1968-03-27

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill C-30, to amend the Immigration Act, without amendment.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a request made in the house I should like to table a communication I sent to the provinces dealing with the setting up of costs and prices review machinery.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



WHEAT-FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1966-67 CROP

Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement regarding the final payment on wheat for the crop year ending July 31, 1967.
Producers delivered a record total of 626,533,860 bushels of wheat to the Canadian Wheat Board in the 1966-67 crop year, including 23,599,710 bushels of Durum wheat. The pool account for wheat was closed on February 29.
The amount of the final payment to be distributed to producers is an unprecedented $314,958,251, including $14,943,967 to be distributed to producers who delivered Durum wheat. Thus the previous record payment of $272 million, which was made on the 1963-64 pool account, has been surpassed by $43 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Henry Winters: The average final payment for wheat other than Durum is a record 49.759
cents per bushel. The average final payment for Durum wheat is 63.323 cents per bushel. The over-all average of 50.270 cents per bushel is the largest average final payment in the history of the Canadian Wheat Board. The wheat board will begin mailing the final payment cheques tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fane:: You have all the breaks, Bob.


Robert Henry Winters: One has to make his own breaks.


Mr. Douglas:: It's a tough league.


Robert Henry Winters: I wish to inform the house of the total prices realized by producers prior to the deduction of the 1 per cent Prairie Farm Assistance Act levy, on their deliveries of some of the more important grades of wheat. The farmers will receive a total per bushel, basis in store at the lakehead or Vancouver, as follows:
$1.98709 for No. 1 northern,
1.96117 for No. 2 northern,
1.91666 for No. 3 northern,
1.87758 for No. 4 northern, and
1.82677 for No. 5 wheat.
The prices realized on Durum grades total as follows:
$2.13402 for No. 1 C.W. Amber Durum,
2.10509 for No. 2, and
2.04954 for No. 3.
Congratulations are due to all concerned in the growing, handling, grading, transporting and selling of wheat for their contribution to a most successful marketing year. I would like to pay particular tribute to the Canadian Wheat Board, which so fully justified the faith placed in it by parliament last year when the powers of the board were made permanent.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, the farmers of western Canada will be pleased to receive at last the final payments for the crop which was delivered to the board during the 1966-67 crop year. I think, however, they will be somewhat disappointed because that price has not kept pace with the increased cost of production.
March 27, 1968


small thing in view of the legitimate expectation of improved world demand, and the farmers of this country will hold the government responsible for negligence when it comes to selling their wheat.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: The statement just made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be welcomed. It is obvious there is much to be happy about, inasmuch as the final payment this year constitutes a record high in the history of the Canadian Wheat Board.
It is obvious that next year and in succeeding years the amount of the final payment will be smaller; first, because we have increased the amount of the initial payment; and second, because it is obvious, having passed more than half way through the current crop year, that the price the wheat board has been able to obtain on world markets is less than the price obtained in previous crop years.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) referred to market and price prospects in the grain trade, and I certainly agree with what he said. I have referred in this house on previous occasions to the cost-price relationship as it exists today and as it has existed over the years, and I do not intend to take the time of the house to repeat my references to this subject. But in closing I would like to say that when the premier of Saskatchewan said yesterday that the Liberal candidates who wish to gather support in the western provinces will have to give a clear undertaking as to where they stand on the issue of wheat prices and costs of production, he was expressing an attitude which is prevalent across all the Canadian west. Over the past four years inflation has devalued the Canadian dollar and has caused an upward surge in the costs of agricultural production. This requires countervailing action by the government to increase the amount received by farmers for their production, in this case grain.
It is incumbent upon the minister and his colleagues to think seriously about the necessity for bringing in a policy, a two price system, whatever you wish to call it, that will bring the price more in line with what has transpired in terms of production cost increases over the past three or four years. Four years ago there was talk about having a $2 price for wheat. The equivalent today would be about $2.20, or very close to that.
March 27, 1968



The $1.98 which has been realized this year, including the final payment, is quite welcome, but on the other hand it falls far short of that level of price which government spokesmen only a few years ago said was necessary and justified.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table correspondence between the Canadian and United States governments regarding the extradition of Harold Chamberlain Banks.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the right hon. Prime Minister leave to table the correspondence to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has a memorandum been circulated in the office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission instructing certain employees to terminate membership in employee organizations?
2.	If so, what in detail (a) is the nature of such instruction (b) the reason for such instruction?
3.	How many employees are affected by this instruction?
4.	What is the classification of each such employee so affected by this instruction?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: The Unemployment Insurance Commission advises: 1. A letter, transmitting the government statement of policy with respect to the obligations of public servants employed in a managerial or confidential capacity, was circulated to certain persons in the Unemployment Insurance Commission. This letter, in explaining the contents of the policy statement, inadvertently went beyond the policy statement in some respects. Subsequently, the persons so advised were asked to disregard the letter and to govern themselves by the formal policy statement.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
27053-511J
Questions


NATIONAL PARKS IN NORTHERN TERRITORIES
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Is it the intention to establish National Parks in the Yukon and Northwest Territories and, if so, what are the boundaries of the locations in each Territory, and where it is proposed that such Parks will be established?
2.	In each case, has the Legislative Council of the respective Territories been consulted and, if so, what was the decision of the Council in each case and, if not consulted, why not?
3.	Is it the intention to establish Territorial Parks in either of the Territories and, if so, what are the proposed boundaries of each location?
4.	Will there be any financial assistance to the governments of each of the Territories with respect thereto and, if so, how much in each case?
5.	With respect to the establishment of any Park in each Territory, when is it proposed that work will commence and what is the anticipated total cost in each case?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. It is
the department's objective to establish national parks that are representative of Canada's best scenery and which will afford the preservation of geographical and geological features of national interest and outstanding examples of flora and fauna for the people of Canada. In accordance with this objective it is considered desirable on the part of the department to establish national parks in both the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Studies initiated in 1957 indicate that areas worthy of designation as national parks exist in the Artillery Lake and the Nahanni regions of the Northwest Territories and in the Kluane area of the Yukon. No boundaries have been defined as these would be dependent on studies being carried out to determine park core areas which would outline suitable park areas and at the same time minimize potential resource use conflict.
2.	The possibilities of establishing national parks in the Yukon and Northwest Territories have been discussed with the legislative council; however, the council has been of divided opinion on the value of national park establishment in view of possible loss of potential natural resource development.
3.	The establishment of territorial parks in either the Yukon or Northwest Territories is now under active consideration. The services of a consultant, Mr. W. M. Baker-a well-known park and recreational planner and consultant, have been engaged to study the question and to prepare a report on which decisions regarding the establishment of such parks could be based. Mr. Baker has also been engaged by the Northwest Territorial

March 27, 1968
Questions
government to study recreational programming for that region and no doubt his report would comment on the desirability or otherwise of establishing territorial or northern parks. Since no territorial park sites have been selected, the proposed boundaries are not known at this time.
4.	Recognizing the need to expand recreational facilities in the territories, loans totalling $75,000 have been included in the current two year (1967-69) federal-territorial financial agreement with the Yukon which can be drawn upon as required. Also, an operating grant of about $20,000 a year is provided. It was expected that these funds would be utilized for the establishment of small recreational parks at carefully selected locations rather than the establishment of a large park providing for wilderness areas, interpretive centres, scenic preservation and wildlife conservation. No financial provision for recreational facilities has yet been made for the Northwest Territories.
5.	No requests have been received from either territorial government for a loan or a grant for park purposes and no information is available at this time with respect to either the timing or the anticipated total costs of such recreational parks.


RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN P.E.I.
[Stage Direction]
(Corrected Answer)
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Has any agreement been signed with the Government of the Province of Prince Edward Island under subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Fund for Rural Economic Development Act?
2.	If the answer to Part 1 is no, has any such agreement yet been drafted and submitted by either Government for approval?
3.	Since July 11, 1966, what moneys were paid each year out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Government of the Province of Prince Edward Island under the provisions of the Fund for Rural Economic Development Act?
4.	Has the Government of Canada paid any money to the Government of the Province of Prince Edward Island to assist in financing the operations of the P.E.I. Economic Improvement Corporation and, if so, how much and when were the payments made?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	None.
4.	Yes. $54,790. November 22, 1967.


GOLF COURSE AT ARMED FORCES BASE, MOOSE JAW
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	Is there a golf course at the Canadian Forces Base at Moose Jaw?
2.	Is it proposed to build an 18-hole golf course at the Canadian Forces Base at Moose Jaw?
3.	How many acres are required for the proposed golf course at Canadian Forces Base at Moose Jaw?
4.	What is the cost of this proposed golf course?
5.	How many servicemen are stationed at the Canadian Forces Base at Moose Jaw?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: No.
2.	No; however, a 9-hole course is being considered.
3.	Approximately 60 acres.
4.	$60,000 out of non-public funds.
5.	887.


MAINTENANCE ALLOTMENTS FOR MILITARY CAMPS
Mr. Johnston: 1.	What requests for maintenance allotments
were submitted for the following military camps for the fiscal year 1968-69	(a) Vernon Military
Camp (b) Mount Lolo Station, Kamloops (c) Chilliwack Military Camp?
2.	What reductions have been made in these allotments?
3.	What lay-offs in maintenance staff are contemplated for each establishment?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1 and 2. Documents prepared for internal use within a department are privileged, and requests for maintenance allotments are considered to be in this category.
3. Vernon military camp-8 casuals; Chilliwack military camp-18 casuals; Mount Lolo station-nil.


