officials of the new department will do something more constructive and more effective in this field than officials in other departments have done-and I do not think they will-I cannot support the establishment of the department.
The minister, with other members on the government side, has complained that though we persistently criticize the bill we have not come forward with constructive, tangible suggestions. Tangible suggestions have been made, I submit. I read part of the regulations which now apply in the United States. My leader also referred to certain actions which could be taken. He said, specifically, that this government ought to declare whether it is prepared to create a prices review board which would work under the aegis of the department which is about to be created.
3294	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
If the government intends to establish a department of consumer affairs it seems to me this is a vital function which could be carried out within such a department. I do not say price control; I say, price review. It appears to be a logical step to take at this time. If the minister is serious when he says that at least at the beginning the primary function of this department will be that of gathering information, it is surely important to try to ascertain through a prices review board the extent to which price increases are taking place in the field of consumer products and the extent to which they are justified. If the minister wishes to argue that this is a function which is already being carried out by existing agencies of the crown such as the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, I would say that all the functions he envisages as being carried out by the new department could be carried out by agencies of the crown which have existed for some time, and which have been connected with activities in the field of consumer affairs.
In conclusion, I simply wish to say that it is easy to offer excuses for inability to take effective action. One can always trot out the excuse that the division of power makes it difficult for the government to act in certain fields. The provinces can argue with justification, however, that it is virtually impossible for them to enact effective legislation for the protection of consumers. If one province were to attempt to do so alone, it would invite a situation in which it would be at an economic disadvantage as compared with neighbouring provinces.
What is needed, therefore is federal cooperation. The federal government should think in terms of enabling legislation fused with provincial legislation and programming. Perhaps this is something which the new department will try to pioneer. I maintain that had the will existed this could have been done before now. I do not wish to be unkind but I simply must say that after all the publicity resulting from the committee on consumer affairs, and after all the publicity from one end of the country to the other about this government's intention to establish a department of consumer affairs, we cannot help being disappointed when we look at the legislation, read through the minister's statement carefully, and find there is nothing of substance in either; it is really all froth and foam.
The minister and those who help him and his colleagues in the news media, the image

DEBATES	October 19, 1967
projectors, have laboured hard and long for months, and brought forth a mouse.


Steven Otto: Would the hon. member permit a question. He has referred to the lack of teeth in the legislation. In trying to define these dentures am I to understand he is recommending the introduction of marketing boards with the same powers as the wartime price and trade boards.


Edward Richard Schreyer: No, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid the hon. member misunderstood my speech even more than I misunderstood his. I was saying that the least the government could do would be to think in terms of establishing a prices review board under the aegis of this new department. Since the government intends to set up a new department, then let them, for Pete's sake, at least give it something worth while to do.


Edward Nasserden: This is one of the most interesting debates we have had in the House of Commons since this government came to office, and it cannot but bring to our minds the election promises which were made in the election before hon. members opposite assumed the responsibilities of government.
The minister, I take it, invited me to make some comments on these lines the other evening and I shall do so before I conclude my remarks. First of all, I should like to point out through you, sir, having listened to the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) this afternoon, that according to him the only good company is a bankrupt company. We have heard this from the hon. member before and I should like to put it on record again in the course of this debate.
We have before us tonight a bill which has been brought down with a great deal of fanfare and publicity. Compliments have been paid to the personality of the minister who is responsible for piloting this measure through the house and I assure you, sir, that all of us on this side appreciate that hon. gentleman's qualities, particularly when he refers to horses. I thought of the island of Montreal, the ministers who have come from Montreal, and the experiences of another minister who found horses on the payroll. This brought a little humour into the debate-his reference to horses and his reference to hens, particularly when we are talking about consumer prices, when the farmers are receiving disastrous prices for the eggs they market and when the consumer who goes into a shopping centre is asked to pay four or five
October 19. 1967


Mr. O'Keefe:: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would permit a question, I should like to ask him, since he speaks so vehemently about the cost of living in this country, whether he would suggest that the price of milk, butter and cheese be reduced?


Edward Nasserden: Well, the hon. gentleman might just as well have asked me if I would stop beating my wife; that is the effect of his question. Neither he nor the government opposite realizes the effect that their deliberate actions have had on the economy of this country. More than that, I wonder whether he realizes that the bonds in Canada today are almost at an all time low, all because we have an inefficient government opposite which has failed to come to grips with the economic conditions in this country. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) was so full of promise, and yet everything he has done all along the line has backfired. When the hon. member talks about the price of milk, I suggest that he should not think that the dairy farmers even in the eastern provinces are
October 19, 1967

satisfied with what the government has done. They know that the government has not kept pace with the increasing costs which the farmers have had to pay because of the increase of the price of production machinery in this country, which the hon. member supported in the House of Commons and which his colleagues brought into existence.
Do not talk about the price of eggs, milk, butter or any of these things. Can you buy eggs more cheaply anywhere else than you can in Canada today, so far as the farmer is concerned? Really the answer to this question is that butter is only a small part of the total picture, when it comes to the needs of Canadian consumers. The other items which people buy and which must be manufactured, as well as the items in every other phase of activity, including public housing, take the bulk of the consumers' money today. The cost of these items has increased as a result of such things as the 11 per cent sales tax which is absolutely uncalled for under the circumstances.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to ask a question of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden). If he had spread the line across Saskatchewan that he has spread here tonight, I would like to tell you that there would be a heavier wheat crop; there is no argument about that.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker,
would the hon. member permit a further question?


Edward Nasserden: I would be glad to hear anything constructive.


Allan Marcus Atkinson McLean: We have been talking about the price of milk and the price of eggs. Would the hon. member be in favour of an increase in the price of gold, since it is a basis for all our credit, our interest rates and everything else.


Erik Nielsen: Why not?


