1968-03-15

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on justice and legal affairs-Mr. Cameron (High Park).
[Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I should like to table a report on the progress which has been made in the development of bilingualism in the federal government and, if the house desires, it could be made an appendix to Hansard today.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this document be appended to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of document referred to, see appendix.']



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to table copies in English and French of a report by Hon. W. G. Morrow on the administration of justice in Hay River in the Northwest Territories and, in doing so, to thank Justice Morrow for the work he has done in preparing this report. Perhaps I might add that steps are being taken to produce the report in the Eskimo and Indian languages for distribution in the area.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West) moved: that the twelfth report of the standing committee on transport and communications, presented to the house on Wednesday, March 13, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him whether he has been invited to a week end meeting in Washington. If he is attending, in what capacity will he be doing so in addition to his capacity as Minister of Finance? Is there any other capacity in which he will be attending?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I do not expect I shall be attending any meetings in Washington. I understand invitations are being extended to the governors of the central banks of the countries which are in the so-called gold pool, but to no others.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: In
view of the fact that the rediscount rate has been raised to 1\ per cent, as announced by the governor of the Bank of Canada, and in view of the effect this will have on interest rates generally, is the minister giving thought or will he give thought to the possibility of imposing some restraint on interest rates, bearing in mind that higher rates will increase costs and add to the inflationary spiral?


Mitchell William Sharp: The bank rate in Canada was raised to follow the rediscount rate in the United States. It was evidence that Canada intends to maintain the value of the Canadian dollar. If we had not acted in this way I think our position would have been subject to misinterpretation. The purpose is to continue

March 15, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry to attract capital into Canada in order to maintain the stability of the Canadian dollar and the Canadian economy. If we had not taken this action the result would have been serious. Therefore this is a contribution to employment, price stability and the general well being of the economy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that an increase in interest rates will increase costs and consequently add to inflation, is the minister considering any restraint to prevent interest rates generally from rising and avoid the disastrous effect this could produce by further escalating inflationary pressure on the economy?


Mitchell William Sharp: The only answer I am able to give is that I can think of nothing more serious than the instability of the Canadian dollar.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Would the minister explain to the house why there is a 2 5 point spread in the so-called rediscount rate in Canada as compared to the United States, a spread which is much wider than is normally the case?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the difference between the rediscount rates in Canada and the United States is not really the significant figure. The really significant figure is the difference between long term interest rates in Canada and the United States. This is slightly above normal, but not very much.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister explain why there will be this 1J point spread in the prime rate charged by the various banks as a result of the increase in the bank rate by Canada, which represents a 2J point spread?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a reflection of the fundamental situation that exists in international markets today. This is one of the most disturbed periods we have had. I can only reiterate that I believe the measures that are being taken are essential to underline the importance of maintaining the stability of the Canadian dollar. I can think of nothing more useful to the stability of employment and the standard of living of Canadians than to defend the Canadian dollar at the present time.


Mr. Heal Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?

In view of the fact that the Bank of Canada has announced that it will raise its discount rate to 7J per cent, is the hon. minister considering the possibility that the chartered banks may increase their interest rates also?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the rate of interest in the market will be determined by the competitive forces that are at work, not only by the bank rate but by other factors as well. All I can say is that both the governor of the bank and I would prefer interest rates to be lower, but under the circumstances we believe that higher rates are the lesser evil.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a further supplementary question? Could the minister tell us how it is that the Bank of Canada can increase its discount rate without consulting parliament which, after all, is sovereign in this country?


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, on the basis that everyone agrees that stability of the dollar is important, whether he is considering some form of foreign exchange control to prevent a very large outflow of capital, instead of being concerned solely with attracting capital from outside.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government looks at all possible measures that will underpin the stability of the Canadian dollar in this very troubled world. I think any suggestion that we put on foreign exchange controls would lead to an undermining of confidence in the Canadian dollar, which is the very result that none of us wants to see.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr
Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. I wonder if the minister could inform the house whether there is any intention to close the gold market in Canada, as has been done in Great Britain.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, last night at ten o'clock I announced that I had asked the banks and the other dealers to suspend trading in gold. My officials have been in touch with the banks and the dealers, and I expect there will be general compliance with this request. This is a temporary measure pending clarification of the international situation.
March 15, 1988


Mr. John R. Malheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance which countries would tend to profit by an increase in the official price of gold?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, to judge from what I know about the situation the principal beneficiaries would be South Africa, the Soviet union and those countries which have very large proportions of gold in reserve such as France and Switzerland.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, but apparently he was called away so I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. During the recent financial crisis, has the government been in direct contact with the governor of the Bank of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask a supplementary question. Was the decision made yesterday to increase the interest rate the result of a government decision or was it a decision by the governor of the bank?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question, I am sure, is not in order.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the minister of health and welfare. Has the minister received submissions from the premiers of Alberta and Manitoba protesting the reduction in health services to the Indian and Eskimo population of Canada? If so, what action has he taken to ensure that our native peoples will not have to bear the brunt of government fiscal mismanagement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member realizes the second part of his question is in the form of an argument. The minister might answer the first part of the question.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any messages from either of these gentlemen.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received personal representations with respect to similar reductions in northern health services from the commissioner of the Northwest Territories, Mr. Hodgson, who was so instructed by the Northwest Territories council?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, I have not. I received representations from the hon. member for the Northwest Territories.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I may make a supplementary answer to the effect that this morning I received a telegram from the premier of Alberta on this subject.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's assurance yesterday that the moneys allotted to the northern health service had not been reduced, would he assure the house that the services provided are not being reduced as of April 1?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement on this subject last night in response to a question asked by the hon. member for Northwest Territories. All the information is in that answer.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his reply in which he indicated that he too had received a telegram. Could he indicate from whom the other telegrams were received?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I received a telegram from the premier of Manitoba, and last evening from the native women's conference which is meeting at the Mayfair hotel in Edmonton.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would take the house into his confidence and tell us the nature of the telegrams, and what was his reply on behalf of the government in that regard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I received the telegrams only a few hours ago and have not been able to reply to them. I would be glad to make them public, but I would have to get in touch with the premier of Alberta before I could do that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister after some discussion be prepared to table the telegrams and his replies to them?
7G6S

March 15, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be glad to do that.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that he would consider the possibility of tabling the directive which went out from his department indicating that health services would be reduced to the Indian and Eskimo population. Is he now in a position to table that document?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not today, Mr. Speaker. I told my hon. friend yesterday that I would investigate the possibility of doing so, and I am continuing to do that.


Robert Simpson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to the question I directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare he said he made a statement last night and that all the information was there. I should like to bring to your attention the fact that when the minister made the statement he said this question is very complicated, and that it was impossible to deal with it adequately in a few minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That of course is not a point of order.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding the directive to which reference has been made. If the minister should decide that it is not possible to make that directive public, could we prevail on the hon. member for Brandon-Souris to make it public?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare advise the house whether he is able also to table a copy of the letter from the regional director of his department in Edmonton to the deputy minister of the province of Alberta advising him that in Alberta the health services would be restricted to indigent Indians on reserves, and that beyond that health services would be the responsibility of the province of Alberta.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be happy to consider that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker; would the Minister of National Health and Welfare consider asking the house to revert to motions so he could make a statement on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order; it is a question.
[Mr. Woolliams.l


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In the light of recent publicized information from a leading Canadian expert on Nigeria concerning the continuing gravity of the Nigerian-Biafra conflict, could the minister advise us whether any further efforts have been made beyond those of Mr. Arnold Smith, and what Canada is doing toward the amelioration of civilian suffering in that area.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have been in almost continual contact with the Secretary General of the Commonwealth on this matter. Whether there have been any other developments in the last few days I am not sure, but I will look into this right away.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether our government is asking the government at Lagos to permit shipments of relief supplies by the International Red Cross from Geneva to Biafra?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Canadian government has made any representations to the government of Kenya about the invasion of human rights implicit in the virtual expulsion of thousands of native born Kenya Asians?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, that matter is now being considered. I will take the question as notice.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Has the government any information in respect of similar action reported to be planned by the governments of Tanzania and Uganda?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am aware of the situation in those countries.
March 15. 1968



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think this question might have fallen to the hon. member for Kootenay West. Regrettably he is not here today, so I am attracted to ask the question of the Secretary of State. I should like to ask the hon. lady whether she is in a position to answer the question I posed yesterday.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am so attracted to the hon. member I have forgotten what the question was.


Mr. Knowles:: You could always say yes.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, about a year ago I told the hon. member who made that interjection that I have been waiting to say yes for a long time, to the right question.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, a former unexcelled labour leader.
Considering the high standard of living that Canadian workers have obtained for themselves, thanks to the unions, can the minister tell us whether it would be a good thing for the half million unemployed to organize their own union, which might have as its main objective to force the department to assume its responsibilities?


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked is out of order.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Is it true that the information supplied in Europe by immigration officials is incorrect and untrue and is prejudicial to the interests of immigrants on their arrival in Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is not a
fact that the information supplied is incorrect.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the statements and charges made by recently arrived immigrants in this country, particularly in Toronto, that they were given wrong information by our immigration representatives in the countries from which they came, would the minister not investigate whether these charges are correct?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will do that.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a delayed supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the serious charges which have been laid against the government or government representation in various countries, will the minister, after investigating the situation, agree to make a statement in the early part of next week in order to clear the government of these charges?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I have made inquiries and obtained information I shall make a statement to the house.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the report that unemployment in the month of February has gone very high, indeed to 6.4 per cent, is the government prepared to consider an immediate increase in the money supply and other activities to promote an immediate increase in housing as one method of dealing with unemployment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We naturally want to do everything we can to take care of the increase in unemployment, which was 18,000 this month over the previous month. My hon. friend will be glad to know that figures for employment have actually increased over this month last year, but the increase in the labour force was even greater.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is aware that prime conventional mortgage rates on residential

March 15, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry construction are almost 3 per cent higher in Canada than in the United States and, if so-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edward Richard Schreyer: May I rephrase the question by asking the Minister of Finance whether he can say that the government is contemplating any measures to reduce the differential existing in respect of conventional mortgage rates as between Canada and the United States; because this does not exist on any rational premise or reason.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, our whole policy at the present time is directed to trying to get interest rates in this country down, but this depends upon convincing the people who are lending money that our prices and costs are not going to rise and that the Canadian dollar is stable.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There have been so many members trying to ask questions on this matter I suggest that perhaps we should move on to another matter. We can return to this question later if there is time.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Solicitor General.
Is it true that the authorities of federal penitentiaries located in the province of Quebec have been instructed not to purchase meat stamped "Quebec-Approved"?


Mr. Speaker:: If that question is in order, it should be put on the order paper.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I feel that question is very important as it may lead to inconveniences and misunderstandings between the two levels of government. To my mind, the hon. minister should at least pay attention to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a representation to the minister. His question is in order to that extent.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I have given him notice, although not very long notice, of it. Has the minister received a protest from the Halifax branch of the Shipping Federation of Canada regarding proposed increases in pilotage and boat charges at Halifax; and will he personally examine into these increases?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not, since receiving notice of the question, had time to determine whether such representations have been received. I will make inquiries and advise my hon. friend.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister, while he is making inquiries into that matter, to see if he can find the report of the royal commission on pilotage.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In order to ensure that there shall be no discrimination against the prairies under the government's regional air policy, would the minister consider granting TransAir an extension of the present deadline on the life of its subsidy for service on the prairie run?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this is not within the power of the minister. The show cause order was from the Air Transport Board, which has jurisdiction in this matter. They have now granted an extension of time to TransAir to file a new proposal. In the meantime the subsidy, as my hon. friend knows, is not being paid, but I am hopeful that TransAir will come up with a proposal that will be satisfactory to all concerned.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister assure the house that the prairie region will continue to have class I air carrier service as guaranteed under the regional air
March 15, 1968

policy of 1966, even though this means paying some sort of subsidy?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is very familiar with the policy which was laid down and which I think will provide the kind of first class service in which he is interested. That is the policy we intend to pursue.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Due to the long delay in the holding of hearings which would permit the granting of a licence to a regional air carrier for the lower St. Lawrence and northern New Brunswick areas, would the minister inform us whether a decision on this vital subject will be made soon?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will refer the hon. member's question to the Canadian Transport Commission.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of this matter, would the minister do what he did on another occasion and stay in contact with his predecessor, our old friend the champion transportation dictator of all Canada, on this question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the president of the Canadian Transport Commission is in constant touch with the minister's office and is making-


An hon. Member:: I'll bet he is.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am just as interested as is my hon. friend in improving transportation facilities in all parts of Canada, and in the Atlantic provinces in particular.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister say whether he was in contact with the chairman of the transport commission during the last few days, at the time of the parliamentary crisis?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government of Canada has lodged a
Inquiries of the Ministry formal protest with the United States against the unusual and unique intervention on the part of the Secretary of State or the department of state of that country on behalf of criminals, whether common or uncommon. Is this not a most unusual incident, in which there has been so great an interference with the administration in connection with extradition?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that the government intended to make a protest. This note of protest was delivered yesterday by our ambassador in Washington. Political authorities in both countries have the right to veto judicial action, but to the best of my knowledge that right has not been exercised by the executive authorities in either country for over 50 years.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that that right has only been exercised when the individual in question has been prosecuted for a political offence?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course the right of veto in respect of a political offence is one which would continue to be exercised by governments in both countries. We take the position that this is not that kind of offence. To the best of my knowledge, research shows that neither government has exercised the privilege of executive intervention for a period of over 50 years.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs would consider exchanging Doyle for Banks with the United States government.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the rather unusual television interview with the attorney general of Ontario last night, has the government an indication that Mr. Paul Hall of the Seafarers International Union in the United States brought pressure to bear on the United States government?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I have no evidence whatsoever to warrant that suggestion.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I should like to put to the Secretary of

March 15, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry State for External Affairs. Has he yet received any reply from the United States government in response to his request for reconsideration?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Our ambassador has informed me that we should receive a reply today.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO ACTION RESPECTING OFF-SHORE MINERAL RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question put to him earlier in the week, the right hon. Prime Minister indicated that he hoped to be able to make a statement to the house this week on the steps the government proposed to take next with regard to off-shore rights. I presume we must give up hope for such a statement this week, but would it be possible for the right hon. Prime Minister to make such a statement in the house on Monday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I could answer the question now, although the reply is probably a little longer than usual.
As my hon. friend knows, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada has been given on this subject. At the federal-provincial conference in July, 1965 I informed the provincial premiers that the government of Canada would negotiate equitable arrangements between the federal government and the provinces after the legal question has been resolved. That has now been done.
The whole question of off-shore minerals presents many complex and difficult problems, and it involves at least six departments of the federal government. Consultations are now going on among these departments. These consultations should be completed soon, and at that time we will begin discussions with the provinces on the official level. When these are completed we will invite the provinces to a federal-provincial conference, where I hope an equitable and satisfactory agreement can be reached.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government of Canada taking the position that this one decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the reference in respect of the province of British Columbia settles the legal question with regard to all the provinces in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker. I know the province of Nova Scotia takes a very different legal view of this situation. But we hope to be able to have discussions on the political level which will be satisfactory to all provinces.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to infer from the answer of the Prime Minister that the government does not intend to proceed with any further legal references, but rather intends to proceed now to discussions with the provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The legal decision which has been given should help us to bring about an equitable political solution.



ROUTE TO BE FOLLOWED BY EXPORTS TO JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Some weeks ago he indicated that he was carrying on discussions with Kaiser Mines Limited regarding the coal contract with Japanese firms. I wish to ask him now whether he has received any assurances that the coal shipped to Japan will be carried over an all-Canadian route in so far as railway transportation is concerned.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We have exchanged letters on this subject, and on the basis of these letters it is my understanding that the coal will be carried over an all-Canadian route.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. How many flights of Soviet aircraft have been spotted along the east coast of Canada since we first became aware that these flights were taking place, on February 8 or 9?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can separate in my memory the flights along the east coast from those on the west coast, but it seems to me, if my memory serves me right, that up to February 20 the reports I have seen mentioned about seven incidents. I think approximately five of them were on the east coast and two on the west coast.
March 15, 1968


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a supplementary-question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that when this matter was discussed previously both the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Transport finally said these Russian planes were flying through international air space where commercial flights were taking place, has any protest now been made to the Soviet government against the continuation of these flights?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: My understanding is that this is a matter which concerns the international organization. There is a difference between military and civilian flights. I know that in one instance a Russian plane was in the path of a commercial airliner, and that it was seen by two commercial carriers, one of them a T.W.A. plane. I do not believe the Canadian government has taken a position in that particular instance. I think the matter was referred to the international organization.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that these flights constitute a danger to commercial flights constantly travelling along those routes, has not the government of Canada a duty to protest this matter to the Soviet government?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I have to
restrict my responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, to military matters. I think we did what we had to do; that is, we detected the planes and intercepted them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask a further supplementary question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he, in his capacity, taken note of these matters and made any representations to either the Soviet ambassador here or to the Soviet government?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: It had been the feeling, Mr. Speaker, that the way to handle this particular situation was to leave it to the international organization. This was the view. However, I would be glad to take a look at it again.