COMMEMORATIVE MARKER, LITTLE BRAS D'OR, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Has land been acquired for the erection of Little Bras-d'Or, Nova Scotia, of a marker to commemorate Count de la Boulardarie and, if so, where will such a marker be located?
2.	Is consideration being given to an archaeological program in the area and when will such a program be carried out?
3.	When is it anticipated that the marker will be unveiled?
March 27, 1968


Arthur Laing: To date no land has been acquired for the erection of a marker to commemorate Count de la Boular-darie at Little Bras d'Or, Nova Scotia. Prospective sites are presently being examined with a view to acquiring one in the near future.
2.	In 1967 a surface reconnaissance was carried out in the area of the Boulardarie settlement as part of long term research project investigations into early settlements. No excavations are anticipated in the immediate future.
3.	The unveiling ceremony is planned for the fall of 1968.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BRIDGE, FLORENCEVILLE, N.B.
Mr. Flemming: 1.	Did the federal Department of Public Works approve, prior to the beginning of construction plans for the building of the Trans-Canada Highway bridge across the St. John River at Florence-ville, in the County of Carleton, Province of New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what was the estimated cost of said bridge?
3.	What is the total expenditure on this bridge up to the latest date for which figures are available?
4.	What is the estimate of the amount required to complete the bridge?
5.	On completion, what is the total estimated cost of the bridge?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): 1. Yes.
2. $2,000,000.
3.	$1,590,500 as of January 31, 1968.
4.	Approximately $660,000.
5.	About $2,250,000.


COST OF MOVE OF SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATION
Mr. Nowlan: Will the move of Search and Rescue Operations involve capital cost at C.F.B. Summerside and, if so, how much and for purpose or purposes?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No.


CIVILIAN TRANSFERS BETWEEN GREENWOOD AND SUMMERSIDE BASES
Mr. Nowlan: 1.	How many civilians will be laid off at C.F.B. Greenwood?
Orders for Returns
2.	How many civilians will be required to relocate at C.F.B. Summerside?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. No civilian lay-offs are anticipated at C.F.B. Greenwood because of the transfer of the search and rescue unit to Summerside.
2. None.


OBJECTION TO MOVE OF SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATION
Mr. Nowlan: Was removal of Search and Rescue Operations to the C.F.B. Summerside recommended to the government under the Base Consolidation Program and, if so, what military, operational or strategic objections were raised?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	(a) For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, how many persons were employed from time to time in the Information and/or Public Relations Service of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (b) what position has been and is now held by each such employee, for what period and at which salary or remuneration?
2.	(a) For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what persons, firms or corporations, if any, have been employed and/or retained for the purpose of preparing, disseminating or in any manner dealing with the Information Services and/or Public Relations of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (b) what are the names of such persons, firms and corporations, if any, for what purpose and period was the employment! and what was the cost in each instance (c) were public tenders called for the services described in (a) and (b) and, if not, upon what basis and by whom was the selection made?
3.	(a) For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, how many press releases have been prepared for or on behalf of the Department and/or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; by whom were they prepared and at what cost (b) for each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what radio and television time has been purchased by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, for what purpose and for what cost (c) for the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what advertising or other space was purchased in domestic and foreign newspapers, magazines and other publications, for what purpose and for what cost?
4.	For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what was the cost of the travel of the Minister

March 27, 1968
Orders for Returns
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his staff and any of the personnel described in Parts 1 and 2 above; what trips were taken and for what purposes?
5.	(a) For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what advertising or any other related contracts have been awarded by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; to whom were the same awarded, for what purpose and for what cost; were public tenders called in each instance and, if not, upon what basis and by whom was the contract awarded (b) specifically, has the MacLaren Agency or any other firm been hired to promote the forthcoming amendments to the Indian Act in anticipation of the discussion in Parliament; what other public relations functions are being performed by this firm for the Indian Affairs Branch; what is the total cost of these services to the Department (c) does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development maintain and/or operate any office located elsewhere than in Ottawa for the purpose, in whole or in part, of promoting the public relations of the Deparment and/or the Minister and, if so, where are such offices located; what is the cost of the maintenance and operation of such offices; how many are employed in each such office and at what salary or remuneration in each case (d) have information officers been hired by the Department in the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories and, if so, what are their names and at what salary have they been appointed?
Return tabled.


FINES FOR COMBINES ACT INFRACTIONS
Mr. Orlikow: Since January 1, 1939, have any persons or corporations been fined for infractions of the Combines Investigation Act or sections 411 or 412 of the Criminal Code and, if so (a) what are the names of the persons or corporations so fined (b) what was the amount of the fine in each case (c) when was the fine imposed (d) what infractions occasioned the fine?
Return tabled.


CONVICTIONS UNDER COMBINES ACT
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancou-ver-Kingsway): 1.	What companies have been convicted under the Combines Investigation Act since January 1, 1966?
2.	What was the penalty imposed in each case?
Return tabled.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point with regard to question No. 955 standing in my name under date of January 30. The question is of a purely statistical nature, calling for information available here in Ottawa alone. It seems to me it should have been answered by now unless the government and the Public Service Commission are embarrassed by the information that it seeks to elicit.
(Mr. Dinsdale.]



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 58, 62 and 64 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and the consent of the relevant government authorities.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



TRANSFER BETWEEN MARITIMES ARMED FORCES BASES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 58-Mr. Nowlan:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of National Defence and any other Minister of the government and the Premier of Prince Edward Island or any other member of the government of that Province relating to the removal of personnel and maintenance facilities and the transfer of the air search and rescue unit from Greenwood, N.S., to Summerside, P.E.I.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 62
Mr. McQuaid:: That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Government of Prince Edward Island on the subject-matter of the continuous operation of ferry services between Prince Edward Island and the Mainland in the event of future strikes by C.N.R. employees.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 64-Mr. McQuaid:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all documents and correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of Prince Edward Island with reference to the bringing into force in Prince Edward Island the provisions of Part X of the Bankruptcy Act as amended, Statutes of Canada 1966-6, Chapter 32.
Motion agreed to.
March 27. 1968


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is prepared to take early action to implement those recommendations of the Woods report, such as the recommendations in respect of increasing veterans pensions and the remodelling of the procedures of appeal, which would receive widespread approval.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are studying the report. I read it over last week end. I agree that some of the recommendations should be implemented quickly, and I hope steps will be taken to that end.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government would be prepared to refer the report to the committee on veterans affairs, so the remaining parts could be dealt with expeditiously and action taken.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe this is a very reasonable suggestion and I will mention it to the minister.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, who has just tabled the correspondence with the provincial premiers with regard to the proposed prices review board. In the light of this exchange of correspondence and the visits by officials of the federal government to the various provinces last week, I should like to ask whether the Prime Minister is now in a position to tell us anything about the terms of reference. Have they been drafted, and will they be made available to members of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have received four or five replies from the provinces. There are not more than five. The officials who have been visiting the provinces have now visited all the provinces; I believe they visited the last one yesterday. We received an interim report
Inquiries of the Ministry from them last week and will be receiving the final report over the week end. I believe it should be possible to make progress with good speed and report to the house when it reconvenes on April 23.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether any contacts are being established with organizations other than the provinces. Are any discussions going on with management, labour, farm organizations or consumers organizations regarding these terms of reference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we thought we should obtain the reaction from the provincial governments first, but steps are now being taken to invite to Ottawa representatives of the various organizations, including the trade union organizations, which would be particularly concerned with this matter. It is hoped that it will be possible to have meetings with them beginning next week.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us if the municipal authorities in Hull have informed the government of their financial difficulties and, if so, can the city hope for loans similar to those granted to Jamaica at an interest rate of J of 1 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke.
[Translation)


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might want to ask another question because the first one was out of order.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Postmaster General is in the house. I should like to direct my question to him. Has he asked for a ruling from his officials to determine whether third class mail, or junk mail as it is popularly called, covers or includes the books and other paraphernalia being mailed out by Liberal leadership candidates?

March 27, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I hesitate to put my question to the Prime Minister in view of the way he has been fielding questions today, but now that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has made all possible mileage out of the wheat announcement may I ask whether it is the Prime Minister's intention to give him his release.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he could be persuaded today to grasp what probably will be his last opportunity to fulfil the hope he expressed last December 15, that before his retirement it would be possible to provide an increase in pensions for other retired public servants?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I really should not even take notice of that question because I will have an interest in that matter after I retire.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday I asked a question regarding the Stockholm conference of the International Monetary Fund. The Prime Minister was kind enough to indicate the Canadian representation and some of the agenda. In the light of reports that Canada might play a part as peacemaker in the confrontation expected at this conference, and subsequent to the visit to Ottawa yesterday of the French parliamentary committee on finance, could we have a statement regarding Canada's position at this conference? If a confrontation should develop I think many Canadians would want to know which side we are on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that he is asking for the type of statement which should be made on motions.



REPORTED STATEMENT AS TO POSSIBLE DEVALUATION OF DOLLAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the former president of the privy council was expressing a conclusion of the government when he said the Canadian dollar would have had to be devalued if the United States had not relaxed its restrictions last month?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should
remind the hon. member for Edmonton West that he has referred to the former president of the privy council. The rule is that hon. members can ask questions about statements made outside the house by members of the cabinet.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, the decision was reportedly taken when that hon. gentleman was a member of the cabinet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, former ministers rarely express the views of the government.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago the Minister of Labour promised the house that an analysis would be made of the Murchison report and that a statement would be made about possible government action. Is the minister now in a position to make the statement to which he earlier made reference?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. member and other interested members that the Murchison report, together with recommendations based therein, which were made by my department after discussions with the teamsters' council, the trucking companies and other interested bodies and persons, have been laid before the government. A decision has been reached and an order in council implementing same is in the course of preparation. I hope to issue a press release on the subject before the end of the week.
March 27, 1968



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Perhaps either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs could answer it, but in their absence I will direct it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. His officials were taking part in the grading of the product in respect of which my question is related. Could the minister advise the house or find out why United States citizens were granted permission to enter Canada, and on what basis they were granted work permits to operate such fraudulent and defrauding discount meat outlets in Ontario as are referred to in the Globe and Mail this morning?


Robert Henry Winters: This is something we are looking into, Mr. Speaker, and I had discussions on this subject with my officials this morning. This matter has been referred to the proper law authorities of the crown, and I shall be glad to reply more fully to my hon. friend later on. If parliament is not sitting at the time I will be glad to write him.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General or the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture whether the meat concerned in this case had been properly inspected and marked, or whether it was being sold illegally from that point of view.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that no comment ought to be made at this time. Charges have been laid, but everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Until the charges have been disposed of I suggest we should let the matter stand.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, my question really was whether charges had been laid in respect of the sale of uninspected meat.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce is endeavouring to obtain this information would he also ascertain whether these United States citizens will be deported to their own country after they have served any term that may be imposed?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs could perhaps amplify on what has been said.


