1969-02-24

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 1969, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the supplementary estimates my colleague the government house leader is prepared to make a motion to refer these final supplementary estimates to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. But after consultation I understand we will defer making this motion until later this day.
While I am on my feet I would like to table copies in English and in French of the booklets illustrating the new form in which the estimates will henceforth be prepared. I assume these will be distributed in the usual way to hon. members and I hope they will be of use to them in their study of the current estimates to which they relate in the various committees.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) How many individuals have been employed on a contract basis by the Department of
Manpower and Immigration since the Department was established (b) what is the name and qualification of each person who has been employed under each individual contract since the Department was established (c) what has been the daily, weekly, monthly or annual salary for each person working under a contract for the Department (d) how much per diem did the Department of Manpower and Immigration pay for those individuals under contract while (i) in travel status (ii) at headquarters?
2.	How many individuals are now working under contract for the Department of Manpower and Immigration and what specific Branch or Branches in the Department are they assigned to?
3.	Could the work performed by individuals under contract be performed by the regular staff of the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
4.	How are individuals employed under contract by the Department of Manpower and Immigration being hired (a) by the Public Service Commission (b) by the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
5.	What desirable qualifications are required for those positions and what is the criterion used in making the selection in each case?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. (a) 12; (b) See
Appendix "A"; (c) See Appendix "A"; (d) (i) $16,987.12; (ii) nil.
2.	Six. All are assigned to the Staff Training and Development Task Force.
3.	No.
4.	(a) No; (b) yes.
5.	There are no desirable qualifications specified for these positions. The criterion used in making the selection in each case includes the following essential qualifications: a Bachelor's Degree in education, psychology, social work or business administration; five or more years experience in the field of staff training and development at a senior level; and the ability to manage, communicate and maintain effective interpersonal relations.
Questions

February 24, I9S9
Appendix "A"
Department of Manpower and Immigration Individuals Employed on a Contract Basis Since Department was Established-January 1, 1966
Service Contracts Under TB 659318 and TB 670357 for 1967/1968
(b) Name	Qualification	(c) Annual Salary $Bissonnette, E.	Professional Consultant	13,000Bollen, J.	Training Specialist	19,000Brooker, W. M. A.	Training Consultant	15,000Dewis, G.	Professional Consultant	14,500Fletcher, A.	Senior Technical Writer	14,000Freisen, P. A.	Senior Technical Writer	13,500McLean, C. (Miss)	Professional Consultant	12,000Nault, C. (Mrs.)	Professional Consultant	13,000Stevens, W. R.	Regional Training Manager	18,000Thibodeau, G. H.	Regional Training Manager	18,000Whitney, R. C.	Regional Training Manager	18,000Zeitoun, L.	Professional Consultant	15,000
Note: Per diem amount (Applicable to the above contracts) 1. In Travel Status: In Canada $25; Outside Canada $32. 2. At Headquarters: Nil.


REFERENDUM ON CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
Mr. Matte: 1.	Is it the government's intention to hold a referendum on the constitutional question and, if not, for what reasons?
2.	If the government intends to hold such a referendum, when will it be held?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: 1. The government has no present intention of holding, and indeed can see no reason to hold, a referendum on the Constitution at this time.
2. Not applicable.


INFORMATIONAL AND CULTURAL TELEVISION
Mr. Robinson: Is the federal government planning, in the public television field, for a system of informational and cultural programming to acquaint the Canadian public with the works of governmental departments and the cultural heritage of Canada?


Mr. Robert Sianbury (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State):: Not at present, but films produced by the National Film Board, touching these subject areas, have been

shown on television, and other films of a similar kind are available.