Mr. Andrew Chatwood (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: May I ask a supplementary question of the defence minister. In view of these continued intrusions by Russian aircraft, would the minister consider stationing defensive units at a more strategic location such as Goose Bay?
Inquiries of the Ministry SPORTS



POSSIBLE TRANSFER OF N.H.L. TEAM TO VANCOUVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: had a question I wanted to ask the Minister of Justice. Having in mind the fact that a group of N.H.L. franchise owners are reported to be blocking the efforts of Vancouver to gain entry into the National Hockey League, will the minister look into the situation from the point of view of the combines legislation?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, combines matters have been transferred to the excellent Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Perhaps he would want to consider this matter.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Justice for his kind reference and to say that the attitude is reciprocated and mutual. Under the Combines Investigation Act we do not have jurisdiction over professional sport in that, at the moment, it is considered to be a service industry. I want to say to the hon. member that in my personal capacity, however, Clarence Campbell being one of my constituents, I sent a telegram to him urging that Vancouver get the franchise.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister have control over beer?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I posed a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and asked if the dock workers in the port of North Sydney would be eligible for transitional assistance benefits. The minister replied to me in the French language. Since I do not have that great Trudeau facility to describe it as good or lousy, I had to wait until today to read the minister's reply. At no time did he mention transitional assistance benefits, but he mentioned the benefits under the manpower program. I am sure the minister must be aware that transitional assistance benefits were available to other workers in Canada, better known as TAB. Would this type of assistance be available to the workers in North Sydney?

March 15, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration): I was not clear in my answer, Mr. Speaker. There is no doubt TAB does not apply to that case. I understood the hon. gentleman was referring to the mobility program and that is why I answered as I did.


Robert Muir: As I said yesterday, since this situation has been brought about by the government's technological change, why would TAB not apply to the port of North Sydney as it applied to workers in Windsor, Ontario?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house what action is being taken on the proposals put forward by the premiers of the Atlantic provinces at the constitutional conference regarding the marked disparity between that region and the remainder of Canada? In addition, what consideration is being given to the special proposals made by Premier John Robarts in this regard, in view of the very high rate of unemployment in that area?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will look into this.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priiiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: should like to ask the Postmaster General whether he has a reply to the question I asked him yesterday, and which he did not hear at that time, concerning the use of the mails by the publishers of a magazine containing birth control advertisements.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am expecting a report momentarily, and I shall inform the house as soon as I receive it.
IMr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria).]



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This is not a question on sports. In view of the fact that the minister has now had his meeting with Judge Mary Batten, will he give consideration to the recommendation of the prairie royal commission that financial institutions be brought under the purview of the Combines Investigation Act so the consumer may be protected in the matter of credit buying?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the reference to financial companies being brought under the Combines Investigation Act was a reference made to the three prairie provinces. I said at the conclusion of the meeting with Judge Batten that we would be in communication with the three prairie governments as to the eventual disposition of this reference.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Napier Turner: I should like to answer the question put to the Prime Minister yesterday by the hon. member for Bow River, whether the review of the allegations made in the Batten report affecting the grocery industry in western Canada would be extended to include the rest of Canada. I said to him privately, and I think I should put it on the record, that the director of investigation and research will deal in accordance with the statute with the allegations set forth in chapter 10 of the report which relates particularly to the situation in western Canada.
Mr. T . C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):
May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Batten commission asked for an investigation into the whole business of grocery outlets and the exorbitant charges which are being made, does the minister intend to carry out a full scale investigation? If so, how soon will it begin?
March 15, 1968


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, a lew days ago I said I would ask the director to review all the allegations in the report. Of course he will follow the facts as they appear to him, and if he finds substance in these allegations then I asked him to begin an inquiry.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which deals with the production of papers. About nine days ago this house ordered the production of certain papers in accordance with notice of motion No. 49 standing in my name. I ask the minister or ministers concerned to expedite the production of these papers concerning federal-provincial cost sharing programs. I feel that nine days is ample time to produce them.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege, and I regret that I have to mention this. I have spoken with the officials concerned. My point relates to questions for the order paper. Yesterday afternoon, within the time limit, I submitted to the proper authorities certain questions that I expected would be on the order paper this morning. In view of the precarious state of this session the answers to these questions are of importance because they relate to the transfer of personnel from my riding to C.F.B. Summerside. The answers are important also because yesterday the Minister of National Defence said this matter might not be referred to the defence committee.
I understand there is objection to the number of questions asked. I have also been told there is objection to the length of questions. All questions but one were short and sweet and to the point. One perhaps is a little longer than the others. I have been told that I must go through the rigmarole of dividing up the questions among appropriate members. I cannot find the rule which says I must do so and, since time is of the essence, I am concerned about what may happen.
I want this matter to be recognized officially in Votes and Proceedings or on the order paper; that is why I am speaking now. I cannot find the rule which prohibits the
Income Tax Act
questions in their present form from appearing on the order paper today. Since we may not be here for too many more days it is only fair for me now to ask officials of the defence department to start work on the answers to the questions, in order that suitable answers may be provided.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall look into the matter raised by the hon. member.



INCOME TAX ACT


Hon. E. J. Benson (for the Minister of Finance) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-208, to amend the Income Tax Act.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to say that we have indicated our opposition to the bill at previous stages. We have also indicated the parts of the bill we are prepared to accept. We are not prepared to accept the increase in personal and corporation income taxes, and I want to be on record as saying that is still our position.
Having stated that position during previous stages of the bill, we are now prepared to leave it at that and to have the question put.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to delay the house too long on third reading, but I feel it is essential that some comment should be made in connection with this bill, considering the international crisis that has overwhelmed us. It goes without saying that this situation does not call for a partisan political approach.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Colin Cameron: At the moment we are in the eye of the hurricane and no one knows exactly what is going to come out of it. Those of my age, sir, cannot help hearing ominous echoes of 1929. We can only hope that those who today are in charge of the international monetary system and the governments of the major industrial countries will exhibit more wisdom than their predecessors of some 40 odd years ago, who stood helplessly wringing their hands while the world slipped into disaster.
I am not too optimistic, sir, that this wisdom will be found, because for some years those same people have been dodging the real issue before us in the international monetary system; that is, the development of a new international unit of exchange. I should say at

March 15, 1968
Income Tax Act
this point that Canada's record on this is extremely good. We produced workable proposals for the development of such a unit, but they were frustrated by other nations in the world.
There are, of course, certain options open to the United States which would have their effect on Canada. No one can say yet what option the United States will take. One hears rumours of a two price system for gold, which strikes me as being difficult to work. It may be possible to make it work. One hears rumours that gold is to be demonetized. That would entail certain other actions on the part of the United States government which I doubt they are prepared to take at this time.
I think, in connection with this bill, we should turn our attention to what should be done to protect Canada's position. I will be frank to say, sir, that I was nothing short of appalled at the minister's answers to questions this morning. They indicate that he is locked in some sort of conventional wisdom and feels that the Canadian dollar can be protected indefinitely by the use of exchange reserves, despite the lamentable history of the same policy in the United Kingdom and the United States. I suggest to him, as I suggested the other day, that there is really only one way to protect the Canadian dollar, and that is by developing an expanding and prosperous economy in Canada.
I was disturbed, sir, to find the minister dismissing and rejecting out of hand the suggestions made in questions by the leader of this party and the member for York South, that steps should be taken to control the rise in interest rates and that measures ought to be taken to put into effect exchange controls. Frankly I consider the minister's answers ludicrous; sheer nonsense. I am afraid we will land ourselves in exactly the same sort of jam the world was landed in 40 years ago if the views of the minister and what he says are the views of the governor of the Bank of Canada are to be the views of those who control the international monetary system.
Finally, I suggest that this parliament ought to consider seriously the wisdom of recessing at this time. It may well become necessary to pass emergency legislation, and I doubt very much the wisdom of dismissing parliament now. We realize, of course, that to keep parliament in session at this time would be extremely awkward for the government party but surely, sir, the future of Canada and the possible necessity of taking drastic steps to protect ourselves from what may

come out of the international crisis ought to override any party consideration of convenience at this time.


An hon. Member:: I quite agree.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I will say only a few words, in view of the serious crisis in the financial field and the gold rush that has been going on for some weeks and that brought about yesterday the closing of the stock exchange and banks in several countries of the world.
There is no mistake about it, in the light of present circumstances, we live in a world of madmen and we are administered by the most remarkable among them.
Those people are tripping over themselves while they rush to the golden calf, but workmen and farmers got up as usual this morning to go about their work. Indeed, the farmers got up at the usual time this morning, namely about four or five o'clock, to milk the cows. This reminds me of a statement I heard once, to the effect that farmers got up at four o'clock to milk their cows while financiers got up at ten o'clock to milk the farmers. That is somewhat the situation in which we find ourselves at the present time.
The price of milk did not go up this morning. The salary of workers did not improve. Yet, the financial system, by order of the Bank of Canada, raises its discount rate by one half of one per cent without resorting to parliament. The banks, as I said a while ago, will raise their rates again and the people will again be trampled underfoot by the system.
[DOT] (12 noon)
We all know the story of the tower of Babel where there was a great confusion of languages. This does not mean that people did not speak the same language, but they did not understand each other, and when they saw this, they stopped building the tower.
We are building another tower of Babel today. People in the same country, province or municipality do not understand one another. But the difference today is that we are too stupid to stop building this tower of Babel.
Mr. Speaker, for thirty yeears, the Creditistes have been warning the succeeding federal governments of the situation now existing. The Creditistes have been called everything. It has been said that the implementing of their theory would give rise to inflation, economic chaos, a total failure of our economy, the downfall of Canada.
March 15, 1968

Today, our country is on the brink of ruin. We are witnessing an unrestrained race for financial control, and Social Credit is not to blame. It is not Social Credit that created the present inflation. It is not Social Credit which is responsible for the rise in the cost of living or for the extravagant expenditures in all fields.
Mr. Speaker, if serious consideration had been given to the solutions advocated by Social Credit thirty years ago, namely that the currency should truly reflect our resources and our production, we would not have today to cope with the system or the situation imposed upon us by a small group of men.
As a matter of fact, Pius XI said in 1931, 37 years ago already: Those who control money and credit are the masters of our whole lives and, without their permission, nobody has the right to breathe.
Let us consider the present situation in Great Britain. Let us consider the extreme poverty generally prevailing throughout the world. Let us observe the people getting nervous, businessmen getting worried, industrialists hesitating to forge ahead, to take action. Why? Because those who control money and credit have the power to prevent them from breathing.
Moreover, Pope Pius XI said that economics will be established and will truly attain its purpose only when it will provide each and every one of us with a part of the goods that nature and industry can provide, and that part should be sufficient to ensure a decent living for each and every one of us.
That is the aim, those are the objectives of a well planned economy, an economy that is serving the population. The pope did not say: inasmuch as the financial system allows, he said: "Inasmuch as nature and industry allow".
Now, Mr. Speaker, nature allows Canada to produce overabundant goods of all kinds, and industry, which is continuously ready to second nature, should not be blocked nor impeded in the upward march towards progress, towards the emancipation of our people, in short it should not be thwarted by an outmoded financial system which makes for legalized robbery in most countries where it is used.
Those are, Mr. Speaker, the few considerations which I wanted to make on the motion for third reading of Bill No. C-208. That bill will not solve the problem, it will not bring relief to poverty in Canada and I am repeating what I said two days ago: even if that bill
Income Tax Act
provided a 25 per cent tax increase, it would not solve the situation in Canada.
It is not by taxing the labourer nor by overtaxing the small business or the small industry that we will save the Canadian economy, but by taking instead adequate monetary measures, some bold and courageous measures liable to put money at the disposal of the individual, not the individual at the disposal of money as expected in Bill No. C-208 which the government is attempting to have passed at this time.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make only a few comments on the bill in the debate on third reading by way of adding to the remarks which have been made as to the seriousness of the situation we face. I think it behoves us in this house to dispense with this bill as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Yes. Dispense with it,


Robert Norman Thompson: Although we cannot agree with its basic policy we understand very well the need to avoid precipitating a further crisis at home which might weaken the confidence of the public in the operation of the parliamentary system. By doing so we would only be adding to the pressures which are building up on the international scene.
Having said that, I would urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to do his utmost to bring about in the future so far as international monetary policy is concerned a system different from that which has been in operation in the past. We have been hanging on to the ragged coat-tails of an outworn financial policy which should have been discarded long ago. Many Canadians today are confused about what really is behind the crisis which we and other nations are facing. What has gold to do with trade balances and international settlements? What has it to do with our own financial system in Canada? It is not easy to find answers to these questions but I am sure that if we did so we would realize that in the game of international finance and politics the Soviet union, France, Switzerland and possibly South Africa will come out of this situation best.
Unfortunately, the United States government has insisted on hanging on to a policy which has resulted in a fantastic rise in interest rates, one which has worked undue hardship

March 15, 1968
Income Tax Act
on us in Canada and placed a great strain on our economy and the stability of our finances. Because the United States has insisted on pegging the value of gold at an unrealistic level, pressure is now being exercised against the economic system in the world by countries which would destroy the policy which lias insisted on maintaining the American dollar as the basis of international exchange-I *am thinking of destruction in financial, not military terms.
The Minister of Finance owes it not only to his government but to his country to be in Washington to take part in the conferences scheduled for the weekend and insist we should no longer hang on to a financial system which could destroy the United States dollar as the medum of international exchange and take ours with it in the process. It is not enough to patch up the old arrangements. Before we see a repetition of what happened in 1929 a real effort must be made to restore confidence among the people of the world and to devise a system of exchange and international settlements which will remove once and for all the dangers which threaten the security of everyone in the world today. Canada has the opportunity to take the lead and insist that although something needs to be done so far as gold is concerned for a temporary period, it is necessary in the long run to devise a new system of international settlements designed to avoid a repetition in the future of the kind of crisis we are facing today.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
We in this corner of the house, believe that we must deal immediately with the third reading of this bill whether or not we like the policies contained therein. I think that the Minister of Finance must take the major share of the blame for our present difficulties, but it is imperative that we do not add further to the uncertainty and lack of confidence that are developing in financial circles. Beyond this it is also necessary that steps be taken-and I suggest Canada could well take the lead-to bring about a new international exchange system which would not continually lead us into the precarious position that has been forced upon us by the present international situation.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I have only one comment to make at this time and it arises from what transpired last night with the raising again of interest rates in the United States and Canada. It is argued that
I Mr. Thompson.]
the reason the United States will not take a more realistic look at the price of gold is that this might work to the benefit of South Africa, France and Russia. I do not know whether that is true but, if so, it appears to me to be the same as if a drowning man refused to pull himself out of the water because somebody else might get out with him.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Pennell:: I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. Irvine). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, while I am opposed to the principle of this bill, I was paired with the former president of the privy-council who I expected would be here this morning. However, when it comes to paring I am a George Washington. Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Ballard:: I was paired with a Member of the Administration, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF REPRESENTATIVES OF ICELAND PARLIAMENT

Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the indulgence of the house to bring to the attention of all hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a very distinguished visitor, Mr. Sigmund Bjornason, Speaker of the lower house of parliament of Iceland. Mr. Speaker is accompanied by a fellow parliamentarian, Mr. Benedikt Grondal. As hon. members know, the Icelandic parliament is the oldest in the world, having been established in the year 930. On behalf of all hon. members I wish to extend a welcome to our distinguished visitors.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy 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-202, an act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, without amendment.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), the house leader of the official opposition, was
Trudeau
Tucker
Turner
Wahn
Walker
Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) Whelan Winters Yanakis-122.
Aiken
Alkenbraek
Baldwin
Barnett
Bell (Carleton)
Bell (Saint John-Albert)
Bower
Brand
Brewin
Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Cantelon
Caouette
Caston
Chatterton
Churchill
Clancy
Coates
Code
Crouse
Daniorth
Diefenbaker
Dinsdale
Dionne
Douglas
Enns
Fairweather Fawcett Flemming Forbes Forrestall Fulton Gauthier Germa Gilbert Godin Grafftey Gregoire Grills Gundlock Hales Hamilton Harkness Horner (Acadia) Homer (The Bat-tlefords)
Howard
Howe (Hamilton-South)
Howe (Wellington-Huron)
Jorgenson
Keays
Knowles
Korchinski
March 15. 1968

Supply-Secretary of State kind enough to inform us that his party was prepared to pass item No. 48 on the order paper. I consulted the leaders of the other parties and they also were most co-operative. I appreciate their co-operation and I respectfully ask Your Honour to call item No. 48.



CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION ACT


Lawrence T. Pennell: the third reading of Bill No. S-24, to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.


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


Mr. Peters:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

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


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. House again in committee of supply. Estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State, vote No. 2c. Shall vote 2c carry?



SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
2c. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-National Arts Centre, $7,500,000.
Mrs. Wadds:: Last night, Mr. Chairman, some comments were made about the Secretary of State, the member for Niagara Falls, and her contribution last year to centennial year. I wish to add my compliments to those which have been given. No one could have been more generous than the minister in the way she used her time and energy in making the many appearances she made last year, nor could anyone else have shown greater co-operation to the thousands of people interested in promoting centennial undertakings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Jean Casselman Wadds: Just before ten o'clock last night the hon. member for Timiskaming expressed the concern that many of us feel about the length of time it is taking to build the National Arts Centre. I believe that most Canadians were pleased when the project was

initiated. However, since its initial introduction many have become concerned about construction delays and many have expressed concern to me about the additional costs that are being incurred, which have been partly brought about by delays in building and partly by other causes. According to the auditor's report for 1967 the cost of construction was $6,400,000, an increase of $2,800,000 over the preceding year, a substantial rise of some 25 per cent. According to the supplementary estimates, under the item for construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment there is an amount of $7,500,000, a further sharp increase. From the few figures I have come across in these records the total seems to be about $17,500,000 and we have heard various rumours that the cost will eventually go as high as $60 million or $70 million.
Can the minister tell the committee the size of the original estimate for the construction of the National Arts Centre and at what point the government intends to put a lid upon these skyrocketing costs? I might add that they do not include administrative and operating costs which are listed separately at $1,100,000, an increase of $80,000 over last year.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, there were questions asked last night about the National Arts Centre, especially with respect to the critical path. I have checked with the Department of Public Works which, as hon. members know, is responsible for construction, and I am told that the critical path method is being used. There is one man specifically in charge. It is my understanding that progress is on time; the project is to be completed and turned over on the last day of this year. It will then take three or four months to try out the auditorium. The original plan was that in May, 1969, productions would be staged, and as far as we are aware everything is on time. Of course, we do not know whether there will be any major strikes in the intervening period.
So far as costs are concerned it is my recollection, and I have not refreshed my memory recently, that the first estimate for the building amounted to some $18 million. My information is that the latest estimate, now about two years old, of a figure around $40 million or $43 million, represents what the cost will be, right on target.
The figures which appear each year for the administration of the centre increase, of course, as we approach the day when programs are to begin. The site is not very
March 15, 1968	COMMONS
attractive now and it certainly was not attractive throughout the centennial year, but it seems to me hon. members are not really aware of how much has been completed inside the building. I have been remiss in this respect but after the remarks made last night I discussed this matter with the Minister of Public Works, and with his concurrence I am pleased to invite any member of the House of Commons who may wish to go for a guided tour of the premises at 11.30 a.m. on Monday next. A great deal of the building is like an iceberg. It has to be seen to be believed and I think that if hon. members would take an hour of their time to look at it they would appreciate how large an enterprise it is.


Michael Starr: In issuing this invitation is the hon. lady suggesting that we should allow her estimates to stand until we have seen the building?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Not at all. This building will be the heart of Ottawa when it is opened about a year from now and I made my offer because I think hon. members would like an opportunity to see it. After all, it is a national centenary project and it is well ahead of many of other centenary projects, notably the one sponsored by the province of Ontario which is not expected to reach completion until a year later.
The board of trustees was set up more than a year ago and has held regular meetings, as have a great many auxiliary committees. It is working now in connection with the programs to be presented. Already it has been announced that Stratford Theatre is to become the Stratford National Theatre and will operate from the centre during the winter. There is to be a French speaking company to complement this arrangement and a concert orchestra which can be used as a pit orchestra; it will also be used by the C.B.C. for some of its functions and will be available to increase cultural activity within the city. Running costs are increasing because these plans have to be made in advance. One cannot produce an orchestra by May, 1969 in the absence of time for preparation.
I believe that if hon. members would take advantage of the opportunity to visit the buildings under construction, wearing hard hats and clothes which will not spoil too easily, bearing in mind that work is still in progress, they will have a new sense of pride in what will be a considerable national monument.
DEBATES	7679
Supply-Secretary of State
I have a few other comments to make and perhaps this is a good opportunity to deal with other matters which have been raised. I should like to thank hon. members for their overly generous words both last night and today. I should particularly like to thank the hon. lady who sits for Grenville-Dundas for her contribution to the centennial year, one of the most important of which was to pair with me on so many occasions, making it possible for me to be present at events in a non-political way. I think the hon. lady recognized, as did everyone else, that centenary projects were not party matters. All of us were careful not to bring partisan politics into them and it was an occasion for considerable pride for both of us that we were able to show our non-partisan approach by appearing together for most of the year.
It was a happy circumstance that the work of members of the Centennial Commission should have been mentioned in the discussions last night. The commission yesterday held its last meeting. Most of the employees have been re-engaged elsewhere, though some have not yet found positions. We expect all the work to be closed down on March 31, on which date the commission will go out of existence. In this connection I have a rather important announcement to make. It is the only one of its kind, I think, I have had to make in the seven and a half years I have been in parliament and one in which the committee of supply should be interested. The Centennial Commission instructed me yesterday that it is turning back to the treasuo' some $3,400,000 in unexpended funds.


Jean Casselman Wadds: I have one other question regarding the National Arts Centre. It relates to the future and has to do with advertising. Has the minister any plans with respect to general promotion of the centre's activities? I would refer in the first place to a magazine called Prologue which has been sent to me. Apparently it is being sent out broadly; it is stated on page one that the purpose of Prologue is to let Canadians everywhere know about the National Arts Centre. Apparently there are to be six issues sent out before the centre opens and I have been asked to find out what sending it to Canadians everywhere means, how many copies are to be distributed and what the approximate cost will be.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not have this information. I shall be glad to get it and send it to the hon. member. I am not familiar with the particular issue mentioned, but one of the objects of the trustees is to work with the
7680	COMMONS
Supply-Secretary of State Canada Council to make the centre a focus for all Canadians. It is important that people outside the capital city should have a sense of engagement and with this in mind it is desirable that they should know what is going on.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I should like to echo the remarks made by the charming and gracious member for Grenville-Dun-das and praise the good work of the Secretary of State during centennial year. I should like to say, too, that I believe the Centennial Commission did a fine job. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one particular comment. I think that much is owed to John Fisher, the man who taught us all that our Canadianism should show. I think he should not be forgotten.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I should also like to thank the hon. lady for her invitation for next Monday. It will not be too much trouble to find clothes that are not so good, to use her expression. All I need is a hard hat size 7fths and I shall be with her. I too am anxious to see the National Arts Centre commence business. Although I welcome it, I think the point raised by my colleague is extremely important and is something that should concern not only the minister but all ministers, indeed all parliamentarians.
These are very difficult times. Parliamentary institutions and the whole process of government are in disrepute, or near disrepute. One constantly hears increasing reaction along the line that whatever the government attempts to do it does it badly or it does not do it in time or it does it at too high a cost. I think this is something that we must watch. Buildings are not completed on time and the estimates are far removed from the actual cost. Therefore in these difficult and questioning times when people are looking askance at their institutions-and in a democracy the bulk of the people must respect the political institutions in order for them to work-all of us, especially those in executive authority, must look at matters such as the escalated cost of this building, which should cause to the most art-minded person in Canada to worry.
I would compliment the minister on her optimism and on her felicity of expression when she suggested that this building will be completed on time when actually it will be completed on the last day of the year following centennial year. We must remember that in fact it was a centennial project. However, it does us no good to harp on the past. The
[Miss LaMarsh.l
DEBATES	March 15, 1968
building was not completed in 1967. Nevertheless it will do much to enrich the lives of Canadians, though I wish it had not cost so much.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, I only have a very brief question for the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), relating to vote lc.
As regards the $100,000 grant to Le centre culturel du vieux Montreal, can she tell us whether this is the same theatrical company that went bankrupt recently and that was quartered in the stock exchange building? Yes, I think that was the name. Can the minister tell us whether the grant will be allowed nonetheless?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes.


Gilles Grégoire: So, it is the same theatrical company? I would like to make a comment. The minister tells me that this $100,000 will nonetheless be granted to this company. The hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) tells me the company is back on its feet thanks to this grant.


Mr. Boulanger:: The creditors accepted the company's offer and everything is all right now.


Gilles Grégoire: So much the better, if that means they have ben able to resume their activities.
Mr. Chairman, vote 2c reads as follows:
Construction or Acquisition of Buildings, Works, Land and Equipment-National Arts Centre.
I wish to put a question to the hon. minister concerning another building which was promised a long time ago and which is not progressing very fast-the C.B.C. building in Montreal. Could the hon. minister tell us what progress has been made and when we can expect that building to be finished? Could she give us some information concerning the C.B.C. building in Montreal?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I was in communication with Mr. Davidson, the new president of the C.B.C., the other day. He had asked that this along with other matters be held over until he had had time to look into them. He is having a meeting of the new board some time around the end of April at which time he will be prepared to make submissions to the board in regard to the Montreal building. We have every hope that after
March 15, 1968

the new board has met tenders will be called almost immediately and construction will go ahead.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
lc. Administration, production and distribution of films and other visual materials, $170,000.
Barry Mather: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three brief comments on this item and also one proposal. I think the film board performs a very useful and rather underrated service to Canada. I am told that at least 16 million people in Canada see one production or another of the film board every year and that 30 million people in other countries see productions of the National Film Board. The quality of the N.F.B. productions is indicated by the fact that over recent years more than 600 international awards have been won by the National Film Board for its work.
The work of the board is not confined simply to the production of films. Some of its employees are working on improvements in technical equipment which may be very useful. The board also plays a useful role in helping various departments of government by illustrating their efforts. In this regard I think the film board is to be commended.
The proposal I want to make and draw particularly to the attention of the Secretary of State, if I may, concerns what seems to me to be an urgent need for some action at the federal level to preserve historic Canadian film. Two or three archive organizations in this country are trying to do something along that line but I believe that they are not receiving sufficient financial support from the Canadian public. The film that the Canadian Film Institute is trying to preserve is irreplaceable. It is old film having to do with the earliest beginnings of the Canadian film industry. It is a sad fact to relate that last year a million feet of this historic film was burned because it was insecurely stored. In concluding my remarks I take the opportunity to direct the attention of the Secretary of State to this problem and to urge her to do what she can to draw together those connec-ed with film archives to see whether or not they can work out with federal aid a program that will really protect historic Canadian film.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question I want to ask the Secretary of State in connection with the National Film Board. In all my dealings with government organizations I have never found a department of government performing its functions more
27053-484^
Supply-Secretary of State adequately and perfectly than the film board. During the last 15 years I have had direct connections with the board and have arranged to purchase from them many hundreds of dollars worth of film which we have distributed to boards of education and school trustees for use in the school system of Ontario. The coverage given by the National Film Board to historical events, geographical features and industrial complexes is perfect.
However, in view of the uproar that is developing over educational television, which is something that leaves me cold-I am in favour of education through the use of film because you can use film when you want-I should like to ask the minister what proportion of the sales of the National Film Board is to school boards and boards of education for use in classroom instruction under the jurisdiction of the boards of education. These films are perfect for this purpose. I should like to think that all of their sales are made in this field, but what proportion is sold for educational purposes?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I could not even hazard a guess but I will get the information as soon as I can.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I raise the question only to emphasize the wonderful work that the National Film Board is doing in the field of visual education. The way it covers visual education cannot be improved upon by television because it is adequately presented in film form. The National Film Board is showing the way in this regard.
* (3:00 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am rising briefly to support the representation by the hon. member for New Westminster that every effort be made to make certain that historic films be preserved in the future and are not subject to fire and destruction as has been the situation in a few cases in the past.
On behalf of a good many women in my riding who are associated with groups such as the women's institute and the parent-teachers association I should like to express their appreciation of the work done by the National Film Board in constituencies such as the one I have the honour to represent. There are many very small and sometimes isolated communities which have received very good service from the National Film Board. One of the best supporters of the National Film Board has been one of the finest national film councils of rural Canada, that of Kootenay West. I have been asked by these people to
March 15. 1968

Supply-Secretary of State express to the minister their appreciation of the good work done by the National Film Board in the area I represent.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to join with my colleagues in commending the work which the National Film Board has done over the years. It has produced a tremendous number of films of a cultural and educational .nature. These films have been shown not only to millions of people in Canada but to audiences all over the world. The excellence of the work done has been demonstrated again and again by the large number of international awards which the film board has received.
I join with other members of this group in commending the film board for the work it has been doing and in the hope that its work will be continued and extended.
I wish to raise a matter which while it may not be directly connected with the National Film Board is very close to it. I have reference to the Canadian Film Development Corporation. The bill which we discussed in 196667 was a proposal by the former secretary of state who is now a member of the other place that the people of Canada through the government co-operate in helping, through the creation of a fund, to establish in Canada a feature film industry. Although we are all aware of the work done by the National Film Board and the success it has had, Canada has not had a feature film industry despite the fact that in the English speaking world a number of Canadians have reached the top in the film industry as producers, writers, directors and actors. Great Britain, the United States and France are filled with ex-Canadians who are giving leadership and occupying important and influential places in the film industry.
It was the belief of the former secretary of state that we should endeavour to keep people such as these in Canada, a belief which I believe was shared by virtually everyone in this house. When the present Secretary of State brought forth the proposal to establish the Canadian Film Development Corporation and to provide a fund of $10 million she had virtually unanimous support. I should like to quote one paragraph from the statement of the minister on June 20, 1966 as recorded on page 6632 of Hansard. She said:
We should, Mr. Chairman, be under no illusion about the difficulties which Canadian producers will face in building up a commercially viable industry in this country. They will have to make it commercially viable by exporting their work, which will have to be done by virtue of profitable


distribution arrangements. Canadian films must prove good enough to win their own place on world screens.
I could quote further from the remarks of the minister on that and other occasions, but I believe we realized at that time as we do now that while this is an idea worthy of our support it will not be easy to buck the giants of the United States and Great Britain in the production of feature length films. It is very seldom that such films can be produced for a small amount of money. The government of Canada has provided a fund of $10 million. Most of us would like to see that money used to good advantage over a period of time.
Yesterday the names of the appointees to the board of directors of this corporation were announced. I should like to advise the minister, if she has not heard this already, that many members of parliament including myself are dismayed by the appointments which have been made. In addition every person in and around the film industry to whom I have spoken since yesterday is dismayed. Although the board is a very estimable group of ladies and gentlemen, with the possible exception of Madame Favreau they have had virtually no experience in the film industry and are all good Liberals. While these are not necessarily bad features I submit that they have nothing to do with the qualities required to make a success of this corporation.
I do not object to the government of Canada being generous and spending $40 million, as was mentioned a few moments ago, to build a performing arts centre and I do not mind the federal government making a contribution to agriculture-I will always support that. The whole purpose of this corporation, however, was to help finance and establish a commercial film industry. This is a very difficult, complicated and risky business. Here we find the government, on the recommendation of the minister, appointing a group of Liberal hacks as directors of the corporation. I have nothing against these persons as individuals. Mr. LaPalme, so far as I can ascertain, was a little better than average minister of the crown but he certainly is not expert in the field of the production of films. It is true that Mr. Frith has been a member of the B and B Commission and I believe he had some film-makers or television stations as clients in his law practice. Mr. Phillips and Mr. Harris were successful businessmen. They are also very influential members of the Liberal party. Madame Favreau has worked
March 15, 1968

for a number of years for the film board and has been a film critic for La Presse.
If it was a good idea for the government to put up a substantial amount of money in 1966 to help create a feature film industry in Canada so that Canadian producers, writers and directors would remain in Canada, surely it is a good idea now and, if so, we should do everything possible to see that this corporation is a success. The first thing we should not do is appoint a group of hacks as a reward for past political services, because the running of this corporation will be difficult under the best of circumstances. I see the minister looking at me with some concern or perhaps disdain. There are a number of ex-Canadians who have built fine reputations in these fields. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond on an earlier occasion talked about some Canadians who had gone on to make real names for themselves in this field, including Norman Jewison, Sydney Newman, Graeme Ferguson and Sydney Furie. These are individuals who have been eminently successful in making films which have not only been artistic and cultural but financially successful. These are the kind of people the minister ought to be looking for to be directors of this corporation, not such people as have been appointed so far.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I can only say to the minister in closing my brief remarks that I could not help but think, as I looked at the announcement of the appointments, that the only appointments that have been as bad or worse since I came to Ottawa are the appointments the present Prime Minister has made to the other place.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I have to answer these remarks because I disagree totally with what the hon. member has said. He is obviously not aware of what this board is, because it is intended to be a bank. It is a board where money will be raised in a number of different ways, by grants, loans and participation. It will have a package responsibility in respect of scripts, star arrangements, distribution and everything else. We have been through all this. This is not to be a group that necessarily knows how to make movies because it will not make movies. This is to be a group that is culturally oriented and prepared to act in regard to a banking situation. There is to be a full time director who will be an expert in at least one of the aspects of movie-making.
Supply-Secretary of State
I was very intrigued by the comparison which was made between members of this board and two or three gentlemen now living and working abroad who were originally Canadians and have now made their marks in the film industry. Most of them are drawing salaries of the nature of $100,000 a year. It is really laughable when my hon. friend suggests that we should somehow divorce them from their various enterprises in Italy, California and Britain to bring them back here for the kind of pittance this country pays its public servants. It is all very well to stand and make that kind of N.D.P. speech, but it has no practicality.
When it comes to setting up a board I am not prepared to appoint hacks, and while I know lots of hacks in lots of parties in the country I would not qualify any of the individuals on this board in that way. The chairman of the board is one of the most distinguished sons of French Canada. He is not only a very distinguished lawyer but also was the first Quebec minister of cultural affairs and one who felt so deeply about the field of cultural affairs that he resigned his portfolio because he did not think the province of Quebec was putting sufficient money into the field. I am quite astounded that the hon. member or anyone else would suggest that this gentleman, who has been good enough to accept this appointment, is a party hack. This man was good enough to be appointed by the mayor of Montreal, in respect of whom every party has tried to make claims, as his cultural adviser for the son of Expo. Surely no one can suggest that this man is a party hack, particularly in view of the amount of time he has generously offered us in the first year. This will be fairly onerous for this part time member of a federal board. It will amount to about a day per week.
I do not personally know the lady appointee but she comes very highly recommended. I do not know what her politics are and I have never inquired. She does have a particular qualification that recommends itself to me in that she happens to be female. I wanted a particularly good bilingual female on this board and this young woman seems to qualify.
Having regard to Mr. Frith, who is now living in this city, it is true that he has been a follower of the Liberal party. I for one do not find anything wrong with that, but he has not held office for eight or nine years and has been engaged in a number of enterprises,
March 15, 1968