Edward Nasserden: This is an interesting question, because I believe there is a measure on the order paper to provide for the subsidization of gold in this country. I think hon. gentlemen opposite will vote for this measure and I think some hon. gentlemen on this side will vote for it also.


Mr. Andrew Chatwood (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the house in respect of this bill to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs, first of all I should like to
Corporate and Consumer Affairs congratulate the minister upon his accepting this portfolio. I have noticed during this debate that hon. members of other parties have also extended their good wishes.
This will be a challenging department. It has been said here that probably there is legislation which is administered by other departments which covers areas which will be covered by this new department. However, unlike some of the members who have spoken and have looked back, I should like to say that I believe it is more important that we should look forward. I believe this new department is a forward looking department and has a forward looking minister.
The problems of the consumers today will not be solved by looking backward; they will be solved by looking ahead. The objectives contained in this bill cover several areas. One objective is that the consumer will be given a voice, through committees or through advisers to the government, in respect of matters affecting him. Another aim of the bill is, by legislation, research and education, to improve the quality of consumer demand and thereby place him in a better position to evaluate the products on which he is spending his income. It will also provide orderly channelling of consumer submissions and inquiries. One of the functions of this department will be to work with the provinces on the problems of the consumer.
It would be ideal if by simple legislation we could achieve the direct result of legislating on the price of every single item on which every person in this country spends money. I do not believe, however, that even the most vehement objectors to the contents of this bill would suggest that this is possible. It is neither possible nor desirable. But it is desirable that the consumer should be able to spend his or her income in the most effective way. The bill is entitled, "An act to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs." I think the name "corporate and consumer affairs" is good. I believe it is most important that we endeavour to help the consumer. I also think that one should not attempt to segregate the consumer and the corporation. When the consumer spends his or her dollar it goes to someone else, and the consumer receives something in return. We hope to see that the consumer receives better value.
It is hoped that this department will be able to better educate the members of the public in respect of their buying. When I say it in that way, it sounds very simple, but it is not something which can be legislated easily.
3298	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs AH members of this house of course are consumers. Some of us are knowledgeable about some items we all buy and others are knowledgeable about other items. Even if we take the example of a simple item like a package of soap, it is difficult to say how far one can go in evaluating what is contained in the package. Do you evaluate its capacity to clean or its ability to work in hard water or soft water? The actual weight of the contents by volume can be printed on the package. You can give a realistic evaluation of the size of this item, but you cannot evaluate its full chemical ability.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
It is hoped that this department will also be able to combat the practice of price fixing whereby a price is agreed upon by various manufacturers so that there is no competition with respect to the product. The most important function the department will have, as far as the consumers of Canada are concerned, is that it will release the competitive forces among various manufacturers and suppliers, because the bases upon which we operate are competition and fair selling practices. I hope the department will investigate the problems inherent in some of our service stations. I refer to what amounts almost to an impossibility in some areas for service stations to operate unless they are franchised by one of the major suppliers of oil, gasoline and oil products.
We also have monopolistic monsters in the form of chain stores and chain groceries. While we cannot claim that they have a complete comer on the market, at least not in the big cities because there are various chains, they do have control in that they are beginning to own the supply house for the supermarket as well as the retail operation. While they compete strongly in certain items that they advertise heavily and display prominently, there are other basic, stock items carried in these stores with regard to which, by keeping a close eye on other chains, the price is not as competitive as it might otherwise be.
There is another area that I hope this department will look into. I refer to the lending houses which lend large and small amounts of money at what would appear to be a high rate of interest that is not always well identified. I believe this situation is being corrected so that the individual borrower will be able to evaluate the interest charged on his loan.

DEBATES	October 19. 1967
Many of the problems facing the consumer today are caused by our prosperity. They are the problems inherent in a high standard of living and in the fact that we now expect to have more and to live better, as we should. We have these problems, and we welcome them. But we also have the problems of poverty, to a lesser degree, in our smaller areas. These are problems which it is hoped the new department will combat. I believe the department will combat them effectively.
I am pleased to learn that the new department will have control in the area of bankruptcy. In this field the department will be working closely with the R.C.M.P., which is so effective in many areas. Working with the R.C.M.P. in bankruptcy matters will I am sure assist the department to be extremely effective.
Bankruptcies will of course occur. However, when a bankruptcy occurs the consumer still pays, because the end result of the operation of any company is to make a profit, and the figures in the bottom right-hand corner of the balance sheet show this profit. Profit is the end result of any company. If a company does not make profit, it will not stay in business. If the creditors of a company do not pay their bills, the company must make its basic profit or at least break even, otherwise it goes out of business. The result of a company going out of business comes back to the consumer just like the wave from a stone thrown into a pond.
We are told that this new department will hear from task forces which will consult experts from the business and academic worlds. These task forces will supply ideas to the department and keep it informed of the latest developments in the economic world. I believe this is an important function of the department of the future, because consumer affairs are a reflection of what is happening to each and every person in Canada today.
As the world around us changes, so must the forces affecting the consumer change. It will not do to establish a department and say: This is good; we now have the solution. We do have a method of seeking the solution today, and I am pleased to know that the department will seek advice and will keep in contact with the consumer. It is comforting to know that the department will receive fresh ideas from people outside the department. In this way this department of the future will not be allowed to become stale.
The department will also be concerned, in co-operation with other departments, in the establishment of fair weights and measures.
October 19, 1967

