1968-03-19

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hugh Faulkner (Peterborough) presented the second report of the standing committee on labour and employment, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pilon:
That the name of Mr. Stafford be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts;
That the name of Mr. Ryan be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the standing committee on health and welfare;
That the name of Mr. Groos be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the standing committee on veterans affairs;
That the name of Mr. Noel be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the joint committee on printing;
That the name of Mr. Caron be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the joint committee on the parliamentary restaurant;
That the name of Mr. Patterson be substituted for the name of Mr. Leboe on the standing committee on labour and employment; and
That the name of Mr. Addison be substituted for the name of Mr. Goyer on the standing committee on transport and communications.
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the motion introduced by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pilon), whip of the Liberal party.
First of all, it is obvious that it is designed to withdraw his committee membership from the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), who was a member of several committees.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that independent members have always been subjected to that sort of discrimination, because
they never could be accepted on or appointed to any committee.
I admit the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) sits on several committees, but for a very simple reason: he is a disguised Liberal.
On the other hand, the former member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) was not a member of any committee.
I have not been a member of any committee since I have been sitting as an independent.
The member for York-Humber is to suffer the same fate; he is to be kept from sitting on committees. Why? Because he voted against taxes. Because he voted against the Liberal party, he is thrown out and forced to sit as an independent. He is denied the privilege of sitting on committees because he was not good, obedient. Because he did not act like a sheep, his lollipop is to be taken away from him. He is to be denied the right to sit on committees, and denied trips, etc.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) spoke words in 1963 which can characterize the present situation. Indeed, in an article published in the April 1963 issue of "Cite tibre" he said, and I quote:
-I wonder about the antidemocratic reflexes of the aboulic Liberal flock.
That is what he said about the Liberal party: "The aboulic Liberal herd" because, at that time, the Liberals were just like a flock, everyone voted like the leader, no one ever strayed from the beaten path and the present Minister of Justice was opposed to that.
Now, here is a member, within the Liberal party, who assumes his responsibilities, who uses his freedom, who acts like a member of parliament rather than a little Liberal sheep, a member of the "aboulic Liberal flock" and who votes according to his conscience. He is immediately thrown out. That justifies the fears expressed by the Minister of Justice when he said:
-I wonder about the antidemocratic reflexes of the aboulic Liberal flock.
March 19, 1968
7784	COMMONS
Personnel Changes in Standing Committees
It is, therefore, antidemocratic to tell all the Liberals: Vote like your leader, otherwise you get thrown out. That is the democracy of the Liberal party! After throwing them out, an attempt is made to deprive them of their candy, of their lollipops, and they are to be kept from sitting as members of committees.
The hon. Minister of Justice said more than that, Mr. Speaker. In the same article, still speaking about the democracy of the Liberal party, he said:
For the sake of realism and efficiency I had to, God forgive me, occasionally betray some of the revolts of my youth, but I have yet to trample down democracy.
If democracy is not being trampled under foot at the present time, what is happening then?
I hope that the Minister of Justice will protest against the attacks on democracy at the present time, since democracy is now under attack because the hon. member for York-Humber has been ousted from the Liberal party for his refusal to vote according to party line. Efforts are made to turn the Liberals into sheep and get them all to vote with their leader; if they refuse, they are thrown out, they are punished.
The Minister of Justice also said in the same article, and I quote:
The lead sheep having shown the way, the others followed with the elegance of cattle rushing to the feeding-trough.
That is what the Minister of Justice thought of the Liberal party in 1963. He saw it as a flock of sheep, a herd of cattle.
-with the elegance of cattle rushing to the feeding-trough.
Today, the Liberal party is on the point of doing the same thing again. It introduces a motion to increase taxes and forces all its members to vote for it, otherwise it turns them out. The Minister of Justice qualified the antidemocratic actions of the Liberal party like the one they are taking today as follows:
-even if Mr. Pearson was right in changing his mind personally, I should also denounce the autocratic Liberal structures and the extraordinary cowardice of its members.
The Minister of Justice, because he regarded the Liberal party as a flock of sheep, said:
I should also denounce the autocratic Liberal structures and the extraordinary cowardice of its members.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore say this to the members of the Liberal party: That is what


the Minister of Justice thinks of you and he will think it even more later, since you are behaving in an undemocratic way by saying: We must vote like the leader, we must vote together with the party, or else we will be thrown out, no more lollipops! The Minister of Justice is calling you a flock of sheep.
I hear one of them bleating: the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member please direct his remarks to the Chair?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my remarks to the Chair, but what I am doing today is so serious that I cannot help quoting certain statements of the Minister of Justice in order to denounce afterwards the antidemocratic reflexes of the "aboulic Liberal flock".
This is what the Minister of Justice said in a situation like that-


Mr. Schreyer:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Certainly.


Edward Richard Schreyer: What is the title of the article which he is quoting?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. It is an article published by the Minister of Justice in the magazine Cite libre of April 1963 under the title: "Pearson or the abdication of the mind."
In that article, the Minister of Justice said, referring to the Liberals:
Tous des caves, ma foi.
In English, we would say: All Liberals are lousy, by God.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Trudeau:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Certainly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member is ready to take as authority what I wrote about the Liberals at that time, is he also ready to admit what I said about the independentists and Social Crediters?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to agree to all that the Minister of Justice was saying then, but since that time he has changed his mind and I can tell you why. In a quotation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that the motion now before the
March 19, 1988	COMMONS
house does not deal with the Minister of Justice, with what he has said before nor what he is saying today. The hon. member should try to confine himself to the motion now before the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am confining myself to the motion. I am only quoting authorities on the antidemocratic complexes of the "aboulic Liberal flock", to use the words of the Minister of Justice, for I think this is antidemocratic.
The hon. member for York-Humber is not asked for his permission before he is taken off the committees. It is done without his permission, by force of numbers, by force of the "aboulic Liberal flock" which proceeds "with the elegance of cattle rushing to the feeding-trough" as the Minister of Justice said. There is precisely one sentence of the Minister of Justice which clearly condemns those antidemocratic procedures, and I quote:
I notice in the old Liberal guard, the same cynical stupidity-
The old guard consists of those who surround him today, the hon. member for Mer-cier, (Mr. Boulanger), the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Loiselle)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should confine his remarks to the motion which is before the house for consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: Very well, I shall not mention any name, and I will carry on with my quotation:
I notice in the Liberal old guard the same cynical stupidity; in the youth associations, I find tire same selfish docility, and in between-
This, Mr. Speaker, is the answer to the question which the Minister of Justice asked me.
-and in between, men of my generation who are trembling with anticipation because they had a glimpse of the painted face of power.
It is the painted face of power and honours which have made the Minister of Justice change his mind since 1963.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would the hon. member for Lapointe allow me another question?


Gilles Grégoire: Certainly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Has the hon. member joined the independentist party when he thought it might come into power?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice thinks that we shall never come into power, it is all to my credit, because I
DEBATES	7785
Personnel Changes in Standing Committees did not join that party to assume power, but rather to promote ideas.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: Whereas in the same article, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Habel:: Long five freedom.


Gilles Grégoire: Another sheep is bleating, Mr. Speaker. In the same article, the Minister of Justice said, and I quote:
But I have yet to trample down democracy. That is why, on April 8, I intend to vote for the New Democratic party.
Two years later, he was a Liberal party candidate. He is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I remind the hon. member once again that he must confine himself to the motion before the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to discuss, and that is not out of order, the antidemocratic action we are taking now. It seems that in the Liberal party one must behave as if one belonged to a flock of little red lambs, if not, out! No more lollipops! No more candy!


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member for Lapointe?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, certainly.


Albert Béchard: Does the hon. member for Lapointe find that the Ralliement Creditiste took antidemocratic action when it threw him out a few years ago?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows not whereof he speaks for, and I refer him to the statement of my former colleagues, they did not throw me out, I left on my own, and we remained good friends. Perhaps we had differences of opinion, but they did not throw me out, and the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) can tell you so. I was not thrown out by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) nor by anyone else, I left of my own free will, and hon. members opposite know it.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Yes, yes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, when efforts are made to change a political party into a
March 19, 1968

Personnel Changes in Standing Committees flock of sheep by telling its members: You will all think the same way; if you refuse, you will no longer be allowed to sit on committees, you will be deprived of your lollipop, what happens then is exactly what the Minister of Justice pointed out in his article, and I quote:
But what we did not realize clearly enough is the degree of intellectual decay where that is finally leading us. But now Mr. Pearson and the Liberal party are opening our eyes suddenly.
That was the Minister of Justice talking about the Liberal party, two years before becoming a member of that party of "decay", that party which he called antidemocratic.
They want nobody to depart from the party line, or else, out. The Minister of Justice was condemning this partisanship which prevents an individual from thinking for himself.
Because the hon. member for York-Humber voted against taxes, he is thrown out. They do not want him to have his own ideas, and now, they want to keep him from sitting on committees.
Here is how the Minister of Justice condemned this situation, and I quote:
Thus, the political philosophy ot the Liberal party is very simple-
I would like Liberals to listen carefully to what the Minister of Justice thinks of the political philosophy of the Liberal party!
Say anything, think anything; or, better still, do not think at all; but bring us into power for we can provide the best government.
Therefore, if you are a Liberal, think anything you want or, better still, do not think at all. That is what the hon. Minister of Justice says. I will end by saying, of the Liberals, that they are:
All lousy, by God!
"All lousy" that is what the hon. Minister of Justice says of the Liberals, Mr. Speaker. When one of them asserts himself, as did the hon. member for York-Humber, he is thrown out. One would think the Liberal party only likes lousy members, as the hon. Minister of Justice called them. Mr. Speaker, you are an exception. I know that you have been a member of the Liberal party. I make an exception for you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: The others, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Minister of Justice said quite rightly, are "all lousy". If one of them protests, as did the hon. member for York-Humber, it does not work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say this: they are trying to prevent us, the independent members, from sitting on committees. I would rather not have the lollipops and sweets offered by the Liberal party and keep my freedom. I am far from holding the same political views as the hon. member for York-Humber. We disagree about almost everything. We do not have the same political ideology. We do not think the same way, but at least I respect a man who refuses to be one of the sheep in the flock, a man who, even if he does not think the way I do, has his own opinions. We are among those who would rather be free than belong, as the hon. Minister of Justice said, to an "aboulic Liberal flock".
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member for York-Humber that it is better for him to be free than to belong to what the Minister of Justice calls a flock of sheep or a bunch of lousy people.
As for the Liberals, they now know what the Minister of Justice thinks about them and I was not the one who said so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that according to a rule of the standing orders, there can be no repetition and I think that if he reads over his speech to-morrow, he will realize that he has repeated too often the same words and the same arguments.


Gilles Grégoire: Please do believe, Mr. Speaker that the Minister of Justice made that reference several times in his article. He mentioned seven or eight times-more often than myself-that the Liberals were sheep.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, The hon. member seems to have completed his argument; I therefore invite him to bring his speech to a close.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to come to an agreement with you. Instead of continuing my remarks, I shall ask the authorization to publish as an appendix to Hansard the text of the article of the hon. Minister of Justice, and then I shall resume my seat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, the unanimous consent of the house is required.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that the document could only be
March 19, 1968
published that way with the unanimous consent of the house, and I doubt very much that this consent can be given.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
As far as I am concerned, I am willing to give my consent provided the articles are also published in which I spoke of the Conservative party, notably of the former leader of the Conservative party as well-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -as what I said concerning the New Democratic party and the Social Credit party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest we return to a little bit of order.


Mr. Starr:: Did you say anything about
yourself?


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: What a leader you would make.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I was ready to sit down provided the members agreed to publish the article in Hansard, but you said consent was not unanimous in the house.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this is what I wish to say in conclusion. The Liberal party should realize that it is disgraceful to act in this way. It is not because a member, who has been elected democratically, rises and speaks his mind that we should try and punish him, because everybody is entitled to his own opinion. Why tell him: "You will not sit on committees"? We must not try and punish him in this way. It is antidemocratic and the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General is against antidemocratic gestures, against antidemocratic reactions.
Therefore, I object to the motion. I think that it is a shame to act in this way. Such actions have been condemned by the hon. Minister of Justice and now I, myself, condemn them too. I ask that for once, we stop considering the members as mere sheep, as a flock.
Therefore, I say to the Liberals: "Try to have a little backbone." Stop crawling on all fours like curly sheep and try to hold your head back and think for yourself. In other words, and I close my remarks with this
Personnel Changes in Standing Committees sentence: Stop being, as the hon. Minister of Justice said, lousy Liberals.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I may not be in complete agreement with all the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Lapointe, but I am in agreement with some of them. It seems to me that it would have been in the best interests of the Liberal party not to have advanced this motion today after it was opposed in the house last night. There is some talk about a desire to conclude the business of the house; therefore it seems foolish to get into what appears to be a fundamental argument. This motion really asks us to undo something done by the house, not by the Liberal party. The Liberal party, as other parties, nominates those who are to sit on committees. These nominations are presented to the house in the form of motions, and these motions are normally routine. It is odd to see a motion of this type on the order paper.
In this particular case we should look at the attendance record of this member on committees. He has been on a large number of committees, and at the moment is being removed from membership on seven.


Some hon. Members:: Five.


William Arnold Peters: I stand corrected. My arithmetic never was very good. However, five is a sizeable number of committees. I believe this member has taken a very active part in the proceedings of those committees. There are some who disagree with the contentions he has put forward there, but I believe he has been faithful in his attendance.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I believe, Mr. Speaker, the government has been very foolish in bringing forward this motion at this time. The matter will come to a vote, and the members of the house will have to make an issue of it. The hon. member for York-Humber is not one of those who has prevented a quorum from being formed in committees of which he is a member; as far as my personal experience is concerned he has always arrived promptly and, if anything, the complaint has been that he has taken up more than his share of time in those committees. Nevertheless, this is an indication that he has been very interested and active in the committees concerned.
Another problem is this, Mr. Speaker. If after having been appointed a member of a

7788	COMMONS
Personnel Changes in Standing Committees particular committee by his party, for some reason that has nothing to do with the operation of the committee the member has a disagreement with his party colleagues, then I think it is incumbent upon this house to decide whether any change should be made in the personnel of the committee.
This particular motion, Mr. Speaker, is not the usual type that is moved to effect changes in the personnel of standing committees, maintaining the balance on those committees as between government and opposition representatives. In this particular case the house is being asked to endorse what is an internal question, and for that reason I think this motion falls into a different category. It seems to me that unless a member of a committee is guilty of some act that warrants the chairman of that committee asking the house for his removal, changes in committees should not be made in this manner. The issue here is an internal one and should not be dealt with in this way.
Another problem that will have soon to be faced is the representation of independent members on committees. For years there has been a role for independents in this house. Many independents return to the political parties from which they departed. There is usually a fundamental reason behind the move in the first place. For example, I am sure all members recall the recent voluntary exile of one member from one of the parties in this house, owing to extreme personal reasons, reasons which were matters for his own conscience. As long as that member was of the opinion that he should serve on committees, I think the party from whence he came would have agreed to allow him to remain on those committees.
However, Mr. Speaker, there are other members who have become independents who have departed their parties on far less favourable terms and certainly with less good will, and as a result have been sent to Coventry and isolated from their ex-colleagues. I think such a decision on the part of an individual member does not warrant the isolation of that member. As I say, if the members of a particular committee do not see fit to name one of their members and bring the dispute in question before the house for decision, then the matter should not be put before the house in this way, with the house being asked to endorse the disposition of an internal dispute within one political party.

DEBATES	March 19, 1968
I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that in presenting this motion the Liberal party could not have used poorer political judgment if they had tried. I think they have elected the hon. member for York-Humber for some years to come as a result of the action they have taken. I do not think I am revealing any confidences when I say it has been suggested to me on several occasions over the past ten years that I take certain voluntary action. In this regard I am sure I am not alone; other members of the house have also felt strongly about particular matters.
With perhaps three or four days of the session remaining, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very poor judgment on the part of the Liberal party to take this step, at a time when they should be trying to present a unified front to the country. Certainly I hope the members of the house take this matter seriously.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: May I ask whether the hon. member will accept a question?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly.


George James McIlraith: I have been following his argument rather closely. Is he arguing that this house and the members of other parties should choose what particular members of the New Democratic party should represent that party on different committees? That is the logical conclusion to be drawn from his argument. Is that what he intends to argue?


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize if that is the impression I have left. What I said was that it was the right of the individual parties to choose who shall represent them on the various committees. I presume they choose their members on the basis of particular abilities for particular committees. However, I suggest that this principle is not being followed in the presentation of this motion. The hon. member for York-Humber was nominated by his party to five committees. What the party is now doing is disqualifying the hon. member from attending those committees simply because he has been involuntarily deprived of his membership of the Liberal party and now has the status of an independent member.
My point is that the house as a whole agreed with the nomination of the hon. member by the Liberal party. Although I believe each party has the right to make its own nominations, what the Liberal party is now doing is taking disciplinary action against the
March 19. 1968

hon. member and changing a decision previously made. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a decision the Liberal party can make; it is now a matter for the house to decide. One of my colleagues has pointed out to me that it will take five Liberals to take the place of the hon. member; certainly that is the effect of the motion now before us.
The Liberal party, the New Democratic party, the Conservative party and the other parties in the house, as parties, have a very cosy arrangement for appointing members to committees. But, Mr. Speaker, eventually we must face the fact that the independent members, as members of parliament and as representatives of ridings, have a right to play some role in the operations of committees of parliament if those committees are really to be part of the democratic process, allowing what we consider to be the free expression of all opinions.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that like myself all hon. members will take this matter seriously. I have never felt that members of one party should have the right to ask members of other parties to assist them in disciplining a member of their own party. I hope the members of the Liberal party will not see fit to assist in disciplining the members of my party; certainly I am not pleased that they should invite me to participate in disciplining a member of their party. I hope other hon. members will reject this invitation and will preserve the membership of these committees as initially established. If as an independent the hon. member failed to do his job on those committees, then it would be the responsibility of the chairman to cite him and ask the house to take some action. But I do not think the present action should be taken because he has involuntarily changed his political affiliation.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that seldom in the history of this parliament has there been presented a more arrogant motion than the one now before us for consideration. I believe it to be an intrusion into the independence of members of the house and an arrogant denial of democracy itself. Most members realize that they are elected first as members of parliament. Supporters of political parties they are, it is true, but they are elected first as members of parliament. To have a motion of this kind come before the house in an endeavour to stifle the effectiveness of a member of this house who, for one reason or another, does not see eye to
Personnel Changes in Standing Committees eye with the political party with which he is affiliated, or with some minister with whom he is associated, is to my mind a denial of the very fundamentals that underline our Canadian democratic system.
I do not say that I agree with everything or anything the hon. member for York-Humber has said in the House of Commons; but when the whip of the government party brings forward a motion like this and in one swoop tries to take away a member's privilege to sit on house committees, he is striking at the heart of parliament.
I say too, sir, that considering the lip service this government has paid to the effectiveness of committee work, this motion is all the more despicable. Regardless of whether we have agreed in the past two years with the statements the hon. member for York-Humber has made, we know he is one of the best documented members in this shouse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: He has done his homework. Not only that, but he has gone into committees and voiced his opinions and come into this house and voiced his opinions without fear. I recall that in a previous parliament, on one matter I thought important I differed with the official thinking of my party. The Speaker of that day gave me an opportunity to speak even though others said it would be better if I kept quiet. I believe this house must recognize that members have a right to express their independent opinions. Surely an independent member of the House of Commons is entitled to sit on some committees of the house. Surely his electors sent him here for that purpose.
I submit that for a political party, because it has decided to kick out one of its members, to take away the privilege of that member to sit on committees, is absolutely unforgivable arrogance, and I believe the government has made a serious mistake. I hope they will reconsider the whole matter. Perhaps in serving on five committees the hon. member has done more in this regard than most other members, but surely he is entitled to sit on some committees of this house. For these reasons I oppose this motion.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, today we have witnessed another government blunder.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
7790	COMMONS
Personnel Changes in Standing Committees


Michael Starr: The government's action has not helped to expedite the business of the house. Because the government party has removed from its ranks a member of this house and has at the same time taken him off five committees of the house, we have been led into a situation where 45 minutes of the time of this house has been wasted in arguing the motion.
What crime did this member commit, Mr. Speaker? He used his common sense and judgment and voted against the tax increase. For that reason he was thrown out of the party. I just want to bring to the government's attention the fact that on the original bill the hon. member for York North (Mr. Addison) voted against the government on second reading, and he was not thrown out. There must be discrimination in the Liberal party.
We are all grateful to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) who pointed a finger at the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) this afternoon. The minister's mask was torn off to reveal a childish, snarling man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: It is only fair that we should hear this afternoon from the hon. member for York-Humber. I understand he is to speak. I suggest that after he has spoken we move the adjournment of this debate so we can get on with the business of the country.