Supply-Secretary of State almost all of them in the cultural field, including television and radio. He was one of the most distinguished and hard-working members of the B and B commission and is one individual who above all others in the country is dedicated to a belief in the flourishing two founding cultures of Canada.
I met Mr. Phillips of Vancouver once. I believe he is a Liberal although I do not think he has particularly identified himself as such. Perhaps he will deny that he is. I am informed that he has made investments in films made in Canada, the latest being made by the British industry and starring Rita Tushingham. It was shown a year or so ago on the west coast. He is an enterprising and vigorous young businessman who knows what it is to invest his own money in this field. This seems to me to be a good background when it comes to investing public money.
Having regard to Mr. Harris, I do not know him personally but have been informed that he has a very distinguished career in business. I have never heard that he has any politics. He is a man who is particularly interested in the arts and the theatre.
It strikes me that all these people are particularly cultivated and well qualified Canadians. The most anyone can say is that they have taken an active interest in the affairs of their country and have chosen the best party to support. By no stretch of any rational kind of imagination could any of them be called a hack.


David Orlikow: I do not know whether it was by accident or by design that the minister neglected to comment on Mr. Elliott, who is also a member of the board. Let me refer to the minister's own press release which indicates that Mr. Elliott, after working for a number of Ontario newspapers, joined the MacLaren advertising agency of Toronto in 1948. It is stated that he served six years as film production supervisor in the agency's television department and is now a vice president and director of the company. There is not much purpose in pursuing the political aspects but I want to put on record, in case the minister is as unknowledgeable about politics as she seems to be, that other members of this house know about the close relationship between the Liberal party and the MacLaren agency. It is not an accident that this gentleman was appointed to the board.
Surely I made it clear in my earlier remarks that I exempted Madame Favreau from my suggestion. I said she had spent a number of years working at the film board and as film critic for La Presse.
[Miss LaMarsh.l

I accept the minister's word that these people are interested in culture, but that is not the point. They have not been appointed as directors of the C.B.C. or as directors of the National Film Board, both of which are concerned to a large extent with educational and cultural productions. They have been appointed to a corporation with the one purpose of co-financing, which was the term I think the minister used when introducing the legislation, commercial full length films.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I say to the minister, as she said then, that this is a difficult and risky business. I hoped we would do everything possible to see that this business is a success. It is true, as the minister says, that these people will be acting as sort of directors of a bank. I have not had the experience with banks of some hon. members but I am quite sure that if you went to the Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Montreal or any other bank, or one of the banks we have established such as the Industrial Development Bank, the person with whom you would deal if you wanted money in large quantities would be one who had a pretty good grasp of all the implications of the business in which the prospective borrower was interested. If you want to borrow money for building houses you will deal with somebody in a bank who knows about building houses. If you want to borrow money for building a factory you will deal with somebody who knows what are the prospects of the industry concerned.
I suggest that there should have been appointed to the board as directors people who know the film industry. With regard to the people I mentioned, I forget the minister's exact term but she said my suggestion was ludicrous and so on because they are making $100,000 a year. That is true. Because they can make that kind of money and are successful I suggest they are the kind of people who should have been appointed to this board. I think it would be wonderful if one of them could come back to Canada as the full time general manager of the corporation, but here we have a part time board and I presume the members will be paid only an honorarium and their expenses. I am reasonably certain that amongst the names I have mentioned and hundreds I could mention who have left Canada to be actors, producers and directors there are two or three who would have been honoured had the minister said to them: Would you sit on a board of directors
March 15, 1968

to help us establish a film industry in Canada? I am sure many of them feel they owe a debt of gratitude to this country for the start we gave them in the C.B.C., and so on. I am sure some of them could have been persuaded to sit on this board of directors rather than the kind of people the minister has appointed.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I did make one oversight with regard to Mr. Elliott. Mr. Elliott has had some experience, as was indicated, with respect to films. He is one of the most brilliant young men it has been my pleasure to meet. Indeed, at one point there was a very strong chance that he would be nominated as the film commissioner for the National Film Board. He was not, however, in a position to devote full time attention to the public service. I apologize to Mr. Elliott for not dealing with him in the list to which I referred and which I had committed to memory.
However, the hon. member should realize that a number of people who have made an impression internationally in the film field are extremely interested in this program and have been writing me over the past couple of years because they wanted to know when the board of directors would be set up so they could make a proposition and obtain money from the board. Almost everyone I have spoken to throughout Canada who has been potentially a person who might serve on the board has had to demur when I have told him or her that they would, of course, completely and legally have to disassociate themselves from any enterprise which would at any time make any claim on the fund of $10 million. This has been the situation in the case of the best known home-grown Canadian film talent, who would have had to leave their companies in order to become associated with this board, as well as in the case of some who are not as well known. A great many people who were interested in and eager to take part in the program, once they realize that the proprieties of the situation were such that they could not have any financial interest of any kind and serve on the board, decided to stay away from the board and at a later time make application in the hope that they would be able to make Canadian films.
The hon. member cannot have it both ways. He suggests that if you go to a bank and want to borrow money in order to participate in a particular enterprise you go to someone in the bank who is qualified to deal with that matter. That is exactly what we hope will happen in
Supply-Secretary of State respect of this board, namely, that if you go to the film development corporation you will be speaking to people who have an active knowledge of the industry and are there as full time appointees. A decision will be made by the board of trustees. This is exactly the same situation as obtains with the board of trustees of any bank, which is certainly not made up of people who do not understand the situation that exists when you ask for a loan.
I have noticed in this post, as in others I have held in the last couple of years, that when I have made nominations of appointees to positions my enemies, and sometimes my friends, have put forward arguments about appointing supporters of my party simply because they are supporters. I state quite frankly that the pressure in this regard is becoming less and less. But if I see two people before me and they are both good I will pick a Liberal any time over the other applicant. I make no apology for doing this.
It also seems to me that when we set up a board like this with respect to something that will be difficult but interesting, we are approaching very closely the American system whereby the day after the announcement is made there is in this house an unprincipled attack on the people appointed, even before they have picked a staff and opened an office. I suggest to the committee that they wait until the next supplementary estimates are presented to make these criticisms. I also suggest that the hon. member, in his generosity of heart and mind, should stand up and swallow his words.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I assure the minister that if a year from now I see that this corporation is doing a good job I shall, regardless of what I have said-and I retract nothing I have said up to now-make a special point of rising and commending the board for so doing even though they are laymen, which makes it difficult. But I say to the minister that I speak not only for myself but for a number of people in and around this field who are interested in the matter. I have spoken to some of these people since I saw the announcement in the press yesterday, and they expressed in even more vigorous language than I have their views in this regard. I could not use their language here because it would, to say the least, be unparliamentary.


Mr. Byrne:: They probably learned that language from you.
March 15. 1968

Supply-Secretary of State [Translation]


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I am among those who are somewhat surprised at the attitude of our colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I know him well enough to know that he is incapable of a mean action or a shallow judgment. If I did not know him, I would be inclined to accuse him of pettiness in the circumstances, since he just gave an opinion which is not based -according to his own comments-on definite facts.
I sincerely believe that the minister does not have to make any apology to the house for her choice as concerns the appointment of the members of that board.
Personally, I cannot, without protest, let anyone make comments reflecting, for instance, on the integrity and the competence of Mr. Georges-Emile Lapalme. I have had the good fortune of knowing him intimately for a great number of years. I had the opportunity of seeing him perform in all kinds of fields. I also had the opportunity of ascertaining the soundness of his judgment, the confidence he inspires around him in all artistic circles, whether the graphic arts, the drama or any other artistic field.
In the province of Quebec, he has been a sort of innovator in all artistic fields. In fact, he has been called upon in all kinds of circles, including the provincial fields and those that are free from partisan politics. The municipal authorities of the city of Montreal, for instance, and the organizers of certain symphony concerts and such have repeatedly called upon his assistance. I say that he is a man of irreproachable judgment, known intellectual integrity and honesty, and very sound artistic taste.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I know Miss Favreau by reputation. I know her for having read personally a good number of her columns on artistic matters; I think I know her well enough to say that she is very objective in her comments. I know, of course, that it is a grievous fault if she, or the others, are Liberals. Had sympathizers of the New Democratic party or the Ralliement Creditiste or the Conservatives been chosen, this would probably have won them favour, but still, that is the game of politics and, to my mind, it should not be taken into account.
But the point my hon. friend from Winnipeg North failed to see is that people in the business are not necessarily sought out for such agencies. It is rather a matter of creating a

body which will know how to distribute, as equitably as possible, while observing the rules of distributive justice, that amount of $10 million the government is making available to those who will be willing to expand the film industry in Canada. Are technical people really needed for that purpose? Of course not, and on that point, I disagree with my friend for Winnipeg North.
Mr. Chairman, it so happens that a technician in the film making business has necessarily belonged to a particular school of thought and has been prompted by his personal taste and habits, for a great many years. If, by the force of circumstances, he is asked to sit on such a board, he should not allow himself to be influenced by his personal tastes, tendencies and habits, by his friends of many years or by the school which helped him to make a name for himself. If such types of persons are necessarily sought, it is quite reasonable to think that, at times, they may lack objectivity.
In such a case, we have chosen-at least, so I presume, because I am not acquainted with the others-businessmen who know how to administer a budget, people who have enough common sense and refined artistic taste, to know how to distribute that money, without necessarily giving too much to one school or one movement, but who will give to all those who can enrich the Canadian heritage in the film industry.
Now, Mr. Chairman, while pointing out those facts, I wish to say to the minister that she does not have to make any apology, especially if the remarks of my hon. friend for Winnipeg North have reflected on the reputation or prestige of Mr. Georges-Emile Lapalme. I would have liked to have tried to remedy the situation. I am sure that, a year or two from now, we will realize that we have an agency which is entirely capable of providing the country with the kind of service which it has been asked to provide.
Personally, I have complete confidence in the chairman of that agency. I cannot say anything about the other members, because I do not know them, but I believe that those who chose them certainly did not intend to choose election organizers, but people who will be an asset in the field of arts, and who will provide responsible management.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the hon. minister.

In order to avoid any delay I will put my question in English. I understand that this $10
March 15, 1968	COMMONS
million will be distributed to those in the industry who will make films. Is it the intention of the minister or of the cabinet that this money eventually be reimbursed to the government in one way or another? Suppose a film is made, is then sold and makes a large profit. Will the grant allotted eventually be reimbursed to the government?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The legislation makes it clear that the board members may decide to invest in such a way as to have a share in any profits. Let us hope there is a share in the profits and not in the losses. It may also be that a grant may be given or even a straight loan with or without interest. It is certainly not the intention that the $10 million be completely spent. It is hoped that it will be a revolving fund and that profits will be forthcoming.


Barry Mather: Mr. Chairman, before the item carries I wonder whether I could ask the minister a question. Would she undertake to give consideration to urging that new action be taken at the federal level for the preservation of historic films and the establishment of an adequate Canadian film archives to house irreplaceable art films?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: A couple of years ago, when I undertook this portfolio, I was visited by representatives of various art groups. I asked them to meet and make a proposal as to who should keep the archives and who should have control of them. They have never come back to me with such a proposal. However, the film board keeps some film records, both in Montreal and in other regional centres, and of course the C.B.C. keeps a great number of them. I think it would be very helpful to the country if we had a central place in which to keep them. This is certainly something in which the film board is interested, and individual members of the film board such as Mr. Cote are very anxious to see it done.
I do not know whether in the next year's estimates the board will find some money to develop this program, but I think hon. members should realize there have been cut-backs and as of this week all agencies will have to take a 2 per cent cut. So while there is a continuing interest it may be that this year not much money will be spent on archives.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Just before the item carries I should like to ask the Secretary of State one question. It arises from inquiries I have received from persons interested in the Canadian Film Development Corporation and
DEBATES	7687
Supply-Secretary of State the function it will have in promoting a feature film industry in Canada. Could the minister give the house any indication of how soon the corporation and its new board will be in a position to entertain applications for and inquiries about assistance to specific groups interested in launching themselves in the feature film industry? Is the board in a position to entertain such applications now?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Chairman. The new chairman who has just been appointed intends to call a meeting quite shortly. 1 have a list of almost 30 people with varying degrees of experience who have applied for the post of general manager of the board, and while this appointment is made by order in council it is made on the recommendation of the board. So the board will have to have its first meeting to choose its officers and make its regulations, at which time adequate public notice will be given that it is open for business.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
L75c. To increase to $2,800,000 the amount by which expenditures that may be charged at any time to the National Film Board Operating Account established by section 18 of the National Film Act may exceed receipts shown in the said Account: additional amount required, $800,000.
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
lc. Administration, Operation and Maintenance- To increase to $1,100,000 the amount of the payment to the National Gallery Purchase Account for the purpose of acquiring works of art in conformity with section 8 of the National Gallery Act, $350,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a brief question. Could the minister enlighten the house as to what the $350,000 is to cover? Could she tell us what pictures have been purchased with this money, and in view of the fact that she has many more cultural opportunities than the member for Kootenay West could she explain to the committee the purpose and the philosophy behind abstract art?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The answer to the latter part of the question is, no, to each his own. I am sure that Dr. Boggs would be very happy to give the hon. member such instruction.
The amount of money in the national gallery vote is equivalent to the money for the purchase of the Rembrandt, which was in the
March 15, 1968
7388	COMMONS DEBATES
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs nature of a centennial purchase for the gallery. I might say we have an offer already from the American Art Museum to buy the Rembrandt at a profit. If times should ever become tough, we could, therefore, start selling these national treasures.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
5c. Construction or Acquisition of Buildings, Works, Land and Equipment including the Public Service Bilingual and Bicultural Development Program, $180,700.
Robert Jardine McCleave: I should like to ask the minister a question on this item. Perhaps I am out of order but I will try the question on for size because she is in such an amiable green mood today. Is the government giving any consideration to having some form of regular review of the various pieces of legislation which deal with our relations with public service employees? I know that in 1961 a special parliamentary committee was set up to study this matter, and there was another one last year. It seems to me that after a reasonable length of time we should have some sort of guarantee that the relations between the government and the public service will be studied by another committee. It may be unfair to ask the hon. lady to answer this afternoon but I should like to pry from her, as skilfully as I can, her thoughts on the subject in the hope she will commit either herself or some future cabinet minister.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have not heretofore had any thoughts on the matter but the hon. member has been so skilful in putting his question and the blandishment of his words has been so great that I find myself won over. I say, therefore, that I will be pleased to take up the matter with my colleagues.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before we conclude these estimates, which are the final estimates for our centennial year so far as the minister's department is concerned, I want to say on behalf of all parties in the house that I have this little poem which is dedicated to the minister:
When time who steals our years away Shall steal our pleasures too Fond memories of her days still stay And half our joys renew.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: It is a
beautiful poem but out of order. Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
2c. Departmental administration, $399,753.
William Arnold Peters: I believe this is the first time the minister has had an opportunity of explaining the administrative items of his department, Mr. Chairman. I think members would be very pleased to hear from him about the development of these several agencies, including the bankruptcy section. This course might result in considerably reducing the discussion.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I defended the main estimates of the department when the department was under the Registrar General last fall. There was also a very thorough debate on the new consumer branch when the consumer and corporate affairs re-organization bill was brought before the house in November and December. Perhaps it would be more practicable if hon. members would direct my attention to whatever subjects they would like discussed. I feel we have had a fairly full review of the department within the last two or three months. I am willing to make a statement but I think it might be more useful if members of the committee were to direct my attention to specific subjects.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Earlier today I raised a point with the minister and while I shall not labour it, it seems to me that a situation has developed in this country with regard to one of our national sports that deserves more consideration in parliament than it has received so far. I believe that thanks largely, I suspect, to the lure of television money, two hockey organizations in Canada have conspired against the national interest of Canadians. I refer to the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Montreal Canadiens. These two organizations have conspired to see to it that a third city in Canada shall be denied a franchise in the National Hockey League.
We have taken enough batting around of our national pride as a result of sending inferior hockey teams abroad to represent this country in so-called amateur play. In addition, however, we find a situation that has never been satisfactorily explained, namely, that ten of the 12 professional hockey teams on the North American continent are located in United States cities. The thought that immediately came to my mind with regard to the situation in Canada was that Toronto or Montreal, or both together, were unwilling to give up their share of the revenue that could be derived from national
March 15, 1968