TUPPER POINT, N.S.-GULF OIL REFINERY
Mr. Fortin: Has the Canadian Government studied a request by British American Oil to borrow a certain amount of money to enable its subsidiary Gulf Oil Corp. to construct a new refinery at Tupper Point, Nova Scotia and, If so (a) what is the amount requested (b) what is the proposed rate of interest (c) what are the suggested terms for repayment?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: By an agreement signed on April 17, 1968 on behalf of the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia, Cape Breton Development Corporation and The British American Oil Company Limited, a grant of $4.5 million ($2.5 million from federal and $2.0 million from provincial funds) was made available towards the cost of an oil dock and ancillary facilities, estimated to cost $8.4 million, at the Point Tupper, Nova Scotia, site of the British American Oil Company (now Gulf Canada Limited) refinery currently under construction. The federal government is also
February 24, 1969

financing the balance of the cost of the dock and will lease it to the company for 25 years at an annual rental which will amortize the cost of the dock, less $4.5 million, plus interest at the government rate. Under the terms of the agreement, title to the dock will be conveyed to the company at the end of the lease period.


CAR ALLOWANCE TO MINISTERS
Mr. Coates: 1.	In view of the answer received to Question No. 321, is it the intention of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Ministers who have a chauffeur service provided to return the $2,000 car allowance to the federal Treasury?
2.	Are Cabinet Ministers who have a chauffeur service provided required to make payments to the federal Treasury for the maintenance of vehicles used and, if so, how much has each Cabinet Minister paid out in the maintenance costs?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: 1 and
2. No Minister has been provided with a chauffeur-driven vehicle for his personal use. As was stated in the reply to Question 321, the 1968-69 estimates provide funds for a chauffered motor vehicle which is available to the Prime Minister during the performance of many of his official dutys, although he frequently prefers to drive his own car. In addition, as was stated in the same reply, some Ministers in the course of performing their official duties are occasionally driven in departmental cars or by departmental employees.


C.B.C. PROGRAM &quot;AIR OF DEATH&quot;
Mr. Knowles (Norfolk -: Haldimand):
1.	With regard to the CBC program, "Air of Death", will the CBC study the special report of a three-man committee appointed by the Government of Ontario to investigate the allegations in the program?
2.	Has any study been made, or will such be made, as to whether the program was a balanced presentation?
3.	Did those preparing the program interview the local Medical Officer of Health or other doctors as to actual conditions of health of patients and, if so, how much, if any, use was made of such in the program?
4.	(a) Did the program state that cattle had suffered "falling teeth" and that hundreds of cattle had died (b) on whose farm or farms did such take place?
Questions
5.	Did the program state that people were suffering from fluoride poisoning and, if so, is such statement backed by medical evidence?
6.	Are there any plans to present another program to meet the criticism directed at "Air of Death"?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. Yes. A thorough study is being conducted.
2.	Yes. The program has been the subject of intensive study within the Corporation.
3.	An attempt was made to contact the Medical Officer of Health but he was not available at the time. An interview was conducted with Dr. W. G. Green, family physician to some of the participants in the program. This interview was not used because of poor broadcast quality of the voice track but information contained in the interview was used as background information in preparation of the script for the program.
4.	(a) Yes. One of the farmers interviewed, Mr. Ted Boorsma, shown on camera with one of his cattle, referred to stains on the teeth and that sometimes the teeth fall out. Two additional references to loss of teeth appeared in the script of the program, based on statements of farmers in the Port Maitland area.
4.	(b) Spokesmen for the local air pollution committee advised members of the C.B.C. production crew that "falling teeth" took place on the farms of Messrs. Boorsma and McAlonan and others. The committee also estimated that over a thousand cattle had contracted fluorosis and that many of these had died. The committee did not specify the name of the farmers on whose farms these cattle had died. However, the names of farmers compensated for fluoride damage, amounting to a total of $102,831.64, appear in the appendix of the report of the Ontario Government committee of inquiry into pollution (the Hall Committee). It is stated in the body of this report on pages 118 and 119, that the number of cattle compensated for was, in 1965-198 head, in 1966-125 head. The report does not specify the number compensated for in 1967.
A few months before "Air of Death" telecast of October 22, 1967, the Minister of Health for the Province of Ontario made the following statement in the legislature (on May 8, 1967): "In 1965 some 207 livestock were judged to have fluorosis. The figures for 1966 have not been completed as yet. To the best of our knowledge all cattle with fluorosis have been disposed of. We have no record of cattle being destroyed for other reasons." (Page 3116,