Mr. R. W. Priiiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to this motion to replace the hon. member for York-Humber on five committees, but this gives me an opportunity to point out one or two aspects of our committee operations.
Two of the five committees the hon. member for York-Humber is on, the committee on printing and the committee on the parliamentary restaurant, do not meet very frequently. The three others, the committees on health and welfare, broadcasting and veterans affairs, are reasonably active. The hon. member for Timiskaming has said that the hon. member for York-Humber has been faithful in attending committees. He has not been so faithful at the committee on broadcasting in the past three weeks simply because he is a member of the committee on health and welfare at the same time. He has been in the health committee fighting abortion and he could not get to the broadcasting committee.
My remarks do not apply to the hon. member for York-Humber alone. Many members are on the two committees I have just spoken

DEBATES	March 19, 1968
of and on other committees. As a consequence, for the past three weeks in the broadcasting committee we have frequently wasted an hour a day, half an hour in the morning and another half an hour in the afternoon, waiting for quorums because members are at other committee meetings. There has been the added annoyance of having members drift in to the second committee an hour or an hour and a half after it has begun and begin a line of questioning which has already been dealt with, so they take up even more time.
I suggest that if we cannot arrange a different timetable for committees, a member should be on one committee only. They could then meet regularly and we could get a great deal more work done than at present. I say without hesitation that many times during the past three weeks one hour a day has been wasted in the broadcasting committee simply because members have been at the health and welfare committee, the public accounts committee or some other committee.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to take a moment or two on this motion, and I only want to refer briefly to the committee on the parliamentary restaurant. I regret very much being removed from that committee because I thought I had earned a permanent position there because in 1963, when the committee was fearful about trying to collect outstanding accounts of some $8,800, I did so; and my collection included a remittance of over $800 from a Liberal cabinet minister and $1,100 from the chairman of the Liberal caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I thought my actions in 1963 had earned me permanent membership on the restaurant committee.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think one or two comments ought to be made because the motion the house is now asked to deal with is a manifestation of one of the conventions that have been observed in the house for many years.
Each party is entitled to determine its representation on the standing committees. That has been well established. When the chief government whip rises in the house to move motions affecting hon. members of other parties in the house, he does not decide the committee membership for the official
March 19, 1968

opposition or the New Democratic party. These names are transmitted to him from these parties, and he makes the motion as the chief government whip. It has been an established tradition that each party decides its own members to serve on the standing committees.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
If these motions are to be debatable in the future, and if this convention is to be destroyed, then it will be open to a member on this side of the house to oppose the membership of a committee proposed by the N.D.P.-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and it will also be open to members of the official opposition to rise and oppose our membership. I repeat that it will be open for members on this side to oppose the nominees. We have accepted this convention. It is reflected in the motions made by the chief government whip. The member for York-Humber is no longer a member of the Liberal caucus, and surely it is open to the government party to decide the membership representing the government party on the committees.
It seems to me very, very strange for the house leader of the official opposition to raise his voice on this motion, because it is not so long since the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) withdrew from the Conservative caucus, and what happened? On March 1 the chief government whip moved a motion removing the hon. member for Winnipeg North South from the standing committee-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -Winnipeg South Centre. Let me read the motion. It is to be found in Votes and Proceedings for March 1, 1968, as follows:
On motion of Mr. Pilon, seconded by Mr. Math-eson, it was ordered,-That the name of Mr. MacRae be substituted for that of Mr. Churchill on the standing committee on national defence.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Harkness:: I wonder if the minister-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Personnel Changes in Standing Committees


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On March 8 a further motion was moved by the chief government whip:
That the name of Mr. Rapp be substituted for that of Mr. Churchill on the standing committee on standing orders.
However the circumstances developed, in that either the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre himself decided he would no longer represent the Conservative party or the Conservative party itself decided that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would no longer be on the committees, at any rate it is undoubtedly the case, I would presume, that the opposition whip conveyed the selection of the new committee members, in substitution for the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, to the government chief whip. I have no complaint about that because that is the convention that has been observed in this house ever since I have been here, and I believe that on a former occasion when a member from the N.D.P. withdrew from that party a similar series of events came into play.


Mr. Lewis:: Without disagreeing with what the minister has said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Do I understand that the hon. member for Calgary North wants to ask a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would like to make a comment.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not yielded the floor. I was going to accept a question from the hon. member for York South.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for York South rising for the purpose of asking a question?


David Lewis: I was going to ask a question of the minister. I was going to say to the minister that without disagreeing with the principle he indicated, would the minister inform the house what likelihood there is of any of the committees with which this motion is concerned actually meeting between now and the end of this session?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question, but I expect that the broadcasting committee is to meet-

March 19, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: That is why the motion is so silly.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -is to meet very shortly. The hon. member for York South now takes the ground that the timing is all wrong; the principle is all right but the timing is wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I did not oppose it last night.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to engage in an acrimonious debate with members of the house. I have exposed the convention that is at play in this motion, a convention that has been observed in the House of Commons, that has operated in the interests of all groups in this house, and members of parliament ought to consider whether this convention ought to be supported in the future. In order to give hon. members the opportunity to reflect on the matter, I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is a motion for the adjournment of the debate, and this motion is not debatable. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, on March 14 as recorded at page 7615 of Hansard the Leader of the Opposition asked this question of the right hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is not in the chamber at the moment, but I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister will convey this question to him:
In view of the statement by the president of the Canadian Construction Association that the construction industry in Canada faces serious unemployment before the fall.. .could the Prime Minister take an early occasion to indicate to the house whether the government has any plans on hand or in mind to stimulate employment in the construction industry by autumn?
To which the Prime Minister replied:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Would the Acting Prime Minister ask the Prime Minister whether he would be good

enough to give us an indication or a statement on motions tomorrow as to what are the plans?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, before asking my question I wonder if I may inquire whether the Prime Minister will be back during the question period.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then I will hold my question until he returns and in the meantime direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I wish to ask the minister about the meeting of the finance ministers of the I.M.F., which I believe is to be held on the 29th of this month in Sweden, and to ask him whether he intends to represent Canada at that meeting or, if not, who will represent Canada on that occasion.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, no decision has yet been taken.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, will Canada be represented? I am sure the minister will agree it is most important that Canada should be represented at this critical time. Will Canada be represented, and how soon will the minister be making a decision as to whether he personally will represent Canada, or someone else in his department?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, Canada will of course be represented. This is a meeting in which we have a very vital interest, and as soon as a decision is made as to representation I will tell the house.



CONVERSION OF 1959 SAVINGS BOND ISSUE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. With regard to the conversion of the 1959 series of Canada savings bonds, part of the conversion requirement being $27 million in 1968, is the Minister of Finance satisfied with the average interest rate of 6.88 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is
argumentative.
March 19, 1968



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the Rhodesian situation now being considered by the United Nations Security Council. Considering that Canada heretofore and in other places has taken some initiative, can the minister advise the house as to the role of this country's delegation at the Security Council's deliberations on this very important matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the security council is meeting this afternoon to consider some of the matters that have taken place recently in Rhodesia. The representative of Canada has been active in consultations during the past few days in connection with two of the matters that will be discussed in the security council, and in respect of one of these we have taken some initiatives.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a further question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the Rhodesian matter. Unless the Security Council is doing a rather unusual thing in having a secret session, will the minister indicate the two matters to which he made reference and delineate the one in respect of which Canada intends to do something?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The discussions that have to do with the Canadian initiative concern the tightening of the sanctions against the Smith regime. The other matter being discussed in the Security Council, likely this afternoon, is a resolution on the implications of the executions carried out last week by the regime.



CYPRUS-CONTINUATION OF PEACE KEEPING OPERATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question likewise is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the announcement that the Security Council has given its approval to a three month extension of the peace keeping force in Cyprus, is it the intention of the Canadian government to continue its participation in this force?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I indicated last week that the Security Council had decided to renew the mandate as of March 26.
I shall be bringing this matter to the attention of my colleagues shortly.


Robert Norman Thompson: Is it the intention of the government to attempt to make a different arrangement so far as the financing formula is concerned, or is the government going to continue the same contribution it has been making?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to see a change made in the contributions paid by members to the United Nations, but in the absence of an arrangement Canada does not propose to shirk its responsibilities.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether it is correct to say that this may be the last extension required owing to the improvement in the political situation in Cyprus, and that the force may either be withdrawn or reduced?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There has been some improvement in the situation on the island but I do not think the improvement is such that it would warrant the view that this may be the last renewal of the mandate.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Justice. Is it the intention of the government to investigate charges made by the latest candidate for the Liberal leadership to the effect that guerrilla training camps have been operating in northern Quebec, and that a Cuban aircraft flew in and out of the isolated area without R.C.M.P. knowledge?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: will have to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the

March 19, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration but, in his absence, I shall put it to his parliamentary secretary.
What was the answer given by the minister to the letter sent to him by the mayor of Desbiens, on March 15, with regard to a winter work project estimated at $40,000?


Mr, Speaker:: I hesitate to suggest to the hon. member to put his question on the order paper, since there is talk of adjournment. Under the circumstances his question could be considered in order.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1966-67 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the possibility that the house may soon adjourn, and in view of the fact that the wheat pool for the 1966-67 crop year has been closed since March 1, almost three weeks, can the Minister of Trade and Commerce advise the house when the final payment to the wheat producers will be made and how much it will be?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have been in continual touch with the Canadian Wheat Board to see whether the payment might be expedited. The work is progressing and I think the final payment will be announced a week from today. It will be around that date, but at this time I am unable to say what the total amount will be.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does the question asked by the hon. member for Medicine Hat represent the extent to which the abilities of that hon. member have been utilized by the government since he joined the Liberal party?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is out of order on many grounds. That type of question should not be asked.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of

Finance. In the absence of any legislation affecting farm improvement loans and in view of the fact that the banks have generally provided loans at a lower rate of interest, has the minister recently had any consultation with the banks in respect of their continuing to provide loans at lower rates until legislation is introduced?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with the banks about this matter. I am hopeful, if the house will agree, that we can get an amendment to the Farm Improvement Loans Act through before we adjourn.


Stanley James Korchinski: If there is no assurance that there will be such agreement, will the legislation be retroactive?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is hypothetical.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have not completed my question. Will the legislation be retroactive or will the farmers have to continue paying higher rates purely because the minister is in a hurry to become prime minister?


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is it the intention of the government to propose amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act to remove the statutory limit on the interest rate?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is the intention to remove the statutory limitation and give the governor in council the power to regulate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, does the minister intend to bring down that legislation before the recess?


Mitchell William Sharp: If we could obtain agreement to pass it quickly I certainly would.



COLUMBIA RIVER-REPORTED INCREASE IN COSTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I apologize for not having given him notice but things have been in a turmoil today. In view of the fact that the government of British Columbia has now practically admitted that the Columbia River treaty projects will cost
March 19. 1968

over $200 million more than it has received from the United States, how does the minister justify his assurance to the Castlegar Chamber of Commerce in 1964 that the government of Canada would not sign an agreement that did not pay for all the projects?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I must tell the hon. member that his question is argumentative.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Industry, notice of which I have given him. Could he advise the house in respect of the meeting regarding the area development program held this morning with representatives from the Atlantic region?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I met this morning with the minister of economic development of the province of New Brunswick and the mayor of Saint John with regard to the possible designation of Saint John and other metropolitan areas in the maritimes under the designated area program. We had a useful discussion and I hope that we resolved what has been a misunderstanding arising out of a question and answer which appeared in Hansard. The minister and the mayor both recognized that this program, which has resulted in some $680 million of new investment in the Atlantic provinces and the creation of some 17,000 jobs, has been extremely useful. I pointed out to them that this program, which is in the nature of a crash program relating to unemployment, is due to expire in 1971 and that if and when in his new tenure the minister of economic development of New Brunswick should bring forward proposals for making this program more relevant to the economic development plan in the Atlantic provinces I would be glad to discuss them with him.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be willing to attend the meeting of the Atlantic premiers which has already been called for March 21 in Fredericton to deal with this matter, put forward the thoughts he has in mind today and attempt to settle the matter once and for all?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I understood from the minister of economic development of New
Inquiries of the Ministry Brunswick that it is unlikely he will be able to formulate specific proposals that soon.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the government house leader. Is the minister now in a position to indicate at what point we will resume consideration in committee of the whole of Bill No. C-190?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have had consultations with the house leaders regarding the remaining business but those consultations have not yet been completed. I hope they will be very shortly, and as soon as they are I will indicate to the house what the expectations are.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General.
Could he tell us if it is true that Mr. Igor Gouzenko, a former soviet officer, is entitled to a pension just like retired members of the R.C.M.P.?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that this question should be put on the order paper.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Arthur Laing (Acting Minister of
Fisheries): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for New Westminster asked about visits by humane society representatives to the scene of the seal harvest. No one is prevented, of course, from visiting if they want to, and I am informed that representatives of a number of humane organizations in both Canada and Europe made visits yesterday in the vicinity of the Magdalen islands. In addition, I am informed that the fisheries department, at its own expense, has transported to the ice a representative of the humane society of Ontario, a veterinarian from the Department of Agriculture and a veterinarian
[Stage Direction]
March 19, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry from Edinburgh who is reputedly well versed in sealing. They are conducting some experiments with new killing methods.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: Mr. Speaker, not long ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources advised the house that the Cape Breton Development Corporation is taking over all Dosco mines except one, the McBean mine in my constituency, on April 1. Will he now advise the house what plans the government has to continue in production this one mine which employs about 400 men?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, a few months ago I discussed the matter with the former premier of Nova Scotia and representatives of miners. We had then concluded that we would consider the possibility of finding an independent contractor who would be in charge of that mine and would develop it at a reduced pace. I submitted this request to the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The vice president made it and reported his recommendations to the board which is supposed to make a decision and let me know it in the near future.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister review the remarks made by the Prime Minister on national television last evening and indicate as soon as possible to the house when the money will be available to keep the Sydney steel operation and the McBean mine going? I think the minister has indicated that he is ready to answer the question. At least he could indicate whether he is interested in the remarks made by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the only thing the hon. member wants to know is whether the minister is interested in the remarks of the Prime Minister, certainly the question is not in order to that extent. I realize that the second part of the question is in order.


Malcolm MacInnis: With all due respect, sir, I would have directed my question to the proper minister or the Prime Minister if they had been in attendance in the house.
[Mr. Laing.l



SYDNEY, N.S.-REFUSAL OF FEDERAL LOAN TO PURCHASE STEEL PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since the right hon. Prime Minister has apparently been detained perhaps I might direct my question to either the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. The question relates to the Prime Minister's letter of March 8 to the premier of Nova Scotia in which the government gives its regrettable decision to the effect that it is not going to lend to the province of Nova Scotia half the capital cost of acquiring the assets of the steel mill at Sydney. In view of the very great difficulty any provincial government would have in borrowing this large sum of money because of the present state of the financial market, is the government going to offer any alternative form of assistance such as guaranteeing the loan, thus enabling the government of Nova Scotia to borrow this very considerable sum?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, that would not be the government's intention.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I think the amount involved is something in the neighbourhood of $44 million. The province of Quebec has just had to involve eight banks in order to obtain $38 million. In view of this difficulty, what alternative policy is the government proposing to help Nova Scotia raise this very considerable sum at this very critical time in the money market?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government set forth in the letter from the Prime Minister to the premier of Nova Scotia the assistance that the federal government is prepared to give.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In this regard, nothing.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Finance tell us whether the government has made up its mind that it has a claim on that money?


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance to consult with his colleagues in cabinet and ask them to give a little kinder treatment to the cabinet representative from Nova Scotia.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to persist in this question but I ask it again because the letter sent
March 19. 19B8

by the Prime Minister of January 23 referred to a possible claim in respect of $1,700,000. The government has yet to indicate whether it has any claim on that amount. How can it give something away which it does not know it has? The Minister of Justice has been waiting since October to answer that one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You have not asked me the question.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as the minister responsible for the Atlantic Development Board. Will he inform the house whether an economist from the Atlantic Development Board assessed the implications of the phasing-out operation at Summerside? As he is the minister from Nova Scotia I should like to ask him whether the same consideration can be given to Nova Scotia by having an economist from the Atlantic Development Board assess the implications of the move from Greenwood to Summerside.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister may reply to the question in his official capacity but not in his capacity as the minister from Nova Scotia.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Will the minister in his reply to the first part of the question confirm that an Atlantic Development Board economist or staff member made an assessment of the economic implications of the phase-out of the base at Summerside, and will like consideration be extended by assessing the economic implications of the move from Greenwood?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the expression "phase-out" as there is no phase-out in the normal sense. I will be glad to check with the Atlantic Development Board and give an answer in detail tomorrow.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, will the minister be so kind as to advise whether he has registered his protest against the moving of the establishment from Greenwood to Summerside?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have been very closely involved in discussions about this whole matter with the Minister of National Defence.


Malcolm MacInnis: Is this
the minister's way of emphasizing his weakness in the cabinet?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State as I believe she is the person to whom questions having to do with several departments should be directed. I have had question No. 741 on the order paper since November 23. It relates to the number of women employed in federal undertakings. Will the minister see whether I can get an answer before parliament recesses?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I cannot promise that, Mr. Speaker, as the question involves the total number of women employed in all services, including the public service of Canada, industries and other undertakings. It takes quite a long time to gather information to answer this type of question. We are trying to gather that information but, of course, each day that goes by more women are involved. Perhaps that will please the hon. lady.


Winona Grace MacInnis: The
question has been on the order paper since November 23.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Was it at his request that the deterrent fee of $2.50 was brought forward under the Saskatchewan hospitalization program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this question is not in order.


Edward Nasserden: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Part of this fee would normally be paid by the federal government and there is a suspicion that the government has used this as part of-

March 19, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously the hon. member seeks to fish in troubled waters. I suggest that the question as asked is not in order.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is not my fault that hon. gentlemen opposite are in troubled waters.


Edward Nasserden: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the $2.50 fee under the hospitalization plan in Saskatchewan represent part of the austerity program of hon. gentlemen opposite?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Postmaster General has a reply today to my question of last week concerning the use of Canadian postal facilities by certain American magazines advertising birth control information, which is against our law?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, after carefully reviewing the circumstances surrounding these advertisements and obtaining appropriate legal advice, I have concluded that these are not proper cases in which to issue an interim prohibitory order under section 7 of the Post Office Act.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport since he has been left almost unnoticed in this question period. In view of the fact that for the last three years progressive questions have been asked and various regressive replies given with regard to the Digby-Saint John ferry, could the minister advise us on the present progress of these negotiations and whether we may expect an announcement before the end of the week or before April 4?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have an even more positive reply to this regressive question. I hope to make an announcement soon. Progress is

being made and I am just as optimistic as I was the last time the question was asked of me-even more so.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be kind and considerate enough to take the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings into his confidence when he is about to make the announcement?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Why not?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is he now in a position to make a more definite statement with regard to the curtailment of some of the medical services provided to the Indian people?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be making a statement before the house recesses but I do not think I can make it on orders of the day.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Last week a question was asked of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with regard to the Supreme Court decision in respect of Mr. Terence Whitfield and his difficulties. The Prime Minister promised to make a statement. Will that statement be forthcoming before the house adjourns?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think so, Mr. Speaker. I know the Prime Minister has been interested in this matter.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF TWO PRICE SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to
March 19, 1968

the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now that the Minister of Finance has almost single handedly solved the world financial crisis by the introduction of a two price system for gold-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley James Korchinski: -will the Minister of Trade and Commerce consult with him and see whether he cannot introduce a two price system for wheat?

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.


The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply. When the committee rose last Friday, March 15, item lc of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was under consideration.



DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
3c. Departmental administration, $399,753.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether it is now possible to have a statement from the government house leader or from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs about our program. I do not wish to anticipate any negotiating that may still be going on but, as the government house leader recognizes, there is a relationship between the estimates of this department and the effect of Bill C-190. I am authorized to say on behalf of my colleagues that if we are going to go on with Bill C-190 tomorrow or the next day it will certainly make a difference in the amount of time necessary to deal with the estimates of this department. If negotiation has not yet been concluded perhaps we could take another department and come back to the estimates of this department when we know what the program is. The government house leader knows what we are prepared to do. Perhaps he could comment on the matter at this point.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate and understand the interest of the hon. member. I think he has a valid interest. However, there is one more element in this situation that I have to clear up before I can make any statement. If it is agreed, pending the conclusion of negotiations I certainly would be happy to call another department. H( wever, I have taken great advantage of my 27053-191
DEBATES	7799
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in having him in readiness in the house for a couple of days now and I must, even though the blandishments of my hon. friend are very great, let the minister carry on with his estimates. Within a very short time I shall be able to clear up this matter.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say that we would welcome the introduction of Bill C-190 because it is an important measure. We hope that some success may attend the efforts of the minister in working out the details in this regard.
So far as the estimates are concerned, we feel that the supplementary estimates have received considerable attention and it is not our intention to prolong the debate on them or on interim supply. But we hope we will be able to proceed with Bill C-190.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, this item contains a rather substantial sum, $ 142,525, as Canada's share of the expenses of the Canadian committee on mutual funds and investment contracts. I have had on the order paper since March 1 question No. 1,101 asking about this matter. If the minister is prepared to give a commitment that this question will be answered tomorrow I will not pursue the matter further. If he cannot do that, perhaps he could now give us particulars in connection with this substantial sum and state the purposes, objectives and terms of reference of this committee.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a very short intervention on just one subject. Last week, I believe, the hon. member for Halifax and the hon. member for New Westminster raised the question of professional sports in connection with the combines act. I realize that as the legislation stands at present services generally, and certainly professional sports, do not fall within the terms of the combines act. Therefore the minister and, indeed, the federal government have no power to act.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
This matter has arisen in connection with the application by Vancouver for a franchise in the National Hockey League. Although the minister is probably aware of it, I should like to point out to him that there is a private member's bill before the house which would rectify this situation. It is Bill C-99, introduced by his colleague, the hon. member for
March 19. 1968

Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs Vancouver-Burrard, which expressly calls for professional sports to come under the Combines Investigation Act. I will not read the explanatory notes now but they state the case very well.
I should like to ask the minister one other question in connection with the Combines Investigation Act. As he reported to the house, this act is now under study by the Economic Council of Canada which will not be reporting for some time. Has the inclusion of services under the Combines Investigation Act been referred to the Economic Council of Canada? At the present time only commodities which are used in trade and commerce are subject to the act. But it seems to me that the power to fix prices and divide up markets in a way which could be detrimental to the public interest could just as well exist in the service industries as in trade in commodities. Certainly professional sports could be considered. Parliament should be responsive to public opinion, and public opinion in many parts of Canada, particularly on the west coast, is quite strong on this subject at present. I do not know whether the minister heard my question.