television broadcasting in Canada and that they had their eye on the almighty buck instead of any national pride in this country.
As the minister said earlier today, perhaps this is a matter that we cannot study in this house. However, I suggest to him that there may be very good reasons why the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission or other groups that we have set up in days gone by should be looking at this situation to see whether we cannot get Vancouver a franchise. The Restrictive Trade Practices Commission appeals to me because when we examine the motives of the Toronto and Montreal people who made the decision to support United States interests rather than British Columbia interests I believe it is apparent that they were motivated by whatever cash could be divided between them rather than any other reason.
I hope the minister will be aggressive enough in the field of national interest and Canadian pride to take a look at this situation. I suggest to the hon. gentleman, whom I esteem highly as do many other members on this side, that this might be just the crowbar that would open the door to success in connection with certain events early in April here in Ottawa. This might be just the thing that would bring him through with flying colours, assisted by Canadian pride and assisted by decisions that were made behind closed doors by a self-interested, money-grasping group of people. If there is an ounce of sportsmanship in that group I will grant it but I think it is 99 per cent self-interest. There may be a 1 per cent interest in Canada's ability to develop the greatest hockey players in the world.


Mr. Cashin:: I wish to make a brief comment arising out of the remarks of the hon. gentleman. I generally subscribe to the viewpoint he has expressed. However, he did use a phrase during his remarks which, on reflection, he might wish to clarify in some way. It is for that reason I am rising. He referred to the fact we are sending inferior hockey teams abroad. If this remark were to stand without any further comment I think it might cast a reflection upon the Canadian national hockey team. I believe that the building of this hockey team is something which the theory the hon. member was advocating would assist. I feel that those who are behind these men have done much work which is in the country's interest. I know that in Newfoundland, from which one member of the team came,
DEBATES	7689
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs we raised several thousand dollars in order to help in the development of Canadian amateur talent.
o (3:50 p.m.)
It is in this sense that I agree with what the hon. member suggested. I think the effect that the professional hockey combine-or whatever one wants to call it-has on our young hockey players is unfortunate, and I strongly approve the action with respect to the Canadian national team that will bring an alternative course to young Canadian boys who wish to further their education. At the same time they will be able to develop their athletic skills. I am proud that we have men, willing to help, and that we have been able to raise financial resources to help these hockey players to further their education. One of the first places they visited, I believe, was St. John's, Newfoundland, and much credit is due to Alec Faulkner. I think they were a superior bunch of boys, and they did a tremendous job this year. I am sure hon. members on the opposition side would not wish to detract from the good name of our boys by using qualifying adjectives such as "inferior".


Robert Jardine McCleave: My hon. friend is quite right. It would have been better if I had said that Canadians and the teams they send abroad to take part in competitions are hampered by phony amateur rules. A country's team which abides by them, as ours does, may find itself at the mercy of another country's team which may not abide by them in the same way. That is true especially of world championships. I fully accept the qualification my hon. friend has made.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask one or two important questions of our genial minister. Perhaps he might lump them together and answer them at once, so I shall begin with this question. Are these supplementary estimates all related to the new division of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, or is a general amount spread over the entire department, formerly the Department of the Registrar General?
Second, what step is represented by this number of persons who are being detailed to the new Consumer and Corporate Affairs section? Also is the minister to have one or two deputy ministers? Next I would ask whether the minister has taken any steps to co-ordinate other departments of government into his department; will his department take over some of their work?
March 15. 1968

Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs
Has the minister set up in the department a consumer advisory council, which the act says may be set up? If so, how many are on this consumer advisory council and what remuneration will they be paid? If the minister can answer these questions I shall reserve any others I have to ask until we come to other specific votes.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I wish to underline all the questions the hon. member for Wellington South asked, because I am as interested as he is in the answers. This afternoon I particularly want to ask the minister what he intends to do about what has been highlighted again by the prairie commission. I do not want him to put me off by saying that he must talk to the prairie governments and find out what they are going to do, because this is a matter which comes within the purview of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. That department ought to be leading the prairie governments in action. The prairie governments made a number of recommendations, which I have been studying, and they have been asked to take action. I want to know the minister's response to those recommendations, since he has said that he recognizes how important public opinion is in these matters.
On March 11 when the minister spoke in Winnipeg he was reported to have said that he had instructed the federal combines branch to look into the grocery retailing business on the prairies. Later that day in the house he said he was prepared to look at the report and to meet Judge Mary Batten. I know he met Judge Batten, and presuming he has studied the report, I suggest he will consider that the time for action has come.
This week end, when the minister will start out on his tour as a potential candidate for his party leadership, he and I will probably travel in the same direction-not on the campaign trail, but geographically. It is important for the public to know what the new department intends to do about the situation uncovered by the commission on the prairies, one which is analogous to the situation that was uncovered by the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on consumer credit. That committee reported one year ago Christmas. On the prairies there has been discovered a virtual monopoly by two big firms, both in the grocery business, Canada Safeway and Weston.

The report, as published in the Globe and Mail for Tuesday, March 5, contains these interesting facts:
The largest sellers, Canada Safeway and the Weston stores, have acquired sufficient power to enable prices to rise above competitive levels, resulting in excess profits for the large chains.
Excessive building of stores has led to underutilization of stores, unnecessarily raising the costs of retailing groceries.
The position and power of the chains has led to and required the use of self-cancelling and costly advertising campaigns.
The study also found that luxurious supermarkets, built to lure customers away from other stores, may have raised costs of food distribution.
The report goes further than did that of the joint Senate and House of Commons committee, when it pinpoints in this fashion just how much this monopoly has hurt Canadian families:
For 1966, excess profits were declared to have cost consumers of Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary and Edmonton, in terms of reduced wellbeing, a total of $3.5 million or $9.40 per family of four. Excess capacity cost consumers even more -$19.3 million, or $51.88 per family of four.
Grocery advertising cost each family of four $14.50, and luxurious conveniences, such as free parking and air conditioning represented 3 cents on every food dollar, or $38.72 a year for a family of four.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
These figures for the average family of four may not mean much, but they mean a great deal to those on low incomes. The commission's recommendations are clear. One recommendation is that if present legislation is inadequate to correct the existing situation, the three prairie provinces should initiate a study with a view to providing necessary legislative changes, so that cases of inadequate industry performance on account of concentration can be examined and corrected. They also urged the federal government to examine the possibility of eliminating wasteful advertising and preventing the use of advertising to fortify positions of industrial control.
The minister is aware of the need for action along these lines. In recent speeches he has been talking about the troubled consumer, meaning consumers in lower income brackets. He said in one recent speech:
There are many Canadians who are troubled consumers-the poor, the elderly, the handicapped, the regionally depressed. They have special consumer needs, special problems. One of the great questions of the next decade will be to expand the dimension of equal participation to all our
March 15, 1968

citizens. A program tor troubled consumers aimed at better protection against unscrupulous practices, which prey on the poor and handicapped, the development of better consumer skills, the provision of special goods and services for those who have particular needs, such as the elderly, and the provision of legal aid and consumer counselling to assist those with problems, can play a major part in opening the door for many dispossessed Canadians.
I want to say frankly to the minister, since he knows very well who the troubled consumers are-the poor, the elderly, the handicapped-that it will not be good enough merely to express concern. Evidence has been piling up before the joint committee and before the prairie committee on living costs that positions of power have been built up by two or three monopoly organizations operating in the grocery business, that it is essential that action be taken to prevent excess profit making, and that in this connection unnecessarily wasteful advertising should be stopped because it adds to the cost of groceries. I draw attention again to the recommendation that financial institutions which are essential to credit buying be brought within the purview of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs so that the combines investigation legislation can be applied in connection with them.
I wish to remind the minister of another important recommendation made by the joint committee:
Your committee noted that the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act reported the discontinuance of a study of concentration in the food retailing industry in Canada on March 15, 1963 (Report of the Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act for the year ended March 31, 1963). Your committee recommends that this study be resumed on a continuous basis and broadened to cover both food retailing and manufacturing in Canada with a particular view to examining concentration, market power and trade practices in the relations between retailers and suppliers.
The committee made that recommendation a year ago in its report, but as far as I know nothing whatever has been done about it. The prairie commission recommended to the provincial governments concerned that they approach the federal government with a request that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs deal with a similar situation on the prairies-a situation which has become worse since the report was made.
It will not be good enough for the minister to hide behind the fact that so far the prairie governments have not approached him, or that jurisdiction over prices is shared between the federal government and the
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs provinces. If the hon. gentleman is serious in his bid for leadership of the Liberal party, if he is serious about becoming prime minister of Canada, here is a plain challenge open to him.
The people have let it be known they are being crushed by rising living costs. We know what needs to be done. Evidence given by witnesses before two inquiries has made the facts available. Will the minister now take the action which is called for? He has already piloted legislation through the house which he says will help reduce the prices of prescription drugs by stimulating competition in the industry. This is what he must try to do about food prices, whatever method he chooses. We have recommended the setting up of a prices review board as a means of giving full publicity to excess profit takers, so that they can be brought under control and dealt with. I hope the minister will not take shelter behind the Prime Minister's statement that a review board with vague responsibilities in connection with industry as a whole is to be set up. As consumers we are asking him to set up a review board to deal with food, housing and consumer goods in Canada, now. What does the minister propose to do?
I am not concerned at this moment about false or misleading advertizing; I am satisfied the hon. gentleman will look after that. I want to know what he intends to do about the cost of living-not in the next decade, but now, before he stands up and says: I want to be the Liberal leader; I want to be prime minister of Canada. In the name of the consumers of Canada I ask what he intends to do to deal with the cost of living, which is already crushing a quarter of our people whose incomes are below acceptable levels.


Mr. Baldwin:: After that inspiring speech by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway the minister may conclude that he might be answering a call to higher service by remaining in his present office rather than by seeking other responsibilities. If he sees this question in the same light as I do he may be able to perform a greater service for the people by remaining where he is. I recognize he has other talents, of course, but I just thought I would place that observation before him.
The Batten report has turned the spotlight on this issue, one which could conceivably be even more serious in the near future than it is today. I should like to ask the minister whether, in his discussions with the provinces, he would give consideration to a
March 15, 1968
7692	COMMONS
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs proposal which emanated from myself and other members of this party, namely that an effort be made by the governments of Canada, provincial and federal, to devise a joint approach to this problem.
Quite obviously the necessity of using the Criminal Code as a basis for the combines investigation legislation has proved highly unsatisfactory. There are cases when present procedures meet the situation, but a different approach is evidently called for. It will take either consent on the part of the federal government to shift all jurisdiction to the provinces, or else consent to grant all these powers to the federal authority. Failing this, a joint approach will have to be undertaken. I hope the minister will find out from the provinces what attitude they are inclined to adopt.
Here is a perfect example. A royal commission appointed by the three western provinces has resulted in a useful report to which reference has already been made in this debate. To what extent will the provinces be prepared to act in co-operation with the minister and the federal government in seeing that measures are taken which will be far better and more comprehensive than those possible under the restrictive terms of the present combines investigation legislation?
I say this advisedly. After listening to what the Prime Minister had to say, and observing that the government proposes to set up a prices review board, proceeding under the Inquiries Act, I am of the opinion that we can expect a dismal failure. Anyone examining the Inquiries Act will immediately observe that the powers conferred by it are limited to inquiries where the good government of Canada is involved. I suggest that on a reasonable interpretation of those words this means that if there is an attempt to inquire into matters that are purely within provincial jurisdiction this would be outside the scope of the Inquiries Act.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I notice from an examination of the Inquiries Act that the board established under the act has the right to call witnesses to make examinations and then to report. It seems obvious that a very substantial period of time will lapse between the time the attention of the government is directed to cases of prices being charged that are higher than they should be, and the time that the report of the board is presented to the government. The period is such that the situation will probably be beyond repair.


Having listened to the statement of the Prime Minister and examined the Inquiries Act, I do not think that a prices review board as envisaged by the Prime Minister will meet the existing situation, one which I think will become more serious in the near future. If this situation is to be met the federal government, together with the provincial governments, will have to devise ways and means of approaching the problem and of finding solutions. Therefore I urge the minister to seize this particular situation as a means of exploring with at least the three western provinces whether or not such an arrangement can be brought about.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief observations on this item. I am a little more optimistic about the purposes of this department. While I have heard some members say that it is nothing but a facade, I have heard others say that it is one of the most important legislative steps that have been introduced into this house. Under present circumstances, particularly during peacetime, we recognize it is experimental legislation. I am sure that as a result of application of the act amendments will be made which will bring about its better administration and increase its advantages to the people in general.
I wish to bring to the minister's attention a subject in which I have been interested for some time. When I spoke at length on the bill I mentioned the loss of income sustained by low income groups who had very little knowledge about how to purchase nutritional food at an economic price. One of the trade unions in Ottawa undertook some research into this question, Mr. Chairman, and made a survey of low income groups who purchased food at chain and other stores. They came to the conclusion that the average low income group, owing to lack of information and knowledge, wasted between $600 and $900 per year on food purchases. They had no knowledge of credit arrangements and other matters, and stores, advertizers and certain credit organizations took advantage of this lack of knowledge.
When the minister rises to answer the comments that have been made by members of the opposition I should like him to explain what is being done to inform these people and to educate them in this respect. I realize this can be done only through co-operation with other organizations in the country, whether these be trade unions, women's organizations or consumer organizations. They
March 15, 1968
must be willing to co-operate both with the minister and with provincial departments in order to bring this information and knowledge to the attention of those who require it.
I listened to the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway and to her comments about the operations of certain chain stores on the prairies. I have read the report to which she referred and I realize that it provides the basis for some very serious study and investigation. Before the minister undertakes that investigation I should like to bring to his attention a personal experience that I had in this respect. Up to the time I was elected a member of parliament and my standard of living was considerably raised I was a fruit grower and suffered from all the disadvantages of that occupation, particularly during the depression. I remember that on one occasion we sent a carload of fruit to Calgary; this was before the marketing board was established. The man in charge of this consignment went to a wholesaler who offered him a certain price. He refused the offer and said he would go to another wholesaler. He called on five wholesalers, and each telephoning the other and in each case dropping the price. After two days he went back to the original wholesaler and said he would accept the first offer, but this wholesaler already said that he could not offer the producer any more. Since he could not afford the demurrage and other expenses, Mr. Chairman, he had to accept the lowest offer.
Then later, Mr. Chairman, we tried to sell our fruit direct to the co-operatives on the prairies or to small country stores. But do you know what the brokers and wholesalers did? They notified the co-ops and the small stores that if they purchased any fruit direct from a grower in British Columbia they would receive no fruit or other imports from the United States, but would be cut off. This included citrus fruits, nuts, and so on. Therefore they were forced to buy from the wholesalers and the brokers. That situation was the direct cause of the formation of the Tree Fruits Marketing Board in British Columbia. I give that body credit for doing an excellent job since it was established, though there is room for improvement.
I suggest that in investigating the situation the minister must work with the provinces. I hope that he will inquire into the relationship that exists between wholesalers and brokers and the large chain stores. At one time they were practically controlled by half a dozen people. One of the worst offenders was the
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs United Fruit Company whose headquarters was in the United States. I hope the minister also seeks information from the Tree Fruits Marketing Board, the producers and the cooperatives because they are all involved in pricing.
According to recent newspaper reports the provinces are becoming interested in this matter. This is natural; the consumers are aroused and want to be certain that they get better value for their dollar in the near future. On that account the government of British Columbia has passed a consumer protection act, and I see that other provinces have the same intention. This shows they are interested in the matter. I suggest that they are now in a mood to co-operate willingly with the minister in investigating particularly the cost of food and in formulating legislation, both federally and provincially, that will meet the situation.
I think the hon. member for Peace River was quite right when he said that this question cannot be confined just to investigations by the combines investigation branch. The matter covers a wider field. I am sure that if the minister, as I am confident he will, enters into this investigation with a spirit of cooperation with the provinces and to the advantage of the consumers, we will get results in the near future. I wish him well in all he undertakes in this direction.