February 24, 1969
Questions
official report, Legislature of Ontario debates, May 8, 1967).
5.	Dr. George L. Waldbott, M.D., F.A.C.P., F.A.C.A., F.A.A.A., F.A.C.C.P., a specialist in allergic diseases, interviewed in the program, was introduced as having found that two farmers seemed to be suffering from fluoride intoxication. After describing the symptoms he found in the two patients he stated that first of all they should be hospitalized and more thorough and conclusive tests be carried out. Dr. Waldbott was asked "What's going to happen to these people who have fluoride poisoning if something isn't done for them?" He gave the opinion that if the persons affected were taken out of their surroundings the disease would clear up by itself but, if they continued to live in the area, eventually more serious damage would result.
6.	No. Research is continuing on the general subject.


WORKING LANGUAGE IN CABINET MEETINGS
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	What is the working language of (a) meetings of the Cabinet (b) meetings of Committees of Cabinet (c) the Office of the Prime Minister (d) the offices of the Privy Council?
2.	Is the Cabinet Room of the Privy Council equipped with facilities for simultaneous translation and, if so, is this equipment used at all meetings as a matter of routine?
3.	If the Cabinet Room is not so equipped, in what manner may unilingual Members of the Cabinet participate in deliberations of the Cabinet?
4.	Is Mr. C. J. Mackenzie, Secretary General of National Museums of Canada, Department of the Secretary of State, rated as fully bilingual by his department or by the Public Service Commission?


James Edgar Walker: 1. (a) and (b); 2 and
3.	All aspects of proceedings within the Cabinet and Cabinet Committees have always been regarded as confidential and subject to the oath of secrecy. It would not be in the public interest to depart from this well established constitutional position; (c) and (d) Both English and French are working languages in the office of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council Office and any officer may use the language of his choice.
4.	Mr. Mackenzie, who is not fully bilingual, is improving his ability to speak French through language training courses given by the Public Service Commission. According to the Commission, Mr. Mackenzie is already well able to write and understand French to

the extent required for him to perform his functions.


PROVINCIAL DEBT
Mr. Matte: 1.	What was the debt of each province at the time of Confederation in 1867?
2.	What is the present debt of each of these provinces?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.	In 1867 only Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the Province of Canada (divided into the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec by the
B.N.A. Act of 1867) joined together to form Confederation. With the exception of Newfoundland, the other provinces did not exist as political entities at that time. The portion of the total debt of the Province of Canada attributable to each of Ontario and Quebec has not been established. The net debt of each of the three provinces on the eve of Confederation, June 30, 1867, was $9.0 million, $7.8 million and $74.4 million respectively for the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Canada.
2.	The Provincial Public Accounts show the debt of each province. However, because the provinces' accounts are not all on the same basis, these figures are not easily comparable from province to province. The latest available comparative figures can be found in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics Publication, Provincial Government Finance. As of March 31, 1965, the total direct and indirect debt, less sinking funds, for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario respectively were approximately $330,887,000; $365,322,000; $3,145,783,000 and $3,981,994,000.