It is perhaps difficult to establish a system of fair weights and measures and lay down firm rules and say: This is what you will do. I do not think that in our society you can say: You must pack peas in a quart can; you must pack carrots in a pint can. But you can ensure that weights are properly shown and identified in terms that the consumer can understand. I think this will be done.
In some areas, particularly in the area of advertising, there are problems which I hope this department will attack. It is simple to say that the major cost of any retail items is the advertising that the manufacturer and the supplier undertake. The money the manufacturer or supplier spends on advertising always goes into the cost of the product and is paid by the consumer. I do not think we can say legislatively that there will be no more advertising. I do not believe this would be fair.
I do not think this sort of approach would be a proper one in our society, and it is not realistic. I say this because there are several factors involved in the cost of an item. One of the major factors is volume. Advertising makes a product known, particularly a new product. Through advertising, the product sells. If it sells in volume, it can be sold to the consumer at a lower price. It is therefore difficult to say whether advertising is suitable or excessive.
I think we all know that when a new product comes on the market, the manufacturer expects to lose money at the start of his operation. He expects to lose money because at the start of the operation he has to undertake more advertising and he also has a very small volume. As volume builds up and advertising comes down, the price becomes more realistic.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
There is one type of advertising to which we in Canada are exposed, that I consider to be completely unfair. I find it irritating, to say the least-although I am not a great follower of contests-to pick up a magazine that is sold in Canada and that advertises a product sold in Canada, and read an advertisement of a contest to give away a new car or a television set or offering a trip to a distant point with a companion of your choice, and then read in the bottom line of this advertisement that the prize is not available to residents other than those of our great neighbour to the south, the United States. I suggest that if we are to have such advertisements of products sold in Canada and if
27053-209i
Corporate and Consumer Affairs there are to be contests-contests are good things because many people enjoy them and there are even some who win-then I think the winners should be allowed to be Canadians.
There are also problems in advertising at the retail store level. How do we establish what is advertising and what is not? We know that when a retail store has a sale, it offers door openers and loss leaders. Seasonal goods are sold at reduced prices, at or below cost. Door openers are often well below cost so as to attract the crowd early in the morning, and in each department of the store a loss leader is often sold at or below cost. The other items in the department are marked up to cover the loss on the items that are sold at or below the cost price. I think it is unrealistic to try to legislate prices all across Canada, so that each item would cost the same in every part of the country. This is not the way in which our retail operation works and I do not think it should be. It would not be as interesting to go to a store if this were so.
Another matter which should be considered by the department is safety. We have covered the matter of packaging, labelling and sizes. These are difficult matters. It is difficult to establish a fair price and to legislate it. I do not think it is desirable to legislate the price of every item sold. The staff necessary to do research in this field and to follow the costs of manufacturing and the other costs involved would entail an expense outweighing the profit from the sale of the product.
I think the objectives of the department are entirely realistic in that it provides a forum for the consumer who feels that something is out of line. If the consumer feels that perhaps he is being cheated by some manufacturer, he will have someone to come to who can investigate his complaint and approach the person responsible, forcing him to reduce the price either by giving him the velvet glove treatment or by threatening adverse publicity or even, if necessary, by taking legislative action. I suggest that firm action should be the last resort.
Another problem with which the department should concern itself is that of the isolated consumer. Consumers in the more isolated parts of Canada have to pay a greater price for a product than the price for which it sells in the large centres. The fact is that the volume of sales is greater in the big city stores. The costs of transportation and freight force the price of the products up in the isolated areas. However, there is another
3300	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs question which has not been considered and which has to do with advertising. Many of the isolated consumers are out of reach of television and radio advertising. Yet the cost of advertising on radio and television as well as in the newspapers is included in the cost of the product at the manufacturing level. This part of the price is not taken off when the goods are sold in the isolated areas. I hope the new department will take into account the excess price that is being paid in these areas and will consider whether or not it is realistic. The department will also have to consider whether or not the cost of transportation is realistic. Of course this also applies to the price of eggs in Labrador, where national advertising does not reach the people.
I hope the department will also take a look at some of the adverse advertising, such as the tremendous advertising campaign which was put on to prevent consumers from buying a certain product. The department has a duty to stop such advertising, especially when it is erroneous and untrue. I am referring to a campaign which was launched recently with regard to the purchase of sealskins. The people behind the campaign are unknown to me. Perhaps it would be wrong for me to suggest that people wishing to sell another product provided the funds for this campaign. However, I do think that such advertising should be controlled by the department, as it is directed at the consumer and results in a choice of other products by the consumer.
A question which the department may find difficult to answer is the reason for the rising prices. I think the department is realistic in trying to provide a forum for the consideration of complaints of consumers. In many cases high prices are the result of inefficient management at the retail level, due to waste or loss of time. I do not think the department will be able to evaluate every single operation and say to every single inefficient manufacturer "You are inefficient and you should go out of business". Efficiency cannot be legislated into every retail operation. Such an operation could be brought to the attention of the department, which will be able to study the matter and discuss it with the manufacturer or the retailer and bring to his attention the fact that he should lower his prices, thus enabling him to increase his efficiency.
This bill will have far reaching results in Canada. The provincial and federal authorities will be able to work together with the consumer, and thus I believe this is one of the

DEBATES	October 19, 1987
most significant pieces of legislation to come before the house. It will provide information and protection to the consumer. I believe that under the leadership of this minister the departmnet will be able to use both the velvet glove and the steel fist.

[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join the preceding speakers to congratulate the future incumbent of the new department for having succeeded in convincing the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of the necessity of such a department, not only because of the high cost of living but also because of the threat of inflation which is ever present and partly due to extravagant expenditures by various departments of the present government.
If it is true that the cost of living has increased, it surely cannot be denied that this increase has been unreasonable and disorderly since the cost of living index which stood at 133 in 1963 has reached 150.7 last September. This proves the necessity of establishing such a department and we wish the best of luck to the minister in his task, because he has been given a most important job.
Mr. Speaker, consideration of Bill C-161 is an opportunity for the opposition to fulfil its role. It should be recalled that the main duty of the opposition is to make sure that public funds are wisely expended in the best interests of the taxpayer, and I believe that my colleague from the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), in speaking as he did, has simply used his rights and privileges for the benefit of his electors. It is unfortunate that the detailed study of my colleague for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) seemed to irritate the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer).
I do not see why the hon. member for Dollard took that opportunity to make insinuations or even to credit him with statements he did not make. He suggested that the hon. member for Yukon, reflecting the policy of the Conservative party, wanted to apply wartime controls, and he went so far as to accuse the Conservative party of having applied such controls.
I should have liked, however, to hear the hon. member for Dollard admit that the Liberals applied such controls during the war, as well as the rationing system requiring the use of tokens and coupons by consumers. We know how much trouble those coupons for
October 19, 1967