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the various questions which have been put in connection with the report which appeared in today's newspapers, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had been informed, last January, especially by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales), about that meat business. The department referred the matter to the meat inspection division of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of National Health and Welfare and also the standards branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce. All that led, of course, to arrests in which the Department of Immigration took an active part.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED B.C. REFUSAL TO ACCEPT COURT RULING ON OFF-SHORE RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources could I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask whether he is aware of the defiance uttered by the government of British Columbia in respect of the ruling of the Supreme Court in regard to off-shore mineral rights, and the statement by ministers of the government of British Columbia that they will collect royalties regardless of the Supreme Court ruling.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was good enough to send me a copy of his question. I have no knowledge of this report, which if accurate would indeed be astonishing.


Mr. Lamberi:: We are not surprised at anything that comes out of British Columbia.



PROPOSED STUDY OF UNION OF ATLANTIC PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement yesterday by the Atlantic premiers that a serious

March 27, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry study under Dr. Deutsch will be conducted on Atlantic union, would the Prime Minister be prepared to indicate the federal interest in such a union and say whether formal representations will be made by the federal government to such a study?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure any federal government would be most interested in this study initiated by the provinces concerned. If the federal government were asked for its views on a matter of such importance, I am sure it would be very glad indeed to give them.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to offer all the co-operation possible in so far as any constitutional roadblocks which might present themselves? For example, we in the maritimes would not want our senatorial floor reduced because of union. Matters such as this would be important.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, Mr. Speaker, a senatorial floor is not a roadblock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR PROMPT PAYMENT TO WESTERN FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the statement he made earlier. Would the minister use his influence and best offices with the wheat board to see that cheques are sent out to those farmers in difficult circumstances in western Canada who need funds. I include in this request, of course, those farmers who might want to come to Ottawa for a certain event next week and who otherwise might not have the funds to get here.



INQUIRY AS TO PROSPECTS FOR COMING YEAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the confidence reflected in the announcement regarding the record wheat payment, I would ask the minister whether he has sufficient confidence in future markets for Canadian produced grain to encourage farmers to grow even more wheat than last year.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I have always found the judgment of the Canadian farmers to be pretty good in this field, and I am sure they are quite willing to adapt to the circumstances in the market place.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, with the approach of the end of this portion of the session I wonder whether the Prime Minister would consider giving an answer to the very frightening descriptions of the seal slaughter which have appeared in the British press, with widespread allegations to the effect that cruelty and brutality were practised and that while there has been some improvement in the slaughter, that in no way removes a dark cloud over Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the report in the newspaper in question, the Daily Mirror, does involve a dark cloud over Canada, however unwarranted that report may be; and I believe it is unwarranted. Steps are being taken to investigate the situation, and to reply to the charges.



REPORTED LARGE SCALE COUNTERFEITING OF PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I direct my question to the Prime Minister. On March 21 the hon. member for Saskatoon made inquiries of the minister about an increase in the incidence of counterfeit drugs in Canada. I wonder if the Prime Minister could advise the house whether the government has taken any investigative action.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister commenced an investigation. I do not know whether the investigation is yet completed, but I will look into it and see whether I can get some information to my hon. friend before the house rises.
March 27, 1968



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that in July 1966, Canada advised the West Indies that during the five next years a minimum of $75 million would be put at their disposal, would the Prime Mnister tell us whether the credit restrictions which we are now experiencing will have some effect on that promise and on the low rate of interest granted at that time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this assistance was given to the West Indies under external aid, and I do not think it should be confused with the arrangements that are made in our own country.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the large number of prominent and respected Canadians who have written to the Prime Minister recently, and public letters to this effect, and in view of the Prime Minister's own interest in this great question, I wonder if he could tell us whether there has been any substantial progress along the road to establishing regular and diplomatic relations with mainland China.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No recent progress that I know of, Mr. Speaker.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's fairly imminent retirement, is it to be hoped that he will be able to make an important statement in this regard before that occurs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I might even be the first Canadian representative in Peking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is known as preaching for a call.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE


WHEAT-PROVISION FOR RESTRICTED MARKETING UNDER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it the minister's understanding of the new international grains agreement that all major exporting countries have the capability to limit marketings to support world wheat prices, and has Canada expressed its intention to do so if necessary?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a formal provision in the proposed international wheat agreement to which Canada conforms, and we will certainly play our part in an endeavour to maintain the price structure.


George Robson Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister concur in the official United States view that these countries, including Canada, have the will to limit marketings and that the United States is willing to test countries like Canada if the United States feels it should do so?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had very serious doubts about the first question. I have even more serious doubts about the supplementary.


AIR CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the report of the British air safety group calling for the banning of JP-4, a fuel for jet aircraft which is cheaper than kerosene but highly inflammable, and in view of the fact that Air Canada is using it although its use has been abandoned by most large air lines, is the minister having any investigation made on the advisability of continuing to use this form of fuel in Air Canada jets?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker. This question has been thoroughly investigated on previous occasions. The conclusion was that each fuel has some advantages and some disadvantages. I read the reports myself at one time and feel that the conclusions were probably right, that although one has some advantages the other has some advantages too. There was no clear cut indication that

March 27, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry one was markedly superior to the other. As far as I know there has been no evidence recently to change that conclusion. But I did find very interesting the evidence that was presented, and it does raise some questions in one's mind as to the difference under certain operating conditions as compared to certain other operating conditions. With regard to its danger, it depends entirely where and under what operating conditions the fuel is being used.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister whether in his assessment of the situation the risk factor was found to be greater in JP-4 than in other fuels which are available.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, only under certain conditions.


Mr. Lewis:: Remember you are Paul Hellyer, not Paul Martin.


RURAL DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: I intended to direct my question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, but in his absence I will put it to the Prime Minister. Owing to the anxiety evident in Quebec over the delay in signing the federal-provincial agreement under the FRED program, would the Prime Minister tell us approximately on what date that agreement may be signed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot do so, Mr. Speaker, but I will make inquiries.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: My question is for the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder whether the minister has made a decision yet with regard to acreage assistance for Prince Edward Island potato growers.


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture announced this morning there would be a federal assistance program for commercial potato growers. In brief,

it is $25 per acre to a maximum of $400 per farmer, based on the 1967 crop.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether this program applies to any specific region.


Bruce Silas Beer: It is a national program, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My
question is for the Minister of National Defence. Could he tell the house what progress is being made in obtaining a heavy transport aircraft in lieu of the C-141, so the C-5 plane can be used?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The C-5 will be used whether we obtain the C-141 or an alternate plane. We have different options so far as this big transport plane is concerned and we are studying them now.


INQUIRY AS TO FUTURE PLANS OF PRIME MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. I wonder if I may ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think he should let the house know if this is the last day he will be in his place as Prime Minister. If so, we might like to say a few appropriate words.


An hon. Member:: Can you?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do recall that on one occasion with respect to the right hon. member for Prince Albert the Prime Minister said that the place would never be the same without him. If this is to be the Prime Minister's last day, perhaps he could tell us, so we could-


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I expect to be taking a comfortable seat on the back benches, and perhaps the words would be more appropriate for me then.
March 27. 1968

[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)

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


The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply on supplementary estimates (C), 1967-68. We will now consider the estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. These estimates were last considered on March 19.


DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
lc. Departmental administration, $399,53.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I want to say just a few words on the estimates of this department, particularly with respect to Bill C-190 which was the result of some two years of investigation by a committee of this house which looked into the price of drugs and found that drug prices in Canada were higher than in almost any other country in the western world. As a result of that committee's work a number of recommendations were made to the government, two of which have been acted upon.
The first recommendation had to do with the removal of the sales tax on prescription drugs, and the government implemented that recommendation. The result was that there was some reduction in the price of prescription drugs across Canada. Since that time, however, the drug companies have announced very substantial increases which have more than wiped out the reduction occasioned by the government's removal of the sales tax. Therefore the position of the consumer today is actually worse, and not better, since the drug bill came before the house.
I received from a businessman in the province of Ontario a copy of a bill which he received for $51.60 for 60 capsules. This man was required by his doctor to take 4 capsules a day, which means that he has to pay $3.44 a day for the drug. Since he will probably be required to take it for a considerable length of time, one can see what a heavy burden this is for him.
When the businessman complained to his druggist, who was a friend of his, about this very exorbitant price, the druggist said, "I know it is very high but the"-particular drug company, which he named-"has a monopoly by virtue of its patent, and there is nothing we can do about it". Apparently this drug is cheaper in the United States, in Great Britain and elsewhere and, according to the
DEBATES	8127
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs druggist, this is the price which he must charge. One could duplicate this example again and again. The fact is that in spite of the government's action to remove the sales tax on prescription drugs, the Canadian public is still paying exorbitant prices for products which are not luxuries, which are not optional, but which they must have if they are seriously ill.
The second recommendation upon which the government acted was to make certain changes in the Patent Act and Trade Marks Act. These changes were brought before the house in the form of Bill C-190. We had an excellent debate in the house on this matter. The bill was given second reading, which as hon. members know means approval in principle, and we in this party were very anxious that the house should not recess until that bill had passed, been sent to the other place, and then been placed on the statute books. We have not been able to persuade the government to proceed with the legislation, and various explanations were given to us. Sometimes we were told that the reason the bill could not be proceeded with was that the official opposition, the members of the Conservative party, were going to put on a protracted debate.