Mr. Chatierlon:: Mr. Chairman, when the minister makes a few remarks later on I should like to ask him to give the members of the committee an example of some of the action that his department has taken that may prevent increases in costs, or which may stop misleading or false advertising and labelling.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that the minister would give us his election outline of what he intends to do with regard to helping the consumers, through the functions of this new department. The people in my riding are more interested in the protection of the consumer than in anything else. I believe the minister has a great deal of scope in this field, one in which the general public is always fleeced. One day I happened to be in an A & P store on Bank street. I was interested in one commodity, cheese. I am interested in cheese because of my personal liking for it and also because of the fact that there are several cheese factories in my area. I was interested to notice a young man wet his thumb and rub the price off a package. I looked over his shoulder and saw that the

March 15. 1968
7694	COMMONS
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs price was 59 cents, but that he stamped on the package a new price of 61 cents. The cheese sold by the A & P stores obviously has a mark-up conducive to the operation of its business in relation to cheese prices.
Most members of this house know that the prices of cheese vary anywhere between 41 cents and 43 cents, depending on the type purchased from the board. Members will also know that a mark-up of 20 per cent would bring it into a fairly reasonable range. I think everyone will agree that this store was literally stealing from the pockets of the public because this change in price had no relationship to the mark-up or to a change in the price they paid for the cheese. Surely the public should be protected. I realize that if a store manager finds that the price he must pay for a product he is placing on his shelves has increased, he will have difficulty in keeping this product in tune with a reasonable price. When without reason, however, he changes the price he in effect is being dishonest.
It seems to me that this is a problem with which the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should concern itself. If the price of cheese has gone up to 45 cents wholesale, then I am quite sure that new purchases should go on the shelves at a price of 66 cents. But this had not happened. We all are aware of the wholesale price for cheese, because we pay a subsidy on it and the price is decided by the cheese marketing board in Ontario. Here we have an example of a large store marking up a price, and placing a new price on a product. We all know this happens occasionally, but so far as I am concerned this is a totally dishonest practice.
There are other problems the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should be looking at. One is the great problem involved in the ability to look at a commodity and decide whether or not it is a fair value.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Taste it.


William Arnold Peters: Yes. Not long ago here in Ottawa a salesman came to the manager of a small store wanting to sell him some peaches. The wholesale price was more than a chain store down the street was charging for its peaches. The small store manager said that he could not afford to buy peaches because he would have difficulty in selling them. The salesman said that his firm sold that brand of peaches to the chain store. They obtained a can of peaches from the other store and one


that the salesman was attempting to sell to this small store manager, opened both cans, and found that the can obtained from the chain store had in it three half peaches less than there were in the other can.
In this type of situation it is difficult for a housewife to decide whether she is getting value for her money. If she happens to have 11 children and there are 11 pieces in one can, and then she finds that there are only eight pieces in another, and that as a result three of her children do not have any, she knows that she can do better by buying at one store than at another.
The condition I have described would seem to be a dishonest practice. In one case a person is buying peaches and in the other case is buying syrup. Surely there is a difference between these products, and yet the labels on the cans meet the specifications and requirements laid down. I am sure the minister, who has a family, will agree that if each member of his family can have two half peaches instead of one, or one and a half of the peach halves, there is an advantage in buying from one store rather than another. Yet a housewife would have to have a great deal of experience before she would be able to distinguish between the two products.
In respect of many products it is difficult to make a decision concerning which product is better, because of the regulations in respect of markings. Not long ago the manager of a supermarket pointed out the difference in the cans he had on his shelf. This resulted from a court action in the United States where it had been decided that for many years the 10 and 15 ounce cans had been improperly labelled. These were withdrawn, one being relabelled 9i ounces and the other 14 ounces. But they were relabelled without any change in the size of the can. At the time of the discussion with the store manager he had both types of cans on his shelves. In one commodity there were six different types of cans, three of which appeared to be identical to three others, but there were six labels on those six cans indicating totally different products.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I am sure every member has had difficulty when buying a suit, both in respect of price and quality. The prices of suits appear to have gone up 25 per cent in the last year. I like to buy suits for about $35, but no matter how I try to persuade the manager of the store where I have dealt for many years, I am told there is no longer such a thing as a
March 15, 1968	COMMONS
$35 suit. He has told me that when he sells a suit for $75, it has been reduced by 25 per cent for the purposes of a sale. Perhaps the minister has no control over this situation, but it is of concern to the consumer.
Surely the minister's department could have some control over the labels that appear on clothing. Years ago I bought a suit which was marked down from $99 to $19 because the store had to get rid of them. The manager found that when a suit of this type was pressed by the dry cleaners the material scorched. It must have been much like the material in ladies' slips, described I believe as angelskin. If the iron is a little too hot when you iron such a slip, it burns and the angel is exposed.


Mr. McQuaid:: Could I ask the hon. member a question? Who does the ironing in his family?


William Arnold Peters: It surely is not I; but I have observed this particular phenomenon. The suit I was talking about was made of material of this same type. The manager had showed me one that had come back from the dry cleaners, of which the whole side was scorched and discolored. Incidentally I bought the suit anyway, because I thought perhaps I would not bother getting it cleaned. In any event, for $19 what do you have to lose?
The point I am making is that in this country, with our National Research Council and scientific facilities, we should be able to have suits labelled so that we know exactly the kind of material used. If you want to buy a suit that will not burn, you should know which type to avoid. I am not sure what the material is in this suit I am wearing, but I believe it is labelled silk and wool. I am quite sure there is no silk in it, and I am not sure there is any wool in it either. These manufacturers are allowed to use labels that mean nothing in terms of actual content or quality. All we can do is buy something with a fancy name. We cannot know whether a suit will be long wearing, whether it will stand dry cleaning or resist certain kinds of beverage stains.
Surely the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs could require that proper labels be used on articles like suits, which would indicate exactly what one is buying. I agree that the major factor involved is still price; but if proper labelling were required the consumer would have some assurance as to what he was getting and would be protected at least to that extent.
DEBATES	7695
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs
There is also some difficulty as to actual size. If a suit is marked 44 tall or 44 stout, that should mean something. A pair of size 10 shoes should fit feet that are size 10. Feet do not seem to change in size after a certain age, but the last on which a shoe is made does not seem to bear any relationship to a particular size. It is some time since I have had little children, but in my experience children's clothes marked to fit six year olds do not necessarily fit six year olds. In my own experience these garments were too small. On the other hand I am sure that some of my neighbours who have six year old children have found these clothes marked for six year olds to be too large. This is an area in which the department could set up a code of standardization in order that the purchaser would know what he was getting in terms of actual size.
Over the years when I have been interested in buying a major electric appliance or an automobile-usually this happens in the spring when I have spring fever, after the snow has disappeared-I have purchased a copy of a consumer's magazine. This magazine contains the results of tests and gives preferences in respect of electrical appliances, automobiles and other things. It usually indicates the weaknesses and the advantages. One is still left with the decision as to whether he will select an article with certain weaknesses but which has the compensating features of certain advantages.
This situation is the same in respect of automobile tires. When one purchases an automobile he is given the option of equipping it with two ply, four ply or perhaps six ply tires. In some areas six ply tires do not seem to be adequate because most of the roads are gravelled, and automobiles equipped with two ply tires to be used in such areas would constitute a hazard. In any event, my point is that one should be able to find out exactly what these various tires are worth in terms of requirements.
It seems to me that advertisers in this country have been able to advertise to suit their own purposes and advantages, rather than on the basis of providing information to the general public. With reference to the two ply tires, there is probably no doubt that a two ply tire of the turnpike type would meet the requirements of heat reduction better than the ordinary four ply tire. In this same context, perhaps a six ply tire would present a decided hazard to a driver doing mostly city
7696	COMMONS
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs driving in a city like Ottawa, which normally has a lot of potholes. Such a driver might hit a pothole and would have to buy a new tire, because likely he would not be able to drive more than a few blocks before he had a flat tire.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It seems to me that the consumer affairs department should give to the consumer, not necessarily an iron-clad guarantee or make a prohibition in respect of these matters, but should provide the general public with an assessment of new commodities in terms of the consumer's dollar and purchasing power, as well as the protection or liability of the consumer in respect of a particular product. In my opinion a good consumer affairs department would provide this type of protection.
I go back to the suit that the storekeeper told me would burn if it were ironed. There should have been on that suit a label warning the public against ironing it, because if it were ironed it would be a fire hazard and would also be very destructive to the suit. You do not need to go as far as saying, "This garment is not protected against wash and wear," or something of that nature. This may be a label that is attached to garments only if they are not protected against wash and wear.
I suppose every woman knows that she should not iron her silk stockings, because damage will be caused to them if she does. But I am sure most people think that a steam iron properly applied is suitable for ironing a suit. If it is not, I think the consumer affairs department should insist that a label be affixed to the suit warning the public of this deficiency. In this way the consumer would be protected.
I do not know how far the minister has gone in this field. I have not had the opportunity of sitting on the consumer affairs committee, which I understand has made a great deal of noise and has done a great deal of listening. The people on that committee appear to be quite satisfied with where they are going, but I really have not seen much protection for the consumer. I therefore hope that the minister will deal with some of these problems. I do not think the minister has to say that he has solved the problems, but he should at least be able to tell us what machinery has been set up for solving them.
I believe that the general public of this country is not protected with regard to the quality or value of goods in the marketplace.
I remember the advertising that was allowed

DEBATES	March 15. 1968
to take place in some of the major stores against the importation of Japanese shirts. There was an instance when at one of the large stores I bought a shirt that had on it the brand name of the store. This brand name was superimposed on a Japanese label. After a number of washings the brand name came off and I found that it was a Japanese shirt. This shirt lasted about five years, which is much longer than some of the other shirts I have bought.
We allowed this store and others to advertise against the importation of those shirts because it was said they were no good. "No good" is a pretty general term. Though the company may not have been dishonest in its advertising, they did not say the shirt would not stand up to washing and that it would turn yellow after bleaching, the implication being that if you did any of the normal things to the shirt, you probably would not have any shirt.
We are a trading nation, a nation in which there has to be an exchange of goods. Therefore it is doubly important that some control be provided in order to protect the consuming public. This control must be provided by the government. The minister will be the darling of the consuming public if he is able to indicate that he has set up the machinery that will provide the kind of protection that will allow a young lady starting out in her housewifely duties, and who has not had the experience of a social science course at high school, to go into a store and know when she buys a baby blanket that it will fit the crib next week after it has been washed. The minister will be the darling of the consuming public if a young lady is able to go to the grocery store and buy a "special", knowing that there is some legitimacy attached to the label on the commodity. Then she will be protected against the ultimate disgrace of having her husband come home and say: I see you got sucked in because of that label, if you had gone to the store across the street you would have bought that product three cents cheaper.
I ask the minister to look at an ad of Johnson's Furniture Company which has appeared in one of the local newspapers, in which they advertize a closing-out sale of new furniture. Down near the bottom of the advertisement there is a little inset that says the company has complied with bylaw No. so-and-so of the city of Ottawa, which demands that they supply the city authorities with their purchase
March 15, 1368
price, their normal retail price and the closing-out sale price of every commodity in the store. I did not know this type of bylaw existed. Certainly in a backward city such as Ottawa I would not have anticipated it. It really surprises me, and I commend the city of Ottawa for passing such a bylaw.
Whenever I drive down the street and see a closing-out sale, I wonder where they are moving to, whether it is only across the street, what kind of gimmick is involved and whether any sale is actually taking place. I was deeply impressed to learn of this bylaw of the city of Ottawa. This furniture company appears to be complying with the bylaw, which makes it mandatory that they declare the manufacturer's price which they paid, the list price, their normal retail price and the price at which they are prepared to sell the item in a closing-out sale.
I think that if the general public were provided with this kind of protection they would be in a much better position to make a decision as to whether an article is actually being sold at a sale price. The public are not able to make this decision at the present time because they have to contend with devious advertising that is really not honest and cannot be properly interpreted by the consumer.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister wants to go west with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and I would not want to delay that process at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is quite an alliance.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I had the pleasure of being at the minister's press conference this morning when he introduced his book. The minister's book was published by the same publisher that published mine, and I think that is the reason I was invited to the press conference. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough and I should form a club which would indicate one could write a book without being involved as a leadership candidate.
I should like to ask the minister just one question, and I shall not delay him further. I am interested in knowing whether he now has information on the important matter about which my colleague the hon. member for Kings asked him the other day with reference to Prince Edward Island. I shall not speak further on these supplementals, except to say that I am growing very, very concerned about the tremendous extent of supplemental estimates, those things which should be an irregular item of business but
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs with which we are asked to deal much more frequently as time goes by. I have discovered that in the last 20 years parliament has voted $6,700 million in supplementary estimates. The whole thing has become totally out of hand. Surely we can become better bookkeepers, and supplementary estimates should become the exception rather than the rule in these fields of large expenditure.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I gather that the hon. member for Queens was not directing the last remark particularly to our department, but to the whole scheme of supplementary estimates. A good deal of these supplementary estimates is as a result of a parliamentary decision to widen the scope of this department.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Frank Howard: I know the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is trying his best to relinquish that position. So, as suggested by my colleague, the hon. member for Timis-kaming, he might not become the darling of the consuming public in so far as the activities of the department he now heads are concerned. But whether it is this or another minister who heads this department, perhaps the greatest amount of protection the consumer public needs is protection from the minister's own government, and from the mismanagement which exists within that government.
I wish to ask the minister whether, in his concern for the interests of the consuming public, he will at the first opportunity make strong representations to the Minister of Finance with regard to a rather ridiculous situation which has arisen within the last few days. On the one hand we find the government saying how desperately it is searching to save money in government departments, to curtail costs and increase efficiency, and on the other hand we find great wastefulness within the Department of Finance so far as the taxpayers are concerned. This very day the Department of Finance is spending nine and three quarter cents to buy a sufficient amount of silver to put into each 10 cent piece. In other words, in order to get a sufficient amount of silver to put into a dime, the government is spending 9.75 cents. This does not take into account the cost of the copper which goes into making up the dime, the cost of production, the capital expenditures for the machines, or the salaries or distribution costs of the Royal Canadian Mint. So we are losing money on every 10 cent piece we strike today. We spend twenty four and three

7698	COMMONS
Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs eighths cents to buy silver tor every 25 cent piece we strike. This is an absolutely ludicrous situation when on the one hand the Minister of Finance speaks about savings to the consuming and taxpaying public, and on the other hand he is permitting the continuation of this sort of wastefulness.
Not long ago this parliament passed a bill authorizing the Minister of Finance this year to enter into the production of coinage to be made from nickel. If only the government would implement this law and start producing coins of nickel rather than silver, they would save the taxpayers of this nation countless thousands and perhaps millions of dollars. I wish the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would bring this to the attention of his colleagues in the cabinet and thus bring some balance to the use of the taxpayer's money in a proper and legitimate way.
Although the minister is not the only one to suffer in this respect, he appears to be suffering more than any of his colleagues as a result of two factors: One, that he is the minister of a newly established department and, two, that he is a candidate for a higher office in the government. As a consequence of these two factors, someone who has far more knowledge than I have of what goes on in the government has obviously made a search of the activities and operations of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and come up with the conclusion that it contains a great deal of fat. I think the word "fat" is used in reference to the staff within the department who are not pulling their weight, who are not cutting the mustard, as the saying goes, who are not efficient administrators, and are not serving the public interest to the full extent. Just two days ago, the Minister of Agriculture said the following in relation to the operation of the government:
The plethora of departments leads to duplication and waste. Under these conditions, the vertical structure of the public service makes the flow and tranfer of personnel in the interest of efficiency most difficult. Departments with obsolete or obsolescent functions find personnel underused, and thence underproductive. At the same time new departments are recruiting additional personnel. The result-fat.
The minister may laugh, but it was his colleague and seatmate who made these comments. It is a regrettable state of affairs for the Canadian public to find one minister, in his intense desire to become the prime minister of this nation, running around with a sharpened knife solely and simply for the

DEBATES	March 15, 1968
purpose of slitting the throat of another minister. It may well be that the Minister of Agriculture knows what he is talking about because he refers here, indirectly if in no other way, to the fact that there are government departments which are obsolete, or have obsolete or obsolescent functions, and to the fact that their personnel is underused and thence unproductive. This is a pretty sad commentary for a minister of the crown to be making about the structure of the government. Perhaps one could accept it if it had been said half heartedly or jokingly, but it was said in a very serious way. This statement was contained in a speech by the Minister of Agriculture to the 63rd convention of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities held in the Hotel Saskatchewan on Wednesday, March 13, 1968 in Regina, Saskatchewan. The copy of the speech which I have here emanates from the office of the Minister of Agriculture.
If what the Minister of Agriculture said is correct, namely that there are departments with obsolete and obsolescent functions, that there is underproductivity, and that new departments are recruiting additional personnel, resulting in a lot of additional fat, I would suggest that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should direct his attention toward greater efficiency in the government. He should try to protect the consumers' interest in that regard as well as protect their interests in the market place. He should not wait until the time in April when he will have a chance to become the prime minister, but he should have an immediate conference with the Prime Minister-even though the latter will be retiring in a couple of weeks- and the other members of the cabinet to consider the degree to which the taxpayers' money is being squandered within departments which have obsolete and obsolescent functions, and which are recruiting additional personnel, the result of which is a great deal of fat.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether it is the mood of the committee to try to finish these estimates today.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I know that certain members have made arrangements on the understanding there would be a private
March 15, 1968

members hour. We cannot pass these estimates today, but I would suggest that matters such as this should be considered some time early in the afternoon and a discussion held among different parties. If this were done it would be much easier to reach an understanding.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is it the
desire of the committee to continue the consideration of the estimates?