APPOINTMENT OF INFORMATION OFFICERS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many appointments to the Public Service in the classifications Information Officer 4 and 5 have been made since January 1, 1968, to date?
2 Were these appointments, if any, made from outside the Public Service or by promotion within it?
3.	What are the names of those appointed and to what positions were they appointed?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
1.	14.
2.	Six from outside the Public Service; eight from within the Public Service.
February 24, 1969

Questions
3.
Appointed as IS/4 *Mr. Dwight E. Dolan Mr. Alan H. Donnelly Mr. Darrell Eagles Mr. Keith V. D. Gardner *Mr. Denis J. Orchard *Mr. Jean-Louis Delorimier Mr. Douglas A. Shenstone *Mr. Benjamin C. Ward Mr. Harry M. Fumiss
Appointed as IS/5 '''Mr. Paul Boudreau *Mr. J. Reeves Haggan Mr. Ken A. Prittie Mr. Kenneth F. White Mr. Stanley K. Westall
* Appointed from outside the Public Service.


CUMBERLAND-COLCHESTER NORTH POST OFFICE CLOSURES
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many post offices have been closed since June 25, 1968, in the constituency of Cumberland-Colchester North?
2.	What are the sites of the closures that have taken place to date?
3 Are further post office closures contemplated in the present fiscal year and, if so, what are the sites of the proposed closures?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	In accordance with the policy to close smaller Revenue Post Offices, it has been decided to close the following offices: Londonderry Station; Upper Economy; Wentworth Centre; Head of Amherst; Old Barns; Thomson Station; Tidnish.
It is not expected that these offices will be closed before the coming Spring.
Further studies are being conducted with a view to closing additional Post Offices in this constituency within the closing program criteria but no decision has been made on any particular case as yet.


PENITENTIARY SERVICE AUSTERITY PROGRAM
Mr. Coates: 1. Does the Canadian Penitentiary Service have an austerity program in effect insofar as employment of new staff is concerned?
Department
Indian Affairs and Northern Dev.
Finance
Indian Affairs and Northern Dev.
Trade and Commerce Finance
Trade and Commerce Energy, Mines and Resources Canadian Transport Commission National Revenue (Taxation)
Department
External Affairs
External Affairs
Trade and Commerce
Dominion Bureau of Statistics
Canadian International Development Agency
2.	If such an austerity program is in effect, has it had an adverse effect on the operation of penal institutions in the Maritime Provinces?
3.	How many new employees were taken on strength in the Maritime Provinces in the last fiscal year?
4.	How many additional employees were taken on strength in each of the fiscal years from 1963 to 1967 in the Maritime Provinces?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: 1.
Yes.
2.	No.
3.	43.
4.
Fiscal Year	Number
1963/64	17
1964/65	64
1965/66	93
1966/67	119


SPRINGHILL, N.S., YOUNG OFFENDERS INSTITUTION
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the total employee and inmate strength at the Young Offenders Penal Institution in Spring-hill at the present time?
2.	On what date will this penal institution be fully operational?


George James McIlraith: 1.
Medium Security Institution Strength (January 31, 1969): Employees, 192. Inmates being gradually admitted until Institution reaches full capacity. Present inmate population, 126.
2. This institution will be fully operational approximately July 1, 1969.

February 24, 1969
Questions
LOSS OF OLD AGS SECURITY CHEQUES	MONTMAGNY, QUE., HEAVY WATER PLANT


Mr. Godin: 1.	During the months of October, November and December 1968, were any Old Age Security cheques lost prior to their delivery?
2.	If so, for each month and by province, how many Old Age Security pensioners eventually received duplicates of such cheques?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Yes.
2.
Province	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.Newfoundland	4	5	4Prince Edward Island	2	2	7Nova Scotia	6	10	2New Brunswick	6	14	14Quebec	86	142	146Ontario	99	107	30Manitoba	10	9	9Saskatchewan	8	7	2Alberta	16	16	13British Columbia	67	50	31304	362	258


CIVIL DEFENCE ADMINISTRATION COSTS
Mr. Mather: 1.	What, in dollars, was the federal cost of Civil Defence administration and operations in 1967 and 1968?
2.	What, in dollars, was the same cost during the years, 1957-1968?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: In so
far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, the Canadian Armed Forces' contribution to the Canadian Civil Defence program is only one of many activities in which military personnel participate. The personnel, equipment, facilities and other resources which would be allocated to that activity should the need arise, are employed in the course of any given fiscal year on other tasks or functions. Therefore, it is not possible to isolate costs which could be specifically assigned to civil defence.
In so far as the Emergency Measures' Organization is concerned, the reply is as follows: 1. $26,125,700.
2. $94,064,337.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did the government have a study made concerning the possibility of establishing a heavy water plant to be located in the vicinity of the City of Montmagny or in the surrounding region and, if so, what was the result of the study?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: In so far as
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is concerned, no.