Mr. Pugh:: That is ridiculous.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think the government could have called the bill and found out whether or not that was true. On the other hand I find that members of the official opposition have been told that there were important amendments which had not been drafted, and therefore the bill could not be proceeded with. But I draw the attention of the committee to the statement made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on March 19 at page 7815 of Hansard, where he said:
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.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the minister who is in charge of the bill and who ought to know whether or not these amendments are ready for consideration by committee of the whole has made it abundantly clear that as far as he is concerned he has discharged his responsibility, that he has the amendments ready, and that it is not his
March 27, 1968

Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs fault that this bill has not been proceeded with.
There has been criticism of the fact that we in this party have been both insistent and persistent on the question of proceeding with Bill No. C-190. I want to point out that the correspondence I have received indicates that this criticism of our actions has not been widespread. I think that the great majority of the public were supporting the members of the New Democratic party in their urging the government to proceed with the bill which, in our opinion, would be of considerable help in reducing the price of prescription drugs.
I was interested to note when I was in Edmonton last Friday an editorial in the Edmonton Journal, which is a well known supporter of the Liberal party. The heading of the article read: "Drug prices bill: The N.D.P. is right". The article went on as follows:
Mr. Allan MacEachen said in the Commons that the N.D.P. charge of "political considerations" in the government's refusal to bring about a vote on a bill designed to reduce prescription drug prices almost made him gag.
The minister of health appears to be highly selective in his choice of things to make himself gag. A great deal has happened in the Commons in recent years to make even a person with a strong stomach gag. But the N.D.P. efforts to have this important bill dealt with now is not one of them.
The urgency of the matter is pointed up by the announcement of price increases, up to 30 per cent, by a major drug company. Perhaps its theory is that the best defence is to attack. But Canadian drug prices already are the highest in the world!
The bill on which the N.D.P. wanted a vote is not an N.D.P. bill. It is a government bill to amend the Patents and Trade Marks Acts in such a way as to force down retail prices. It was introduced by the government with a great flourish in a manner designed to extract the maximum political mileage from it. It has been given second reading-approval in principle. But a terrific lobby has been raised against it by the pharmaceutical industry.
Quite rightly, the N.D.P. did not want to see it die on the order paper.
But not only did the government set its face against third reading before the recess. It also refused to give any undertaking that the bill would be the first order of business when the house reassembles April 23.
It is sad to see the urgent business of the nation neglected in this way. But it is not out of harmony with the bumbling and fumbling the nation has come to expect from the Liberal government.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the attempt of this party to persuade the government to bring down this legislation before we recess has not met with widespread criticism but, on the whole, has been supported by a great many of the people of Canada and by a goodly part of the press of this country.

Our concern, Mr. Chairman, has not been just with having this measure passed before the recess. What we had been primarily concerned about is the danger that this legislation would be dropped. The fact that there has been a very powerful lobby by the drug manufacturing companies is well known. To our minds there seemed to be every indication that the government was beginning to change its mind, that it was beginning to lose its determination to see that the bill did become law. That is why we have repeatedly asked the government for some assurance that the bill would be passed.
If the bill is not to be passed before the recess, Mr. Chairman, then at least we need a commitment that the legislation will be dealt with immediately after parliament reassembles on April 23. This is why I asked the Prime Minister yesterday the question I did, and I want to put once more on the record the reply of the Prime Minister, which is reported at page 8058 of Hansard. His reply was:
But I have already indicated, Mr. Speaker, that we consider this as priority legislation, and it certainly is not that we are determined not to proceed with it. We are determined to proceed with it, but we have indicated that we feel this should be after the recess. We will not be proroguing; we will be adjourning. On our return-and I have discussed this matter with my colleagues in the cabinet, all of them, some more individually perhaps than others-there will be two items of legislation which really have top priority. One is this bill; the other is the Kennedy round negotiations which are matters of very great urgency in the trade field. I think we should proceed with those two items immediately on our return, and my colleagues in the cabinet agree with me on that score.
I should like on behalf of the members of this party, Mr. Chairman, to say that we are very happy to have that categorical assurance from the Prime Minister. We take this as a commitment not only from the Prime Minister himself, who unfortunately is not likely to be leading the government when we reassemble on April 23, but also as a firm commitment from all members of the cabinet.
In all probability the next prime minister will be one who is a member of the present cabinet. We feel that this commitment is binding upon whichever of the candidates is selected as leader of the Liberal party, and consequently prime minister of Canada. We shall be pressing the government very hard, and urging the new prime minister to carry out the commitment made yesterday by the Prime Minister.
March 27, 1968

* (3:30 p.ra.)
On that understanding we are satisfied for the present that this bill is not to be killed, and when parliament reassembles we shall be urging that it be one of the first items called so that this parliament can take a step toward reducing the price of prescription drugs to the consumers of Canada. We do not suggest for a moment that these amendments to the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act are going to solve all the problems in the drug industry, but we do feel that the work of the committee following two years of investigation does count for something. We also feel that the investigation conducted by the combines investigation branch and by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs counts for something. This valuable work ought not to be allowed to go down the drain. If this legislation offers any hope at all that we can do something about the price of drugs, that we can do anything at all to make it easier for those people who must buy drugs in fairly large quantities, then parliament ought not to shirk its responsibility in this regard. We therefore accept the Prime Minister's commitment and when we reassemble we shall expect the government to carry out that commitment.


Mr. Rynard:: I listened with interest to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and I am sure we all agree that we need the cheapest drugs possible for those who are sick. But those drugs must be safe. It is no use getting cheap drugs which might poison someone, and that matter requires looking into.
I also wish to clear up another misunderstanding. In today's Globe and Mail Mr. Michael Gillan, writing about the government's move to win a house recess, said that the government was opposed to proceeding with the drug bill because Conservatives have indicated they would conduct a lengthy debate on estimates to block the way to consideration of the drug bill. I want to say that that is completely false and erroneous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. McCleave:: The Globe and Mail, please note.


Philip Bernard Rynard: At no time did the Conservative party consider blocking this bill by conducting a lengthy debate on estimates.


An hon. Member:: That was N.D.P.
nonsense.
DEBATES	8129
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs


Philip Bernard Rynard: When the government proceeds with the bill we shall be prepared to deal with it clause by clause, and I want that on the record.
I now wish to deal with another matter. We often talk about protecting the consuming public, but we do not often say anything about protecting one government from another. In the federal house, here in Ottawa, we often say that we shall share programs. When we share those programs we most often share them with provinces, and the provinces are called on to share in the costs of programs. Sometimes they pay more than their share. Sometimes the share we ask them to pay is beyond their financial ability. In my opinion when we apply such pressures we are doing something that, in my judgment, constitutes political blackmail.
When provinces are asked to share in a program everybody forgets that provincial governments must pay for the administration of those programs in the provinces. This is true of the medicare program. The federal government is to share the cost of the program with the provinces, but the provinces will pay for the administration. As I say, we must remember sometimes that one level of government needs to be protected from another. Ontario, my province, is budgeting for under $300 million deficit, and the federal deficit at Ottawa will be about $800 million. If this situation exists right across the country it shows that our financial condition is not good. We must have priorities and we must stop blackmailing the provinces and the public into accepting and paying for programs they do not necessarily need, and which may be wrong in principle.
I also want to ask what the government will do in order to provide doctors to operate the medicare scheme? If we do not provide doctors for the public, are we not cheating the public? If we are not cheating now, then I have never seen cheating anywhere. Our people will have to pay their medicare premiums but there will not be the doctors to take care of them in Canada. My hon. friend from Sudbury brought this point to the attention of the house the other day, when he spoke about the scarcity of general practitioners. I ask what the government will do to alleviate the shortage. Being 2,000 doctors short of our requirements, we are in the throes of a major medical crisis. Some areas of Canada have no doctors at all, yet we are talking about universal medicare. Anyone going to a strange
8130	COMMONS
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs locality and taken sick at night will very likely wind up in the emergency department of the local hospital. It is hard to get a doctor out to see a patient at night because doctors are scarce. In any event our doctors and hospitals are overburdened.
I appeal to this government, which I know is in a difficult position, to take steps to alleviate the shortage. Our present crisis is as bad as our 1942 crisis, which was met by having the medical schools operating all year round. Our output of doctors then was increased by 50 per cent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Hear, hear.


Philip Bernard Rynard: It is wasteful and inefficient to have our expensive capital items, the medical school buildings, left idle for part of the year.
I appeal to the government and to the minister concerned to meet with provincial health ministers, the heads of universities and teaching representatives and to see if medical schools could be operated throughout the year. Teaching in medical schools should not be confined to eight months of the year, with the schools being left empty for the remainder of the year. That is the only way we shall get enough doctors, and that is the only way we shall avoid cheating our public, which is paying for services it will not get.
Some will ask: But what about the doctor teacher shortage? My answer is that we can use television and the new audiovisual teaching methods which have come into prominence recently. Any student sitting in any classroom in Canada, because of television or audiovisual methods can see the greatest teachers in this country and hear them lecture. All that is needed is a proctor to note a student's questions after the lecture. It is as easy as that. Some say: But you cannot do things that way. Let me say that in the United States and Canada credits are given to those who go to conventions and teaching seminars, where teaching is carried on by this method.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
These doctors are costing us a lot of money. It costs approximately $50,000 to put a doctor through medical school. As the hon. member for Sudbury has pointed out, we have a great stake in their careers. The difficulty caused by a shortage of practitioners is increasing today and we must see that a much worse crisis is avoided. We were able to cope in 1942 with the crisis but today we apparently cannot. I say to the minister of consumer affairs or to whoever is taking his place, that a