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Frank Howard: I called it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: It being five o'clock, shall I rise, report the resolutions adopted and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
e (5:00 p.m.)



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate do unite with the House of Commons in the appointment of a joint committee to examine the progress of programs of the National Capital Commission in the development, conservation and improvement of the national capital region.
It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to interrupt at this moment. It might be helpful to the house if I put on the record the business proposed for Monday next. It is proposed that we continue consideration of the supplementary estimates by calling the Department of External Affairs. I am advised there has been general agreement that this department should be called. It would be followed then by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; then, the Department of Defence Production and the Department of Industry. If we are fortunate
Combines Investigation Act enough to dispose of these three departments, I would then call the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the house leader if the government, in planning the business for next week, will take into consideration the desirability of dealing with orders Nos. 51 and 60. They are Bill No. C-190, to amend the Patent Act and Trade Marks Act, and Bill No. S-22, having to do with the Food and Drugs Act and hazardous substances. The government knows that we would be prepared to see both of these passed through their remaining stages with little or no debate.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I will consult the government house leader and he will probably consult the other house leaders.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


David Orlikow: second reading of Bill No. C-27, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (floor penalties, criminal joint tortfeasors, and moieties).
He said: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, which I am moving, is to strengthen the penalties for crimes committed in violation of the combines and monopoly laws. This bill, if approved, would not interfere with the penalty now provided under the law for a first offence, but would provide that on conviction for a second offence there shall be a mandatory minimum jail term of one year and for third or subsequent offences a mandatory minimum jail term of two years. The bill also makes clear that directors and officers of the companies involved in violations of our combines laws shall be held responsible for the acts of those corporations.
I bring forward this bill for two reasons. First of all, I am one of those who believe the laws of Canada should be applied to all Canadians with equal force and equal regard, whether those citizens be rich or poor, whether they break the anti-combines laws or are guilty of theft or being drunk and disorderly. These laws should be applied with equal force to Canadian citizens who can afford to have eminent counsel represent them, and to those poor souls who appear before magistrates without counsel every day of the week in the major cities of Canada, as well as the
7700	COMMONS
Combines Investigation Act smaller cities, and who get little in the way of representation. If one picks up a newspaper in any city in Canada he can read about some poor citizen, guilty of a minor theft in some supermarket or some department store, being given six months or two months in jail. It is not uncommon, Mr. Speaker, to read of some poor citizen who has taken a little too much drink on a week end, who has created a disturbance and been convicted of being drunk and disorderly. He has been sentenced to a week or two, or perhaps a month, in one of our jails. In my own province of Manitoba this happens with some frequency, particularly for Manitoba citizens who are of Indian or Metis origin.
However, despite the fact that in this country we have had legislation prohibiting combines for more than 50 years, combines which are designed to overcharge the public for goods purchased by the public, no single person has been convicted and sent to prison. This has happened, despite the fact that some of the most respected, some of the largest corporations in Canada in various fields have been found guilty of violations of the anticombines legislation of this country, not once or twice but three times. I will come back to that in a few moments. The fact is that the anti-combines legislation of this country is not doing the job it was designed to do. This has been accepted by many people, by economists who have studied the origin of this legislation, by members of parliament who have spoken about it and even members of the government who have on occasion referred to the inadequacies of the law.
Back in 1964, Mr. Speaker, the then minister of justice, who at that time was responsible for the administration of these laws, the late Mr. Favreau, made a speech on October 2 at Montebello in which he voiced his concern about the inadequacy of the law, and in which he said:
It would seem that a new and hard look could be given at the present state of our legislation in this domain and that, without repealing the present law, we may want to seriously inquire how far and to what extent additional provisions could be enacted under the federal jurisdiction to regulate trade and commerce. In certain circumstances, it would seem to me appropriate to find ways and means to curb certain practices which it is in the public interest to prevent, but to do so otherwise than by prosecution before the criminal courts. And, even in the context of a statute which is in the nature of criminal legislation, it is very much in my mind that it should be possible to develop and use on a broader basis proceedings not necessarily linked with criminal charges such

DEBATES	March 15, 1968
as for instance, substantive injunctions, either to prevent incipient offences or to prohibit the repetition of past practices-[DOT]
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the late minister was aware, and I am sure the officials in his department were aware, of the complete inadequacy of the present law to control and prevent combines, which have mulcted from the Canadian public tens of millions of dollars. I am not one of those who believe in harsh penalties and I have spoken on a number of occasions about this matter, I have usually, if not always, urged a more humane approach, more probation, less jail, and so on.
e (5:10	p.m.)
In the field of combines legislation the record is clear. Our law courts have been lenient. They have not taken the law seriously. The law provides that where companies or individuals are guilty of conspiring one with the other in the creation of combines, they shall be fined or sent to jail. So far no one has served one day in jail after being convicted under this law. Had the government brought forward in the form of legislation some of the ideas of the late Mr. Favreau, whose 1964 speech I have just been reading from, the proposal I am making today would not be necessary.
Victims of price fixing combines in the United States can, after proving that a conspiracy to fix prices exists, sue for and collect damages from firms which have overcharged them. Customers of the General Electric Company were able to collect more than $160 million in damages after that company had been convicted under United States combines legislation.
Such things do not happen in Canada. When firms are convicted of keeping prices artificially high by combining with others, they are charged a minimal amount, and that is the end of it. As I have said, and as I repeat now, parliament has passed laws to control combines. Yet, after an investigation has been launched and after it has resulted in a prosecution before the courts, and a conviction, we find courts have imposed small fines of $2,000, $5,000, and recently $10,000. In the last couple of years we have had a couple of $25,000 fines. Actually by imposing such small fines the courts are giving combines cheap licences to steal from the public.
Despite 50 years of legislation on the subject, combines are not ending, but increasing.
March 15. 1968	COMMONS
For example the royal commission appointed by the three prairie provinces and headed by a former Liberal member of the Saskatchewan legislature, Judge Mary Batten, investigated the activities of Canada Safeway and Weston stores on the prairies. In her report she says:
Excessive building of stores has led to underutilization of stores, unnecessarily raising the costs of retailing groceries.
The position and power of the chains has led to and required the use of self-cancelling and costly advertising campaigns.
Essentially, a combine exists in the field of grocery merchandising in western Canada, which has cost the people of western Canada a substantial amount of money. I shall quote one more sentence from the report:
Taken together, excess profits and costly excess capacity reduced consumer well-being by $61.28 per family of four in 1966.
That is an extremely large loss, the commissioner says, and I agree with her.
Hardly a month passes without Winnipeg city council reporting instances where they have called for tenders on various items, only to have various firms submit identical tenders. That that has happened proves, to my way of thinking, that combines exist. I know that the department thinks that identical tenders do not prove a combine, but I submit that they lead to an almost irresistible conclusion that combines exist. Winnipeg city council wrote to me in August of 1966 and said that they had asked for three tenders for street lighting equipment known as vapour luminaires. Canadian General Electric, Northern Electric and Canadian Westinghouse submitted identical prices of $80.75 per unit. That I suggest is strong evidence of a combine.
In October, 1966, Winnipeg city council asked for tenders for rock salt, to be used on the streets during the winter months. Domtar Chemicals Limited and the Canadian Salt Company Limited both submitted tenders of $18.40 per ton. That I suggest was not an accident.
In September, 1967, the city of Winnipeg again called for tenders for street lighting luminaires. Tenders were obtained from Canadian General Electric, Northern Electric, Electric Power Accessories and C.L.M. Industries for 89.77 per fixture. These firms are so in tune that they can quote to within the cent-they are not out one penny. That again
DEBATES	7701
Combines Investigation Act was not an accident, and that again I suggest proves collusion.
The government ought to act. As I said earlier, I want to send no one to prison, yet something must be done to stop combining. Some companies have been convicted several times and have paid only nominal fines. Among those convicted one sees the biggest and most respected companies in this country. Abitibi Paper Company, which was convicted in 1960 and again in 1961, paid a fine of $15,000 both times. In 1960, when they were fined $15,000, their net profit was in the neighborhood of $15.5 million. In 1962, when they were convicted again, the net profit was similar. The St. Lawrence Corporation was fined $3,000 in 1958 and $20,000 in 1960. In 1959, the company's profit was over $6 million and in 1960 it was over $7 million. The Anglo-Canadian Pulp and Paper Mill was fined $3,000 in 1958 and $20,000 in 1960. It made a profit of more than $4| million in each of those years.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, a corporation does not decide to join with its ostensible competitors to raise prices and mulct the public by accident. People are involved in these decisions-directors and officers of the company. If I were to put on record the names of the directors of these companies and of some of the other companies it would be a Who's Who of Canadian business. Some of the most prominent members of the Rideau Club, across the street from this chamber, are among the officers of these companies. Some of the members of the Manitoba Club, the most prominent club in the city of Winnipeg are similarly placed. These are the leaders of industry and commerce. I submit they have set the ordinary citizens of Canada a very poor example by ignoring, evading and flouting the law.
I hope ordinary citizens do not follow the example set by these respectable and eminent gentlemen. I realize that what I am proposing is a tough way to try to deal with combines. I wish there were better ways. In fact I know there are better ways, but I have been waiting ever since 1962 when I came to this house for a government to recognize what has long been evident, namely that the anti-combines legislation is a farce and a failure, and bring in new legislation which would give force to a basic principle we all accept, namely that combines which raise prices to the consumers of Canada must be held in check.
March 15, 1968

Combines Investigation Act


Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, if our present law dealing with offences under the Combines Investigation Act is inadequate, it is my submission that the proposed amendments contained in Bill C-27 will only add to those inadequacies. After listening to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) I am certain that his proposals would only make matters worse.
The law as it stands does not say that those who violate the Combines Investigation Act shall be subject to a fine. It does not give one a licence to break the law, as it were. Under the present act the court may impose a sentence of up to two years imprisonment for a first or subsequent offence.


David Orlikow: Have the courts ever done so?


Harold Edwin Stafford: I say it is open to the courts to impose a sentence of up to two years imprisonment. It is left for the judges to decide, and I for one, having had experience in the courts of this province as well as in the courts of at least one other province, feel our judges are just as likely to give good decisions under the combines legislation as they are under any other of our statutes.
The bill before us would replace subsection (3) of section 31, making it mandatory to-
-punish a person who disobeys such prohibition or direction a second time by imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and, upon the third or subsequent such disobedience, by imprisonment for a term not less than two years.
To the penalty provisions in sections 32, 33 and 34 of the act, the hon. member would add:
-and upon a second offence to imprisonment for not less than one year and, upon a third or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than two years.
In other words, clauses 1 to 6 of the bill provide for mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment of one year for a second offence and of two years for a third or subsequent offence.
Few sections of our Criminal Code make such sentences mandatory. There are some, for offences such as theft from the mails. But there are reasons for laying down minimum sentences in such cases. Under the Combines Investigation Act these reasons do not exist. I feel the judge trying the case is in the best position to judge what sentence should be awarded, according to the merits of each case.


There are many reasons for believing that the amendments put forward in this bill will not work. For example, charges are usually laid against corporations-and corporations cannot be imprisoned. The provisions of Bill C-27 would have no effect on the corporations themselves. Moreover officials change, and those concerned in a second offence might well have had no connection whatever with a previous offence. And if the directors or officials of a corporation had changed a judge would hardly be able to sentence them at the time of a second offence, as outlined by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Then again, an offence by a company which had previously been convicted might involve an entirely different product line, and a court might not consider that an offence involving a different product line from that of the first offence did, in fact, amount to a second offence. It can easily be seen that many difficulties would arise and that the law might be much worse if these amendments were agreed to.
I take it we are assuming here that officials in these cases are to be charged, in addition to the corporations. Usually, as I say, it is the corporation which is charged, and before charges are laid the Minister of Justice or counsel approved by him recommends that certain actions be taken. In most cases it is the corporation which is the beneficiary of offences that take place and, as a result, if a prosecution is to be successful it might well be necessary to get evidence from directors or officials of the corporation. I am certain any crown attorney would be in a difficult position if he charged a director or an officer of a corporation, and then lost his case against both the director and the company. Remember that under the laws of this land one cannot force an individual to give evidence against himself.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
For example, Mr. Speaker, a prohibition order applies to a corporation and to all persons occupying positions in the corporation at the time of conviction. Positions in these corporations do change. The order does not apply to new officers. So here again is a specific reason why the amendments proposed by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North do not satisfy the very aims for which Bill No. C-27 was designed.
In the year 1960 the anti-trust provisions of the Criminal Code were consolidated into the
March 15. 1968
Combines Investigation Act. Therefore, all of the anti-combines legislation is now to be found in that act. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the onus is on the crown to prove the offence beyond any reasonable doubt. This onus, like any other criminal onus, naturally lies upon the crown attorney; and the burden lies on the crown throughout the trial. The accused corporation or officer must be proved guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, and is innocent until such guilt is proved.
Anti-combines legislation falls entirely within the scope of our criminal law. Under section 91A of the British North America Act power is conferred upon the parliament of Canada to enact laws in relation to criminal acts. Any departure from the purely criminal nature of the legislation would undoubtedly be held ultra vires.
Clause 7 of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is a provision for double damages on conviction and is intended to avoid infringement of provincial legislation. The clause does not confer any civil right of action for a breach of such right. In a Supreme Court of Canada case, Direct Lumber Company Limited v. Western Plywood Company Limited, which is reported in 1962, Supreme Court Reports at page 646, it was held that the then Criminal Code section 411 (l)(c) relating to conspiracy in restraint of trade, and section 412(l)(a) and section 412(2) relating to price discrimination, give no cause of action in damages to a person alleging a breach of these sections by another.
Presumably, Mr. Speaker, the same holds true for the successor provisions of the code, sections 32(l)(b) and section 33A(l)(a) and subsection (2) respectively, and the other paragraphs of these provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. There may, however, be a right of action for common law conspiracy and also a right of action in Quebec under the civil law; but these points were not dealt with by the court.
The analogy to section 159 of the Excise Act-not section 158 as stated in the explanatory notes-is not an apt one. Section 159 refers to recovering double the amount of the excise duty and licence fee which should have been paid, a definite and readily ascertainable amount. In the present state of the law, therefore, the practicability of the clause proposed in the bill is open to question.
For example, Mr. Speaker, 150 or 200 years ago, in the days of the common informer, the solicitor general and the informant would 27053-485
Combines Investigation Act split the fine. This is alien to the provisions of our present criminal law; and it is alien to our whole system of justice. The penalty emanating from our criminal law is based on a civil action, which seems highly irregular.
If I may return to clause 7, I noticed an old act to be found in the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1960, volume 5, which first appeared in the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1897, concerning monopolies and the dispensation of penal laws. According to section 4 of this act, which is the penalty section, a person may recover three times as much as the damages he sustained. Personally I have never known the provisions of this act to be invoked or heard of any charges being laid under the act; but perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North would like to scrutinize its provisions. Possibly it would satisfy his purpose as well as that of the amendment he has in mind.
The last clause of this particular bill, clause 8, deals with the personal liability of corporation officers and agents. It reads as follows:
Where a corporation commits an act contrary to a provision of this act or fails or neglects to comply with any such provision or a prohibition or direction made thereunder, every one who, being a director, manager, or officer of such corporation, or acting on its behalf, authorizes, orders, does, fails or neglects to do, assents to or acquiesces in such act, failure or neglect, or any element of such act, failure or neglect, is guilty of that offence personally and jointly with the corporation.
As the explanatory note states, Mr. Speaker, the principle of this provision is already contained in section 38(e)-this should be section 38(3)-which applies to refusal to permit entry of premises and examination of documents, and failure to file returns of information. This section was first enacted as part of section 22(1) of the combines and fair prices act of 1919. In similar form it has been included in the present Combines Investigation Act since 1923. There does not appear to have been any debate whatever on the provision, and therefore there is no indication why it was made applicable to the two foregoing provisions only, and not to others of a similar nature, such as failure to make and submit affidavits when required.
Since a corporation can act only through its directors, officers and officials there might be some doubt as to whether an officer could be prosecuted personally for an offence committed by the corporation, if it were not for section 21 of the Criminal Code concerning aiding and abetting. In view of this section,