CUMBERLAND-COLCHESTER NORTH PROJECTS
Mr. Coates: What projects will be carried out in the constituency of Cumberland-Colchester North by the Harbours and Rivers Division of the Department of Public Works in the fiscal year 1969-70, at what locations and at what estimated cost to the federal Treasury?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Diligent River:	Barricade; Five
Islands: Wharf repairs; Joggins: Wharf repairs; Northport: Wharf repairs; Pugwash: Paving, Dredging by departmental plant; Wallace: Derricks.
It is not customary to give the estimated cost of a project before tenders are called.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND POST OFFICE CLOSURES
Mr. MacLean: How many rural post offices have been closed in Prince Edward Island in each of the last five years?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1964, none; 1965, 3; 1966, 6; 1967, 3; 1968, 8.


NEWFOUNDLAND-POLLUTION AT LONG HARBOUR
Mr. Harding: 1.	What are the results of the investigation of the Fisheries Department into the dead fish discovered near the plant of Electric Reduction Company of Canada Ltd. at Long Harbour, Placentia Bay?
2.	Was Jthe main cause for the dead fish, waste material being pumped into the harbour by the above plant?
3.	If so, what action is the government considering in order to eliminate this pollution?
February 24, 1969


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries):: 1. There was an accidental brief overflow in the new Electric Reduction Company of Canada plant during the start up, from a system containing water which may be contaminated with fluorine and phosphorus. This system is normally partially closed. Officials assured the Department that such an occurrence would not take place in normal operation. A localized fish kill occurred.
2.	This appears by virtue of coincidence of timing of fish kill and overflow to have been the case, but analyses of dead fish have not detected sufficient excessive toxic dosages to confirm this without doubt.
3.	A program of regular water samples from the outfall area was immediately instituted to monitor for possible contamination, and bottom organisms near the outfall have been inspected by Departmental scuba divers. There have been no indications of a recurrence of excessive pollution.


EMBASSIES AND CONSULATES IN CANADA
Mr. Robinson: How many Embassies and/or Consulates are there in Canada, what countries are represented and where is each Embassy and/or Consulate located?


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: There are 100 countries which have diplomatic representatives accredited to Canada. 63 of these are resident in Ottawa and 37 with dual accreditation are resident in Washington or New York. 80 of the missions are Embassies and 20 are Commonwealth High Commissions. There are also 283 consular and trade offices in various cities across Canada. Addresses are listed in the publication "Representatives of Other Countries in Canada" prepared by the Department of External Affairs.


OVERPAYMENTS ON TETRACYCLINE SALES
Mr. McGraih: 1.	Is there any evidence of price-fixing in Canada on the part of those drug firms making tetracycline and, if so, is the federal government considering laying charges to recover overpayments, as recently happened in the United States to the tune of 120 million dollars?
2.	Has the Minister consulted with authorities of the United States Government on this question, with regard to other drugs which may be subject to price-fixing?
Questions


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. On January 23, 1968 (unrevised Hansard, p. 5844) the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs informed the House that material obtained by the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act in the general inquiry under section 42 of the Act concerning the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs did not indicate the existence of an arrangement to fix prices of antibiotic drugs among Canadian companies. He also stated that the Director was in touch with the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice to ascertain whether any disclosures in their criminal proceedings under U.S. legislation indicate there might be a similar situation with respect to Canadian operations. The Director advises that after communicating with the United States authorities he was satisfied there was no reason to believe an offence had taken place in Canada. It should be added that the actions to recover overpayments in the United States are civil actions for damages laid by public and private purchasers from the drug manufacturers.
2. Apart from the consultation of the Director with the United States Antitrust Division, there have been no further communications.