Mr. Turner:: Yes.


Mr. Germa:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this item in the estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As hon. members know, members of this party accepted the establishment of this department with certain reservations. We pointed out at that time what we considered to be very grave weaknesses in the legislation under which the department is operating. Nothing has happened in the intervening time to change our opinion of what this department will accomplish on behalf of the Canadian people. The Canadian people welcomed with joy the appointment of a minister who would have the power to intervene directly in the marketplace on their behalf to ensure they receive fair value for their money when they see fit to expend certain moneys on services which are required for their daily needs. This is a very wide field. It concerns every dollar spent by every person in the Dominion of Canada. So the minister, if he really seeks to do his job properly, could intervene in almost every sector of the business community.
However, in spite of the formation of this department the cost of living has continued to rise. We have not noticed any change in the upward push of prices. The D.B.S. figures

published on Friday indicate that at present the cost of living stands at 152.7, an increase of .1 over last month. This is a rise of 4.5 per cent from February 1, 1967. The D.B.S. figures also show us that the housing index rose by .5 per cent. The problem of housing has long plagued the people of Canada, and these figures indicate that nothing has happened to offset the continued rise in the cost of accommodation for families. Surely this is one of the most essential areas in which the minister could intervene by seeking to find out why the cost of shelter for our families continues to rise despite the efforts of other departments of the government.
The Dominion Bureau of Statistics points out to us that one of the reasons for the increase in the cost of housing in the month of February was the increase in the insurance rates on housing. According to these figures the insurance companies must have increased their premiums. So far as I know the insurance companies have not stated their case before the Canadian people, before the government or before any board of review, for increasing the rates they charge for the insurance of houses against fire, flood, hail, etc. The insurance companies made an arbitrary decision to increase their rates.
I am not sure whether the minister has the power to intervene in this area but in view of the fact that the consumer dollar is involved I believe his jurisdiction is wide enough for him to intervene on behalf of the consumer. This is a very vital area. Insurance companies have often been referred to in this house. We have pointed out that they are not suffering from a low return on their investment. It seems to me that the minister could well intervene in this area and seek an explanation from the insurance companies for the increase in their rates. I realize he does not have the power to legislate against them but surely he could make them expose their books to the people of Canada and make them give an explanation for increasing their rates on housing.
I believe that if this were done it would go a long way toward exposing a business which has long preyed upon the Canadian people. In the long run it is the little man who bears the greater part of the burden because he cannot afford any risk and he has to go to an insurance company to obtain protection for the major investment represented by his acquisition of a place to live. He has to pay these rates regardless of how high they may be. I
March 19, 1968	COMMONS
suggest to the minister that this is one area in which he could do something.
The legislation establishing the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did not give the minister sufficient power under which he could act. The main purpose of the department, therefore, is to inform, to educate and to protect the consumer in the marketplace. Since the formation of this department I have not seen any literature or any programs on radio or television informing me as to its aim and powers. After all, I am also an amateur in the marketplace. I have been hoodwinked on numerous occasions and probably I will be hoodwinked again tomorrow or in my next venture into the jungle. The minister has not seen fit to educate me or any of the 20 million people in Canada.
I realize that the department has only been operating for four or five months and it is probably not right to condemn the minister at this early stage, but the people of Canada were quite happy when such a young and vigorous minister took over this portfolio and they had hoped they were going to see action and that the feathers would fly. However, so far I have been quite disappointed in that I have not seen anyone get plucked by the minister. He is a quite young, affable and vigorous person and he occupies a very sensitive position in the cabinet. His position is probably the most sensitive in the whole of Canada in that, if he wishes to do his job properly, he will have to intervene between the consumer and the business community. As a person occupying such a sensitive position he must be extremely careful not to become obligated to the business community because if it becomes necessary for him to react to any of their financial decisions he must be under no obligation to them and be free to act.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I am very doubtful, therefore, about the propriety of the minister accepting free transportation from a rubber company during his campaign for the leadership of the Liberal party. The time may come when he may have to intercede on behalf of the people against this company. I believe that by accepting this type of gift he is obligated to a certain degree and may be inhibited from acting in a completely unbiased manner. I urge the minister and the other ministers involved in the leadership campaign not to become entangled in obligations to various business enterprises. I am very reluctant to see ministers beholden to any of these major enterprises.
27053-49li
DEBATES	7801
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs
As proof positive of the fact the cost of living is continuing to rise I cite the recent report of the Batten commission which was authorized by the three prairie province governments to investigate grocery prices on the prairies. The commission revealed some startling figures concerning the degree to which two companies have gained control of the grocery business on the prairies. There is no doubt in my mind that if this condition exists on the prairies it exists in Ontario, Quebec and the rest of Canada. When the minister was asked if he would take action on the report and extend this type of investigation to the rest of Canada he was not too excited about doing so. He seemed to feel that if some other province wished to undertake an investigation he would be glad to receive the report.
This is another area of the responsibility of this department which I do not understand. Is it the responsibility of the minister to institute investigations into various prices? I suggest it is the responsibility of the department not only to receive reports from other commissions set up by other agencies but also, when it becomes aware of situations in Canada, to undertake investigations itself. If a monopoly situation is revealed, proper legal action should then be taken under another branch of this department to see that these people are properly brought into line.
I realize, of course, that the anti-combines legislation is not very effective. As was pointed out by one of my colleagues the other day, even though dozens and dozens of corporations have been convicted of price fixing, not one director of these various companies has ever been sent to jail. If these people are convicted they should not be allowed to escape the full penalty of the law, even though I am not one to advocate filling our jails with people because in most cases this serves a very limited purpose. However, I do know that people who have no financial means are suffering in our jails. The fact is that the directors and officers of major corporations can extract from the community hundreds of millions of dollars through illegal price fixing and never have to feel the full force of the law and languish in our jails. If the people of Canada saw such individuals brought to justice in a few instances they would have more faith in this department and more faith in the government.
Consumer credit is another field in which the minister would have the right to intercede. The consumer spends a large portion of
7802	COMMONS
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs his income paying usurious interest rates. If a finance company can legally charge up to 24 per cent for money, then I think it is up to the minister to point out that these companies are doing this. I know that these companies can do so legally but it is up to him to point out that this is a fact of life and that people must beware of these usurers in our society. They have been with us for a long time and 1 suppose they will be with us forever. Consumer credit in Canada today, exclusive of real estate mortages, totals about $8 billion and involves approximately $960 million in interest per annum. This is a sizeable amount of money which reduces the consumer's purchasing power.
The reduction in consumer purchasing power in turn deflates our economy and causes unemployment as well as all the other unsavoury things that go along with a deflated economy. I feel that the minister has the responsibility to see that every consumer has as much purchasing power as possible because this would benefit the whole country. One recalls that in 1966 there were various demonstrations by consumers all over Canada in front of supermarkets and other places. The consumer has become organized and he has a new minister to ask for help. The consumer has seen fit to complain about quality and prices as well as the type of service he receives for his money.
The consumer knows that there are on the roads today 670,000 unsafe automobiles. I feel it is the duty of the minister to find out why companies are allowed to put unsafe automobiles on the market intentionally. The average person who buys a car is not a mechanic. He is not able to judge the quality of workmanship or safety of the automobile. He has so many dollars in his pocket and knows he needs a car. Quite innocently he often buys an automobile which may cost him his life or other people their lives. All of us must be protected from this type of merchandising.
There has been some talk about drug prices. I should like to congratulate the minister upon the action he has taken in introducing Bill No. C-190 which all of us believe would have the effect of bringing down the price of drugs by allowing competition to enter this field. If the bill could only be brought before the house before the recess I believe the people of Canada would be forever in debt to the minister for at least accomplishing that much during the short period of time he has been in office.

DEBATES	March 19, 1968
Health services are another area of concern to the consumer. Regardless of the state of health of a person at the moment he knows he is going to have to expend money on medical services. None of us will last forever. Eventually the machinery runs down and we have to seek advice and help from the medical profession. My remarks at this point apply equally to other professional people who arbitrarily set their rates, such as engineers, lawyers and so on. However, doctors are the ones who come closest to the consumer because the consumer has to go to them directly. Engineers and these other people are about one stage removed from the consumer.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I should like to refer to an editorial broadcast over station VOCM in St. John's, Newfoundland, on January 17, 1968. Part of it reads as follows:
Recent discussion of rates for professional services-who sets the rates-and what relationship these rates have to the services rendered, brings to mind that some doctors have made upward revisions in their rate structure recently-in some cases as much as 30 per cent. We are given to understand that the increases have been applied because of the approach of medicare.
We all know that the medical profession has raised certain objections to medicare, and I commend the government for the stand they have taken in the face of those objections. But this editorial seems to indicate that in order to try to destroy medicare across Canada the profession has increased fees by 30 per cent so as to make the cost of medicare so expensive that the government would not dare to try to supply the people with medical services. I think this is a deplorable state of affairs. I am not saying that doctors are not entitled to a decent standard of living. They go out in all sorts of weather and have a very hard job to perform. They are dealing with sick people who are not necessarily on their best behaviour. For these reasons they deserve a standard of living better than most. That I recognize, Mr. Chairman.
I also recognize the fact that the person who pays the bill is the consumer. I also recognize the fact that these doctors were educated largely from public funds. I also recognize the fact that their equipment is supplied from public funds. Medical research is also charged to the public. It was the consumer in the first instance who supplied the money to educate the doctor. The consumer provided the required facilities and conducted the necessary research so that the doctor in turn could serve you and me better
March 19, 1968	COMMONS
as a medical practitioner. Therefore I believe that the consumer has the right to state what the fees are to be for the services that are rendered. I claim that the taxpayer, the consumer, has a claim on the doctor's education and facilities.
This fact was recognized in Newfoundland a few years ago when the premier of that province placed certain restrictions on those members of the medical profession who took advantage of the very generous offer that was made to educate them. In turn they had to commit themselves to work for two years in outpost hospitals. I see nothing wrong with that sort of legislation. It is an admission that the government has the right to intervene on behalf of the consumer when members of this profession set their own rates. As the medical care program of the government begins to take effect the government itself will have more at stake because it will be paying 50 per cent of the cost of services. If medical fees are decided arbitrarily by a hostile medical profession it is easy to see that the profession could wreck the plan, and you and I, Mr. Chairman, and the rest of the people of Canada would be the losers.
The minister has also had his attention drawn through various questions put in the house to other price increases that have recently taken place. In one instance the consumer is not affected directly but indirectly the price he has to pay is affected. I refer to the recent increase in the price of copper. We asked the Minister of Finance to investigate the increase. I do not know the connection between the finance minister and the minister of consumer affairs, but in the long run it is the consumer who pays for price increases. If a basic commodity such as copper suffers a price increase, almost every other commodity on the market suffers similarly. It is in this respect that the minister of consumer affairs has a responsibility to the consumer to intervene.
When the subject of the recent rise in the price of copper was raised the answer given by the finance minister was that there was a world shortage of copper and therefore the price had risen. Also advantage was being taken of a strike of 50,000 copper workers in the United States to squeeze an additional 4 cents a pound, I believe it was, out of the price on the marketplace. At no time did the minister indicate that the profit position of these companies warranted a price increase. At no time did the minister say that the increased price of copper had anything to do
DEBATES	7803
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs with increased cost of production. There was no relationship between the cost of production and the cost of copper on the market; it was strictly a question of what the market would bear. Yet no action was taken by the minister against the corporations concerned.
I fail to see why the minister did not go to these companies and at least extract from them the admission that there was no legitimate reason to raise the price of copper, thus putting that admission on the record. The profit picture of these companies was good. The only reason they raised the price of copper was to take advantage of a shortage as a result of a strike in the United States and a war in Viet Nam.
I would also draw attention to the fact that gasoline has increased in price, as has fuel oil. These increases affect the consumer directly. In our northern climate fuel oil is essential. Yet the price of fuel oil has unwarrantedly risen. The increase has not been substantiated by the five or six oil companies that have a world-wide monopoly.
The increase in price was not arbitrated in the way the average worker has to arbitrate an increase in his wages. The worker has to go to a conciliation board and expose himself to the whole community. Unless he has community support he will not get an increase in wages. Through this democratic process of submitting his demands to public scrutiny he gets a wage increase. But there is no stipulation that corporations must negotiate with the community before they can increase their prices.
When the legislation to set up this department was going through we pleaded with the minister to include a provision setting up a prices review board. This suggestion was rejected as totally unworkable, unwarranted, unnecessary, regressive, plus a few other objectives. Therefore I was quite surprised the other day to hear the Prime Minister state in this chamber, as reported on page 7536 of Hansard for March 12:
We must find some effective means of influencing, not controlling but influencing, the many individual decisions that give rise to increases in incomes, costs and prices. To this end the government proposes to establish a governmental agency, commission or board, whatever it may be called, to review and scrutinize major decisions affecting prices, incomes and costs throughout the economy. [DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Although the Prime Minister's statement was vague he intimated that the view of our
March 19, 1968
7804	COMMONS
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs group had had some effect on the government. The Prime Minister referred to some sort of board, agency, committee or what have you which will inquire into how economic decisions are made to increase incomes and prices. Of course, when the government talks of prices and costs it carefully does not use the word "profits". I have yet to hear a member of the government speak about profits or excess profits in this connection. It is in this area, though, that the new agency ought to inquire. Profits must be included as a cost to consumers. I submit that the consumer has the right to determine how much profit he is willing to pay on any commodity. Only when the board or agency the Prime Minister envisaged is capable of operating in this field will we be in a position to control the cost of living. I say this because farther on the Prime Minister said:
We shall also, Mr. Speaker, take carefully into account any views on this proposal expressed in parliament.
We think that this is a good move. But we think the matter should be pursued and made concrete since at present we do not know whether the government is thinking of a board, agency or commission. At any rate, the germ of the thought is there. I urge the minister concerned to let the germ grow and to bring it to fruition.
Everything I have said so far applies generally to all of Canada. Yet there is one group which, because of its geographic position in the country, suffers more from high prices than the rest. I refer to those in the far northern parts. The farther north we go the more expensive it is to live. I come from a northern Ontario town. It is not in the extreme north but it costs us more to live than it costs the people of Toronto. A short time ago when I was on the Sudbury city council we were discussing the high cost of building materials in the city. We found that a square of shingles-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: No, no. That is enough.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Does the committee give unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: No, no. That is enough.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Mr. Germa.)


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The hon. member for Sudbury.


Melville Carlyle Germa: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not be very long.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Will the hon.
member permit a question? Does he say that the consumer ought to control the price of butter, eggs, milk and other farm produce?


Melville Carlyle Germa: Through an agency or a review board we could determine whether a given commodity was being sold at a fair price, whether the producer was receiving a fair return on his investment or whether the consumer was being hoodwinked. There ought to be some relation between the price of an article and its cost of production. In the open market we do not find that. The law of supply and demand is abrogated by the monopoly positions of various corporations and as a result we see goods being sold at prices which bear no relation to their costs of production.
I was talking about the problems of northern areas. The Sudbury city council learned that a square of shingles cost $1.50 more in Timmins than in North Bay. We also found that it cost 50 cents to transport a square of shingles from North Bay to Timmins. Of course, when inquiries about high prices were made we were fobbed off with the excuse, "Oh, well, it is the high cost of transportation that has been increasing the cost of your building materials." That was not so.
In Thompson, Manitoba, which is in the far north about 400 air miles dead north of Winnipeg, the average employee works at his job for about 17 days. This represents an inordinately high employee turnover and I wondered why a man would go 400 miles north into the wilderness, work for 17 days and then quit. We have half a million unemployed in Canada and yet this situation prevails in the north. On investigating, and after receiving letters from the president of the United Steel Workers, I learned that men will not stay in the far north because the cost of living is very high. I think the minister ought to intervene on behalf of these far northern people. Our men need jobs. They are willing to go into the north country because that is where our future lies. Yet they cannot make a go of it because of the increasing pressure they encounter from high living costs.
Among 500 construction workers in Thompson the average employment period is 17 days. Among the permanent employees of the mine the average rate of turnover is 85 per
March 19, 1968	COMMONS
cent per annum. The miners there work for the company I used to work for and they are fairly well paid. Even so, their wages do not keep pace with the high cost of living in the far north. For instance, construction workers or mine employees pay up to $200 a month to rent a trailer. I submit that for $200 a month you could rent a reasonable house in Ottawa; in fact, you could rent a very nice house. Yet in the far north it costs $200 a month to live in a trailer, which does not represent a good living standard by any stretch of the imagination. I hope the minister will look into the special areas I have mentioned and do something to relieve the pressures that people all across Canada are feeling from high living costs.


Mr. Johnston:: I shall be brief, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Sudbury wanted to see the feathers fly and yet he wanted the minister's wings to be clipped. I assure him that our avian interest is confined to seeing prices go down. I too was interested in the hon. member's discussion of a prices review board because what the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway described as a toothless wonder has now become food for thought. It does not matter how the minister or the government hold out their hands to the N.D.P.; their hands will be bitten.
I should like to ask the minister a question I have asked in the house on a couple of occasions. Has his department yet made a decision to appeal the fines levied against wholesale companies engaged in the mandarin orange trade in British Columbia? These fines were announced some months ago and at the time they seemed to me to be extremely low. Working out the mathematics of the highest fine and considering the some 20 years during which prices were fixed I found that it amounted to about $500 annually. I submit that this amounts to nothing more than a yearly licence to fix prices. I am sure that if any logging truck operator in the province were asked what his annual licence cost he would come up with a figure not too far removed from $500 for an operation on a much smaller scale.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I am convinced that the companies involved would not have gone to all the fuss and bother to fix the price if it was only going to yield them $500 a year. I think that the fines and the profits involved could not have been related in any way and I would
DEBATES	7805
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs like to know what is the decision on this matter.