March 15, 1968

Combines Investigation Act Mr. Speaker, there seems to be no doubt that a prosecution would lie against an officer who participated in an offence by the corporation; and even in the absence of such a section there would seem to be no doubt that he could be prosecuted for conspiracy.
A number of acts, such as the Bankruptcy Act, contain a provision to the effect that where an offence against an act has been committed by a corporation every officer, director or agent of the corporation who directed, authorized, condoned or participated in the commission of the offence is liable as if he had personally committed the offence. The Bankruptcy Act, section 162, is the relevant provision. In view of section 21 of the Criminal Code, such provision would appear to be redundant.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The necessity for such a provision therefore would seem to be highly questionable. The fact is that such a provision, applicable to certain enforcement provisions, has been in the act so long that it is difficult to take too firm a position. My submission is that when the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) sets out the many different exemptions which he feels should be offences he is misconstruing the whole reason for this act. I feel there is absolutely no reason to think that the judges of our nation cannot handle these cases, like any other case. I see no reason why any clause in Bill No. C-27 should be incorporated as an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act of this country. There seems to be little reason why Bill C-27 should become law. This bill violates the whole philosophy of the anti-combines legislation in this country. The late Chief Justice Duff summed up the philosophy of the combines legislation as follows:
The enactment before us I have no doubt was passed for the protection of the specific public interest in free competition ... This protection is afforded by stamping with illegality agreements which, when carried into effect, prevent or lessen competition unduly and making such agreements punishable offences, and, as the enactment is aimed at protecting the public interest in free competition, it is from that point of view that the question must be considered whether or not the prevention or lessening agreed upon will be undue.


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafoniaine: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) during the present session and in previous ones, is to provide for

more severe penalties in the legislation concerning combines and monopolies, by imposing a minimum of one year of imprisonment for the first repetition of an offence, and a minimum of two years for further offences.
After listening to the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who is reputedly a quiet man, one would be inclined to think that businessmen and industrialists, in short, all those who constitute a very important part of our society, are potential criminals, and that they should be dealt with very severely, because the companies they manage break the laws relating to combines and monopolies.
I doubt that that is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North has in mind, in introducing this bill. But I wonder if he would still be of the same opinion if a bill were to be introduced today whereby workers or union leaders, in a labour union conflict, at the first repetition of an offence, were of necessity to be imprisoned because they had participated in a fight or had neglected-this applies especially to union leaders-to abide by the decision of an arbitration or labour relations board. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North would rise immediately against such a punishment; he would shake his first and say that parliament arrogates to itself the right to punish the worker too severely; and I should agree with him wholeheartedly.
More and more, we are moving away from minimum penalties, and ever fewer minimum obligations are imposed upon the intelligence of our judges and presiding court officers, so that our courts might have more latitude in imposing sentences. That is in line with the new justice policy and I believe in it, because human justice is increasingly moving away from the punitive aspect.


David Orlikow: Essentially for the rich. [Translation]


Mr. Lachance:: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, as mentioned a moment ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, that the legislator protects the rich at the expense of the poor.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, human justice gets farther and farther away from sentences involving imprisonment penalties. We give less importance to the punitive aspect of a sentence to consider its educational value.
I think that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre may not have understood me quite well or did not perhaps understand my
March 15, 1968	COMMONS
point when he claimed that human justice protected the rich rather than the poor.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that minimum penalties restrict the freedom needed by judges and presiding court officers.
I take advantage of the fact that this bill refers to minimum jail terms of one year and two years to say again what I have said in the past to the effect that we must make an effort to improve our penitentiary system and to emphasize, in particular, the rehabilitation of prisoners.
At the risk of being called to order, Mr. Speaker, as we are speaking of prison and imprisonment, I think that further efforts should be made to set up an automatic remission system, and open the doors of the public service to those who, after leaving the penitentiary, show goodwill and deserve encouragement.
That the fines should be higher, Mr. Speaker, I am for it. I often noticed that in the case of actions taken under the combines monopolies legislation, fines were not high enough. When companies have a gross yearly production amounting to millions of dollars-as high as $50 million often-I am always surprised to notice that fines are sometimes only $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he says that the fines are not in proportion to the offence committed.
However, I do not agree with him when he says that, at the first relapse, the directors of the companies should be sentenced to prison because, naturally, corporations cannot be sent to prison.
I would agree, however, that in addition to higher fines, an agency should be created in order to keep an eye on corporations which have been prosecuted and found guilty. It would evidently be a government agency and I think that it would be in order if it would come under the jurisdiction of the department dealing with combines and monopolies.
As soon as some individuals or the directors of a company would have been found guilty, they would be subject to a control, at their own expense, during a specific period from six months to a year, according to circumstances, or even more if necessary. At any rate, that period of time would be determined by the court or by the director of the combines and monopolies board. I feel that we could thus avoid relapses and that the public would be protected a lot better.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that other hon. members want to say a few words on this question. Therefore, I shall say no more, but I
DEBATES	7705
Combines Investigation Act think I must add that it might be a good thing to publish in the Canada Gazette the names of the companies that have been found guilty. Then, these people would have to think twice, and if they repeated the offence two or three times, the government would be in a position, when they applied for a new charter, to make investigations and turn them down.
This concludes the few remarks I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker. I know that other hon. members want to take part in the debate, but before sitting down, I must say that I am not against the principle of increasing fines, but I am against a prison sentence on first repetition of the offence.


Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes left I should like to say how pleased we are on this side of the house that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), speaking we trust on behalf of his party, introduced legislation which apparently is designed or is intended to increase free competition in this country. All of us on this side of the house certainly think that is a highly laudable purpose, although we are a little surprised to see the hon. member for Winnipeg North taking this particular method of achieving that purpose.
Recent economic council reports, and the more recent Watkins report, indicate how important effective competition is in achieving our basic economic objectives, which are of course the achievement of a high rate of economic growth, full employment and price stability. The Watkins report and the recent reports of the economic council also indicate that, in spite of the combines legislation which has been on our books now for many years, and in spite of the careful enforcement of that legislation by able officials, effective competition has not yet been achieved through this criminal legislation.
Basically I think the history of the legislation indicates quite clearly that effective competition cannot be achieved by criminal legislation. That is the basic problem in trying to modify the Combines Investigation Act to force businessmen to compete. For this reason the question of achieving effective competition, and the provisions of the combines act, have been referred to the economic council for consideration. Certainly the imposition of mandatory prison terms upon individuals will not have the desired effect. This is particularly true because the proposed amendment
March 15, 1968

Combines Investigation Act embodied in Bill No. C-27 is directed only at increasing the punishment imposed on individuals, and does not refer at all to corporations, which are the chief beneficiaries of restrictions upon competition.
May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for consideration of private members business has now expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
2c.

[Stage Direction]
March 15. 1968


[Stage Direction]
March, 1968.
The report which follows is a summary of the progress being made in the development of bilingualism in the public service of Canada, and on the steps being taken by the government toward implementation of the report of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism.
The policy and program of the government on the subject of bilingualism have been developing progressively for a number of years. In 1963, at about the same time as the royal commission on this subject was established, an interdepartmental committee of senior officials was also formed with the responsibility of proposing measures to promote the development of bilingualism in the public service.
On April 6th, 1966, the Prime Minister announced the federal government's policy in this regard in a statement in the House of Commons. In this statement he announced that "The government hopes and expects that, within a reasonable period of years, a state of affairs in the public service will be reached whereby communications with the public will normally be in either official language having regard to the person being served; and a climate will be created in which public servants from both language groups will work together toward common goals, using their own language and applying their respective cultural values, but each fully understanding and appreciating those of the other".
It was emphasized that bilingualism would be introduced gradually over a period of years in a manner that will not lead to injustice or misunderstanding.
At the same time the Prime Minister announced a number of specific programs in this field. Without going into detail it might be mentioned that the first public service language school opened in February 1964 with 42 students and 4 language teachers; now over 5,000 public servants are engaged in second language training, and the service has over 200 teachers.
Second, the intention was stated to accelerate the recruitment of promising candidates
who are proficient in both languages. This acceleration has taken place both at the university graduate level and also as applied to persons with some years of experience. This is reflected in the fact that, whereas in 1965 only 13.3 per cent of the university graduates recruited in the administrative and foreign service careers were French speaking, in 1967 on the other hand 270 out of 860 or 34.8 per cent had French as their mother tongue.
Third, it was announced that, beginning in 1967, reasonable proficiency in the two official languages or willingness to acquire it within a prescribed period of time would become an element of merit in the selection of university graduates recruited for administrative trainee positions where the need for bilingualism exists. This procedure is in effect.
Fourth, the government inaugurated the bicultural development program, under which 20 English speaking civil servants from the most senior categories are selected each year to spend a twelve month period with their families, in Quebec city, while 10 French speaking civil servants and their families spend a similar period in Toronto, to study the other official language and gain an understanding of the cultural values of the group they are visiting. This program enjoys the full support of the Universities of Laval, Toronto and York. In 1966-67, because of the shortness of time available for making arrangements, 8 officials and their families went to Quebec and one to Toronto. In 196768 a full quota of 20 officials and their families are in Quebec and 10 in Toronto for the current program. Among this year's group are the secretary to the cabinet, the president of Defence Construction Limited and other very senior officials.
It is easy to imagine the importance to the public service-its character and its functioning-of the introduction at the most senior levels over the next few years of approximately one hundred and fifty bilingual officials well acquainted with the culture of the two main linguistic groups. And it is just as easy for anyone who has lived in, or even only visited, the city of Ottawa to visualize the contribution that will be made by these
[Stage Direction]
March 15, 1968
one hundred and fifty families to changing the capital of the country into a city which truly reflects the bilingual and bicultural character of confederation.
The fifth of the programs relates to the introduction of a higher rate of pay in respect of those clerical and secretarial positions where there is a requirement for a knowledge of both languages and where both are actually used. A salary differential of 7 per cent for secretaries, stenographers and typists in this category was introduced effective 1 October, 1966. The Public Service Commission is also analyzing its possible application to certain clerical grades. It will be appreciated that these grades are of much greater diversity and complexity. When this study has been completed the government will consider ways and means of applying this policy to the clerical positions affected.
This policy of special payment for special language qualification in positions where this is desirable will of course be implemented in a way which will be fair to those who do not have such skills.
Sixth, the special secretariat on bilingualism has been in full operation during the past year. It works in close consultation with the Public Service Commission, the Treasury Board staff and all deputy ministers and heads of agencies in promoting the coordinated and progressive implementation of the government's policy and program regarding bilingualism in the public service. A number of interdepartmental committees have been established to pursue particular aspects of the question of bilingualism. In each department or agency an official has been designated as responsible for the bilingualism program in that organization, and a fulltime adviser on bilingualism has been appointed in a number of cases.
On December 5,	1967 the government
received the report of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. This report deals with the status of the two languages, not only within the public service, but also generally in Canada. It contains 14 recommendations, some relating to the federal jurisdiction, others to provincial jurisdictions, several involving both federal and provincial jurisdictions and two concerning constitutional change.
The report accepts as a guiding principle "the recognition of both official languages, in law and in practice, wherever the minority is numerous enough to be viable as a group". The federal government fully accepts this
principle. This does not mean of course that the government will expect or require Canadians generally to become bilingual-the principle relates, not to any presumed obligation to learn the other language, however commendable that might be in terms of general education, but to the right of a citizen of either language to deal with public authorities in that language and to be understood. The goal is to reconcile a maximum of justice for official language minorities with a minimum of obligation for the official language majorities.
At the recent constitutional conference held from February 5 to 7, the implementation of the royal commission's report was one of the principal subjects of discussion. In the federal government's statement of policy announced at that time it was stated that
"the government of Canada for its part proposes to recommend to parliament, at its next session, an official languages bill that will formally declare English and French to be "the official languages of the parliament of Canada, of the federal courts, of the federal government, and of the federal administration". We also propose to appoint under the authority of that act "a commissioner of official languages charged with ensuring respect for the status of French and English in Canada."
To this end a plan of action is now being prepared to bring into full realization the objectives which have been set by the royal commission for the government of Canada, objectives which the government welcomes and accepts.
With regard to those recommendations depending upon action by the provincial governments, the government has also announced that "if they do accept them, as we hope they will, the government of Canada will be prepared to help in the implementation of these proposals if we are asked to do so. We will be glad to join with provincial governments in devising the methods by which our assistance could be made most effective."
It will be recalled that, following a very full discussion of the matter, the constitutional conference recorded the consensus reached on language rights. This important statement, which carried the unanimous support of the leaders of the ten provinces as well as the federal government, covered three cardinal points:
"1. Recognition by this conference that, as proposed by the royal commission on
March 15. 1988	COMMONS DEBATES	7709
bilingualism and biculturalism and as a matter of equity, French speaking Canadians outside of Quebec should have the same rights as English speaking Canadians in Quebec.
2.	Recognition, as the royal commission on
bilingualism and biculturalism has recommended, of the desirability of proceeding by governmental action as speedily as possible, in ways most appropriate in each province and without dimishing existing rights, recognized by law or usage.
3.	Establishment of a special committee to
examine the report of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism and the views expressed at this conference on the report, and on other matters relating to language rights and their effective provision in practice, and to consult on methods of implementation, including the nature of possible federal assistance, and on the form and the method of constitutional amendment."
The federal government is proceeding with its plans for the implementation of the report. A group of federal officials are studying in detail the steps that would be involved, and the nature of the provisions that would be required in an official languages bill. It is planned to have such a bill ready for introduction early in the next session of parliament.
The federal government's program on bilingualism will be designed to ensure equality of the two languages with respect to the federal parliament; the Supreme Court of Canada and all courts established by parliament; federal statutes, important regulations and documents of general interest; the armed forces; embassies and offices of federal departments and agencies abroad; international agreements and agreements with the provinces; the federal administration in Ottawa; and in appropriate offices of departments and crown corporations across the country, particularly immigration and customs offices at all ports, and important transportation terminals.
These extensive changes will not occur spontaneously or instantly upon the passing of a statute: they will involve a complicated
process of "tooling up" that will inevitably take some time to complete. The government, however, is determined to proceed as quickly as possible with the full implementation of these measures.
Mention should also be made of one further recommendation of the royal commission, which proposes that the two languages should have full equality of status throughout the capital area of Canada, and "that the two provincial governments concerned and the federal government should discuss and negotiate the necessary measures". The federal government strongly endorses this recommendation, and indeed a preparatory committee on the capital region of Canada, comprising officials of the three governments, had been established prior to the constitutional conference. The members of that conference noted that this tripartite study was under way, and recorded their unanimous concurrence. Since the conference, the preparatory committee has held a further all-day meeting to discuss the nature of possible joint arrangements for the further development of the capital region and encouraging progress is being made.
All of the measures in volume I of the royal commission's report are concerned with the status of English and French as official languages. This is only one out of several aspects of the questions of bilingualism and biculturalism. The royal commission will be submitting additional reports on other aspects in the months ahead, and will doubtless offer further recommendations that may be at least as significant as the present group of proposals.
Be that as it may, the current proposals of the commission are of very great importance. The commission describes them as comprising "a charter founded upon the concept of equal partnership". Some of them are complex and will take some time to work out fully. However, the federal government is anxious to give effect as rapidly as possible to those measures that lie wholly or partly within federal jurisdiction. It will welcome similar action by the provinces in their field and will be happy to discuss ways in which it may assist provinces in achieving the full accomplishment of the commission's recommendations.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 18, 1968