buying meat, sugar and even preserves caused the housekeeper in particular and the citizens in general.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Are you going to blame the war on the Liberals?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: No, but il the hon. Minister ot Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) wants to take part in the debate, he should do so as I do.
The hon. member for Dollard asked what the Conservative party wanted? Very simple. The Conservative party wants as perfect an act as possible to ensure the Canadian consumer maximum protection. That is what we want. By criticizing the present bill, by pointing out its weaknesses, we are merely performing our duty. And as my hon. friend for Yukon has made a special study of this bill, it is not surprising that he should point out its weaknesses more specifically. Our comments are only intended to improve this legislation.
The hon. member for Dollard said that the policy of the Conservative party was one of deception.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this measure is one of the best smoke screens we have ever seen. We do not see how this measure will allow the minister to guarantee, not that prices will decrease, but that they will remain steady instead of rising as they have done until now. I listened carefully to the two speeches made by the minister, but I do not understand how he will go about assuring the Canadian people, the taxpayers, that they will enjoy the protection which they expect. I have also read attentively the bill introduced in the house and there again, I failed to see what means the minister would take in order to give adequate protection to the housewife and the family bread-winner.
In order to elicit the information we so badly need, may I ask the minister a few questions he will kindly answer when the opportunity arises?
In order to give Canadian consumers adequate protection, will the minister ask the manufacturers to reduce their profit margin when they are already contending that it does not allow them to cut down the selling prices of their goods? Will he ask the retailer to bring his prices down when we are quite aware that the retailers also find it hard to make both ends meet?
A quick look at the reports we receive will show that many businessmen go bankrupt
Corporate and Consumer Affairs because they are unable to make ends meet, to meet their obligations.
It seems therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the minister will not be able to do anything in this respect. Perhaps he will urge the farmer to accept prices lower than those he is now getting? We all know that the farmer is complaining about his constantly rising costs, at a time when the price he is getting for his products is going down.
Here again, the minister will not find any relief for the consumer. And it is the same in our various everyday services.
Then, on what does the minister base his assurance that consumer prices will be maintained at their present level? It seems to me it is not too much to ask the minister for this information.
Surely, the minister would not want to convince the labour force to accept a wage freeze or even lower wages, so that he may reach his goals.
Now, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, in what fields the minister will endeavour to meet the needs of Canadian consumers, namely, protection against ever-continuing price increases, against inflation which is felt day in and day out.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, for the information of the member for Dollard, that all the Conservatives want is what the consumers want. And what the consumers want is the assurance that their budget will not always be burdened by a continuous increase in prices.
It seems reasonable to require that for the people, and it is not an impossible task for the minister. We should like to know what steps he intends to take in this connection.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make further remarks, but to give others a chance to express their views, I shall resume my seat immediately.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. T. Lefebvre (Poniiac-Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to express my views on Bill C-161 to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs.
Once more I am convinced that the present government is showing a growing concern for the citizens of our country. It is a fact which I feel I must stress and call to the attention of all Canadians.
I am pleased also to join with my colleagues to point out that the minister who will head that new department is a young
3302	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs man, a family man, whose efficiency and devotion to duty have already earned him an excellent reputation.
Mr. Speaker, the new department is the immediate result of the study undertaken by the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on consumer credit.
I had the privilege to sit on that committee for several months not only in Ottawa but all across Canada as a member of the sub-committee. I am convinced that every member of that joint committee has been surprised to hear the things he heard. An opportunity was afforded us to question the representatives of several firms in the food industry, manufacturers, distributors, retailers and producers, as well as representatives of various groups of consumers.
I wish to call the attention of the house on the following recommendations of the committee, and I quote:
1.	It is recommended further that such a joint committee be established for the life of a parliament in order to provide continuity to its work and that it should act on problems referred to it by Parliament.
2.	That a joint committee be established to review consumer affairs and the state of the Canadian economy.
3.	That increasing attention be devoted to consumer education both through the educational system and by the wider distribution of information useful to consumers through government channels.
4.	(a) That a department of consumer affairs headed by a minister be established.
(b) That immediate steps be taken to promote standardization and simplification of grades, nomenclature and packaging for commonly purchased consumer items.
5.	That cents-oif labels, in view of their tendency to cause confusion and to distort price relationships, should be prohibited.
6.	That the joint committee on consumer credit (prices) continue with its investigation of concentration in the food industry.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the committees of the house are extremely important, and the members of the joint committee can be highly satisfied with themselves for a major contribution to the legislation which will affect every Canadian all across the country. The co-chairmen did a splendid job and I want to congratulate them in particular.
I will be recalled that last year there were some demonstrations and strikes against price increases in several centres of the country. The headlines of all our newspapers attached considerable importance to all those events as well as to the committee dealing with the matter who had begun to sit in Ottawa. The demonstrations have ended for the moment, but they have certainly helped
[Mr. Lefebvre.j
DEBATES	October 19, 1967
to focus the attention of all those who are responsible of that serious problem.
Not very long ago, most Canadian families purchased their food from the local grocer.
In most cases, the merchant managed the family business with very little outside help. However, since 1945, that business like most of the others, has been transformed. There are few small cities and major towns in Canada that do not have at least one supermarket and these supermarkets practically have the monopoly of retailing.
Five big companies now control 70 per cent of the business; they operate gigantic stores equipped with air conditioning, soft music, restaurants, toys for the little ones and all the comfort the modern housekeeper expects.
The vice president of the Loblaw chain stores, Mr. R. G. Meech, pointed this out and I quote:
Have you ever considered how sad it would be for a housekeeper to go to a store and to see nothing but price tags and goods displays? Life would lose some of its charms.
They-and I speak of women, because the better part of the family budget is spent by the housewife-are used to the luxury and the choice goods they can get at the supermarket.
Here is the question we should ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker: has the vanishing small corner store allowed prices to go down or, for lack of competition, have the prices gone up?
This is where I feel the new department will certainly have an important task to perform.