Mrs. Wadds:: Mr. Chairman, I regret very much that I feel obliged to take even a few minutes in the debate at this stage of the life of this parliament. I was prepared to waive my opportunity on Friday if it would have expedited the business of the house but now that the debate has been ranging so broadly I would like to say a few words. Incidentally, when I say "ranging broadly" I am not referring to the hon. member for Okanagan-Revel-stoke. Some of the speeches we have been listening to have ranged rather widely. I abhor obstructionist tactics in this house and it is certainly not in that spirit that I am rising because I would be very agreeable to co-operate in expediting the business of the house at this moment. In fact I feel the greatest sympathy for the contestants for the Liberal leadership to be decided in the first week of April. They should really be visiting the delegates at this moment.
It seems to me it is an example of the government's peculiar attitude to democracy that they have arranged things so that the members of the Liberal party are stuck in one place when they should really be some place else. It was not the fault of the opposition that the government did not foresee this happening and put its own house in order before the date was chosen for their very important convention. I regret, as many in my party do, the difficulties in which this puts many of the contestants, but I want to make it clear that it is entirely their own doing that this has happened.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is a most amiable minister and very popular both inside the house and outside. I would not want anything said at this time to be detrimental to his chances. In the first place I personally think, and I know thousands of others do also, that the Liberal party could do worse than choose him. In the second place it would be grossly unfair if anything said at this late date on the supplementary estimates were particularly harsh on him because, as ministers go, he is relatively moderate in his spending. In fact he could be considered a bit of a novice among the high-spending Liberal ministers. However, since he went against some rather important advice in the enlargement of his department to include consumer affairs, advice from a group that was set up purposely to advise the government, it seems to me only natural that some questions should be answered by him.
March 19, 1968
7806	COMMONS
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs
The minister's taking of matters into his own hands and setting up his own version of how to control consumer prices has done absolutely nothing to assist the consumer against rising costs and therefore we would like to hear from him just what he has done in this department to warrant the rising costs of the department. In the estimates for 196869 the cost of the Department of Corporate and Consumer Affairs is slightly over $8| million. The cost in 1967-68 was nearly $7 million so the over-all increase is slightly over $li million. In the 1968-69 estimates the amount for the new consumer affairs branch is $394,400. This includes salaries totalling $220,000, travelling expenses of $20,000, and office supplies and equipment, $29,500. This in itself could be criticized in the light of the minister's statement on October 17 last, as reported on page 3211 of Hansard:
I want to make it clear, as I attempted to do at the resolution stage, that we contemplate no substantial increase in government expenditure.
My values may be wrong but I consider this a substantial increase. I do not know of any other business that would not consider a quarter of a million dollars in additional salaries and travelling expenses a substantial increase. Neither do I know of any other business that would allow its planned expenditures to increase by well over 50 per cent, as has happened in the consumer affairs branch. With the additional cost so conveniently slipped into supplementary estimates this new branch, which was supposed to involve no substantial increase, is already within five months, less than half a year, costing well over half a million dollars, in fact a total of $569,300. At this rate one shudders to think what it may cost in two, three or five years. The only hope is that the present government will not be administering it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Casselman Wadds: Everyone knows that everyone is spending a lot of money these days. The minister reminded us on second reading of the bill establishing his department that personal expenditures on consumer goods and purchases are running at about $37 billion a year in Canada. This is most certainly a great deal of money but it covers everything having to do with human beings and their living within our society. It seems to me to be quite a problem to know how to cut down expenditures involving personal choices and personal decisions. It is going to be a very large undertaking indeed to assist people in making


savings in this very broad and rather intangible expenditure of $37 billion. The approach seems to me to be a very essential one and needs a great deal more careful attention and consideration that we have been giving it so far.
The government seems to have forgotten the old adage not to throw good money after bad. It has been following the procedure of trying to solve the problem of too much spending by more spending. It is true that consumers do need direction and assistance with regard to the features offered by some merchandisers as against others and how to go about finding the qualities they are looking for. However, it seems unlikely that, by spending this large amount of money in this branch of the new department, housewives in northern Saskatchewan or Newfoundland will benefit very much in balancing their own personal budgets. Quite the contrary. It just adds to the over-all inflationary spiral which is already making it so very difficult for them.
The minister received the best of advice from the Economic Council of Canada on how to co-ordinate the many departments already dealing with the protection of consumers. At the resolution stage of the bill setting up his department, on October 13 of last year, as recorded at page 3070 of Hansard, the hon. member for Yukon reminded the minister in the most direct terms that it would be wise for him to follow the advice of the economic council when it said:
The implementation of these recommendations does not require a vast expansion in government activity and in the size of the bureaucracy. Any such tendencies should be strongly resisted as being neither necessary nor wise-
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.
The economic council was quite specific in recommending an interdepartmental committee on consumer affairs under the chairmanship of the deputy registrar general. This would have made further use of the knowledge and machinery already existing. It was one of the many steps which could have been taken to ease the growing concern in Canada about rapidly rising government spending.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The government has been warned and warned about its overspending. On page 261
March 19, 1968	COMMONS
of the fourth annual report of the Economic Council of Canada the growing uneasiness in Canada about the current pace of the over-all advance in government spending is mentioned. The very significant and alarming comment is added that the council shares this uneasiness. What is the use of setting up such groups as the Economic Council of Canada if its advice is not heeded? What is the use of enlarging departments if they are not to have any effect on results? Perhaps the minister would tell us whether any further increases are planned for the consumer affairs branch and, if so, what specific results he expects to receive from this further expenditure.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, since it is beginning to become obvious that we will not conclude these estimates before six o'clock and because of the rather specific speech in terms of figures by the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas, with the permission of the committee I might answer some of the questions which have arisen so far and then allow the debate to continue since the information which comes to me is such that at the moment I am convinced the debate on these estimates will not end this evening.
In analysing the increase in expenses of the department I should like to say first of all that of the amount of $683,753 only $175,000 relates to the new consumers branch. That amount involves the establishment of 26 positions, 18 of which have now been filled. The remainder of the expenses relating to the new consumers branch involves overhead expenses and travelling expenses related to the establishment of those positions.
I should like to go through this in some detail. The amount of $399,753 for departmental administration is divided as follows. We have a management study on cost benefits relating to the objectives of the department within the meaning of the more general report of the Economic Council of Canada so that the federal government would be able to ascertain what is the best way to meet those objectives. We feel that the $70,000 required for this study is a good investment on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers to ensure that proper administration is achieved in the new consumers branch.
Then there is an amount of $142,525 relating to the Canadian committee on mutual fund and investment contracts. The federal government is paying half the cost of a joint federal-provincial study which is reviewing 27053-492
DEBATES	7807
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs the whole nature and operation of mutual funds in Canada. This was transferred to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs from the estimates of the Privy Council. These estimates were not originally incurred by this department nor was this department responsible for them. Originally there was an annotation affixed to the blue book to this effect.
There is an amount of $10,328 involved in the obtaining of a legal opinion relating to the application of section 12(g) of the securities exchange act of the United States. This arose when the United States authorities were thinking of applying in a rather severe way the securities exchange act to those companies which had over a certain number of shareholders who were United States citizens and which had over a certain amount of assets. We were required to obtain counsel in Washington to advise us just what the legal effect of this statute was on Canadian companies having United States shareholders.
We have also retained consultants on certain specific problems and have asked for an amount of $20,000 for this purpose. There is an amount of $48,000 involved in establishing the minister's office. When the late Mr. Fa-vreau was president of the privy council at the same time as he was registrar general he was entitled to only one office. This is the first time the office requirements appear against a separate minister, formerly the registrar general and now the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
There is a securities task force and we are asking for additional funds in the amount of $46,500 for this. Our department is looking into the possibility of establishing and the method by which to establish a federal presence in the securities field. We retained a leading authority on securities work, Professor Peter Williamson, to look into this. He retained a staff during last summer and I hope that shortly I will be in a position to advise my colleagues about this.
There is an amount of $152,400 relating to the corporations task force. This is under the chairmanship of Professor Bob Dickerson from the University of British Columbia who, with a group of academic lawyers from across the country, reviewed some specific problems relating to the amendments we seek to the Corporations Act. These amendments have to do with the disclosure of financial information, the duties of directors, insider trading, proxy solicitation and so on. I have received
March 19, 1968
7808	COMMONS DEBATES
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs that report and have submitted it to practising lawyers in the profession who came to Ottawa after taking the oath and who received only a per diem allowance for their travelling expenses. We have also submitted this report to a group of professional chartered accountants, some of whom were nominated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants and some of whom I chose from my own personal professional experience.
That adds up to a total amount of $489,753. Less the amount transferred from salaries, the total is $399,753. As I said, only $175,000 is requested for the establishment of a consumers branch in the new department which was authorized last December by parliament.
Under vote 5c relating to the Bankruptcy Act the amount of $109,000 is for the setting up of three regional offices and an investigation squad in order to meet the responsibilities as I interpret them of combating fraudulent bankruptcies in this country, which I termed rather facetiously as being one of the growth industries of this country. I think we have now turned the tide in respect of the type of enforcement we are achieving.
We have managed to work out an agreement with some of the provinces, beginning with the province of Quebec, for the use of federal crown prosecutors in respect of offences under the Bankruptcy Act and provincial crown attorneys under the Criminal Code relating to bankruptcy matters. I believe that the centralization of this type of enforcement, aided by regional offices in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, teams of accountants and the bankruptcy squad now established in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, has made the investigation and coordination of case work, presentation of evidence and prosecution itself far more effective. On an earlier occasion in answer to a question posed by the hon. member for Yukon I gave these statistics. Here again I think we have an investment which the Canadian people would wish made in order to protect the business community of this country, particularly those small creditors who are usually hurt whenever a bankruptcy occurs.
Sub vote 25 of vote 20 in the amount of $80,000 relating to the patent division is to cover the cost of the mid-cyclical review for the professional category which was granted in January, 1967 but not paid until April or May of 1968. No funds were requested from the Treasury Board at that time. This was in response to an earlier request and since the money was not withdrawn it is brought back, I understand, into these estimates.

[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The hon. member for Wellington South made some inquiries about some of these expenses and asked whether the entire amount of $683,753 was spent on the consumer branch. I have answered that question by informing the committee that $175,000 is the amount allocated to the branch. The hon. member also asked me about staff and I have already indicated to the committee that there are 26 positions of which about 18 have been filled. The hon. member also asked whether there were two deputy ministers or one. There is one deputy minister over one department. He asked whether the department intended to centralize the entire administration of consumer affairs throughout the federal government. Let me answer now by saying no, we intend to co-ordinate the consumer program in accordance with the legislation. If, after a review of management of consumer programs of the federal government, we should find that some matters would be better handled in a central way the government can then make the administrative changes. We have set up an interdepartmental committee of deputy ministers, under the chairmanship of my deputy minister to look into the various consumer programs from this point of view.
I was also asked about the consumer advisory council. I am almost in a position to publish the terms of reference and once I am able to present my nominees to my colleagues and get approval I will make an announcement regarding the membership of that council.
I should like to make some comment in response to the original remarks of the hon. member for Halifax and the remarks today by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond concerning National Hockey League franchises. When in Vancouver and in answer to a question asked in the house I outlined the contents of my telegram to Mr. Campbell. Let me state once again that as the courts interpret the act I have no jurisdiction over services. The jurisdiction and authority of the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act are limited to goods. Professional sport falls under the service item. I do not want in any way to anticipate the current study undertaken by the Economic Council of Canada which, by virtue of a reference made by this government on July 22, 1966, is reviewing the Combines Investigation Act, but I should like to say that since services amount to about 35 per
March 19, 1968

cent of our gross national product it seems strange to me that goods should fall within the ambit of the act and services should not.
Let me say also that had I jursidiction and authority over services, and thereby over professional sport, I should be very interested in reviewing some of the contracts which are used by various clubs in the N.H.L., particularly those which tie up for life young boys around 14 years of age and of amateur status. I am inclined to think, without prejudging the situation, that had I the authority I would take more than a passing interest in that phase of the game.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the minister permit a question at this stage? He said that if he had the authority to deal with hockey as a service he would do certain things. Is this authority one which parliament could grant?


John Napier Turner: I feel there is constitutional authority over services as there is over goods. There are limitations under which the director of investigation and research labours, aside from limitations in respect of staff. If parliament grants a department certain priorities, as we have been granted in respect of consumer affairs and combines, particularly if they arise out of reviews such as the Batten commission, about which I want to talk later, then the director of investigation and research must be given the necessary resources to do what parliament asks him to do. It is my opinion that at this moment he has not those necessary resources.
The statutory limitation is not only in respect of services; there is also a limitation in respect of civil jurisdiction. I have always felt that we have a constitutional remedy. We have relied on criminal law which involves a very heavy burden of proof. We have not tested the trade and commerce laws under the B.N.A. Act. Again without anticipating the study of the Economic Council of Canada, I feel there is something to be said for giving damages to an aggrieved party. Under the anti-trust legislation in the United States an aggrieved party, if successful, is entitled to triple damages.
I think we must also explore the possibility of allowing cease and desist orders. Because of the complicated nature of merger and combines cases, as well as restraint of trade cases, a complaint may be brought but by the time the director, with the resources he has, is able to bring evidence of a complicated transaction before the restrictive trade practices commission and obtain a report that 27053-492J
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs there is a prima facie case, which in turn is brought before the courts by the attorney general, the aggrieved parties may be in bankruptcy. There is no authority under the act for the director to anticipate a decision and intervene or to call for a cease and desist order. Those are other limitations. Constitutionally I think the minister and the director of investigation and research would have authority over services if parliament were to grant it.
The Batten commission was again brought to my attention by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway. I do not intend to go over the circumstances of the invitation I extended to Judge Mary Batten last week when she was down here, as I think the hon. member is aware of them. In respect of the grocery situation in western Canada I did ask the director of investigation and research to examine the allegations in that report. If he finds them to be substantiated he is required to initiate an inquiry. He has begun his work and I understand that officers are on their way to western Canada to examine the research and reports on which the allegations of the commission were founded.
I have also written the three prairie premiers asking them whether, in anticipation of any reference in respect of those aspects of the report which relate to the consumer branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, our officers may keep in touch with the research staff of the commission. I felt bound to proceed in this way because the commission was established by the three prairie governments. I can only take informal cognizance of it except in respect of the combines aspect.
The proper procedure would eventually be for the prairie governments to accept the recommendations of the Batten commission and refer them, as Judge Batten and her cocommissioners suggested, to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In anticipation of any reference I have asked the three premiers to allow my officers to examine the data so we will have the information on hand.
As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way knows, a lot of these recommendations relating to the consumer goods industry were also made by the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, of which she was a member. There were also comments in the committee about the cost of living. In this respect the authority of this department is related to the general economic
March 19, 1968
7810	COMMONS
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs policy of the government. This department does not have any special weapon with which to attack the cost of living. The board of review suggested by the Prime Minister would relate to an examination of charges, prices and costs generally. The constitutional power of enforcement does not lie directly with the federal government, and this is one reason we are contacting the provincial governments at this time for their co-operation.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I do not want to comment generally on the economic policy of the government except in so far as it relates to my particular responsibilities as minister. I do not need to comment now on what my good friend the hon. member for Peace River asked about combines, because I feel I have already dealt quite thoroughly with that subject. The hon. member for Kootenay West asked what I was going to do by way of sponsoring public information for the consumer. I agree with him that one of the chief functions of this department when we get the resources from parliament-and I realize and accept the restriction on spending at this moment-will be in the role of research, public education and information. We now have in the department a consumer information section. We hope eventually to see what we can do within the federal jurisdiction to contribute to consumer counselling.
We look forward to seeing what we can do in co-operation with the media of the printed word, television and radio to help inform the Canadian consumer. As a matter of fact we have already received co-operation from many professional broadcasters, television people and those responsible for consumer columns and consumer pages in Canadian newspapers. They have already given us a great deal of help.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Excellent.


John Napier Turner: I hope that within the next two or three weeks we will have ready a booklet of information for the consumer showing the average Canadian housewife where to write if she has a consumer complaint which needs remedying, action or information. That booklet should be published very shortly. I hope that for the moment the hon. member for Kootenay West will bear with me on this progress report.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich asked what I am going to do about misleading advertising. He will observe that the proposed amendment of the Criminal Code


involves the transfer of section 306 of the Criminal Code, which relates to misleading advertising alongside section 33C of the Combines Investigation Act. The substance of this transfer is that instead of allowing the enforcement of this section relating to misleading advertising to rest in the hands of the provincial attorneys general, we intend to bring it back to the federal Department of Justice for crown prosecutions. I hope this will result in a more uniform enforcement of the statute.
There has been considerable case law or jurisprudence built up on those two sections. I hope that in the next review of the Criminal Code we may have more fundamental revisions to that particular section. I also refer members of the committee to the annual report of the Director of Investigation and Research, which sets out the important judicial decisions in respect of section 33C.
The hon. member for Timiskaming asked what our priorities were in the department, particularly as they relate to the consumer interest. First, we are undertaking a general review of the entire federal consumer program and the legislation enforcing it. I remember that when we were discussing the nature of the department last fall I was able to say to hon. members that the statute setting up the department was an enabling statute giving us initiating, co-ordinating and policy powers. The first step, surely, is to find out just where and how the consumer program is administered by the various federal departments and agencies and the interdepartmental committee which is now in operation under the chairmanship of my deputy minister. So the first thing is a review of the administration of and the legislation behind the present program. We have set up an information service which I have already described. We have set up a research bureau. We consider that misleading advertising is an immediate priority and we intend to enforce that section. The problem of labelling and packaging is receiving active consideration, particularly those recommendations that were made by the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons.
Also, as I have said publicly, I am reviewing the constitutional position of the federal government with respect to bilingual labelling. If we admit that every consumer is entitled to know exactly what she is buying, she is also entitled to understand the language on the label. There are certain constitutional
March 19, 1968	COMMONS
limitations. We are bound by international trade treaties, some of which provide for language requirements. The federal government is limited in its authority, of course, in respect of interprovincial and international trade.
I could go on but I think the hon. member sees the direction in which we are moving. We are also reviewing the question of standards and grades. I want to say again that we have to decide what our priorities are going to be because with a limited complement of 26 positions we have to allocate those priorities very carefully.
The hon. member for Queens asked whether the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Prince Edward Island had made application to me, as the minister responsible for the administration of the Bankruptcy Act, to bring into force part X of that act. My answer is yes, application has been made and we are drawing up the appropriate order in council. This relates to farmers or wage earners and their creditors and derives from a particularly unfortunate situation in Prince Edward Island.
I shall do my best to obtain an immediate answer to question No. 1,101 put by the hon. member for Carleton, but I have already talked about the Canadian committee on mutual funds and investment contracts. In reply to the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, the last time the question arose in the house-I have talked to him privately since then about this matter-I said that I had asked legal counsel to advise me whether we should appeal the case. The advice we obtained was that we should not appeal the case. After reviewing the matter with my own officers and with officers of the Department of Justice I accepted that advice.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this has brought up to date my participation in the debate with respect to questions asked by members of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has been more explicit today with regard to the work of the department than at any time I have heard him speak since the department was established or during the process of establishing it. I do not know how much this is due to the fact that he is preaching for a call, but I hope that the preaching for a call will continue and become much more definite in the next few days because I have seen today the first hopeful sign
DEBATES	7811
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs that there might be a little power in the department or at least in the mind of the minister the will to use that power.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke said I had referred to this whole program as a toothless wonder. That is completely correct. It has been in the past. If I understood the minister correctly, he said he was asking the combines investigation officers to look into the situation of retailing on the prairies. Is this correct?


John Napier Turner: Yes.


Winona Grace MacInnis: think this is the first indication that there might be some hope of the department intervening with regard to the cost of living.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I am quite sure that the governments of the prairie provinces will be only too glad to have leadership and direction from the federal department. This may very well be the beginning of a co-operative attempt to throw light on the situation and then to begin to deal with it. I am very glad the minister has taken the initiative but I do hope action will be continued in this direction for a long time in the future regardless of what may be the outcome of the forthcoming nomination convention, because there is a great deal of work to be done. The minister has the authority to do what he is doing, quite apart from the good will of the provinces, on the basis of the joint Senate and House of Commons committee examination of this matter which encompassed the whole of Canada, a much wider field than was covered by the study of the prairie commission. I believe that the minister has every right to move into this field on the basis of the committee's recommendations to the house. I am very glad he is doing so in the case of the prairie provinces on what I would hope to be a co-operative basis.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, may I interject for a moment? I hope I have not misled the hon. member. What I said was that we are examining the allegations in the Batten commission report. In other words, we would be analysing the factual basis upon which these allegations were made.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
hope the department will not stop at just an examination and will realize this is only the first nibble. Perhaps one cannot expect the department to develop teeth all at once. I was
March 19, 1968

Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs afraid we might have to "gum it", as used to be said when all the teeth were gone. Perhaps this is the cutting of the baby teeth. In any event, I hope the examination will not be pigeonholed but will lead to action.
I was grateful to the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas for bringing us down to earth regarding the cost of the consumer affairs branch. It is true that these supplementary estimates call for only $175,000 but the projected requirement in next year's estimates is $394,400 which is a big sum of money. I am not as concerned as the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas about the size .of that sum of money as I am to ensure that *the taxpayers and consumers of this country get their money's worth. I am far less inter-*ested in curtailing that amount of money than I am in ensuring that full value is given to the consumer for that money.
This is why I wish to raise this afternoon a few definite and specific problems in connection with the supplementary estimates before us. The minister said he is ready to announce the names of the personnel who are to form the consumer advisory council so that it may begin its work. If he has time this afternoon I hope he will tell us a little more about what the consumer advisory council will be doing, because I believe the minister tried to cover up the fact that the government is not yet ready to deal with the cost of living through selective price controls.
I point out to the minister that the government's policy has been known to change on some of these matters. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have held a bait in front of us in the form of a prices review board designed to deal with increasing wages and other factors contributing to inflation but not with profits. It is possible that in view of the consumer pressure across the country we may yet live to see the day when the minister will see the necessity for the establishment of a prices review board under the jurisdiction of his department. So I should like to hear from the minister what the functions of this advisory council will be, whether it will keep in touch in a real way with consumer opinion across the country, what kind of techniques it will use to find out what consumers want, and whether it will be its job to make periodic reviews or analyses in its reports to the minister.
In my view the department should deal with one specific grievance, which has come to my desk and I am sure will reach the minister, from the Ottawa consumers protest
[Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1
association on behalf of the Canadian consumers protest association. The Ottawa branch is one of 55 similar groups located across Canada from Halifax to Vancouver. I know the minister is familiar with it. As a matter of fact I believe that when the group of women came up from Montreal to see him he ran away and hid from them ignominiously.


John Napier Turner: Wait a minute, Mr. Chairman, I did not hide from them at all. They came up on short notice, as they are wont to do, and my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, spent an hour and a half with them.


Winona Grace MacInnis: They were not satisfied with the replacement, good as he was. However, I am glad to know that the minister was not in hiding. These people have written to me.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps he was shy.