DEBATES	March 27, 1968
consumer who is paying for something he is not getting is being cheated as badly as someone who picks an article off a counter which is priced too high. I hope that when the Liberals hold their convention this matter will be brought up. They intend to bring in medicare as of July 1. The first thing they should do is insure that doctors are available to carry out this project. Let us quit cheating the public.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: It is
significant we should be ending this part of the session by talking about consumer problems. We had a discussion on aspects of the drug bill and today we have been talking about increasing the supply of doctors.
I want to refer again, today, to the way in which those who are hard of hearing are mercilessly exploited. Since I raised this subject the other day I have been amazed by the flood of letters and communications forthcoming from people all across the country who are hard of hearing and who feel they are being exploited. I wish to bring fresh evidence before the committee because the removal of these grievances should, I feel, be one of the immediate tasks of the department of consumer affairs. I am glad to see the minister in charge nodding his head. A real effort must be made to get to the bottom of this.
I mentioned that an inquiry by the minister of trade in British Columbia had discovered that in Vancouver and Victoria the mark-up on hearing aids as between wholesale and retail prices was as high as 306 per cent. One of the members of the legislature drew attention to the fact that hearing aids which cost $35 to manufacture in Japan were being sold in Vancouver for upwards of $400; that others which cost $77 to manufacture were being sold for $700. Since I raised this matter a great deal of evidence has come in from other parts of Canada. It should be remembered that most of these people have absolutely no means of deciding how much should be paid for a hearing aid, or which of the various models, widely differing in price, are best suited to their needs. One man who lives in this city inquired about hearing aids and was given information about four makes, all of them of the kind with a cord, the kind he needed. One was priced at $400, another at $280, a third at $329 and yet a fourth at $245. How was this man to decide which of the hearing aids he should buy? No information has gone out from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to help him decide where the best value lies. In the case I refer to the man is hard up and has no means of knowing.
March 27. 1968	COMMONS
From Winnipeg I have had evidence in connection with the price of batteries, a constant source of expense to users of these aids. Recently the price of these tiny button-like batteries rose to 60 cents per battery. Last night it was suggested by one of the hon. gentlemen opposite on the treasury benches, in connection with an increase in the price of milk, that two cents was not very significant. But it is a matter of two cents here, two cents there; it all adds up. And an extra 10 cents every time a battery is needed is a definite extra burden. One lady tells me that the battery she uses was supposed to last for seven days-but it wore out at the end of three days. This complaint was from a local woman.
Now I want to give the committee some evidence about prices charged to repair these hearing aids. A man living here in Ottawa writes:
I have solved the price problem myself by buying hearing aids in England. They cost about half as much as here and the batteries cost about 60 per cent as much. A few years ago my spectacle hearing aid failed and I asked one of the better dealers here about repairs. He said that it would have to be sent to Toronto or Montreal and as a foreign product there might be some delay in doing the work. The cost might be between $30 and $40. Having a spare aid, I air-mailed my usual aid to London and had it back in about ten days. The charge was $3.20.
Surely the Canadian users of hearing aids have a right to expect some protection from this new department. I hope our hands will be strengthened by a whole flood of letters on this subject.
I wish now to say something about the selling practices used to persuade people to buy these hearing aids. Again, I have evidence from a small Ontario town-


An hon. Member:: Ottawa?


Winona Grace MacInnis: No, I would not call Ottawa a small town. I believe it is fifth on the list of Canadian cities, by population. Here is a letter, addressed to me, which says:
I was offered a position selling hearing aids by one of the distributors. I found that the commission offered for selling added tremendously to the price. I found that hearing aids were being sold to people who really did not require aids. I found the sales pitch positively repulsive. I refused the job.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
In corroboration of these statements, I would refer members of the committee to an article which appeared in the Toronto Star of May 13, 1967, written by a journalist called Tori Salter. Before writing her article she
DEBATES	8131
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs took the precaution of visiting a reputable ear specialist who assured her that her hearing was perfect and that she needed no treatment. Then she went out to buy a hearing aid, and to report her experiences in doing so. At the first place she went to-and I quote from the article-
-the strong-featured woman studied the impressive-looking form in her hands, her heavily-pencilled eyelids narrowing in concentration.
"You have a real problem," she told me. "Your audiometric test shows that while there is considerable hearing loss in both ears, the deterioration is much greater in the right ear. Fortunately we can still help you, but two hearing aids will be required. It will be expensive."
"Expensive?"
"About' $800," she assessed.
And so on, and so on. This was a woman who, just two hours previously, had been to a hearing specialist and had been assured that her hearing was normal and that her ear drums were intact.
Then the writer of this article went on to find out that a survey of the Toronto market revealed prices ranging from $85 for a box type hearing aid with a cord, to $1,000 for miniaturized models. I quote from her article further:
A manufacturer defended spiralling costs on the basis of a limited market, which he said made the economies of mass production impossible.
On the other hand, Professor Norman F. Moody, Director of Biomedical Electronics, University of Toronto, commented: "In my opinion, it should be possible to sell a hearing aid which consists basically of a small microphone, some transistors, a receiver, an amplifier and an ear piece, for $100- and still allow for a reasonable profit after carrying out the necessary tests and fitting."
"Price has little to do with the effectiveness, or lasting quality of a hearing aid," said one dealer. "A poorly designed instrument selling for $350 may be inferior to a better-engineered product selling for half the price."
What I would like to know is when can we expect some protection for people who have to buy hearing aids and who, at the present time, have absolutely no guidance, and no protection from this merciless exploitation?
I quote from another letter which I have received on this subject, again from a small town not very far from Ottawa. In part it reads:
We are old age pensioners and my husband has tried to get a hearing aid but we just can't afford it. He is very despondent as he can't hear and misses so much. We went to one party and they wanted over $200. Is there no way he could get one? We live on a pension, and it takes it all.
The points I want to make briefly, Mr. Chairman, are that we do not know anything

March 27, 1968
Supply-Treasury Board about the rules or regulations in connection with hearing aids. We do not know how much a hearing aid should cost. We do know there is a tremendous spread between the manufacturing cost and the selling price, and we know that the price of batteries is continually rising. Further, there is a terrific disparity between the cost of repairs in this country and the cost of repairs in Great Britain, and between the price of hearing aids in this country and their price in other countries.
We also know that under the national health plan in Great Britain hearing aids are included in the medicare program. Further, we know that according to the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1969, the cost of the consumer affairs branch of the department is going to be $394,400. That is a lot of money. It is a great amount to be taken off little people and others who pay income tax. Those people who can ill afford to pay this taxation are going to demand that they get some kind of worth-while consumer protection. I think they have a right to get it, and this business in connection with hearing aids is one particular area in which they have the right to get protection.
The terms of the legislation establishing the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs set out that the minister shall:
(a)	initiate, recommend or undertake programs designed to promote the interests of the Canadian -consumer;
(b)	co-ordinate programs of the government of Canada that are designed to promote the interests of the Canadian consumer;
(c)	promote and encourage the institution of practices or conduct tending to the better protection of the Canadian consumer and co-operate with provincial governments or agencies thereof, or any bodies, organizations or persons, in any programs having similar objects; and
(d)	undertake, recommend or assist in programs to assist the Canadian consumer to be more fully informed about goods and services offered to the consumer.
Instead of spreading myself all over the map about a hundred things in which the *consumer needs protection I have chosen to document the vital need for consumer protection with respect to hearing aids.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(The following items were agreed to):
5c. Bankruptcy Act

Administration, $109,000.
25c. Consumer Affairs Branch, $175,000.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The committee

will now consider the estimates of the Treasury Board.


TREASURY BOARD
[Stage Direction]
7c. To authorize the Treasury Board to delete from the accounts certain debts due, and claims by, Her Majesty, each of which is in excess of $1,000, amounting in the aggregate to $19,057,138.26, of which $44,570 represents an item that has been carried as an asset in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities, $44,571.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have a few words that I want to say on this item but in view of the understanding that we conclude the supplementary estimates at four o'clock I think I can make my remarks when we are on the resolution preceding the interim supply bill.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
L117C. To authorize in the current and subsequent fiscal years, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, where sums are due to federal government departments and agencies from the working capital advance established by Vote L99e, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1966, for the provision of data processing and related services, the payment from those sums of amounts payable by the said departments or agencies to the said working capital advance, $1.
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of Treasury Board. The committee will now consider the supplementary estimates of the Department of Fisheries.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES Fisheries Management and Development-
15c. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amount and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $1,065,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
17c. Estimated amount required to recoup the Fishing Vessel Indemnity Account, the Lobster Trap Indemnity Account and the Fixed Fishing Gear and Shore Installations Indemnity Account established under Vote 540 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1955 and Vote 527 of the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1956, to cover the net operating losses in the said Accounts as at March 31, 1968, $157,700.
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the supplementary estimates.
Perhaps I should point out to the committee that vote 15c is the revised estimate of the Department of Fisheries. The initial estimate was not proceeded with.


Thomas Miller Bell: The one that was carried is in the amended form in accordance
March 27, 1968

with the message that was delivered last night. Is that right?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Yes.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

Lawrence T. Pennell: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Lawrence T. Pennell: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Pennell (for Mr. Benson) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-211 for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1968.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave now.


Lawrence T. Pennell: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the Chair.
On clause 2-$287,980,264 granted for 1967-68
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, may we have from the Solicitor General the assurance that this bill is in the standard form and contains nothing that is not usual in such an appropriation bill?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, the form of this bill is the same as that passed in previous years. I have one brief comment in respect of clause 7.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Ways and Means
On clause 7-Power to raise loan of $2,000,000,000 for public works and general purposes
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I
observe that clause 7 seeks the authority to raise a loan of $2 billion. Would the Solicitor General indicate the necessity for this particular requirement and what this means by way of authorized loan total in appropriation bills which are outstanding.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, as the committee is aware it is customary at the beginning of a new fiscal year to request $1 billion in net new borrowing authority. This bill before you requests $2 billion. The additional amount of $1 billion is being sought at this time to enable the government, if circumstances require it, to borrow substantial sums in terms of foreign currencies. The full amount of this authority may not be required. It is important, however, for the government to have flexibility in its debt management planning and operation.
To assist the committee I would point out that the total borrowing authority authorized annually by parliament in the last few years have been as follows: 1960-61, $1,500 million; 1961-62, $2,000 million; 1962-63, $2,500 million; 1963-64, $2,000 million; 1964-65, $1,750 million; 1965-66,	$1,750 million; 1966-67;
$1,750 million.
I respectfully suggest that this bill follows the usual form of the last few years.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to say that in passing this bill at this time and under these hasty conditions we are not to be taken as concurring in this extended borrowing power.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.