During the committee meetings, Mr. Speaker, many interesting witnesses appeared. One was Mr. E. S. Cooper, president of Western Grocers Limited. At the meeting held on October 25, 1966, at which Mr. Cooper appeared, I had the opportunity of asking him several questions. I should like to mention a few of them here, as they appear in the eleventh report of the committee at page 730:
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Thomas Lefebvre: Are you for or against these deals advertised in stores by labels on goods-10 cents, 20 cents, 30 cents off?


Mr. Cooper:: That is the "cents off" problem. No, we do not like it.


Thomas Lefebvre: Nobody seems to like it, but we have asked this question, myself and others here, of everybody who has appeared here. Nobody likes it, but we have all kinds of them. When are we going to get rid of them?


Albert Glen Cooper: Well, everybody hates it, except the housewife.
October 19, 1967	COMMONS


Thomas Lefebvre: Not from the comments we get.


Albert Glen Cooper: Well, it is true.


Thomas Lefebvre: Nobody seems to know what the original price is of all these ideas.


Albert Glen Cooper: I know everybody gets annoyed, but then everybody is for it.


Thomas Lefebvre: Why do you not do something about it if you do not like it?


Albert Glen Cooper: We crab. We do not like it because our stock-keeping and inventory problem alone is compounded greatly. It is an insidious thing. But nobody seems to know the answer.
Co-Chairman Senator Croll: Would you like us to help you?


Albert Glen Cooper: Yes, sir-
Co-Chairman Senator Croll: You have made a deal-


Thomas Lefebvre: Do you think if this was removed it would result in an overall reduction in the next cost of these goods?


Albert Glen Cooper: Well, I think there would have to be promotions in other forms, but there might be some saving over-all. That is hard to answer You would almost have to try it out to see, but I would think that where there are large allowances, such as those on instant coffee where there is a 15 cent off deal, if that were discontinued there could be a lower regular level for those instant coffees.


Thomas Lefebvre: What seems to confuse the public is that they do not know any more whether it is 15 cents off the price today or the price it was two years ago, or whether the price has changed ten times since the first 15 cents off was offered.


Albert Glen Cooper: We are all dizzy with it.
If we are dizzy with it, Mr. Speaker, maybe it is time we stopped the merry-go-round.
These same questions were repeated not only by myself but by other members of the committee to various witnesses representing retailers, wholesalers, distributors and consumer groups. This is one field this new department can dig into, because it was apparent from answers received that while the majority of witnesses condemned this practice, it was a prevalent one.
There is another field in which much interest was generated, and that was in trading stamps. Many questions were asked about these stamps and I believe that subsequently one major food retailer in Canada has stopped using them. Some witnesses who were before the committee representing consumer groups claimed that the majority of consumers were against stamps but took them because if they did not, they were losing money, as they were paying for them anyway.
This is stated by Mrs. Susan Hammond, national director of the Canadian Consumers Protest Association, in answer to one of my questions. The answer of Mrs. Hammond can
DEBATES	3303
Corporate and Consumer Affairs be found at page 2222 of the 28th report for January 17, 1967 which, in part, reads as follows:


Mrs. Hammond:: It was found that stamps are issued at a cost of two cents, isn't that right?- So we have paid for the stamps even before we get them. Knowing that the stamps have already cost me two cents, am I to turn around and say, "I don't want them" and give them hack, so that in effect they would be making four cents off me at each store? Of course, if I don't personally accept them I can give them to the person behind me. But if you go Into a store with a book of stamps and ask for money instead of merchandise, you will have an awful battle on your hands. We feel that these stamp plans should be abolished, and the C.A.C. is going to the provincial government today to ask for this. This is where we are working in conjunction with the C.A.C. But we don't merely want the stamps abolished; we want the two cent saving to the consumer.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, there are provincial jurisdictions involved in the consumer field and the new department of the federal government must hold itself within its own jurisdiction.
I was happy to hear the minister state on Wednesday afternoon that he was planning trips to all the provincial capitals for consultation with the provincial governments. I am sure if all levels of government co-operate the Canadian consumer will reap concrete benefits from the creation of this new department.
As a result the Canadian citizens will benefit in having, as enumerated by the minister, more protection, maximum standards, full information, strong representation, involvement in the debate, and able maximum use of the department.
Personally, I am convinced that the Canadian citizen does not want this new department to become a "big brother watching over you" department. What we want is a continuation of the free enterprise system in Canada, with the right to a legitimate profit, and the consumer knowing that he is receiving the best goods possible at a reasonable price. I predict this department more than any other will identify itself with the average Canadian citizen.
This is where the advisory council will be of the utmost importance. Let us make certain that there is representation on this council of all elements of our society-from big business to small business and the consuming public.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in the past I have harboured the highest admiration and respect for the minister who introduced this bill. I must say,
3304	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion however, that after listening to him during the resolution stage and on second reading my opinion has been revised.


Mr. Rapp:: Ten o'clock.


Harold Edward Winch: Since my comments may take a few minutes, and since I do not wish to be interrupted, may I call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. McCleave:: May I ask the government house leader what tomorrow's business will be?