Winona Grace MacInnis: do not think he was shy but perhaps by the time they got through he did not know they were women. He may have thought they were pretty determined individuals. These people are most anxious that the minister should look closely at the recommendations of the Batten commission that tariffs on some essential foodstuffs be abolished. They are particularly concerned about the cost of tomatoes and cucumbers in the winter months. As the minister knows, there is a very limited supply of fresh food in Canada in the winter months, at which time it is possible to get an adequate supply of tomatoes and cucumbers from Mexico. It appears that the cost of production of tomatoes by Canadian greenhouse growers is almost three times as high per pound as that of Mexican growers. Recently in Ottawa Mexican tomatoes were priced at 59 cents for three pounds while Canadian tomatoes cost the consumer 39 cents a pound.
It is not to Canada's advantage to devote resources to growing tomatoes and cucumbers in the winter months. The protection of the industry through tariffs could well be an example of "hothouse" in two senses. The members of the association are most anxious that the tariffs be abolished. If it is necessary to give relief to the Canadian hothouse tomato and cucumber growers, then let it be given in some other form, such as relief in the form of subsidies, but let us not burden the housewives with the high cost of vital fresh food for their families in the wintertime. I hope
March 19, 1968	COMMONS
the minister will seriously consider this complaint because it affects the whole of Canada so far as vital items in our diet are concerned.
I should like to speak about another matter which has not been dealt with at all in this debate. I receive a great many complaints from parents of teenagers across Canada. They feel very bitter about the advertising of buying on credit. They feel that often these young people, who are old enough to get away from home and have a part time or even a full time job, are being victimized by misleading and enticing advertising into incurring debts through credit buying facilities before they are old enough to know what they are doing and before they are fully financially independent. I think this is a field where the consumer needs protection badly. As I suggested once before in the house, the minister would do well to look at what is being done in the United States by one of the big foundations to counteract some of the fraudulent and misleading television advertising.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I feel that this is an area of particular concern when young teenagers are involved who are not really on their own except in the sense that they have the power to obtain credit but then have to rely on their parents to take care of the resulting debt. I believe this situation underlines the need for the minister to examine the recommendations of the prairie commission that facilities connected with credit buying ought to be brought within the purview of the Combines Investigation Act.
I hope the minister will take a real look at the report of the prairie commission on groceries. I am keeping my fingers very firmly crossed in this regard. I hope that his examination does not involve taking one horrified look and then deciding the problem is too big and too difficult to tackle. I hope he realizes that it may be big and difficult now but that it will become more unwieldy and more difficult as time passes.
There is one point upon which I wish to congratulate the minister. I refer to the introduction of Bill No. C-190 which could perhaps bring down the price of prescription drugs to consumers in Canada. I have been disappointed to find that one large group in the house feels that the bill is not good and they are not going to co-operate in giving the consumer the benefit of this legislation. Frankly, this is the first piece of consumer protection I have
DEBATES	7813
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs seen emanate from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and I believe that the house would do well not to adjourn until Bill No. C-190 has been passed. I for one intend to advise every consumer I can find that Bill No. C-190 is a definite attempt to bring down the price of prescription drugs. One federal party in this country does not want that done. In my opinion these people are ignoring the interests of Canadian consumers, particularly the low income consumers who are today groaning under the heavy price of prescription drugs. I do not believe the house should adjourn until Bill No. C-190 has been considered in committee and given third reading.
I believe we should have followed the idea promulgated earlier to get these supplementary estimates out of the way today so we could go on with Bill No. C-190 tomorrow. If some of us in this corner are talking about other consumer difficulties today I want it clearly understood this simply results from the fact that one of the large parties in this house would not agree to go ahead with Bill No. C-190. I hope they will change their minds because they are going to be exceedingly unpopular with the consumers across this country if they do not do so.
In my view the consumers of this country are watching very closely what is being done by this new department. The minister has made a good start in what he has been doing lately. I want to urge him not to forget the motto which he has put so prominently in his new book. It reads:
My plea is that we Liberals should embark on a crusade to defend the individual-whenever the rights of the weak are being sacrificed to the power of the strong.
This motto is in the minister's new book. The minister knows quite well that too often people who have written books have found that their contents have come back to haunt them. If the minister wants to avoid being haunted for the rest of his life he will remember that the rights of the weak are being sacrificed to the power of the strong across Canada today in the whole field of consumer activities, whether it be prairie retailing, prescription drugs, combines, housing or any other field. If the minister will embark on a genuine crusade and not just look into what is happening but seek one piece of legislation after another, he will find that a number of us in this corner will give him the same type of wholehearted support we have given Bill No. C-190. We will give this support to any effort he will make to
March 19, 1968
7814	COMMONS
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs co-operate with the prairie governments or any other government that will look at the cost of living and then take measures to deal with it, even if that involves price controls for the necessities. This is the thing his department will have to keep in mind. It is a big responsibility.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak at this point but the hon. lady who has just resumed her seat resorted to some blackmail in the words she uttered. I want to make it abundantly clear that a week ago last Monday the government house leader called a house leaders' meeting which I attended along with other house leaders. However, there was no representative from the New Democratic party. They ignored that meeting, and I do not know for what reason. At that time the government house leader asked us whether there was a possibility that the supplementary estimates and interim supply for two months could be dealt with before the end of that week. We thought there was that possibility and all of those present said so. The next day, or some days later, we got word that the New Democratic party would not agree to this course. They said they were going to filibuster the supplementary estimates until the end of the week. Their next approach was that they would agree to shut off this debate tonight provided the drug bill were brought before the house for consideration.
Our position on that bill has been made abundantly clear but I shall do so again so there will be no question about it. While we agree with the bill in so far as it may provide for lower prices we feel it is our responsibility and the minister's responsibility to have some concern for the safety aspect. It is this point that we want to stress. Not only should drugs be made cheaper for the Canadian people but there should also be some safeguards against drugs being imported into this country that would be detrimental to the consumers. We are not going to be blackmailed by the N.D.P. I want to make that abundantly clear. We have our own viewpoint and we are not going to be subjected to this kind of attack.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox.


John Napier Turner: Would the hon. member yield the floor for about two minutes on this subject?


Mr. Alkenbrack:: After I am finished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I am rising on a question of privilege.


John Napier Turner: I will rise on a point of order then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege. I do not wish to enter into any lengthy argument with the hon. member for Ontario, but he did make a reference to the fact there was a meeting of house leaders at which no representative from this party was present. The implication is that someone was not doing his duty and that someone in this case is the member for Winnipeg North Centre who happens to be this party's house leader. A meeting was held on a certain day at a time when I was in attendance at a meeting of the committee on health and welfare, but my views and the views of this party on this question had been made known at previous meetings. It had been made known repeatedly that we feel that Bill No. C-190 should be proceeded with before we recess.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Perhaps I might be permitted to say that our main quarrel is not with the members of the official opposition on this matter. They do not need to be so concerned. Our quarrel is with the government. After all, Bill No. C-190 is a piece of government legislation. It has been given first and second readings and has started to go through committee of the whole. We think that it should be proceeded with. That is why we have taken the stand that this session should not recess until it has been passed. In fact, we feel that if it is not dealt with before we rise it will not be dealt with at all; it will die on the order paper. That is our concern. I think the hon. member for Ontario is a little off the beam in the kind of complaints he is making.


Michael Starr: I am not off the beam at all.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I shall listen to the minister in a moment. Perhaps I should point out to the committee that while there may be some connection between the subject now before the committee and Bill No. C-190, which is why I have allowed the discussion to go ahead, I think that if there is to be an overly long discussion as to what the business of the house is to be it should take place with the Speaker in the chair. However, I will hear the minister.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order that relates to the remarks
March 19, 1968

made by the hon. member for Ontario and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. As the minister responsible for Bill No. C-190 I want to make my position perfectly clear. When the bill was granted second reading through the courtesy of the house I undertook to review all reasonable amendments that might be suggested by members of the opposition. Some amendments were presented to me on an informal basis by members of the official opposition. Those amendments have been reviewed by officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the food and drug directorate, my department, the Department of Justice and the Department of Industry. Then in an informal way, and through the hon. member for Halton who was chairman of the House of Commons committee that gave birth to some of the recommendations made in the bill, we negotiated with the hon. member for Simcoe East and the hon. member for Saskatoon.
I said in introducing the bill that I was satisfied that the bill protected the people of Canada, that the bill gave an assurance to the people of Canada that only safe, efficacious, high quality drugs would be imported or distributed. The fact that the Department of National Health and Welfare was party to the drafting of the bill was further assurance to me.
In light of the suggestions that were made by the official opposition we reviewed the bill. We have come forth with what we think are additional clarifications that in our opinion re-ensure the safety measures of the bill. I am prepared, of course, to stand by the bill in terms of its economic significance and in terms of the safety of the Canadian people, and I am prepared to have it debated at any time.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that despite the political exigencies of the moment the house can deal with this vital question by way of debate at this time. I want to congratulate the minister, even though he is playing one of the key roles in the coming drama on April 6, for being in his seat today and attending to his duties as a minister and member of this house should. I would also like to congratulate all members who have taken part in this debate and to note that many constructive opinions have been placed before the committee, as well as before the government on whose shoulders rests the responsibility for the persistent rise in the cost of living the heavy load of which is now being borne by the people of Canada.
DEBATES	7815
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs
As reported at pages 5609 to 5611 of Hansard for May 27, 1966, during the first session of this parliament, Mr. Chairman, I pointed out to the government the economic plight of the vast majority of the citizens of Canada whose lives and livelihoods were and are being so adversely affected by the spiralling cost of living. I was followed by other hon. members from all parties who voiced the same warnings to the government. They too pointed out the harm that was being done to the farmers, the labourers, the professional people in the medium and lower income brackets, to the old age pensioners, the veterans and war pensioners

yes, Mr. Chairman, to the consumers of this country in general.
At that time I stated that present-day government policy and the consequent high cost of consumer goods are storming the last bastion of individual hope and the right of the individual to a decent standard of living. I also stated that it is practically impossible for the average head of a family to make his modest salary support the family from one payday to the next. My colleagues who participated in that debate two years ago-and I say colleagues because they were members from all parties-were equally concerned to point out to the government that prices had skyrocketed all along the line, in food, rent, clothing, fuel, transportation, medical services, insurance, taxes and capital cost of housing both new and used. In this rapid and cruel escalation of costs this government has been a steady partner. Its policies over the past four years glaringly illustrate this fact.
I do not wish today to enumerate once more all those facets of life and living that the policies of this government have so adversely affected. All I wish to do today, is to indicate some of the adverse conditions existing today from the point of view of the consumers of Canada, conditions which are now worse than they were two years ago. In this connection I should like to refer to some statistics I have just received from our reliable Dominion Bureau of Statistics. These figures have been produced by machine. The official who talked to my secretary on the telephone stated that he had asked the computer for the latest figures on the cost of living index.
In May, 1966, when we had that impromptu but effective debate to which I have referred, the consumer price index stood at 143.4. In February, 1968 the consumer price index stood at 152.7, an increase of 6.5 per cent. As
March 19. 1968

Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs we all know, Mr. Chairman, 100 represents the level as at 1949.
I suggest that these are ominous figures. The consumer price index has increased by 6.5 per cent during the last 22 months. During approximately the same period unemployment across Canada has risen to about 6.4 per cent of the labour force. Thus the buying power of the people of Canada, especially of the unemployed, is being relentlessly choked. In May, 1966 people were referring to the cost of living, which then stood at the figure of 143.4, as unbearable. The government ignored our pleas and now, 22 months later, the figure is 152.7, an increase of 6.5 per cent in just 22 months. The government has done nothing about the matter. Perhaps I am being unfair. They have done something. They have formed a new department, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and installed a most gracious, intelligent and well liked minister to head it. He is running for the leadership of his party, and I wish him well. I say to him today that if he gets the leadership the thing for him to do, and quickly, is to try to reduce the cost of living of the working people of Canada.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: The minister has spoken of the services and offices which have been started but so far the minister has not brought down the cost of living one single point. In fact, the cost of living has not decreased one-tenth of a point and the statistics quoted prove my point. I say to the minister: Do not let the Prime Minister in his easygoing way convince you that all that is necessary is the installation and setting up of another board or commission. I now wish to quote the Prime Minister's words on the Canadian economy spoken in this chamber. On page 7536 of Hansard for March 12, 1968, the Prime Minister is reported to have said:
These selective programs.. .have their effect over the longer term. But in the curent situation additional measures are required to have a more direct and immediate effect. We must find some effective means of influencing, not controling but influencing, the many individual decisions that give rise to increases in incomes, costs and prices.
Those words are ominous. They point the finger at what the government has done during the past four years. The cabinet has not made one decision to prevent many unreasonable increases of incomes, costs and prices. Evidently the Prime Minister must have

learned his lesson because from his words he seems to want to rectify the actions of the past four years.
As recorded in Hansard at page 7537 the Prime Minister went on to say:
To this end the government proposes to establish a governmental agency, commission or board, whatever it may be called, to review and scrutinize major decisions affecting prices, incomes and costs throughout the economy.
He spoke of what this agency would do and then said:
The precise nature and the terms of reference of this review agency wil be determined after necessary consultations with interested parties. These include provincial governments, the leading elements in the labour movement and in industry, professional associations and others concerned. We shall also, Mr. Speaker, take carefully into acocunt any views on this proposal expressed in parliament.
The Prime Minister's words are nothing but a gesture. They are a sort of economic windowdressing, enough to get him safely past his resignation date. I say to the minister, who may win the leadership, do something now about the vicious price spiral. Do something people can give you credit for. Make our price laws and regulations effective.
The Wartime Prices and Trade Board had a difficult job to do. I remember that in 1942, when I was in the lumber business, one of my trucks loaded with lumber destined for a wartime airdrome, Camp Mohawk at Des-eronto, stalled on the road 20 miles north of Napanee with two blown tires. I had to apply to the board at their Kingston office for permission to buy two tires and they sent four men in a car 45 miles from Kingston to make certain that the truck needed two new tires. You could call that another ridiculous incident in the workings of bureaucracy, but they let me have the tires. That board was doing its job and it helped to win the war. The board was set up as an emergency measure.
Now, 26 years later, I submit that Canada will never survive economically unless some regulatory authority controls price levels within a free economy. The government ought to set an example first by controlling its own spending better. In his statement the other day the Prime Minister said, as recorded on page 7537 of Hansard:
We shall also, Mr. Speaker, take carefully Into account any views on this proposal expressed in parliament.
I hope the minister will heed the constructive words of all those who have taken part in this debate. I say that the response of this government to the warnings that were given
March 19, 1968

in the debate of May 27, 1966, has been unacceptable. I deliberately use that word because it is one of the Prime Minister's favourites. When he used it as a private member of the chamber I sometimes agreed with him. But in this matter under discussion, and we are considering the little empire that is now ruled over by the minister, the government's action is unacceptable.
Let us examine the general estimates for 1967-68. The department spent $7,015,000 directly and $1,240,600 indirectly. In other words, the department last year cost Canada's taxpayers nearly $8.5 million. I know that includes the corporate affairs part of the department, and this amount cannot all be ascribed to new offices and the operation of the new department.


John Napier Turner: May I ask a question?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: When I have finished, Mr. Chairman. For this fiscal year it is estimated that the department will spend $8,606,500 directly and $1,403,500 indirectly-well over $10 million. After having been granted nearly $20 million over two years the department is asking in these supplementary estimates for another handout of $683,753. Since its inception the department has not done anything to bring down living costs. Neither has it brought forward a single measure of legislative value to help the workingman, the farmer, the old age pensioner, the veteran, or the man on a fixed income. If this supplementary request is passed the department with its luxury empire of wall to wall carpets will have cost our taxpayers nearly $21 million. That is one reason why so many people across the country are dissatisfied with the government. That is why the consumer citizens of Canada are determined to change and rectify the situation at their next electoral opportunity.


An hon. Member:: Are you kidding?
Another hon. Member: Six o'clock.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I rise on a point of order to speak of a matter that I mentioned last night. At eight o'clock we shall continue with the estimates of the Departments of Defence Production and Industry and then with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and so on. It was understood that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would not be in the house at eight o'clock.


An hon. Member:: Where will he be?

Supply-Defence Production


Herman Maxwell Batten: The questions listed for debate on tonight's adjournment motion are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), Consumer Affairs-hearing aids-request for inquiry into prices; the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-alleged suppression of filmed interview with Nigerian official; the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir), Labour Conditions-North Sydney, Nova Scotia-request for assistance for dock workers.
It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of supply, Supplementary Estimates (C), 1967-68, of the Department of Defence Production. The details will be found on page 6 of the supplementary estimates. Vote 6c.



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
6c. Reimbursement of the Defence Production Revolving Fund established by Section 16(1) of the Defence Production Act for losses sustained in the operation of the Crown-owned magnesium foundry at Haley, Ontario, prior to its sale in December, 1967, $480,000.
Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, I first
became interested in this vote 6c in the estimates of the Department of Defence Production when I noted that it mentioned the sale of public property. The reason I am particularly interested in it is because recently the Minister of National Defence, or his department, saw fit to disband the local unit in my area, the Fourteenth Canadian Hussars. I will not go into the reasons, or what I think of the action of the government in this respect, but with the disbandment of that unit it left two armouries surplus in my constituency, one in Swift Current and one in Maple Creek.
To give a little of the history of the building of these armouries I would point out that I believe the land in both cases was given to the Department of National Defence for a nominal sum, I think the sum of $1. Now that the armouries are no longer used by the unit, naturally the municipalities in which they are situated are concerned about what is going to happen to them. As a result of their concern and their contacting me, I wrote to the Minister of National Defence and asked him if he
March 19, 1968

Supply-Defence Production would dispose of these armouries, and whether he had contacted the municipalities concerned to see if they could make a deal with the Department of National Defence, because these municipalities knew the circumstances surrounding the purchase of the land in the first place.
Much to my surprise on March 7, 1968, I received a letter from the minister, and I would like to put on the record part of the second paragraph of that letter, in which he wrote:
-the department is prevented by statute from effecting direct disposal of these properties. Under the provisions of the Surplus Crown Assets Act, my department is obligated to hand over all responsibility for the disposal of its surplus properties to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
Further on he wrote:
-the department has no voice in the negotiations and cannot predetermine the sale price.
On receipt of that letter I examined my files and from them extracted a news release which apparently was issued by the Department of Defence Production, dated January 24, 1968. This news release, which I should like to put on the record says:
The Department of Defence Production announces the sale of Haley Industries Limited, Haley Station, Ontario, a crown-owned light alloys foundry, to Bartaco Industries Limited of Orillia, Ontario.
The Haley plant was built in 1951 for the production of high grade magnesium and aluminum castings required by Canadian defence industry and was operated for the crown under management contracts.
The foundry will continue operations in the Renfrew area as a subsidiary of Bartaco Industries Limited.
The Haley foundry was set up at a time when no other source for such castings was available in Canada. Other sources are now available and it is no longer necessary to maintain this facility as a crown-owned plant for defence purposes.
The next part of the news release is very important so far as I am concerned, where it says:
In line with the government's policy in such cases, the facility is now being turned over to commercial interests so that it may expand and diversify.
A number of companies interested in the foundry business were solicited and the only offer received was from Bartaco Industries Limited.
It seems very peculiar to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Department of Defence Production can handle the sale of public property in this manner, especially when the Department of National Defence says that it is prevented by statute from effecting direct disposal of such properties. Which department are we to believe?