TORONTO-BELL TELEPHONE-CABLE TV COLLUSION
Mr. Burton: 1.	Is the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs conducting an investigation into a case of apparent collusion between Bell Telephone Company and 5 cable TV companies in the Toronto area?
2. If so, what are the terms of reference for the investigation and by whom is it being conducted?
3.	Is the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs conducting an investigation into the affairs of Bell Telephone Company and one of its subsidiaries Northern Electric Company?
4.	If so, what are the terms of reference for the investigation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. In reply to questions asking whether inquiries have been instituted under the Combines Investigation Act, the general practice is that no information is given out as to whether a particular inquiry has been or is being pursued with respect to a particular group of companies or individuals unless and until a report is published.
2. See answer to 1.

February 24, 1969
Questions
3.	Yes. An inquiry is being conducted under the Combines Investigation Act which concerns the relationship between the Bell Telephone Company of Canada and Northern Electric Company, Limited. The reason for disclosing the existence of the inquiry and the matters with which it is primarily concerned are set out in the Annual Report of the Director of Investigation and Research under the Act for the year ended March 31, 1968, at pages 54-55.
4.	See answer to 3.


ST. JEAN-DE-LALANDE, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. Rodrigue: Does the government intend to build a post office at St. Jean-de-Lalande (Hamel Office), in the federal constituency of Beauce?


Arthur Laing: Not at the present time.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Fortin: 1.	When was the Royal Commission on the status of women established and who are the members of that Commission, what amount has each member received since that Commission was established?
2.	What has been the cost of the Commission since its establishment?
3.	When will the Commission present its report?


James Edgar Walker: I am informed by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada as follows: 1. The Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada was established by Order in Council on February 16, 1967.
The persons appointed to this Commission and the amounts received by each member are as follows: Mrs. Florence Bird, Ottawa, Ontario, $36,737.50; Mr. Donald Gordon, Jr. (resigned November 1/67), Waterloo, Ontario, $5,550.00; Mr. Jacques Henripin, Montreal, P.Q., $16,425.00; Dr. John P. Humphrey (appointed Feb. 2/68), Montreal, P.Q., $10,875.00; Mrs. Lola M. Lange, Claresholm, Alberta, $24,750.00; Miss Jeanne Lapointe, Quebec City, P.Q., $17,400.00; Miss Elsie Gregory MacGill, Toronto, Ontario, $22,750.00; Mrs. Doris Ogilvie, Fredericton, N.B., $23,550.00.

2.	The total cost of this Commission from its establishment to February 18, 1969 is $995,599.
3.	The Commission is endeavouring to present its Final Report by the end of the year.


PENSION TO JAMES COYNE
Mr. Coates: 1.	Is James Coyne, the former Governor of the Bank of Canada in receipt of a pension at the present time and, if so, what is the amount of his pension and how much has he received to date in pension payments?
2.	Have any actions been taken that would result in an increase in the pension of future Governors of the Bank of Canada who retire?


Edgar John Benson: 1. The situation with respect to Mr. Coyne's pension was described by the Minister of Finance on November 18, 1963, in reply to a question by the Member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, Hansard page 4856. Mr. Coyne has continued to draw the same pension since that date.
2. The pension rights of future Governors of the Bank will depend upon their length of service, the salary they have received over various periods and the reason for their retirement. The present by-law relating to the pension rights of a Governor who retires for any reason other than age or disability is that approved by P.C. 1967-744 which appears in the Canada Gazette of May 13, 1967 (page 1365). It requires the payment of extra contributions to the pension fund in consideration of the special rights relating to retirement for reasons other than age or disability. While the specific wording of the question does not apply to the present Governor, the latter has advised me that he completed last year the payment of the extra contributions referred to above and that he had informed the Board of Directors that he would not draw more in pension under this by-law than what he would have been entitled to at the end of the period during which he made the extra contributions. Consequently the recent change in the present Governor's salary has no effect on his pension.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Roberi L. Sianfield (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
February 24, 1969

direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of his announcement of the decision to make the post office into a Crown corporation would the minister say whether the study by Kates Peat Marwick and Company of Toronto investigating this question was received by the government before the decision was taken?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I made no such announcement. If one had read the reports of this in the Montreal Star, the Montreal Gazette, or La Presse of Montreal he could have seen that. I said that there were studies going on looking forward to the possibility of a Crown corporation and at that time, in the fall, I would submit such reports to my colleagues in the cabinet.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister inform the house whether at entrance points from the United States there is a difference in the policy applied to draft dodgers and to military deserters, and if so when that difference in policy was issued as a directive to the officers concerned.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have already explained several times this distinction in policy. I would be happy to inquire as to the exact date of the formation of this policy. It is certainly not a new policy with regard to the department, since I became the minister.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister the other day is reported to have said there is nothing in the law which makes such a distinction, in so far as what I have read is concerned, and the fact that there is a great deal of confusion in the minds of many of us with regard to the distinction, would the minister indicate what the distinction is between the two classes of people seeking admission.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression this is a point of debate more than the type of question which should be asked at this time.


David Lewis: May I rephrase it with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and ask the minister whether he would consider tabling the directive that contains the difference in
Inquiries of the Ministry respect of the treatment to be given to those applying as draft dodgers and those applying who are said to be military deserters. When tabling that document would the minister also indicate what basis there is in the statute for such a distinction.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will consider tabling such a document, but I should tell my hon. friend that these documents are internal in the department and are not normally tabled. However I shall consider whether in this case an exception should be made.



EXHIBITIONS


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Prime
Minister.
This morning, the radio announced that a decision would be taken today concerning Man and His World, in Montreal. Could the Prime Minister make a statement in that connection?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I do not know what decision will be taken in Montreal, Mr. Speaker, but as far as the federal government is concerned, the matter is in the hands of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who at this time is in Western Canada. I know that he is to give consideration to that problem and I understand he is to meet the authorities of the city of Montreal tomorrow.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government of Canada received any exchanges from the French government or General de Gaulle personally relating to a new European relationship excluding NATO from Europe and if so what was Canada's reaction to such a suggestion?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker; the
Canadian government has not received any such representation from the French government but was made aware of the conversations between the British ambassador to Paris and the President.

February 24, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Muir: May
I ask the minister whether the government of Canada had any discussion or conversation either with the French government or the General himself regarding Canada's role in NATO?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not so far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasi-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is it the intention of the government to establish a full time federal mediation service as suggested by the Canadian Railway Labour Executives Association last Monday?
Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of
Labour):	Mr. Speaker, I made such an
announcement on several previous occasions.
While I am on my feet I should like to congratulate the hon. member for his particular support of Bill C-186.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am 100 per cent against Bill C-186, but I should like to ask the hon. member a supplementary question. When meeting with the
C.N.T.U. did that body express the opinion in respect of the government's dropping of Bill C-186 that it was the greatest example of political duplicity since the days of Mackenzie King.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Edmonton West.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to advise the house what progress he has been able to make with provincial authorities in arriving at an agreement for a national securities commission and, if he has run into problems generally, what is the nature of those difficulties, in view of the fact that the government has announced this legislation is to be considered later this session?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, because the discussions are confidential I think it would be premature on my part to divulge what was actually being discussed and what, if any, problems there are. I previously
[Mr. Sharp.)
announced that I expect to lay before the house some legislation dealing with this situation, at which time the policy of the government will be known.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am not
fishing for details, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the fact that a lot of people support the idea of a national securities commission, can the minister indicate what difficulties have been encountered, and that they are matters of detail rather than of fundamental principle?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I do not want to comment one way or the other, Mr. Speaker. In light of what the hon. member has said in observing that there is widespread support for some form of national securities administration, I would expect that any difficulties there may be will be overcome in light of that widespread support.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF CANADIAN POLICY