Mr. MacEachen:: Tomorrow we shall continue with this bill, in the hope of giving it second reading and studying it in committee. After that we shall take third reading of the manpower advisory council bill; then the Industrial Development Bank bill and the Canadian National financing bill. On Monday we shall call a supply motion which will probably last until Tuesday. For the remainder of next week we shall deal with estimates in the following order: on Wednesday, probably, we shall begin with Forestry, then Manpower, Treasury Board and Veterans Affairs.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
AIR CANADA-WINNIPEG-REPORTED INTENTION TO PHASE OUT OVERHAUL BASE [DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, several times since Thursday, October 5, various members from Manitoba have raised in the house the question of Air Canada's announced intention to phase out the Winnipeg overhaul base. The phase out as announced would start in 1969 and conclude in 1970. On one of these occasions I posted it for an adjournment debate. I know that in speaking about this question tonight I am speaking for all members from Manitoba, for my colleagues from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and Springfield (Mr. Schreyer), and for my neighbours from Winnipeg South (Mr. Sherman) and Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) and, I hope, for all the other members from Manitoba-I say this trusting that the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Teil-let) is also with us on this important issue.

DEBATES	October 19, 1967
Perhaps the easiest way in which to present to the house the feelings of the people of Manitoba about this intention to close the base even earlier than was indicated would be, if there were time, to read an editorial which appeared on October 6 in the Winnipeg Free Press, a paper not noted as being opposed to the present government. There is not enough time to read it all but I should like to put two or three paragraphs on record.
When he was in Winnipeg in January 1963, Mr. George Mcllraith, then minister of transport in the Pearson government, said that the government had given a "firm guarantee" that Air Canada's overhaul base would continue to function for the next ten years. Mr. Mcllraith became quite angry at the suggestion that the base would not be kept in operation until 1973. "It's a firm fact that the base will be kept open for the next decade," he said.
His statement came two months after Prime Minister Pearson told the House of Commons that the base and its workers would remain in Manitoba until at least 1973, and then some other use might be found for it. "For at least ten years, the Winnipeg facilities will continue to be used," he promised.
I shall not take time to read the rest of the editorial. I shall not take time to recount all the statements and promises that have been made and all the rest of the things that have happened since 1948. But I do wish to express tonight the hope that the government of Canada will itself face up to this issue. Looking over the record of earlier questions I have asked about this matter I find that on February 20, 1967,1 spoke on it in an adjournment debate and pleaded with the minister who was to answer me that night, now the Registrar General (Mr. Turner), not just to send a copy of Hansard to Air Canada but to deal with this issue as a matter of government responsibility. When the hon. gentleman rose to respond to my plea, he said: "That is exactly what I am going to say tonight." The rest of his answer was to the effect that my representations would be drawn to the attention of Air Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want that tonight. None of us from Manitoba will be satisfied with that. We have had enough of it. We want the government to face up to this issue in terms of its responsibilities to the country as a whole. One of the things that has been said about the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), apart from all the byplay about his being a candidate for the leadership of his party and so on, is that he wanted to get into the Department of Transport because he was interested in urban problems;
October 19, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	3305
he thinks the problems of our urban communities will be particularly important in the next decade or two. We all agree. If the minister is interested in urban problems, he must be interested in those of other urban communities beside the one from which he comes-Toronto. He is bound to be interested in the affairs of Sydney, Winnipeg and the other urban areas of this country. And if he is interested in urban communities he cannot, in the first few months of his being at the head of the Department of Transport, countenance a move such as this which cannot fail to hurt the economy of Winnipeg and do a great deal of damage to relations generally, even to national unity.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel it is our responsibility to suggest an alternative, an answer to the problem if Air Canada cannot see its way clear to keep the overhaul base at Winnipeg. We think this should be done. We think this can be done economically at Winnipeg. We think that if Air Canada is enlarging its facilities at Dorval to take care of its new aircraft, this means it needs more space and more overhaul equipment. Why cannot this be done at Winnipeg? We believe it can.
If that is not the answer then the government, which in 1963 said "There will be no change for ten years, and if there is to be a change we will find an alternative answer to the problem," has got to deal with it. The problem has blown up in our face by this announcement that the base, instead of being phased out in 1973, is going to be phased out starting in 1969, and concluding in 1970. That is only a matter of 15 or 18 months away.
Unless the government does something to cope with the problem it is going to create a serious economic situation for Winnipeg, for Manitoba, and a very serious situation for the employees of Air Canada and their families. There is also the whole question of losing valuable technical skills we now have at Winnipeg, and this will not be good.
I see, sir, you are getting to the edge of your chair and so my seven minutes must be up, but I want to say tonight to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport who, by the smile on his face I take it is going to answer this question, that I do not want the answer that the now Registrar General (Mr. Turner) gave last February, namely that our representations will be sent to Air Canada. We want the government to deal with this important problem because it is important not only to the workers of Air Canada, to the people of Winnipeg and to the people of Manitoba, but it is also important
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to Canada as a whole that problems like this be faced and solved in a rational way.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for bringing this matter to the attention of the house this evening once more, and of course to thank him also for the generous reference he has made about the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer). I am sure the hon. member will be prepared to give the new Minister of Transport some time to get into his stride so that he will be able to face up to this urban problem as he intends to face up to other urban problems. As is indicated by the hon. member, the minister still has at least until 1969 before the phase-out begins.
The minister regrets not being able to be here tonight. He is on important business elsewhere but will be back early next week, and I am told he has already made plans to meet with the premier of Manitoba on or about Thursday of next week to discuss with and hear representations by the premier, and his proposals for a solution.
I think it should be stated at this time, Mr. Speaker, that Air Canada did not consult with the Minister of Transport on its proposal to step up the phase-out of the repair plant in Winnipeg. Therefore the hon. member will have to bear with us for a day or two until discussions can be initiated both with the premier of Manitoba, and of course with Air Canada.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Would the parliamentary secretary permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. No supplementary questions are allowed during the late show.
NORTHERN AFFAIRS-POND INLET, N.W.T._______