It may be coincidental that this foundry is in the Renfrew constituency which is represented by a minister of the crown, and that the two armouries I refer to are in the constituency of a backbencher. I wonder if this has any significance, because the hon. member representing the Renfrew area is also a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal party. Again I ask, is this just a coincidence?
I wish to ask the Minister of Defence Production why and how the sale of this plant in the Renfrew area was handled in this manner, and why was it when we, on this side of the chamber, requested that the department handle the sale of publicly owned property in my constituency, the minister's colleague said he was prevented by statute from doing so in this way?
I would also like to ask the assessed value of the property in Renfrew? I also wish to ask, because I have been unable to find out, for how much was this property sold? Further, I wish to ask whether this Bartaco company, mentioned in the department's news release, is an American or a Canadian firm? I have reason to believe that possibly at the time of the sale of the plant, some two or three months ago, Bartaco Industries was a Canadian firm, but that now it has been taken over by American interests. Was there no provision in the sale agreement that such a thing should not happen?
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to put on record the amount of the original capital expenditure for the building and the property in the first place. Referring to these supplementary estimates, what period do the figures therein cover? Actually the total of the two items in vote 6c and vote 7c amounts to $1,220,000. Was that the total loss on that plant over the time it was operated for the department, or was it the loss for one year?
I refer the minister's attention to the wording of item 6c:
Reimbursement of the defence production revolving fund established by section 16(1) of the Defence Production Act for losses sustained in the operation of the crown-owned magnesium foundry at Haley, Ontario, prior to its sale in Dcember, 1967.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Vote 7c provides for payment of the obligations of the crown-owned magnesium foundry at Haley, Ontario, outstanding as of September 30, 1967 in the amount of $740,000. There is a three month interval there. If you divide the amount of $480,000 by three it would seem that the operating loss would be
March 19, 1968
$160,000 per month. I would like to have an explanation of that. I should also like to direct the minister's attention to the remarks the Auditor General made with regard to sales of this type. At page 204 of his report, chapter 261, the Auditor General says:
Defence Production Revolving Fund. Section 16 of the Defence Production Act, R.S., c. 62, established the Defence Production revolving fund for the purpose of acquiring, storing, maintaining and transporting stocks of materials or defence supplies-[DOT]
Further down the report continues:
Also included in the year-end balance were loans of $10 million to manufacturers to assist them in the acquisition of capital equipment. These loans, which in our opinion were made contrary to section 16(2) (c) of the Defence Production Act, are commented on in paragraph 65 of this report.
I should like to know something about that and also under what heading this plant came. I do not see the Haley plant listed in the preface of the report. The minister might advise us whether this comes under Canadian Arsenals Limited. Would he advise us whether this company has ever shown a profit since 1951 and, if so, under what heading this was accredited. I should like the minister to advise us under what type of agreement with the government this company operated, and whether a financial statement was made available to the Auditor General. Perhaps the minister would explain whether there are other firms with like government agreements operating on a similar basis to that under which this company was operating from 1951 to 1967. Then he might advise whether the entire output of this plant was purchased by government agencies or through government contracts. I should like to know what type of agreement was made in respect of any loss to be paid for by the taxpayers, and whether if there should be a profit it would be credited to the taxpayers.
Before I proceed any further I should like the minister to give us the information concerning the assessed value of the property and the total amount the taxpayers of Canada received from the sale of this property.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to outline the history of this particular operation. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has asked a great many precise questions. As is apparent from the news release which he read, this company was organized at the time of the Korean conflict in order to provide a source of magnesium castings for Canadian users, particularly Avro
Supply-Defence Production in connection with the Avro-CF-100 production. The company was founded and equipped by the crown in 1951 to meet the needs of the CF-100 engine production. Light Alloys Limited, a subsidiary of Dominion Magnesium Limited, undertook operation and management of the plant until 1962 when, due to a declining defence workload, they terminated the management agreement.
In 1962 Dominion Magnesium Limited, which had been operating on crown owned property under a management arrangement, was terminated by the government. Following the decision to continue operation of the facility, in 1962 Fleet Manufacturing Limited undertook the management and formed a new company, Haley Industries Limited, which they operated until early 1963. This agreement was terminated in 1963 at the request of the crown and further authority was obtained to continue operations under a D.D.P. administrator to the end of 1963, pending the sale or transfer to commercial interests. Because of our inability to find a satisfactory buyer when the decision to continue operation was taken Heroux Machine Parts Limited undertook management of the facility in February 1964, including a purchase option. The company did not take up the option and in early 1967 decided to withdraw from the management agreement. Bartaco Industries Limited purchased the facility and undertook control in December 1967.
This is the story of the facility for the production of magnesium castings which we were able to have constructed and subsequently kept in operation by private interests. The plant was operated under a management contract until the managers withdrew and another manager was found. Finally a D.D.P. administrator was appointed. Because of the difficulty of finding satisfactory markets we persuaded Heroux Machine Parts Limited, which had possibilities of marketing these castings in Canada and in the United States, to undertake a management contract. They declined to take up the purchase option and withdrew from the management contract. We solicited some 28 companies as prospective purchasers. I have a list of them here. They included both large and small companies, both Canadian and United States owned, and some United Kingdom owned. The only firm which we found to be interested in this was Bartaco Industries Limited. Their conditions of purchase were as outlined in the supplementary estimates namely that the crown

March 19, 1968

Supply-Defence Production would discharge all the outstanding obligations against Haley Industries Limited, and for this a supplementary estimate in the amount of $740,000 is provided.
The amount of $740,000 appears in vote 7c. In addition the crown is required to write off the previous losses incurred up to that date. This appears in the amount of $480,000 under vote 6c. With regard to the question why this plant was not sold through Canadian Crown Assets Disposal Corporation I should point out that Crown Assets deals with net assets, if I may put it that way; that is, assets of the crown which have a net marketable value. This enterprise unfortunately not only did not have a net marketable value but represented a cost to the crown in getting rid of it in the interests of not incurring further losses, but still ensuring a continuing supply of magnesium castings to the Canadian industry. Employment at Haley's continued. In relation to the letter received from the Minister of National Defence I should like to say that, while I am told I should not state opinions on legal matters it is my understanding that it is the law that the departments of government are required to transfer to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation net assets which are surplus to the requirements of departments. These net assets are disposed of by Crown Assets Disposal and the proceeds are dealt with in accordance with the terms of the law. Exceptions to this kind of disposal by Crown Assets can be made by the minister who reports for Crown Assets, and this happens to be the Minister of Defence Production. The difference between the armoury and this Haley case is that the armoury represented net assets, and consequently was added to assets. In the other case there were no net assets, but rather liabilities. It is not proper for Crown Assets Disposal to deal with liabilities of this kind.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I regret that I have not got the value of the assessment, and by "assessment" I think the hon. gentleman means the municipal evaluation of the property in Renfrew. He did mention the original cost of the facilities. I think I can obtain the value of the assets, perhaps not tonight but later on.


John (Jack) McIntosh: It seems to me that if the Canadian taxpayer paid all the deficits of this organization, even by going through all the steps the minister suggested have been gone through since 1951 to 1962 and in subsequent years, there should be something left which

would be considered net assets. If the people had to pay this $1,220,000 it seems that when the expenses were all paid off there should be certain net assets, including the building and the property. I should like the minister to explain why these assets were not treated in the same way as the armouries. Perhaps he could indicate the net amount the Canadian people received from this Bartaco company for the sale of this plant and facilities?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The net receipts to the crown from the disposal of this operation is nil. This amounted to a loss. It is costing money to hand this over to the Bartaco industry. It is being handed over as a going concern, with commitments to deliver on firm contracts. The alternative would be to close the operation down and this would involve a variety of charges, in addition to losing our source of magnesium castings, which we hope to maintain under the new management. There would also be a substantial amount of unemployment created.
It is my understanding that if the operation had been wound up as at the beginning of March the loss from December 5 to March 1 would be $140,000. This would have been written off. Repayments of advances from the revolving fund would have amounted to $97,000. Contract penalties-penalties for the failure to carry out contracts already entered into-would have amounted to $100,000. The return sales would have amounted to $80,000. Employee severance pay would have amounted to $50,000. Preservation of the building and the equipment pending its disposal, if there was any disposable value, would have amounted to $20,000. The cost of keeping a watchman, paying taxes, and maintaining the building for a year would have amounted to $40,000. The excess of the liabilities over the assets would amount to $116,000. The total of all these would be in the order of $643,000. If you set that against the figure provided here, being $740,000, you can see the difference. It is not mentioned that in the agreement with Bartaco the crown will recover one half of the net profits of the operations during the first two years. We can only estimate this, but it is our hope that this will amount to $165,000. This leaves a net payable to the crown of $575,000 to dispose of this as against some $643,000 to wind it up by paying the charges I have mentioned.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am not sure who the minister thinks he is fooling when he suggests that if we carried on with this plan it would have cost us $500,000 because we would have
March 19, 1968

to pay maintenance charges, taxes and so on. This reminds me of the government saying it has made a savings by cutting down on the estimates for next year. This is like saying that if I had $5,000 today I might spend $4,000, but I have not spent $4,000 today so I have saved $4,000. It would seem to me from what the minister has said that if this plant was turned over to anyone, with all the current liabilities paid by the Canadian people, there ought to be some sort of asset left. I should like to know what the crown got for those assets. I am not interested in how much money they might have saved because they did not carry on this operation, because that is foolish. There was something tangible to work with there, including a building and property. The people of Canada did absorb all the liabilities. This plant was turned over to a company for some amount and I should like to know whether it was less than $1,000.


Malcolm MacInnis: Don't ask him, he wouldn't know.


John (Jack) McIntosh: We are dealing with the estimates and we should be able to get this information.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will try again. The discharge of the outstanding liabilities came to a total net payment by the crown of $740,000. Obviously because this operation is continuing, the crown is not absorbing all the liabilities. It is not absorbing the contractural loss on sales contracts entered into and against which there has to be performance. This has been taken on by Bartaco. With the assumption of outstanding financial liabilities in terms of money owing to the bank and outstanding accounts payable the crown had to pay $740,000. If you wish a figure one might say the property and equipment was sold for $1.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I should like to thank the minister for divulging the sale price of this property. It would seem to me that the minister said there was concession for the Canadian people in that they will participate in the profits of the company during the first two years. He also said the operation did not make any money from the time it opened until it was sold for the sum of $1.
I still cannot understand how his department can make a sale of this type. The Minister of National Defence says it is impossible for government departments to make sales in this way. Once the liabilities were absorbed by the Canadian people, why did not the minister turn this over to Crown Assets, as the
Supply-Defence Production statute directs him to do? Under what authority did the minister make this sale for the sum of $1?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It was made under the authority vested in the minister responsible for the administration of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.


John (Jack) McIntosh: What authority could the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation give the minister that has not been given by parliament? I thought the statutes in this country were passed by this parliament.
I do not remember any provision in the act-and I have looked it over-that gives a minister authority to dispose of any property in any manner that he sees fit. I thought the laws were made for all the people of Canada, including ministers. If the statute says that this property should be disposed of by Crown Assets, I think the minister was wrong in disposing of it in the manner in which he did and for the price at which it was sold.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the authority vested in the minister is provided under the law passed by the parliament of Canada. Under that law the minister responsible for Crown Assets Disposal Corporation has authority to vary the sale procedure set out in respect of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. This is a power vested in one minister only and not in ministers of other government departments. No such authority resides in the Minister of National Defence; he has not responsibility for Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
I tried to make the point to the hon. gentleman that what we are dealing with here is not a net asset; it is a liability. The fact that I am here seeking a supplementary appropriation is evidence of the fact that this is a liability being disposed of, and not an asset.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I still do not understand the minister's explanation. I ask him: Does this vote give the minister authority to make that sale? If we pass this vote, do I correctly understand that the minister will use it as authority for making this sale, in order to get around the statutes as they are at the present time? Also, was there any guarantee to the Canadian public that this plant, sold for the sum of $1, would not be sold to foreign interests, or was there any guarantee that there would not be any change in Canadian control for any length of time?
7822	COMMONS
Supply-Defence Production


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, section 5 of the Surplus Crown Assets Act provides that the Minister of Defence Production may authorize a government department to dispose of surplus crown assets in such manner, upon such terms and subject to such conditions as he may consider desirable. This is an enactment of very long standing. In respect of a condition that this property remain in Canadian ownership, I hope I can get the hon. gentleman to appreciate that we have for a very long time been trying to dispose of the property at the most advantageous terms possible and finally succeeded in finding one buyer, one man who under rather difficult or harsh conditions was prepared to take this plant over and continue operating it.
Whether Bartaco should be forced to guarantee that the operation will remain in Canadian hands for a specified period of time seemed rather beyond our powers to insist upon as part of the bargain. We were trying to dispose of this property at the least cost to the people of Canada and still keep it as a continuing operation for the production of magnesium castings.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, would the minister use his authority to dispose of the two armouries I have referred to at the least cost to the Canadian public? Would he be prepared to sell these armouries for $1, which is the price for which this plant was sold?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not sure I would agree to that, Mr. Chairman. Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, as a trustee of public assets, has been charged with securing the best possible return on the disposal of these assets. In the exercise of this mandate, Crown Assets regards itself as trustee for all the taxpayers of Canada and is not, as a consequence, authorized to confer benefits on a particular section or community of Canada. In the discharge of this responsibility, however, they do accord a priority in disposal and allow a right of first refusal exercisable in the first instance by the government of the province in which the asset is situated, and in the second place by the municipal authorities of the area in which the asset is situated. In that order, these non-federal government bodies have the right of first refusal.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, in the light of that explanation I fail to see why the minister did not turn the Haley plant over to them. 1 cannot see the difference in the two transactions. As I said, perhaps it is coincidental that there is a minister representing

DEBATES	March 19, 1968
the constituency of Renfrew and an opposition member representing the constituency of Swift Current-Maple Creek.
However, if the minister will not listen to reason in this regard I should like to ask him a further question in connection with the report of the Auditor General. Does this type of transaction come under the heading of "Unauthorized use of the Defence Production revolving fund" which is found on page 29 of the Auditor General's report? Does this paragraph in the report have any bearing on the sale of this property?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not think so. The report of the Auditor General will, I think, be examined in some detail by the public accounts committee. There, I am sure, legal advice will be sought as to the appropriateness of the observations made on the use of the revolving fund.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether he guaranteed any government funds to the company which bought this asset for the sum of $1, in order to keep it in operation.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, as I have indicated, the liabilities of the crown are ended with this operation. The future obligations become the responsibility of the purchaser Bartaco, and the crown's participation in this transaction is limited to a share of future profits.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether he could briefly give us a picture of the authority and policy of the Department of Defence Production in the calling of tenders, the letting of contracts and the cancellation of contracts. I am certain that all of us from British Columbia would appreciate that information because we have noticed that in the realm of contracts the changing policy of the government has in the past few months almost totally wrecked the shipbuilding industry of British Columbia.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Only a few months ago the government very proudly announced in the House of Commons that this year they were going to call for contracts for the construction of search and rescue vessels for the coastguard system on the Pacific coast. That policy has now been changed and no contracts are to be awarded. It is bad enough that the government does not keep its word that it is going ahead, not only with research for the safety
March 19, 1968

of the people employed on the ocean of the Pacific coast and projects which are necessary for the maintenance of and employment in a major industry, but on a question of even greater importance than that, which requires a clear explanation, as to whether the government lets a contract and then cancels it. Anyone who knows of the destroyer Chaudiere is fully aware that it is badly in need of an overhaul and that the plans were to convert it so that it could carry a helicopter. Last fall a contract was let at the lowest tender to Bur-rard Dry dock in Vancouver. The crew was ready, and I understand the material was purchased. The ship was at Esquimalt, ready to proceed to Burrard Drydock, and then the contract was cancelled. We were told that the conversion of the Chaudiere will not be proceeded with for at least 18 months. As I have already pointed out, this has brought the shipbuilding industry on the west coast to ruin, as over 65 per cent of the people in that industry are unemployed.
It means, without any question whatsoever, that in 18 months time the cost of the conversion will be far larger than if the contract had gone ahead. So far as the Chaudiere is concerned, the contract was let, the material was purchased, and the ship and the crew were ready, and 18 months from now the conversion will cost a lot more than the original contract called for. Surely it is very poor policy to wreck the industry in this way and to postpone the work for 18 months or two years, when the work will cost $2 or $3 million more. We fail to understand this decision, especially when the minister will, in the very near future, call for tenders for the construction of completely new destroyers, which in all probability will be built by the shipyards on the east coast.
Why is there discrimination in the letting of contracts for new construction, for alterations, repairs and conversion, against the province of British Columbia and in favour of the provinces on the east coast? I ask for an explanation of the policy of the department in respect of this. Does the minister have to follow the instruction of other departments in calling for tenders and letting contracts? Is the cancellation of the contract for the conversion of the Chaudiere a decision of the Minister of National Defence? Is the Minister of Defence Production only obeying the decision of the Minister of National Defence, and if so did he draw to the attention, either of the Department of Finance or of the Treasury Board, what such a decision will mean in
Supply-Defence Production additional costs, in unemployment, and in the wrecking of an industry on the west coast? Have these matters been discussed by the minister, and is any attention being given to them-or is the department just blindly following the instructions of other departments in calling for tenders and letting contracts?
While I am on my feet I should like to ask for an explanation with regard to the letting of contracts, and the original estimates. Let us consider for example the aircraft carrier Bonaventure, which had to go in for an overhaul. I presume that the contract was let by the Department of Defence Production. According to the information contained in the original estimates and published by the press, the overhaul was going to cost in the neighbourhood of $8 million. Yet, now that it is in drydock we find that it will cost $3 million more to overhaul it. I am just using this as an illustration. All one has to do is to go through the public accounts to see how time after time the amount of money which the taxpayer has to pay runs into thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars over and above the original estimate and the original contract. Can the minister give us an explanation for this continual underestimation of the costs of conversion and overhaul, particularly with regard to the aircraft carrier Bonaventure?
I have just one other point which has come to my attention as a result of our discussion in the public accounts committee. What attention does the Department of Defence Production give to what other departments are doing, when it has been asked to act on behalf of those departments? I have in mind one example which came to the attention of the public accounts committee only this morning. The Department of National Defence asked the Department of Defence Production to call for tenders and to let contracts for the clearing of snow at Fort Churchill. The Department of Defence Production did so; but later it was found that the Department of National Defence had undertaken the work, with the result that, according to the interpretation of the Department of Justice, the taxpayer has to cover the costs of work which was never done. It was a snow job on the taxpayers. I completely fail to understand the reason for such inefficiency. Could we have some explanation of these various matters?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the cancellation of contracts and the substantial cost mentioned in connection with Haley
March 19, 1968

Supply-Defence Production Industries, may I say that the payment of cancellation charges for contracts entered into by a crown agency has to be made by the crown. When the crown enters into a contract and, for one reason or another, may be forced to cancel it, the crown assumes responsibility for cancellation charges. So the contractor is not required to suffer a monetary loss as a consequence of the cancellation. In cases where it becomes necessary to cancel contracts, the crown assumes responsibility for the payment of cancellation charges.
In so far as the Chaudiere is concerned, I think the hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that the priority concerning the building, repairs, overhauls and refitting of defence equipment is assigned by the Department of National Defence, and it is up to that department to decide what is to be overhauled, repaired and built anew, and when.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The services of the Department of Defence Production are used to contract for these services or these products. The selection of the products and the timing is the choice of the Department of National Defence. In the case of the alternatives in connection with the conversion of the Chaudiere or the construction of new destroyers, this is a choice made by the Department of National Defence, and it is quite proper. In connection with the exercise of this choice, my department does furnish the Department of National Defence with figures as to the costs of these various options, costs in terms of money, and other economic consequences. When the Department of National Defence therefore is contemplating either a new contract or a cancellation, we do ensure that they are thoroughly advised as to the costs, and the cost disadvantages, of such a course of action. This I suggest was the information provided to the Department of National Defence in relation to the question of the Chaudiere.
Now, the hon. gentleman has mentioned the poor estimates of cost made in relation to the naval overhaul work, and in particular in connection with the Bonaventure. This of course is a continuing difficulty, so far as I am concerned, in that it is very rare that on every occasion when the cost of an operation is mentioned, the total cost is ever produced. In connection with the refit and overhaul of the Bonaventure, bids were sought from shipyards covering, first, the cost, on a firm price basis, of the known work that has to be done

and for which specifications could be provided. There is, second, an undisclosed, undetermined and unknown amount of additional work which will be required and which can only be discovered when the ship is in dry-dock and opened up, to use an expression. The hon. gentleman had some experience himself with that in his recent visit to the Bonaventure.
The amount of this work and its nature cannot be known until the ship is in drydock and after the contract is let. Consequently, as part of the contract, including the firm price bid for known, specified work, the shipyards are asked to quote an hourly rate for work which may arise out of the inspection of the ship, once it is in the dockyard. Estimates are made of what this might amount to in total man hours. Sometimes it turns out to be less, and sometimes more, depending on the condition of the interior of the machinery in some of the closed compartments, which is disclosed at the time of inspection.
In addition to this, the shipyards are furnished with equipment, gear and components which are purchased, not by the shipyards, but by the Department of Defence Production, and supplied on a free issue basis to the shipyards for installation in the ship. This is part of the cost of the refit, but it does not show up anywhere in the cost of the contract with the shipyard because it is a free in-free out entry. Consequently, when the total figures are finally seen, the total cost including the firm price of the known work, the amount of work made necessary as a result of the inspection of the sealed compartments and the final cost of procuring and installing the free issue, appears to be larger than the firm price bid which is the original bid by the shipyard.
I think this does account for confusion as to what the total cost is at any point. I am trying to insist that, when questions are asked in relation to only part of the cost of one of these refits, the hon. member is provided with the global cost as well as the particular answer.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, dealing with these items 6c and 7c concerning the sale for one dollar of the assets, or liabilities as the minister has chosen to describe them, I wonder if he could give us the inventory value at the time of the sale of the crown owned magnesium foundry located at Haley, Ontario, set out in the following classifications:	real
estate, machinery and automotive, raw
{March 19. 1968

materials, finished products and obsolete? Could he also place on the record, if he has the information, the directors and shareholders of this Bartaco organization?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will try to get that information. I do not have the details as to the real estate value, the value of the inventory and the depreciated value of the machinery.


Mr. Forrestall:: I have just one or two questions in connection with this vote. Since the minister has given details about the difficulty in estimating ship construction program costs, I should like to ask him if he could enlighten the committee on the four new D.D.H.'s, particularly as their total cost. The minister referred, I think quite wisely, to the misunderstandings which frequently arise when discussing costs involved in this type of construction or overhaul program.
I would specifically direct the minister's attention to the tender amount announced last fall in connection with the four D.D.H.'s. I ask him specifically, is this for the hull and machinery only or does it include all the radio, electronic and other sophisticated internal gear that is related to automatic fire power systems and so on?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Chairman, the cost of the completed ship, including the government furnished items, will be a lot closer to $50 million than the roughly $20 million bid.


J. Michael Forrestall: This is quite a difference. Now we are talking about a $200 million plus program, and the contracts have not been awarded. On the basis of past experience, could the minister simply advise us, because of the importance to those sections of Canada which rely upon the ship construction industry, whether or not these costs are sufficiently under control to prevent any possibility of costs getting out of hand and the government having to cut back or postpone the program?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, every effort is being made to ensure that at the time of the signing of the contract we will have accurate knowledge of the final cost. Quite understandably, my colleague the Minister of National Defence, whose money after all is paying for this, does not take very kindly to my tossing around loose figures and coming back for more money. I have assured him that my department will be able to procure the ship for the contracted price plus the cost of government furnished equipment, and that we will not be back asking for more money
Supply-Defence Production as a consequence of the costs having got out of control.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I think the hon. gentleman knows that, during the course of a naval construction program that takes four years to complete, there do tend to be changes in the art of naval warfare. During the course of construction there are occasions when the designers or even the users of the ship will ask for changes to be made. Sometimes these changes result in a change in cost. This is rather more the case with new designs of ships than it is with older ones, though this is always a possibility.