Lawrence T. Pennell: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,118,202,797.17, being the aggregate of-

March 27, 1968
Interim Supply
(a)	two-twelfths of the total of all of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1969, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament-$1,051,635,522.17;
(b)	four-twelfths of the total amount of Atomic Energy item 5 and National Research Council of Canada including the Medical Research Council item 10, (Schedule A) of the said main estimates -$30,666,333.33;
(c)	two-twelfths of the total amount of External Affairs item 35 (Schedule B) of the said main estimates-$23,566,666.67;
(d)	one-twelfth of the total amount of Office of the Chief Electoral Officer item 1, Consumer and Corporate Affairs item 25, Indian Affairs and Northern Development item 20, Legislation items 5 and 20, and Transport item 30, (Schedule C) of the said main estimates-$12,334,275.00,
-be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1969.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before this resolution carries I should like once again to say a few words concerning what some of us regard as a very important issue, namely the question of increasing the pensions of retired civil servants. A few minutes ago when the item for the Treasury Board was called I indicated I had something to say but that I would defer my remarks until this point.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, it has been something of a temptation to me today to speak to this matter with cynicism and a sense of utter despair. In fact, I am almost tempted to copy the style of the hon. member for Carleton in respect of some of the things he has said on this issue. I realize, however, that while I could express my outrage and get something off my chest, perhaps that is not the way to get something out of the government opposite. Therefore I shall refrain from that kind of approach and once again make the strongest appeal I can possibly make to the government to deal with this matter before the present session ends.
We already have the assurance that when we rise this evening we will be adjourned, not prorogued, and that when we come back on April 23 we will deal with high priority matters. I recognize that no commitment has yet been made by the government to deal with this matter among others having high priority, but I urge this is of very high priority and that it ought to be dealt with before this session is prorogued, I presume sometime toward the end of April.
I am sure you, Mr. Chairman, representing a constituency in this area, as well as your

colleague who sits to your right, the hon. member for Ottawa East, and your friend to your left, the hon. member for Carleton, as well as others, are aware of the importance of this problem. Indeed, we are terribly aware of how bitterly disappointed some 50,000 or 60,000 federal superannuates, counting retired civil servants, retired R.C.M.P. personnel and retired members of the armed forces, feel because this matter has not been dealt with before now.
I will not take the time to recount the efforts that some of us have made with regard to this matter over 20 years or more, but I do draw attention once again to the fact that the hon. member for Ottawa East tabled on May 8, 1967, a report of a joint committee of both houses on which were representatives of all parties, in which it was unanimously recommended that there be an immediate increase in the pensions of retired civil servants, including civil servants as we know them by that name, retired members of the armed forces and retired R.C.M.P. personnel.
I know it is awfully difficult to document by reference to Hansard the kind of promises that were made to us, but the promises were implicit in the things that were said on the floor of the house, and the promises given to us outside this house were very explicit. This matter was going to be dealt with last summer. Indeed, I was told on several occasions it was going to be dealt with before the end of June. Hon. members know that on July 7 when some of us tried to get the house to stay here to deal with this we lost the vote and we were sent home with the assurance by Liberal members that it was just a matter of waiting until the fall. We came back in September, and I suppose there has not been a week since that some of us have not raised this question, but in vain.
Shortly after the Prime Minister announced his intended resignation I began to urge him to put this matter on his personal priority list as a matter that should be dealt with before he became a retired civil servant himself. Reference was made to this today, and he suggested this gave him a vested interest. I think that hardly applies. The fact of the matter is that on Friday, December 15, 1967, as recorded in Hansard at page 5474 the Prime Minister told me that he hoped to be able to reconsider sympathetically this very difficult problem, and he used these words:
I hope the situation will so improve during the remainder of my period on this side as Prime Minister that this may be possible.
March 27, 1968

Likewise on January 31, 1968, as recorded at page 6207, the Prime Minister assured me that the matter was one of great importance and was continuing to receive consideration. On Friday, February 9, 1968, I again asked the Prime Minister whether there was hope that this matter would be dealt with before he relinquished his office as Prime Minister. His reply to me was, as recorded at page 6558 of Hansard on that day, was "I certainly hope that the situation will improve." Again on Wednesday, March 13, 1968, I asked a similar question, and on page 7586 of Hansard the Prime Minister replied as follows: "Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must never give up hope."
That is a pretty hard admonition to follow in this case, because here we are very close to the end of this session and very close to the end of the present Prime Minister's regime, and nothing has yet been done. Maybe I should accept the fact that there is no hope that anything will be done while the present Prime Minister still occupies that office, but I refuse to do so. I refuse to give up hope.
On Wednesday, March 20, 1968, I asked a similar question. This is the last sentence of the Prime Minister's reply to my question as to whether something would be done before we resume in April, as recorded at page 7863 of Hansard:
We will certainly give the matter consideration and do what we think is right in the circumstances.
That is a pretty ambiguous reply. Doing what is right in the view of the Prime Minister might be doing nothing, but I cannot imagine that the Prime Minister would play with words in that way. Surely when he said "we will" do something he meant something, rather than nothing. 1 call upon the Prime Minister, as did the hon. member for Carleton today, and as several of us have done during the past few weeks, to crown his career as Prime Minister of this country by dealing with this very important matter.
I recognize that it was not possible for the Prime Minister to remain in the house this afternoon, but I am told that the Minister of Industry is here representing the President of the Treasury Board on this matter. I notice other members of the cabinet in attendance as well, and I hope that in spite of their preoccupation during the next couple of weeks with other matters they will in their cabinet discussions face the fact that in all honesty, decency and fairness they must deal with this issue.
Interim Supply
It is not my intention to take the time to go over all the arguments which have been placed on the record time and time again in favour of increasing the pensions of retired civil servants. The figures have been placed in Hansard repeatedly regarding the number of people involved: 30,000 retired civil servants, 15,000 widows of retired civil servants and several thousand in the other two categories. There are also figures on the record showing the huge amounts of money credited to the public service superannuation fund, as well as to the other two funds.
In the case of all three funds, for retired civil servants, for retired R.C.M.P. personnel and for retired armed forces personnel, the interest that is being paid each year on the amount in the funds is by itself greater than the amount that is being paid out in pensions to retired people. It seems to me that there is no argument against the capacity of the government to pay these increased pensions, and I insist that action should be taken now. There are those who resist doing something for these people on the ground that we should not do something for one group of people that we do not do for all. In reply to that I say again that the government has a special responsibility to its own employees, the responsibility of being a good employer. I also say that this business of escalating pensions is an issue facing us in the pension field in respect of which we will have to do something substantial in the next few years, or our whole pension structure will collapse.
I suggest there is no better place for the government to begin the escalation of pensions that have been put in pay than in respect of its own employees. The government has already accepted the principle in part by putting an escalation clause in the Old Age Security Act and in the Canada Pension Plan. I suggest this ought to be done here as well.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The time is limited and I see two or three others who may wish to get to their feet and support this plea. I hope they will. I hope the hon. member for Carleton will have a few appropriate words to say. I hope the hon. member for Ottawa East will also rise and say something about this matter, because I know how strongly he feels about it. I know he feels as disappointed as I do that the report which we tabled on May 8, 1967, was put on the shelf, only to be covered with dust. I hope that hon. member will use his influence, as a member on the government

March 27, 1968
Interim Supply
side, to press the government to act on this issue.
I said last July, when we were speaking on this matter, that to delay it till the fall was unfair; that many people would not live to receive any benefit that might come later. Many hundreds have died in the meantime, as you will see if you check the figures from one year to the next. These people have not enjoyed the benefit of the proposed increases. This will continue to be the situation unless action is taken.
There is no excuse whatsoever for this delay. I say again that if ever there was an opinion expressed that ought to be recognized, it is the opinion of the special joint committee on the public service of Canada, which represented both houses of parliament and all parties. This committee met for many months-I think it was about a year-dealing with four or five different pieces of legislation. It was thoroughly seized of the problems of the federal public service, and I think the recommendation it made was a well thought out and responsible one.
As I say, I want to leave for others the opportunity to comment on this question if they wish to do so. I hope the Minister of Industry has been taking this in, as the acting President of the Treasury Board today. I am glad to see that the Solicitor General is also present, and the Minister of Labour. We are favoured at this particular time by having in the chamber ministers who are not involved in the leadership race that is taking place. They can attend to good, solid business. I see that the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board is here as well. I call on all of them to face up to the seriousness of this issue. Let us not disappoint these people any longer. The government should not any longer have the reputation of being the kind of employer that does not come through with what is deserved, and what these people have a right to expect.
As I have already pointed out, the Prime Minister said to me in reply to one of my questions: The hon. member must never give up hope. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not giving up hope. I trust that action will be taken before the present Prime Minister leaves office in April. I urge that this be done without fail.


Mr. Richard:: Mr. Chairman, it is perhaps a little late in the day, but I should say a few words on the subject raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. As hon. members know, for the past 20 years I have been
[Mr. Knowles.)
one of those pleading the cause of the retired civil servants. So this problem is not new, and it should have been settled a long time ago.
About two years ago I accepted the chairmanship of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons which inquired into the public service situation, and more particularly dealt with legislation which was presented to this house. We had a very good and very able committee. There was agreement on all sides. When those bills had been disposed of we were requested to deal with the question of retired civil servants. I agreed to continue as chairman of the committee, not with the hope but with conviction that I was doing a job. I was fully convinced we would prepare a plan that would be accepted in due time by the house.
Hon. members will recall that we made haste in the committee and on the last day, just before the closing of the session, on May 8, 1967, I presented a unanimous report of the committee. I agree that something has to be done in this regard. I hope it can be done before this session is ended. There is absolutely no financial reason why this matter should not be dealt with. It is a small matter in the budget of this country. Figures were presented to our committee which have not been challenged or denied, because they were presented by officials of Treasury Board. The people affected by this delay have been suffering because of the inequitable treatment being afforded them. I am sure I speak for many members of the house when I say that I cannot see how we can delay action any longer.
More and more representations from organizations are being made to me. But what can an ordinary member do at this time, except tell these people that consideration is still being given to the report, which is clear and is not out of line with regard to the possible cost? The implementation of the report would be doing only what this committee decided should be done, at the request of the government.
I am sure there are many cabinet members in agreement with the findings of our committee. The dissidents, or those who have been in the way of progress in regard to this legislation, should rise in their places and tell us all why the legislation should not be put through.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one point and draw to the attention
March 27. 1968