ORDER STOPPING BROADCASTS BY PRIVATE RADIO STATION

Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attempted to inquire of the Minister of Transport his reasons, or the reasons of his department, for ordering the private radio station at Pond Inlet in the Northwest Territories to stop broadcasting.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
For the benefit of the parliamentary secretary and other members of the house, by way of background I might say that Pond Inlet is a small Arctic community on north Baffin
October 19, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion island. There are approximately 320 people, primarily Eskimos, who trade into this community. A radio station had been established there as a replacement for the inadequate short wave services of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's northern service. I say this, not in criticism of the C.B.C. but because the C.B.C. has been unable to establish a proper Arctic system to relay short wave in the north. The present system they have established is intended primarily to focus on South America. As I understand it, the transmitter at Sackville, which is used for the northern service, is the other end of the South American transmission system.
Certain people in this community, by their own initiative, decided they might be able to put together a small radio broadcasting station which would bring messages to people living in camps and the isolated areas. This was not a station which would meet the standards of the B.B.G. or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It was a pirate station, if one might describe it as such, and it was not the only station of that sort in the north. However, it was technically complete. The Department of Transport, however, decided that this station should not be on the air. Possibly there was some justification for this decision, because there had been some complaints from people in certain parts of Baffin island in this respect.
The important thing at this stage is that we are dealing with the matter of communications in northern Canada. We have heard the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) in discussing her new bill, describe how it is so important to bring radio and television communication to all the people of Canada. We have heard many pious comments as to how we should extend services to the north and other isolated areas of Canada. I am not referring only to the Northwest Territories or the Yukon Territory; I am thinking of Labrador, northern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan and northern British Columbia.
When this station went on the air it was tolerated; when it became a nuisance it was told to get off the air. Despite the fact that probably the parliamentary secretary will tell me that a committee is studying this particular problem, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Department of Transport and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have been unable to come up with any idea which would enable them to bring adequate radio service to our people in the isolated areas of Canada.

I could tell you quite a bit about the radio station at Pond Inlet. I have here a long telegram from the people in this community describing the problems. It tells how three Eskimos who own and operate the station work eight hours a day without pay. I am not sure whether or not they are inclined to ignore the edict of the Department of Transport. I also have a telegram from the elected councillor for the eastern Arctic on the Northwest Territories Council. It is addressed to me and reads as follows:
I beg your immediate attention to the re-opening of the privately owned Pond Inlet radio station closed last week by Department of Transport due to no licence. This station has been giving a much needed service in providing communication with the outlying areas beyond the reach of C.B.C. broadcasting.
He is being rather generous in that statement, because the C.B.C. broadcast sputter and stagger on occasion.
I refer you to paragraph four of statement to council November 26 dated February 15,	1967.
Most anxious to have this station immediately granted to re-open on a temporary basis until council meets in November when the problem can be discussed and dealt with.
This telegram is signed by Simonie, a member of the Northwest Territories Council.
I could mention other isolated communities such as Baker Lake. The people of the community there decided that as a centennial project they would establish a private radio station. They started this project in 1966, making their application in the same way that people who might be interested in channel 3 in Toronto might make an application.
Of course, it was a volunteer effort and there was no cost involved. Thanks to certain elements of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, even equipment was offered to them. However, suddenly the Department of Transport, having reviewed their application wrote a four-page monologue, dialogue, document or whatever you want to call it, saying that they required further information. The letter from the department stated:
The deficiencies which have been noted in your application are as follows:
Section 1: In the event the applicant for this proposal is the "Baker Lake Resident Association", then the name of the applicant should appear opposite "(b) Incorporated company".
The letter goes on to say that the board will not recommend the issue of a licence unless the applicants therefor are Canadian
October 19, 1967
citizens. However, Mr. Speaker, this is only part of the story. The letter goes to say:
Section 9: We do not appear to have received the required technical brief in quadruplicate. This technical brief should be prepared by a broadcasting engineering consultant-
I am talking about a community of 600 people. All they want is a 20-watt radio broadcasting station so that records can be played, arrivals of aircraft announced, who is on the aircraft, community affairs, and so on. I am appealing to the minister, through his parliamentary secretary, to please consider these isolated areas of Canada. Let us do away with technicalities and red tape, so that our small communities may participate in this field in their own way.
I say to the parliamentary secretary through you, Mr. Speaker, that these people are not asking for funds from the federal or territorial treasuries. They are prepared to do this on their own, provided they can break through this little bit of red tape that seems to exist in relation to the granting of licences for radio stations and other means of communication in the north.
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, I can agree with the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) that there is probably nothing more infuriating to members of parliament and people making applications on the scale mentioned by the hon. member than to have their applications delayed or refused.
I refer now to the Baker Lake application. There is no question that this small community would not be in a position to provide the large amount of money required for a survey to be made by the proper, officially designated technicians. However, there are certain regulations with which we must conform. People flying in the north and others who make use of radio and other means of communication must be protected in some measure from interference which may cause them to become lost. To become lost in this area of the country could be nothing less than a tragedy.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
The first matter raised by the hon. member is one that has engaged the attention of the department for some weeks. I believe that as a result of the various complaints that were sent in to the department from the R.C.M.P., the Hudson's Bay Company and the department of Indian affairs to the effect that their communications systems were being seriously
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion affected, an inquiry was made and the operators of this station were asked to provide certain information with the hope that a licence could be granted if and when the operators were prepared to upgrade measurably the equipment they are using. I believe the equipment was described as being dirty, not necessarily oily and greasy but causing considerable interference for other legitimate communications.
I am sure that the hon. member, who has an abiding concern for all of the problems in the north country, will be happy to learn that some progress is being made in the application-


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



TRANSPORT-PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY-PROVISION FOR RAILS