J. Michael Forrestall: I thank the minister for that assurance. The last thing that we would want to see is this program costing in excess of $400 million and have the government colleagues of the Minister of National Defence cancel it.
Before I leave this particular area of questioning, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister could tell me if the government is still adhering to its announced intention to spread at least part of this work among other yards outside the lead yard, or is the government seriously considering having all the work done in just one or two lead yards?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, we did look hard at the options. We could have had these new vessels built four in one yard, two in each of two yards or one in each of four yards. We retained consultants to do as careful a cost analysis of these options as possible. There is a very substantial saving to be achieved by having these vessels built in two pairs, or all four in one yard, provided the latter case were possible in terms of the time phasing requirements of the navy and the capacity of existing Canadian yards to handle the construction without making a very large investment in new plant.
I have reached the conclusion that the optimum, or best option, in terms of cost and time to the government was two and two. Two and two does represent a very substantial saving in dollars over the cost of one ship in one yard.


J. Michael Forrestall: I thank the minister for that answer. Another matter which has interested me is this. I am not picking on this minister particularly, because this sort of thing does occur from time to time in various departments. I should like the minister to explain to the committee why the government persists
March 19, 1968

Supply-Defence Production in granting an increase in salary by way of promotion of a particular category from one pay bracket to another.
I should like to refer to the minister's main estimates, in which it is noted that in the year 1966-67, there were 65 people included in the $14,000 to $16,000 salary bracket, whereas this year, 1967-68, the figure increased to 571, which is an increase of 506 people. On the other hand, in the immediate next category below that bracket, $12,000 to $14,000, for the year 1966-67 the figure dropped to three persons.
I should like to know whether the minister eliminated that particular pay bracket. This underlines what I consider to be one of the reasons that the minister's department was high on the list compiled by the Auditor General in his recently tabled year-end report. I wonder whether the minister could give me an explanation of that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I have noticed a few eyebrows being raised on the government side of the house. However, I can assure them that the hon. member for York-Humber, who periodically visits this group, has not made application for admission yet.
I rise, Mr. Chairman, particularly because reference was made earlier this evening to the policy of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation in disposing of armouries. I want to ask him about the disposal of an armoury and to get his advice, and I trust his sympathy.
The armoury at Nelson has for years been the headquarters of the militia there. At the same time it has been used by the navy and air cadets in that district. The militia unit there is now being trained in Trail with the rest of the militia unit, and I understand that the armoury at Nelson has been declared surplus and is for sale. Everyone in the district realizes that very good work is being done by the cadets, and those in charge of them. They are well sponsored by the citizens of the district. On that account they are very anxious to retain the armoury for the purpose of making use of it for the navy, army and air cadets.
I was very interested to hear the minister say that the province was given the first refusal and the municipality the second, but that the corporation could not favour one group or district as against the interests of the Canadian taxpayers as a whole. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman these cadets are actually saving the defence department money by

using the armoury, and it is on that account that the city of Nelson, backed by the citizens of Nelson, are trying to purchase the armoury from Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
I should like the minister to explain the procedure they should take, Mr. Chairman. I would also ask him to take note of the fact that if the building is purchased for the continued use of the navy, army and air cadets in the district this would actually save expenditure by the Department of National Defence. I think that is a matter for consideration; it is not a question of this being a strictly community effort. I wish the minister would advise me as to how these people should proceed; and I should like to know whether some consideration will be given to the fact that they are performing a very necessary function in relation to the operations of the Department of National Defence.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the question asked about the number of people in a particular salary bracket provided for in the main estimates, I think that what the hon. member has observed is a rise in the general level of salaries, which is characteristic of the public service. If one translates one year to the next by moving up a bracket, in which case there is a corresponding increase in numbers, he will realize this is how this particular situation has arisen.
So far as the armoury at Nelson is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I was not aware that the operation of the armoury by the municipality is going to result in that municipality carrying what would otherwise be a charge on the Department of National Defence. If this is so, and national defence would otherwise be required to bear the cost burden, I would certainly be glad to have a word with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, about the matter. Until I have done that I cannot offer any precise advice to the hon. gentleman.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
So far as the question of the Chaudiere is concerned, I assure the hon. gentleman for Vancouver East that no contract was let. Since no contract had been entered into with respect to Chaudiere the question of contract cancellation does not arise. He may have been under a misapprehension in that tenders limited to the west coast shipyards had been called. It was ascertained on the strength of bids received that Burrard Drydock was the low bidder. But prior to entering into any contract the Department of National Defence advised us that they would not be proceeding
March 19, 1968	COMMONS
with the conversion as planned, and work on Chaudiere was therefore limited basically to a modified refit, which is being carried out in the Burrard Dockyards.


Harold Edward Winch: I wish to ask some other questions. I know that Chaudiere had to proceed to Esquimalt before going to the drydock. Actually, I want to ask about the construction of the new destroyers. Are any to be built on the west coast, and if not, why not?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It does not look as if any are to be built on the west coast, the reason being the substantially higher offer made by the west coast yards in respect of construction cost. If the hon. gentleman will refer back to Hansard he will see that the offer to build submitted by the west coast yards was slightly in excess of double the amount offered by the low bidders for the shipyard part of the work.


Harold Edward Winch: I know that, and that is the very point I am coming to. This has been intriguing me as well as others for a long time. We had the opportunity of spending a couple of days at the Burrard Drydock and we asked their people how this difference in price could possibly arise. They said, "You tell us, because the approximate 60 cents an hour wage difference does not make up the difference that has been quoted". They assured us that no excess profit was being charged and the only conclusion they could come to was that in the west coast bid they had included a sum for what might be called imponderables, which appeared in one part of the specifications.
I am told that the department did not set everything up fully, and the Burrard Drydock people had to guess at some figures. For instance, usually the specifications say what equipment is to be used and what purposes it is to be used for; but the Burrard Drydock people did not know the exact details of all that, and so they had only an approximate idea of what the imponderables in the design would be. It may be that the eastern shipyards did not tender with these imponderables in mind. The Burrard people want to know the basis of the eastern tenders because they say it is absolutely impossible for the bid price on the same specifications to be double on the west coast. The west coast price could not by any stretch of the imagination be double the east coast price. The only possible difference that could arise would be from the 60 cents an hour approximate wage
DEBATES	7827
Supply-Defence Production differential, and that would not double the price.
Would the minister look into this matter and make certain that the tenders from the west coast shipyards and east coast shipyards cover the same costing on the same specifications, because it may be that the east coast shipyards did not take into account imponderables in the design.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I am in no position to know what view Burrard took of the written specifications which are a lengthy document. I am not in a position to explain to them the position taken by other bidders in respect of these specifications. I know in some instances there were qualifying clauses in bids that were received back, such as "subject to escalation". Before a contract can be let, it is of course necessary for the department to pin down these reservations and put a firm price against each reservation. The hon. gentleman referred to these as "imponderables". I think "reservations" is a better word. I assure the hon. gentleman that when these reservations are costed and there is a firm price contract, it will be let for a sum that is considerably lower than the figure put in by Burrard.
If the other, low bidders, did not cost everything completely out and now are being forced to do this, provided their price does not rise above the bid price of the man who bid on the whole job, the government will get value for its money and no injustice will have been done to Burrard.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall vote 6(c) carry?


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to address two rather short remarks to the hon. minister. I ask Your Honour to bear with me, because those who preceded me did not limit themselves to dealing exclusively with the five items indicated in the supplementary estimates. However, my remarks will deal with the responsibilities of the hon. minister; one of them is more specifically related to item 10c.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I should like to deal with designated areas, for which he is answerable and concerning which I have already taken certain steps in addition to exchanging correspondence with him. It would seem that there is an unexplainable anomaly. For instance, in the riding I
March 19, 1968

Supply-Defence Production represent-and God knows there are others- the whole area covered by the manpower center is taken into account. The act was so designed, and it was probably logical at the time. But I feel that the present situation no longer corresponds to the needs of the times.
To my mind, this policy should be revised and the designated areas should correspond to the new electoral districts.
I give as an example the case of Trois-Rivieres to which have been annexed in the past rural municipalities affected by underemployment, but which are not recognized as designated areas even though they now form part of the new constituency of Saint-Maurice and that of Berthier, both recognized as designated areas.
I think the existing legislation should be reviewed so as to be more realistic and meet present day requirements. I shall stress this fact as briefly as possible and ask the minister to take note thereof. I warn him that I shall follow up my remarks.
There seems to be some inconsistency that borders on unfairness towards those municipalities affected by under-employment and which, because a neighbouring municipality is not so affected, are deprived of the advantage of being considered as designated areas. Whereas a large number of industries would settle on the outskirts of the metropolis of the Mauricie, that is the city of Trois-Rivieres, if they could enjoy the same benefits, those industries now have to settle instead 18 or 20 miles away in municipalities which are almost overcrowded and which will be unable shortly to give them the municipal services they need.
I will give more details to the minister in the correspondence I will exchange with him within a few days, but I call his attention to this matter and I ask him to be kind enough to see it as something which, in my opinion, deserves special consideration, because the case I mentioned concerns my constituency, although I know that the same situation prevails also in others. That is my first point.
My second remark, Mr. Chairman, concerns more specifically the printing bureau.
I would like to point out to the minister that there is now a strong presumption that the whole legislation for the establishment of bilingualism in the federal government services is being opposed at the level of heads of services in several departments. I could mention many departments, but I forget them on
TMr. Mongrain.]

purpose because to-night, we are dealing with the Department of Defence Production. I want to mention only the case which is the minister's concern.
I think that the legislation, as proposed by the government, is commendable and praiseworthy. According to that legislation, bilingualism must be a factual thing in government services having to deal with people of both languages. I realize that the government has taken some constructive steps such as, for instance, the establishment of language schools, but one can see that there is some resistance at the division head level, and I shall mention a specific case in order that what I mean may be well understood.
Last week, on March 11 and 12 to be exact, the Canadian Government Printing Bureau, in order to fill a vacancy, announced a competition for the position of deputy chief of production, commanding a maximum yearly salary of $15,931, which is quite respectable. I know that at the printing bureau, some 65 per cent of the employees are French-speaking and that 95 per cent of them are bilingual, for we in Quebec have been learning English for a good many years.
Now, the fact is-the official announcement has not been made yet, but I was informed through certain indiscretions-that somebody has already been unofficially appointed to the position. According to the information we have he has been designated for 6 or 7 months. He has been groomed for the post, he was advised to undertake certain courses in order to qualify, and this is done in many departments. It seems that the person who will be officially appointed in a few days is English-speaking only, hardly understanding French and unable in practice to speak it, whereas there were a few other perfectly bilingual applicants with as many years of experience.
Let it be well understood that I do not wish to object because he has an English name; I even wonder if he is English. I have the name here, but I shall not mention it, in order not to prejudice his interests; it looks rather German to me, but that matters little. However, to ensure that policy of the government on bilinguism is consistent and not only windowdressing, it would be necessary, when there is an opening for a bilingual candidate, that the latter should be truly so.
Now, I note that in the qualifications required for that position-once again it is a
March 19, 1968	COMMONS
typical case-the special requirements read as follows:
The performance of the duties requires a knowledge of the English language but a knowledge of French will be considered an asset in the assessment of candidates.
Therefore for the performance of those duties, a knowledge of the English language is required, but a knowledge of French is an asset for the candidates!
Well, Mr. Chairman, that is watered-down bilingualism.
I noticed that, in this specific case, another candidate was perfectly bilingual, while that one was imperfectly bilingual. Their qualifications seemed to be equal

at least for three or four of the candidates-except that one had been told for six, seven, maybe eight months or a year to prepare himself, to attend certain courses in order to qualify, that the position would be open precisely because the person occupying that position was going on pension within a few weeks.
But other candidates, who are all Frenchspeaking and perfectly bilingual, would have jumped at the opportunity to attend the same courses but they were not able to do so, because their superiors told them: You understand, at night, I lecture in English. You do not have to attend those courses and your chances are just as good. But when the time of the appointment came, the one who had attended five or six superficial courses, who had managed to gather some knowledge, was classified by the civil service as more competent than the others, even is he was not, simply because he is not adequately bilingual;
I do not say perfectly bilingual, but adequately bilingual.
I should not want anyone to lose his job because he was not sufficiently bilingual, but I would like to know whether the policy of the government is something real, something to be observed, or if it is only a bluff, in cases where division heads of various departments can allow themselves to protect their friends by advising them months in advance to do this or that to qualify themselves and thus get around the government policy. It seems to me that for a position like this one, where at least 65 per cent of the employees-and I am not thinking of the customers-speak French, the director of production should be bilingual.
Mr. Chairman, I mentioned that case in a constructive way and I should like it to be well understood that I am not attempting to complain merely to try to pick a quarrel with
DEBATES	7829
Supply-Defence Production the government. I am convinced that the government sincerely wants to draw up legislation which will recognize, in fact, the question that may have been debatable, that there are two founding peoples here, but that in various departments, amongst the division heads there are people who thwart government policy.
And so, I draw this to the attention of the minister, whom I feel is sympathetic. I mention a typical case, but there are dozens of others involving other departments where the interdepartmental protection of heads of services eliminates people who are perfectly bilingual on all sorts of pretexts and false representations, so that this government policy is not respected.
I do not ask the minister for an answer tonight, because I realize that I am drawing his attention to a case which perhaps he does not know about. I am ready to give him additional information and I must tell him that there are other similar cases in other departments.
In my opinion, this matter is much more important than is generally believed, because if government policy of implementing bilingualism in actual fact in the public service is not respected, the confidence of that part of the French-speaking population which wants to find a way of reconciling the two racial elements in order to avoid a division of the country will be undermined. It will be very difficult to establish a climate of understanding afterwards, when the government will want to introduce a constructive measure intended to consolidate the future of the Canadian confederation.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, before items 6c and 7c are carried the minister should answer the questions which have been asked. If the answers are not available tonight from the officials in the gallery, maybe we should postpone consideration of these items until tomorrow and proceed with some other business. I would like to see the questions answered before we pass these items.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I must reply first to the hon. member for Trois-Riviferes (Mr. Mongrain).
As far as the boundaries of designated areas are concerned, I think he fully realizes that such boundaries are established by the Department of Manpower and Immigration
March 19, 1988

Supply-Defence Production and not by mine. The department determines the potential of labour markets and in the present case, namely in the Trois-Rivieres riding, there are two labour markets: one in Trois-Rivieres, and the other in Grand'Mere.
I will submit the hon. member's representations to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand).
With regard to bilingualism within the public service and the tendency of some section heads to fight the introduction of bilingualism, I admit it is probably true in some cases.
On the other hand, I know what bilingualism means, especially when I call one of my deputy ministers and I am told that he is attending a French course.
If there is any resistance, I can assure the hon. member that I will do what I can, as well as my deputy ministers, to ensure the successful implementation of that policy.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I do not have before me this evening the figures concerning the details of the valuation of this property of Haley Industries, including the depreciated value of the machinery and the value of the inventory. My officials who are present this evening do not have this information with them, either. If the hon. gentleman insists upon receiving the information in the house before passing the estimates, then the item will have to stand. If he is agreeable to the item passing then I will undertake to see that this information is provided for him not later than 2.30 tomorrow.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, in answering the question of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek the minister referred to his authority as the minister in charge of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. Would the minister mind quoting that authority again.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Under Section 5(e) of the Surplus Crown Assets Act the Minister of Defence Production may authorize a government department to dispose of surplus crown assets in such manner, upon such terms and subject to such conditions as he may consider desirable.


Malcolm MacInnis: 
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have just quoted from section 5(e) of the Surplus Crown Assets Act.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am
asking the minister to quote the procedure any minister must follow. There is a procedure laid down for the minister in charge of crown assets, as well as a procedure which is applicable to every minister of the government. What is laid down applies to every minister of the government despite the fact that he may be in charge of crown assets. There is a procedure, and by violating this procedure I believe the minister is doing a snow job on the opposition.
No one questions the authority of the minister in charge of crown assets disposal, but there is a general procedure which must be followed and this is the procedure the minister is trying to violate, just as the Minister of Finance has violated the Bank Act and just as other ministers violate the procedure which is laid down. I ask the minister to show us where it is stated in the crown assets disposal act that he has authority to do this by following any different procedure than any other minister of the crown would have to follow.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have read this once and I will read it again, slowly. Under section 5(e) of the act the Minister of Defence Production may authorize a government department, which includes the Department of Defence Production, to dispose of surplus crown assets in such manner, upon such terms and subject to such conditions as he may consider desirable. I suggest that that is statutory authority to authorize a department to enter into disposal arrangements which the Minister of Defence Production considers desirable.


Malcolm MacInnis: I will also state my question as plainly and as slowly as possible for the minister's benefit. The special letter to which he has referred states that any department of government
March 19, 1968

that has any surplus to dispose of must turn that over the Crown Assets, and that it must be disposed of through the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and not by the Department of Defence Production. I would ask the minister to quote the authority of the former minister of national defence, the present Minister of Transport, who is here now, because it was clearly outlined that when any government department wishes to dispose of any surplus government assets the procedure is that they must be turned over to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. These must go through the Crown Assets. The minister cannot say that he has a special authority to sell through his department. He must accept the procedure that is laid down in the act. The minister is trying to do a snow job on this by violating the whole principle of the act.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the legal entanglement in which we have become involved would appear to be a debate concerning whether Crown Assets or the Minister of National Defence was right in saying that no department is allowed to dispose of anything, and that this takes precedence over the statement which the minister has read from this yellow paper, which he has before him.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I am not denying that this is in the statutes. One statement says that no minister can do this yet the authority the minister quoted suggests that one minister can do this. Which is correct, so far as we are concerned? Before we pass these estimates I should like the minister to indicate whether the transaction carried out by the Haley company was audited by the Auditor General of Canada, or by a private auditor and, if so, whether that audit was sent to the Auditor General of Canada.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as what the hon. gentleman refers to as a legal tangle is concerned, I do not want to try to give a legal interpretation. In fact I am told it is quite improper for a minister to do so. I suggest that what I read to the house is a section from the Surplus Crown Assets Act, which authorized the Minister of Defence Production to, in turn, authorize a government department to dispose of surplus assets other than through the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. This is not the general procedure, but rather an exceptional procedure. The reason what appears to be an exceptional procedure was used in this case is, as I explained earlier, that we were not disposing of assets 27053-493

Supply-Defence Production from which the taxpayer could expect to recover some proceeds, but rather we were disposing of a liability.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I do not agree for one moment that the minister did not dispose of an asset of the Canadian people. I should like to have had the opportunity to buy that factory for $1. I am sure I could have at least doubled my money, if not made more. If this was not an asset, I do not know what it was. It would have been far better for the minister to have closed the factory and given it to the town, because it might have been of some benefit to the town. Let me say in respect of the minister's remarks about the legal entanglement, that he should have instructed the Minister of National Defence that there was an exception to the rule, and that the only way this armoury should be disposed of was through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
Perhaps I could go to the Minister of National Defence and make a deal with him, whereby he could dispose of this property for $1. I am sure the people of my constituency would have been very pleased to get the armoury for $1. I wonder what avenues are available to us, as members on this side of the house, to approach ministers with such deals. Perhaps it is coincidental that in this case, in respect of which the minister sold the property for $1, the property was located in a constituency represented by a minister of the crown, who is a contender for the Liberal leadership. Is there any connection in that regard?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I regret that the hon. gentleman should suggest that there is any possible connection.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I regret that I had to do so.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. gentleman quite clearly has not grasped what this is all about. A serious attempt was made by the department over a great number of years to run this at no cost to the crown, including efforts on the part of the administration when his party was in power. During the course of that time there was a change made in the management. These efforts were unsuccessful, and by 1967 we were still unable to find anybody who was prepared to run this business, except for an exorbitant fee. An endeavour was made to sell it as a going business, and consequently avoid the inevitable cancellation and closing up costs. Perhaps if the hon. gentleman had more experience in closing out businesses he would realize that you cannot shut down a
March 19. 1968

Supply-Defence Production business from one day to the next, at no cost. That cannot be done. Anybody who is honest in business will see that his clients and his employees do not suffer financially, if he can avoid it, when he goes out of business, unless he chooses to go into bankruptcy. Surely the hon. gentleman does not suggest that the crown should pretend or allege bankruptcy to avoid its obligations. We have tried to honour our obligations.
An endeavour was made to interest a number of companies in this operation, including the Canadian Bronze Company; the Heroux Machine Parts Company; United Aircraft of Canada; North American Trust; Canadian Management Company; Bendix Corporation, U.S.A.; Aluminum Company, Canada; Litton Systems, Toronto; Central Dynamics Limited, Montreal; Russel Industries; Motor Specialty Manufacturing, Vancouver; Levy Industries, Toronto, and I could go on and on with the list. When the hon. gentleman rather glibly suggests it could have been taken over by him for $1 and he could have doubled his money I should like to say to him that if he had assumed the contracts that Bartaco assumed I would have been glad to pay him $100. Bartaco has assumed a lot of continuing contractual undertakings which represent crown liabilities. In order to get the company to do this, we had to agree to absorb incurred losses carried forward from the balance sheets of previous years, plus the discharge of a number of outstanding financial obligations against the company. We were unable to get a continuing operator on any other condition.
One could have closed this down and rendered the facility saleable for scrap. In that particular area real estate is not very high. The building is obviously some 15 or 16 years old and unfortunately the machinery is equally as old. Something might have been received from the sale of this facility for scrap. The 165 or more employees would have been thrown out of work and the crown would have had to assume the responsibility for paying not only their separation pay but also an amount in respect of cancellation charges on contracts for process at the mill.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the minister does not have to lecture me about how to run a business. I run a successful business, which is more than he has ever done, and I can prove that by asking the Minister of National Revenue whether I run a successful business. Let me say again to the minister that if I had the opportunity to buy that particular plant and property for $11 could at least double

my money. I could run any business if the minister on behalf of the Canadian people would agree to pay any liabilities I incurred. That is what he is telling me, and it is foolish. I don't think the minister had the authority to commit the Canadian people to any liabilities incurred by a private company, and I think this matter should be sent to a committee for investigation. There is more to it than what has come out tonight.