of the Minister of Industry the result of a recent study in the Atlantic provinces. I shall be very brief in so doing. I refer to a study conducted by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, entitled "Recent Population Trends, Atlantic Provinces". The study was prepared by Arthur C. Parks, the chief economist for APEC. In the foreword of this report we find the following paragraph:
One general conclusion of the examination is that the population of the Atlantic region, relative to other parts of Canada, continues to be rural, rural population accounting for about 46 per cent of the total in 1966. Another general conclusion is that, with a few exceptions, the population of the larger regional communities is growing much less rapidly than is that of larger communities in the rest of the country. Thus the trend to population concentration is not as pronounced as it is elsewhere. A third conclusion is that much of the population movement which might be expected to result in a greater concentration in larger regional communities is a movement out of the region.
I should also like to quote from page 6 of the report as follows:
-in all of Canada urban population rose from 69.6 per cent of total population in 1961 to 73.6 per cent in 1966, and rural population declined from 30.4 per cent to 26.4 per cent. Thus while almost three quarters of Canadian population resided in urban areas in 1966, only a little more than half of the population of the Atlantic provinces was located in urban areas.
So far I have not told the committee the purpose of my putting these two quotations on the record, but I think anybody who has followed the request of Atlantic provinces members will realize that it is rather compelling evidence that the area development and industrial incentive program should be extended to all parts of Atlantic Canada, rather than leaving out the metropolitan areas of Saint John and Fredericton and the metropolitan area of Halifax-Dartmouth which I serve.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I want to put it on record because the Minister of Industry has turned down requests from Atlantic Canada that the cities be placed within the program, and the APEC study shows quite conclusively that if any real approach is to be made to Atlantic Canadian problems and any desire shown by the government to help build up that area, we must start with the natural growth centres and give them the benefits of the incentive program. As it is now, we frequently find that important industries are leaving Halifax or Saint John and moving out into areas where this program is in existence. I hope
Interim Supply
that the points I have presented this afternoon will commend themselves to the present or the future Minister of Industry-who may perhaps be one and the same gentleman-and to the next Prime Minister of Canada.
I should like to note in conclusion that under the present act the minister has the power to cure the situation with a stroke of the pen.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting here two days and two nights trying to get a word in edgeways. I wanted to speak on the fisheries estimates, but due to the agreement to close the debate at four o'clock I could not speak until now.
I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries or his parliamentary secretary the fact that the herring reduction industry is now being transferred from the west coast to the east coast and that no conservation measures were introduced on the west coast. Now restrictions have been imposed on the west coast. Herring on the east coast are being fished in great abundance and are being reduced to fish meal and oil and not being used for human consumption. The female herring produces 80,000 eggs each year of which only about 25,000 survive. Spawn herring are being fished in millions and they would produce billions and billions of small fish.
In the bay of Fundy we have an industry which has been there for upwards of 100 years and which has greatly increased its production in the last 25 or 30 years. Its raw material is small herring, and it does business all over the world. No one knows, not even the Department of Fisheries where these small herring originate. All we know is that they originate from the spawn herring. When they come to the bay of Fundy, they come in different sizes each year, so they are not all spawned in the same areas. I think the minister should have sufficient foresight to realize the necessity of protecting the spawning banks and protecting the spawn herring from being fished before they spawn. Otherwise an old established industry may be put out of business.
This industry employs upward of 2,000 people in the summertime, but the reduction plant employs only five or six people because the process is almost wholly automatic. The reduction industry is established in a designated area and it receives subsidies from the government, so that after five years they make a sufficient profit to be able to get out of business. But the established industry must stay on the job. As I said, no one knows

March 27. 1968
Interim Supply
where these herring are spawned, but we do know that it the spawning banks are interfered with we will not be able to get the small fish.
We had an example of this when years ago the spawning bank was protected on the island of Grand Manan, sometimes by British warships. Finally, some people became somewhat greedy and invaded the spawning banks. In a few years time, the herring fishery was exhausted. So we know from experience that if spawning banks and spawn herring are not protected, the industry disappears.
The small herring not only supply the canneries but also supply other fish with food. When you reduce the herring supply, you also reduce food for other ground fish. So naturally the herring fishery affects all fishery. Therefore it is an absolute necessity that the herring fishery be protected. We do not want the industry on the east coast to suffer as did the industry on the west coast as a result of the failure to impose restrictions in time. A number of reduction plants on the east coast are now superfluous. Some of them were subsidized by the federal government. I think the Department of Fisheries should investigate any reduction plant before it is established in the Atlantic provinces to see whether or not it is economical.
Of course the provinces are anxious to get any money that is going, and if the federal government is ready to come forth with aid, the provinces will naturally try to profit from it. However, this matter should be reviewed, and the Department of Fisheries should have some say as to the grants made by the Department of Industry to establish reduction plants. It is very important that the herring industry be protected.
A few years ago I spoke about the clam industry and I outlined what I thought should be done to protect it. However, nothing was done and the department continued in the same old way. Last year the last clam factory in my constituency was torn down. This came about as a result of the lack of attention given to the views of the local people. We do not want this to happen to the herring industry, particularly to the small herring industry which employs a great many people. We will not get the small fish if all the spawn herring are taken away and the spawning banks are left unprotected.

[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, like the former speaker I wanted to say something on supplementary estimates but owing to the agreement found it impossible to do so. However, I should like to raise the question of gasoline prices and the problem posed by gas and oil distribution across the country.


J. Michael Forrestall: How many more speeches are you going to make?


William Arnold Peters: There will be one more in a few moments, if I hear such comments.


J. Michael Forrestall: How many times were you on your feet during the last two weeks?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order.


William Arnold Peters: If the junior member for Halifax wants to make a speech he should stand up and make it. If not, let him go and have a smoke or otherwise sit quietly in his seat, in which case he will be appreciated more than he is vocally.
The Minister of Industry, who was previously responsible for the National Energy Board and for energy in general, will recall a number of charges and countercharges having been made about the pricing of gasoline, especially imported gasoline. I have been particularly interested in an inquiry made about two years ago by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission into gas and oil pricing in northern Ontario. This matter has been raised not only in this house on several occasions but also in the Ontario legislature. There seems to be general agreement that the matter is one mainly for the federal government, I presume for the new consumer affairs department; and incidentally it fits into the same category of problem that was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway in relation to milk and other commodities.
The problem can be fairly simply stated, Mr. Chairman. It involves what I consider the unfair price of gasoline in northern Ontario. The question affects not only northern Ontario but every other area outside metropolitan areas where the mark-up on gasoline appears to be agreed upon by retailers. These retailers cannot take advantage of bulk buying as do their competitors in other parts.
The Restrictive Trade Practices Commission investigated the cause of a gasoline price war in Toronto in connection with the Texaco Canada Limited service stations of Mr. Edmunds and Wilky's Sales and Service Ltd. The company was supporting the price of the
March 27, 1968

gasoline up to as high as 7J cents. The commission was aware of the arrangement that was made but was unable to do anything about it. It does seem to me that the new consumer affairs department should be able to do something to correct this sort of situation.
I was in Toronto last week and saw cut-rate gasoline advertised at 40.9 cents a gallon. In my particular area, Mr. Chairman, No. 2 gasoline sells for as high as 56 cents a gallon. I checked with my colleague from northern Quebec and he told me that the price in his area was about two cents less, so I presume the difference is the result of the two cent tax recently imposed in Ontario.
It appears from my inquiries, Mr. Chairman, that a tank wagon price is charged from the refineries at Sarnia. In addition there is about one cent a gallon transportation cost to Toronto. The journey to northern Ontario adds about one-third of a cent. This gasoline can be transported by rail for less than one cent a gallon to all parts of northern Ontario and northern Quebec. The charge for shorter journeys would be lower.
I am at a loss to understand why there is as much as a 16 cents spread between these two areas, Mr. Chairman. Although the matter has been investigated no report has been made. I think it is only fair to the service stations to make a report shortly because they are being blamed for a situation over which they have no control. The price to the consumer is governed by the price the service station owner has to pay, not to the company that supplies his gas but to the distributor from whom he is required to purchase it.
This problem has also come before the United States federal trade commission, Mr. Chairman. I have a report before me that was made by what some might call a disreputable magazine, Male, but no doubt the facts are correct. This particular copy is not dated but the report indicates that service stations have been established by the oil companies and made economic serfs. Many citizens do not realize this. I should like to put on the record several paragraphs of this article.
By leasing instead of selling their stations, the oil companies hold the operator in a tight bind. If he refuses to handle unsafe "cheapie" tires or overpriced worthless additives the company is pushing, they can cancel his lease and wipe out his entire private investment in stock and equipment.
Their latest gimmick is to stick the station operator for a large part of the cost of the current give-away games. Standard of California made its dealers buy a specified high quantity of tickets handed out in its cash-on-the-line game-at $12
Interim Supply
per 1,000. And Sun Oil soaked its 9,000 Sunoco dealers two cents for every sunny dollar coupon he handed out. All the various games cost individual station operators hundreds of dollars they can ill afford.
The part-owner of a chain of stations in Detroit recently told a reporter bitterly, ''These games are crammed down our throats. We have to participate or spend all our time explaining why we don't. If we don't play along with the company, up goes our station rent".
A number of the points made by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission are reported in this magazine. One of them is that the companies build service stations without consultation with the authorities. I think municipalities have some responsibility in this field. They seem to allow service stations to be built almost one next to another. A woman in Kirkland Lake wrote to me that her husband when travelling to work observed in a one mile stretch nine service stations. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the quantity of gasoline sold in service stations in Kirkland Lake is nowhere near the volume of stations in the United States or in metropolitan Toronto. I think it would be difficult to find any service stations in northern Ontario that sold 300,000 gallons a year, let alone compare those stations with those in Toronto which sell the same quantity in one month.
The investigations that have been conducted have not, in my opinion, been conclusive. However, they have established that gimmicks, give-away programs and stamps add to the cost of the gasoline. In northern Ontario the people are victims of a set of circumstances over which they have no control but which, in my opinion, constitute a very grave abuse of the concessions granted the major oil companies.
As the article in Male points out, the major oil companies are given all kinds of concessions in the United States. However, this magazine should investigate the concessions they receive in Canada. In spite of this, Mr. Chairman, they still fleece the general public by means of unfair practices. As I say, this is one field to which the new consumer affairs department should turn its attention.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
When considering the matter of gasoline prices in northern Ontario and elsewhere we must remember that under the present system gasoline stations are tied to their supplying companies. In northern Canada station operators have to supply their own pits, and their operations are costly in winter; every