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, usually in the adjournment debate one is only fortunate enough to have the parliamentary secretary answer his question, but tonight I feel doubly honoured in having both the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcll-raith) and his parliamentary secretary in the house. In a way this adds a feeling of assurance to the great disappointment I had this afternoon when I attempted to put what I thought was a very straightforward question to the minister in order to seek assurance from him that rail service would continue to be provided to and from the province of Prince Edward Island. I raised it in connection with a question raised yesterday afternoon by my colleague, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) with respect to the possible inclusion or not of a railway service on the proposed causeway. Today the minister replied that since a study was still under way on the matter of the causeway he could not answer the question one way or the other. However, I asked him simply to assure the people of the province that we would continue to have rail service, whether it be by ferry or by causeway.
When I finally did get an answer, the minister said the policy of the government was well known in that regard. This is somewhat disturbing to me because I am not at all convinced that the policy is clear, and I am quite sure there is a growing amount of frustration in Prince Edward Island, both over the kind of treatment Prince Edward Islanders feel they have been receiving lately over the whole handling of the causeway

3308	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion project, and particularly over their major means of economically transporting goods and materials, namely the railway. I hope that in the next minute or so I may point out clearly to hon. members and to the minister how critical the railway service is to Prince Edward Island.
I think it is important for us to realize that we are in a unique situation with regard to the railway service. In most cases where railway traffic is used to transport goods the normal procedure is for the railway cars to be loaded, shipped from point A to point B, unloaded and reloaded again and shipped back from point B to point A. Unfortunately in Prince Edward Island we are in the rather strange dilemma of shipping as many empty freight cars off and on the island as we ship loaded ones. In normal years, for instance, we convey off the island some 28,000 railroad cars loaded with various kinds of vegetable produce and a small amount of fish, but actually we ship off the island every year some 55,000 cars, meaning that a good half of those cars are riding empty. In another time of the year we bring to the island bulk fuels, fertilizers, construction materials and things of that nature, but unfortunately there is no freight to send back. Therefore, if the possibility of abandoning rail traffic was even remotely contemplated by those who are designing the transportation system of the future, as it will affect Prince Edward Island, this would mean that we would have to carry by truck all our major materials, both the goods that we ship to market and goods we must import. This would mean that we would have to ask a major trucking firm to transport empty vehicles half the time. I know of no trucking firm in this country or any other that could do that and offer an economic service to the user.
I have been told by people who are in the business of analysing these matters that even were we to provide 65 per cent back freight, our shipping costs would immediately double and, in many cases, triple. Those who are familiar with the difficulties we encounter in the maritimes know that we have great problems associated with transportation rates that are levied against our goods. Even though we have received special consideration in the past, some of which unfortunately has disappeared in the last few months, we have just barely maintained a competitive position. One shudders to think, Mr. Speaker, what would occur in Prince Edward Island and to its economy if we were suddenly to be faced

DEBATES	October 19, 19G7
with double or triple transportation costs on our major products.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer also to what I regard as a major moral and economic commitment to the province as laid out in the terms of confederation, a contract or a covenant between the province of Prince Edward Island and the government of Canada. There was a covenant to provide continuous communication with the mainland; and by "communication" I do not mean a phone call, a telegram or a letter. I mean the transporting of individuals and goods to and from that province.
If there is to be even the slightest cessation or the slightest retardation of our service to Prince Edward Island, in my opinion, it will be a major default, in the federal government's responsibility to our tiniest province. Frankly, I have been disturbed by the attitude which has seemed to exist on the part of Canadian National Railways in terms of the way in which they have looked after their roadbed on the island over the past few years, and the number of substations that have been phased out. I realize that in dealing with these specific issues I should turn my attention to another minister. However, I am hoping to hear from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) a very strong assurance regarding future designs, either by ferry service or causeway, which will assure the island of railway service as long as it is economically and socially necessary.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I want first to thank the hon. member for his reference to my presence here tonight, but more particularly for his reference to the presence of my parliamentary secretary, because I think very highly of that gentleman.
I must admit frankly that I did not properly understand his question this afternoon. I did not hear it clearly; I now have the Hansard blue with me and it is quite evident from that that I did not.
Perhaps because I am more limited than he in the time allocated to me to answer his question tonight, I can best serve the purpose that he has in mind by rereading a paragraph from my statement on May 31. The hon. member will recall that at that time we had decided not to award that part of the contract on which bids had been called for the crossing; and that subsequently we had to select a co-ordinator to re-examine the design of the crossing. However, I should like
October 19, 1967

to reread that part of my statement relating to the assurance that was given to the people of Prince Edward Island in connection with the railway. As reported at page 779 of Hansard for May 311 said:
Before taking the decision not to accept the tenders submitted, the Minister of Transport and I met with Premier Campbell of Prince Edward Island and explained to him the considerations involved in this decision. At his request the government has agreed, in its reassessment of design, to examine whether a simplified method of including rails on the crossing would be practicable.
Then this is the important part, Mr. Speaker.
It was made clear to the premier that whether or not a decision was finally made to provide rails on the crossing, the government of Canada recognizes that there is an obligation to provide efficient rail service to Prince Edward Island so long as there is any effective demand for such service, and the government has every intention of carrying out that obligation, regardless of the method by which rail cars are transported from the island to the mainland.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In view of speculation in the press I should add that in the reassessment of the design that is being made we are, as I indicated, looking at all the variations regarding completion of the crossing. One of these is the possibility of having to build it without rails owing to the cost factor. However, I want to make it very clear that the state of this study and reassessment is such that I can give no information one way or the other on the study at the moment.
I should also mention to the hon. member that before the summer recess I did give an assurance that when enough information was available to make worth while communicating it to hon. members I was quite agreeable to having the committee that deals with public works estimates reconvened so as to hear what was the state of the report on this reassessment.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.33 p.m.

Friday. October 20, 1967