Mr. Walker:: How about Dosco steel in Cape Breton?


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The former whip of the Liberal party has just made a disparaging remark about the steelworkers in Cape Breton. They are not associated in any way with this particular debate, and I intend to make this very clear. This is the general attitude displayed by the former whip and other members of his party, although he is around here so seldom one would hardly know that. Let me add that this is the government's current approach in respect of the Sydney situation, in spite of what the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said in Cape Breton about how desperately this government is searching for a way to help.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
This is the situation, despite the fact that the Prime Minister last night on national television said that when it comes to spending money to keep people employed, he is only too happy to do it. In spite of that, this callous government denies to the people of Nova Scotia the opportunity to obtain work. Yet the Minister of National Health and Welfare last summer in Cape Breton promised an audience of 20,000 people that this problem would be solved. Despite all this we have the hon. member rising and making the degrading remark that he did.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, the remark I made was addressed to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has referred to the remark I made. That remark was addressed to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. I was just trying to keep the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek logical in the argument he was putting forward.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I think I have been quite logical. With regard to the people who would have been laid off if this plant had been closed, I can understand it is
March 19. 1968	COMMONS
very difficult for the hon. member for Cape Breton South to accept the answer that was given. The two hon. members from Cape Breton have day after day in this house gone after the cabinet about the lay-offs in the coal mines, the steel plant, and so on. The same consideration is not given to their requests that is given to others. This brings me back to the point I made earlier, that it depends, as far as I am concerned, upon who asks for consideration to be given in these matters. In one case it was a minister of the crown who asked for consideration to be given, and it was given. The two members from Cape Breton have not received the same consideration. I ask why.
I refer back to the item in the estimates. I asked the Minister of National Defence for consideration in this question because I believed his department would understand much better than Crown Assets the original deal in regard to these armouries. But the minister told me that according to law he could not do it. He did not tell me there was any exception; he said he had to go to Crown Assets. Tonight we are told there is one exception. Apparently the Minister of Defence Production can take it upon himself to conduct a private sale between friends, or enemies, depending upon how you regard the directors and shareholders involved. We do not know who they are. This is what we are trying to find out. We want to know who the people are who bought this property for the sum of $1. We want to know why it was sold. We want to know why this company is apparently now in American hands. Ministers of this government have said that there is too much American capital in our country, yet tonight we hear that they have sold a plant, property and building to American or foreign interests.
We want to know why the plant was sold in this manner. Was no protection whatsoever given to the Canadian taxpayer in regard to this sale, except to assume all the liabilities involved therein, to get rid of the stockpile of inventory, the machinery, the property and the building for the sum of $1? It seems to me to be a pretty good deal for someone, but not for the Canadian taxpayer.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall vote 6c carry?


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, before this vote carries I want clarification as to who is right and who is wrong. The minister tonight keeps insisting 27053-4931
DEBATES	7833
Supply-Defence Production upon quoting from the surplus Crown Assets Disposal Act, the authority which allows him to sell a property or dispose of a property as Minister of Defence Production. There has been no reference whatsoever to the procedure the minister must follow in regard to such a sale. There are in the house this evening five ministers out of 26. Fortunately one of the ministers present is the Minister of Transport, the former minister of national defence.
It boils down to this: Either the Minister of Defence Production must get up and tell the Minister of Transport that he was wrong, or the Minister of Transport must get up and tell the Minister of Defence Production that he is wrong, because in written form they have each taken opposite sides on this question, one saying that he can do this and the other saying that he cannot. Who is telling the truth? This is a question which comes up quite often in respect of this cabinet, that is, who is telling the truth?
The Minister of Defence Production quotes as his authority the Surplus Crown Assets Disposal Act. I say there is something wrong with that authority. I do not understand it. I understand the procedure, which applies to the Minister of Defence Production and any other minister in the cabinet, the same as it does to the Prime Minister and everybody concerned. The procedure is that property must be turned over to Crown Assets for disposal.
This is in the written authority of the Minister of Transport, the former minister of national defence. I have invited the minister to send for the authority, and quote it to me, that says he has a right to do it in any other way. I ask the minister to show me where in the act he is given a privilege not enjoyed by other ministers. This is the statement he made. He said he has an authority not enjoyed by the rest of the cabinet. This is interesting. There are four or five ministers in the chamber. Let us hear the Minister of Transport get up and say that the Minister of Defence Production does enjoy this special authority. I am asking a very simple question, Mr. Chairman. I am asking four or five ministers present, apart from the Minister of Defence Production to get up and support his argument. If they fail to do this, there is only one obvious answer, namely that the Minister of Defence Production is absolutely wrong, has violated the procedures, and this is an illegal sale. It is similar to the action taken by
March 19, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the Minister of Finance, who has been banking illegally despite the fact that the Bank Act is under his jurisdiction. I ask these ministers to get up and deny it.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall vote
6c carry?


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, what we have seen tonight in the last half hour is a good example how the government wastes time. Thirty minutes ago I suggested to the minister that if he did not have the answers from the officials of the department in the gallery, we should go on to deal with the estimates of another department. The minister made back-handed comments, if you want *to call them that, which certainly did not .-satisfactorily answer the questions asked from this side of the house.
We have consumed 30 minutes of time. "When the house resumes tomorrow the minister can come here prepared to answer the questions. The reason we want answers to our questions is that the minister said he disposed of an asset of this country for $1, which he said was a liability; yet he was prepared to put $1,120,000 into this plant before he disposed of it. These actions require explanations in the House of Commons. When a minister knows he is coming into the House of Commons with five items of supplementary estimates, surely he can come prepared to answer the questions he can expect from members of parliament whose duty it is to scrutinize the estimates brought before the house. I deplore the fact that this amount of time has been consumed tonight, but it has not been our fault; it has been caused by the minister's lack of preparation in coming before the house with his estimates.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall vote 6c carry?


Malcolm MacInnis: No.


Michael Starr: Ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the government house leader which supplementary estimates we will be considering tomorrow and Thursday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We will continue with the estimates under consideration by the committee, namely, those of the Department of Defence Production, followed by the estimates
;

of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the departments as listed in supplementary estimates (C) in the order in which they are listed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Wouldn't we make more progress if we were on Bill C-190?


Some hon. Members:: No.
e (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, among the various complaints which come from consumers none are more distressing or more far reaching than the complaints from people who need hearing aids. All of us receive numerous requests that an investigation be made into the business of hearing aids to see whether some protection can be afforded to the elderly people who have to use them. An investigation in my province has shown that one in every four elderly people has to have a hearing aid.
Among the letters that I have received, I have one from an elderly man in Ontario who cannot afford a hearing aid, and another one from a man in Montreal who is in his 69th year and has had to buy four hearing aids in the last ten years. His most recent difficulty arose with a hearing aid which he purchased not so long ago for $325. It was in good working order but it was very heavy. So he traded it in and received only $25, but was charged $340 for a new hearing aid. Evidently his $340 did not go very far. What he bought was a spectacle type hearing aid for which, he told me, the suppliers used the frame and the lenses he had, and just changed the two stems from the frame to his ears. They used the ear mould from his old hearing aid. For that service he had to pay $340. That is just one example of many.
There was such an outcry about hearing aids recently in British Columbia that the minister of industry in that province directed his department to make an investigation into the matter. As a result it was found that the retail mark-ups on hearing aids sold in Vancouver and Victoria were as high as 306 per
March 19, 1968	COMMONS
cent and that there is high pressure advertising in the industry. However, nothing much was done as a result of this inquiry. A member of the legislature, in speaking prior to the investigation, said that hearing aids which cost $35 in Japan are being sold in Vancouver for upwards of $400, and others which cost only $77 to manufacture are being sold for $700, and that high pressure sales tactics are being used.
I myself know an elderly couple living on Vancouver island both of whom have to use hearing aids. They are old age pensioners for whom buying these little batteries constantly is a real hardship. The hearings aids need constant repairs. I have known countless such elderly people for whom it is a constant drain to buy and repair these hearing aids.
A hearing aid for these people is a great necessity. If they have to go without it they are condemned to solitary confinement, just as if they were under a prison sentence, because unless they can use a hearing aid they are cut off from the world. Many of them do not have the means to purchase it. A correspondent of mine from Sault Ste. Marie assures me he is one of those people who has to forgo a hearing aid because his pension does not allow him to buy one.
I should like very much to hear from the department as to what is being done. I know they will probably inform me they are looking into the matter. I note that, according to one of the minister's speeches, the department is looking into it. First of all, I do not believe looking in is enough. I should like to know when the looking in is going to be finished, the scope and length of the investigation, and so on. Above all, I should like to know the kind of remedial action that is likely to be applied. Is the Combines Investigation Act going to be used to ascertain whether or not there is a combine in this industry? After all, when you have a mark-up of 306 per cent over the wholesale price, there must be some kind of control there which comes close to monopoly control. I do not want to be told that the department is looking into it and everything is under control. I want to be told something more definite which can be passed on to the elderly people of this country.


Albert Béchard: In the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and his parliamentary assistant, I was handed the answer to be given to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs.
DEBATES	7835
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Maclnnis). The answer is: Yes, I have noted the allegations. The director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act informs me that there is no evidence to suggest there has been an offence under that legislation, although undoubtedly prices are high. The government of Canada has no jurisdiction to control prices in the absence of an emergency, but the consumer affairs branch is looking into the hearing aid business to see if there is any other way in which my department can assist consumers. I cannot satisfy the hon. member's curiosity as to the actual stage of the study now.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION- ALLEGED SUPPRESSION OF FILMED INTERVIEW WITH NIGERIAN OFFICIAL

J. Michael Forrestall: This evening, if I may, I should like to take some time to explain a series of events which appear to me to have occurred in connection with the publication through the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of what I consider to be legitimate news. Earlier last week and the two weeks immediately preceding, there were four representatives in Canada of what is called the breakaway region of Nigeria or, in other terms, Biafra. At the outset, let me make it clear that in my personal opinion there is insufficient evidence upon which to base any lasting conclusions as to who is right or who is wrong in this conflict.
However, I do wish to draw to the attention of the minister or the parliamentary secretary the following points. First, when Dr. Mba-diwe was in this country he was invited to participate in a filmed interview. According to my information, this interview was done by the C.B.C. Then the C.B.C., I think quite properly, invited the point of view of the officials from Nigeria who are in our country. My understanding is that these gentlemen did not wish to give this interview, for what reasons I am not sure.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
What followed, to the best of my knowledge, is that a direction was given to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation news and public affairs department to cancel the filmed interview with Dr. Mbadiwe. I just want to review one or two other points. What is it that Dr. Mbadiwe wanted to say? What message did he want to leave? I suggest that what he wanted to say constitutes hard core, legitimate news, the type of news that could not conceivably editorially be simply swept
7836	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion aside. Having spent a little time in the news world I think I understand what is news and what is not. Dr. Mbadiwe wanted to tell Canadians that there is indeed a war going on in Biafra, a very serious war, and that a lot of people have been killed. There have also been massacres. The war has been termed, rightly or wrong, a war of genocide.
Dr. Mbadiwe wanted to bring these matters to the attention of the world because news from Nigeria during the last several months has been totally suppressed. He wanted to tell Canadians that the United Nations was being pressed to take action in this matter. He wanted to tell Canadians and the world, through our press media, that the human rights commission of the United Nations had been approached about this problem and urged to intercede to bring the killings to a halt. He wanted to urge upon the world, through Canada and our press media, which we had always thought was free and responsible, the need to supply drugs and medicine and to do everything in our power to urge upon such groups as the Organization for African Unity the absolute necessity to bring the war in Biafra to an immediate halt.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, he wanted Canadians simply to listen to his plea. We have always understood our press services, and indeed our government, to uphold the right of people to express their points of view. Whether we are right or wrong about this question is I think hardly the issue at stake. We have the words of some fairly eminent people in the world on this question. Lord Brockway, speaking on February 13 in the British House of Lords, in his plea for some sort of action on the part of the British government in connection with the war in Nigeria was backed up by His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. The sort of points made by those two noble Lords in the British House of Lords are the same points that Dr. Mbadiwe and his colleagues wanted to leave with Canadians.
I understand that Dr. Mbadiwe was the leader of the group that visited Canada, and the senior political representative. Indeed he was one of the two cabinet ministers who signed over civilian control to the military after the military coup in Nigeria. His interview was suppressed. One of his group, Mr. Ndem, did take part in the filmed interview that was shown on one C.B.C. program. However, I am not concerned about that particular program but about the remarks of Dr. Mbadiwe in his filmed interview.

DEBATES	March 19, 1968
I would be grateful if the parliamentary secretary would enlighten me as to whether or not there was direct intervention on the part of either the Department of the Secretary of State or the Department of External Affairs in the suppression of the remarks made last week by Dr. Mbadiwe.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, on March 14 last the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Forrestall) asked the Secretary of State the question which he read at the end of his speech.

Can she indicate to the house why there was suppression of a recent C.B.C. interview with Dr. Mbadiwe. of the Biafran region of Nigeria, which was filmed for television purposes?

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the cancelling of that filmed interview on the national network was never contemplated and that it is still not contemplated.
In fact, on March 7, the Toronto news service of the English network of the C.B.C. instructed a cameraman to film sequences of an interview with Mr. Mbadiwe and to send the films to the news service.
It was decided not to use them on the national news broadcast but to make a distribution the next day, March 8, in closed circuit through 18 stations-the English network of the C.B.C. and affiliated stations-which were free to broadcast according to their schedule. This closed circuit is part of the national network and I think that it is customary for either the English network or the French network of the C.B.C. news service to follow this method of distribution to the C.B.C. stations and all affiliated stations.



LABOUR CONDITIONS-NORTH SYDNEY, N.S.- REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FOR DOCK WORKERS

Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, since under the rules of the house I am limited to seven minutes, I shall proceed as quickly as possible. On July 9, 1965, the then minister of transport, Hon. J. W. Pickersgill issued an official press release advising that a new rail car ferry would be put into operation between the port of North Sydney and Newfoundland. After being questioned in this house over many months and
March 19, 1968	COMMONS
after having received representations from many sources the minister admitted that this new service would bring unemployment to the region. Previously, inside and outside this chamber, he had denied on behalf of the government that there would be unemployment. He said that employment opportunities would go up and not down, and that the port of North Sydney had a bright, extremely bright, economic future so far as Canadian National operations there were concerned. Having said that, only then did he concede that the institution of the rail car ferry would have an impact on employment at the port. He said some existing employment would decline but that new jobs would be created and many economic advantages would accrue to the communities affected, by reason of the increase in traffic, to use his words.
Now, as a result of this government's action through the Canadian National, what do we find? During the busy summer season as many as 1,000 men are employed at the port of North Sydney, the average number employed all year being 700. According to statements by C.N.R. management, the new service will reduce the work force to 150 men. A minimum of 600 men will be without jobs.
Workers at Port aux Basques and Argentia will also be affected. This industry is the economic backbone of North Sydney, and all the surrounding districts from which workers come will also be hit badly. As I have already said, all this has been brought about as a result of this government's actions through the Canadian National.
You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that time and again over these many months I have pressed the government in this chamber about what it would do for these workers who will be unemployed, face hardships and be dislocated because of modernization and technological change. It is true that upgrading of educational standards has taken place. Co-operating together, the federal and provincial governments, the Canadian National and the town of North Sydney have sponsored a school for stevedores. This is all well and good. I give full marks to the government for this effort to prepare men for training. But what of the future? In a short period of time these layoffs will commence. Where will these men find other employment? The Department of Industry-and I am glad to see the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) here tonight-has not been successful in bringing a new industry to the town of North Sydney.
DEBATES	7837
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Some time ago the workers in the automobile industry were affected in a somewhat similar manner as a result of the Canada-United States automotive parts agreement. I have a pamphlet here in my hand issued by the then minister of labour, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), who is the minister from Nova Scotia. It deals with the transitional assistance benefit program for the automobile workers, and in part is as follows:
The program, introduced in June, 1965, was designed to apply to all workers whose employment Is adversely affected by the Canada-United States automotive agreement-
It went on to state that the program would run through until July 26, 1969, and that payments would be available to the workers affected. That program was introduced because of the government's action in making that agreement with the United States in regard to automobile parts, and it provided that the men would have a period of about four years in which to find permanent employment. Why is there not a program instituted to assist these workers who are to be laid off at the port of North Sydney?
It is a somewhat similar situation to that of the automobile workers. The problem is not caused by a lack of markets in the area. It is a question of technological change and modernization brought about by the government, as a result of which a lot of people will be laid off and unemployed.
I would suggest and recommend to the government that it consider some sort of arrangement along the lines of the transitional assistance benefit program, better known as TAB, to help the workers at the port of North Sydney. Following the minister's statement in 1965 he held a press conference in Halifax, on July 24 of that year, at which the Minister of National Health and Welfare was present. The Minister of National Health and Welfare on that occasion gave the assurance that proposals had been under consideration for many months to adjust any worker displacements that might occur at North Sydney. According to a press report in the Chronicle-Herald:
He and Mr. Pickersgill both assured the public that new programs were under consideration, and also that there would not be as much displacement of workers as far as North Sydney was concerned as had been reported. The introduction of stern-loading ships would eliminate much freight handling.
March 19, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
They both painted a very bright picture. Further, during the last federal election campaign the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Liberal candidate in my area stated that no one-but no one-among these workers who are going to be affected, would suffer. Again I suggest that the government should give consideration to establishing a program similar to the transitional assistance benefit program. I ask, what is the difference? Are the automobile workers any better than the dock workers at North Sydney? Are the dock workers at North Sydney not as good as the automobile workers at Windsor?
I regret that I do not see the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) in the chamber tonight, as he is the one to whom I have addressed questions on this matter. Of course the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) is not present either. The Minister of Industry is here and probably he is going to reply. But he is the only minister here, and this is a sad commentary on the interest which the government has in these men who work at the docks in North Sydney. It is another indication of the callous attitude which members of the government have toward unemployment in this country, which is now reaching close to half a million. In a few short months we are going to lose a minimum of another 600 jobs at North Sydney, and I urge the government to do something about it. All we have heard about the matter is talk, ever since Mr. Pickersgill has gone to a higher, more comfortable post.
At the time of his press conference he did not tell the people the truth of what was going to happen. He did not mention that, until he was free from the island of Cape Breton and back in Newfoundland, where he issued a press release. I would hope that the minister who sits before me tonight is not going to give a wordy answer without any meaning to it. I hope he will insist, among his cabinet colleagues, that something be done to assist these workers who are going to be displaced at North Sydney, something along the lines of the program which I understand has worked very well for the automobile workers.
We have a similar situation. The workers at North Sydney are affected by government action. The workers in the automobile industry were affected by government action. If the workers at North Sydney received benefits under such a program it would give them time to secure alternative employment. It would give them a period of years in which


to adjust, get settled, and find suitable employment to replace what they are going to lose.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, without knowing exactly what point the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) was intending to make, there perhaps has not been called into the house tonight the minister who could most appropriately reply. I will agree with him that the minister most familiar with this particular problem and the possible solution to it would be the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand).
As the hon. gentleman has pointed out, the temporary assistance program which he cited is applicable to and was designed only for those adversely affected by the Canada-United States automotive agreement of 1965. He has suggested that this be extended to cover all people whose employment has been dislocated as a consequence of government action. I am sure the hon. gentleman will recognize that this would cover very large numbers of people and that perhaps if a program of this type were introduced it would tend to inhibit the government in taking the kind of constructive progressive actions that are needed in order to achieve not only a fairer distribution of the wealth in Canada but also to attempt to increase the total wealth in which all of us may have a greater share.
I am filled with sympathy concerning the plight of those in North Sydney who have been thrown out of work as a consequence of this. Over the past number of months I have taken a very considerable interest in the various mechanisms available to the federal government in an effort to increase employment opportunities in the Cape Breton area. I believe the hon. gentleman is aware of the very substantial efforts made by the federal government to improve opportunities there, perhaps not specifically related to the car ferry but in general terms. As he knows, the area development agency has been of some assistance in attracting new manufacturing investments and therefore in providing new jobs in manufacturing. The Cape Breton Development Corporation is dedicated to the purpose of increasing employment opportunities in the Cape Breton area, including North Sydney.


Robert Muir: At the same time employment opportunities are being reduced.
March 19, 1968	COMMONS


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: At the same time I believe the program operated by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, with which the hon. member is familiar, was designed to provide assistance to people while retraining and fitting themselves for the new and highly skilled occupations which can be carried on. I shall communicate the representations of the hon. gentleman to my colleague the Minister
DEBATES	7839
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of Manpower and Immigration. I should like to say to the hon. member once again that I share with him the regard the government has for the unfortunate plight of those in the Cape Breton area who through no fault of their own are currently out of work.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
7841

Wednesday, March 20, 1968