March 27, 1968
Interim Supply
time the door opens the heat goes on, and their overhead goes up.
In my home town I saw one ol the greatest swindles in the gasoline business that was ever perpetrated. The distributing company owned by a man called Flemming, I think, over a period of years bought up in the general area each outlet that the Shell Oil Company had been selling to. The distributing company was able to buy the leases, borrow money for mortgages and so on, and when B.P. came along the company sold to B.P. the whole shooting match, making a profit of a million dollars.
Three new service stations were built in New Liskeard, even though the town could not carry two stations originally. Needless to say the three new stations did badly. In fact, one of them now is being used as an office building by the Ontario government. It never could be rented as a service station. The municipality must take some share of the blame for what happened. It wanted business taxes from three new businesses; never mind if other businesses went broke. That was very unfair to those who were already operating gas stations in the town. Owning a gas station there is a risky business.
Since there is a price spread on gasoline of up to 16 cents per gallon between our northern communities and Toronto, it is pretty obvious that the gasoline companies are carrying out restrictive trade practices. That contention is reinforced when one realizes that commercial trucking firms pay about 18 cents a gallon less for their gasoline than orthodox service stations pay their distributors for it. That shows that the entire industry ought to be investigated; the investigation should not be confined to any particular service stations.
It is unfair for service stations to charge motorists in northern Ontario as much as 63 cents a gallon for low grade gasoline. I think the entire matter ought to be looked into by the consumer affairs part of the department. They should develop legislation to protect our motorists from the unfair practices of oil companies, unfair practices which work especially to the detriment of motorists in northern areas.


Mr. Orlikow:: I wish to ask two questions; I hope the Solicitor General can answer one and I think that the Minister of National Defence, who is not here, can at some time answer the other. Both questions are important. My first question was raised on previous occasions by my colleague from Skeena and
[Mr. Peters.)
by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I also raised this question. The Prime Minister said that a member of the government would make a statement of policy arising out of a case the Supreme Court dealt with, that of Mr. Terence Whitfield. Mr. Whitfield, who worked in northern Canada, was dismissed by the Canadian Marconi Company because, contrary to a clause in his employment contract, he was seeing socially an Eskimo girl. It seems to me, as it seemed to the right hon. member for Prince Albert, that the inclusion of such a clause in an employment contract is contrary to the basic tenets of human and civil rights which the United Nations has endorsed and which this country, I hope, will support.
Such a clause is contrary to the spirit of legislation which the federal and provincial governments have enacted in the field of fair employment and fair accommodation practices. It is against the spirit of the Bill of Rights the former government introduced. Perhaps the minister will make a statement on the matter today.
I hope the Minister of National Defence, who is not here, will take note of the next question I am about to ask and make a statement at the earliest possible opportunity. I have been informed that the Minister of National Defence has written to some, or perhaps all, provincial premiers, informing them that beginning April 1 of this year aircraft of United States strategic air command will begin, as part of their manoeuvres, overflights over Canada and that these will continue for six months. I raise this question because I think we all remember the United States aircraft which crashed off Greenland while carrying hydrogen bombs. The people of Canada have a right to know whether the United States aircraft flying over Canada will be carrying nuclear bombs. If so, has the Canadian government given its approval to such flights?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall the
resolution carry?


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman-


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay proceedings in view of last evening's agreement, but there was a commitment I believe to make a statement on the Whitfield matter on behalf of the Minister of Justice.
I wish to deal first with a question asked by the hon. member for Skeena in this house on March 11, as to whether the government intends to introduce legislation to make illegal in the future contracts such as the one
March 27, 1968

made between Canadian Marconi and Mr. Terence Whitfield.
It should be borne in mind, Mr. Chairman, that in the Whitfield case the Supreme Court was dealing with a particular clause in a particular contract; and while the court held that the clause in question was valid and not contrary to public policy its judgment does not purport to deal generally with the matter of discrimination in employment contracts.
The position of the government on the question of human rights, including the question of discrimination, is well known. We feel that such matters should be dealt with in a constitutional Bill of Rights that would have equal effect whether the matter arose within federal or provincial jurisdiction. In the Whitfield case, the contract was made in Montreal on November 3, 1960, and was to be performed within the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I hope I shall not be taken as suggesting that parliament is not competent or is powerless to legislate in such a way as to prevent discrimination against a special group or segment of our population in respect of which it has special jurisdiction, in this case Indians and Eskimos, by virtue of head 24 of section 91 of the British North America Act. However, it is important in the view of the government that this problem of discrimination be dealt with on a general, rather than a limited, basis and this can be accomplished only if the problem is dealt with by the respective provincial legislatures in the context of the general law. In our view, the only adequate answer is a constitutional bill of rights, and hon. members will recall that this was the position taken by the government at the recent federal-provincial conference.
With reference to the question posed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, I would regretfully point out there is really no precedent for the suggestion that the government might ask the Supreme Court of Canada to re-hear the appeal of Whitfield v. Canadian Marconi before the full court. The only legal course open to the government would be to refer the matter to the Supreme Court by way of a reference under section 55 of the Supreme Court Act. This of course could be done, but it would appear pointless because the Supreme Court, as well as the courts below, has finally determined the legal status of this contract between Whitfield and Canadian Marconi. It could not be assumed-indeed it would be imprudent to assume-that
Ways and Means
the Supreme Court would decide, on a reference, that the judgment which it had previously rendered was incorrect.
I understand there is no basis for the suggestion that the government can ask a court, including the Supreme Court, to rehear a case between private litigants. One of the private litigants might make this request but in our view the government would not be justified in intervening in private litigation of this kind.
As to the problem of a contract made in one province but to be performed in another, it may be well to point out that parliament does not automatically have jurisdiction with regard to such contracts. For example, a contract made in Ontario to be performed in Quebec, cannot require a party to it to do something which is in conflict with, or illegal under, Quebec law. This problem is very much broader than the problem of discrimination but it does not give rise to any new or peculiar head of federal jurisdiction. In any event, this is not relevant to the Whitfield case in which the contract complained of was made in the province in which it was to be performed.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


Lawrence T. Pennell: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Tardif in the chair.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969, the sum of $1,118,202,797.17 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in. [English]
Mr. Pennell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-212 for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1969.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the Solicitor General did not do so at the resolution stage, would he mind giving us now the usual undertaking that the passing of this bill will not interfere

March 27, 1968
Ways and Means
with our right to discuss any of the items parts of which are in the bill?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am prepared to give that undertaking, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a second time?


Some hon. Members:: By consent, now.


Lawrence T. Pennell: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Tardif in the chair.
On clause 2-$1,118,202,797.17 granted for 1968-1969
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I should like to address a question to the Solicitor General and ask him whether there is any particular significance in requesting a third month of interim supply for the Chief Electoral Officer and in respect of the two legislative items covering this house and the other place.


Lawrence T. Pennell: The vote for the office of the Chief Electoral Officer provides for the payments of salaries and administrative expenses. The additional proportion is requested to finance the purchase of shelving required, due to the moving of the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. This shelving is to be installed in early April. I cannot recall the other two items the hon. member mentioned.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Items 5 and 20 in connection with this house and the other place.


Lawrence T. Pennell: As to item 5, the additional proportion is required because the expenditures are in excess of the proportion per month while the Senate is in session. The sessional year is usually of eight months duration, thus the customary additional proportion is required. To deal with the item relating to the Commons, the additional proportion is requested to cover expenses of the house while sitting. Expenditures of the house exceed the one twelfth per month while it is in session, as the amount of the vote is based on a sessional year of approximately nine months.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister of Industry just one question. Will he take the representations made today, concerning the pensions of retired civil servants, to the cabinet at its next meeting?


Mr. Drury:: I will be glad to, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A, B and C agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I move that we rise now, suspend the sitting and resume at the call of the Chair.


Edward Richard Schreyer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, might I ask the acting house leader what happened to the government undertaking or intention to bring forward legislation to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act? I understand the house leaders consulted and it was agreed that it be brought forward today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this is a point of order, but perhaps the minister might be allowed to answer the question.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the government was anxious to proceed with this measure. However, in view of the agreement last evening we felt we ought not to make any suggestions without unanimous consent. I understand there were negotiations but they were not fruitful, and I think that explains the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I might be allowed to invite hon. members to a non-partisan leadership seminar in room 16 before the house will resume its sitting at the call of the bells. I do now leave the chair.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
At 5.15 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received
March 27, 1968

from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed the following bills:
Bill No. C-211, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1968.
Bill No. C-212, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1969.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
An Act to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.
An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.
An Act to amend the Immigration Act.
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1968.
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1969.
Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the Solicitor General wishes to be recognized.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, before the house is formally adjourned perhaps I might be permitted a final word. I wish to express to all hon. members my appreciation for their assistance and co-operation during my brief tenure as acting house leader. May I express to you, Mr. Speaker, in this atmosphere of cordiality and good will, my wish that you have a pleasant and rewarding recess.
Royal Assent


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, any position I might hold, during the making of my few brief remarks, is even more ephemeral than that of the hon. member on the government side, but I wish to take this opportunity to wish you a pleasant recess, a refreshing rest and a happy Easter. Much may come about before you come back again to preside over this difficult chamber.
I wish also to take this opportunity of hoping that my friends to the left have a pleasant recess and a happy Easter. I hope their recess is of a very high quality; it will have to be, to make up for its unnecessary brevity.
It is rather difficult to ask members on the government side to be happy. It appears that the stars foretell that in events lying ahead eight out of nine members will be deeply disappointed. Regardless of their feelings of disappointment I hope that hon. members on the government side will have the strength to bear their disappointments. Happy Easter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are very happy to join sincerely in the felicitations which have been extended to Your Honour and to all members of the house. All I can say to my good friend for Queens is, "Vous etes tres gentil."


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: All I can say is,
"We, too."


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their kind expressions of good will. The only way I can reciprocate is by saying we shall return on April 23.
It being after 6 p.m., pursuant to special order of Wednesday, March 20, the house adjourned until Tuesday, April 23, at 2.30 o'clock in the afternoon.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]



DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 23, 1968