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that President Nixon has taken over from the Secretary of the Interior responsibility for oil import policy, what steps have been taken or are in the process of being taken by the Canadian government to put Canada's position and its necessities before the president, so far as the export of oil from this country to the United States is concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, whatever steps are being taken are being taken by the minister responsible for energy, mines and resources.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the last part of what the Prime Minister said, and I do not know who is responsible as far as this particular matter is concerned at this moment. That is why I asked the Prime Minister the question. I should like to ask him whether he can assure us that this is one of the subjects he will be taking up with the President when he meets with him?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this will be one of the subjects I will be dealing with when I go to Washington. The minister in charge is the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister assure
February 24, 1969

us that Canada's oil market and oil production will not become a sacrificial lamb or a quid pro quo in respect of changes by Canada of its NATO policies?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member's supplementary question is more in the form of a presentation.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister is speaking with President Nixon about this very important matter of oil policy, will he see to it that President Nixon is asked to give Canada the same kind of square deal the Conservative government was able to get from the United States government on an earlier occasion?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister without Portfolio, perhaps I could direct my question to whoever is substituting for the minister today. I should like to ask whether we might have an explanation as to why the federal conference on native Indian people scheduled for March 6-March 14 has once again been postponed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The department will be under question tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Howard: I didn't ask you the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Whom did you ask?



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister of economic and regional development whether he will consider making a statement for purposes of clarification, on motions or at some other time, as to whether or not the new regional economic development program which this government envisages will in any way affect the operations of ARDA and FRED in specific designated areas in Canada? I ask that question because of the growing impression that the new policy of the government will somehow or other affect the operations of these existing programs.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker there is no doubt that the new legislation will affect existing programs. Moreover, I expect that we will soon have the opportunity to discuss all these matters when the bill is before the house.



ATLANTIC REGION-STEPS TO ENCOURAGE ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRY

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister of regional expansion. Would the minister indicate whether discussions are now being held either by himself or his officials with respect to the immediate encouragement of the establishment of large scale industry in the Atlantic region, similar to the recent announcement made by the Ford Motor Company with respect to its $50 million plant to open shortly in Windsor?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon. member is asking the minister to make a statement of very wide scope and general nature that perhaps should be made at the calling of motions. The hon. member may want to suggest to the minister that he make this kind of statement at the appropriate time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Perhaps I may rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. I simply ask whether in view of many specific statements on this subject such discussions are going on at the present time with industry, in the hope of establishing large scale industry in the Atlantic region.


Jean Marchand: Certainly not
through me, Mr. Speaker. 1 could find out if some department official is in touch with the people involved in this.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General, of which I gave him notice. In view of assertions made publicly by Mr. Paul Akehurst of Canadian Contemporary

February 24, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry News concerning depositions in a civil case in California indicating possible abuses of diplomatic privileges by Canadians abroad, including a possible connection with narcotics offences in Mexico, will the minister consider making a statement to the house tomorrow on this serious issue?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in giving me notice of the question. I will be very glad to obtain the necessary information and bring forward a reply either tomorrow or Wednesday, depending on how quickly I can get the information.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell the house if his meetings on Friday, in Montreal, managed to prevent the employees of Rod Service Limited from going on strike?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I was not expecting the employees of Rod Service Limited to go on strike.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the minister tell us if his department intends to cancel some of its contracts with Rod Service Limited, and, if so, could he also tell us how the employees of that company will be affected by such a decision?


Eric William Kierans: I have already cancelled two contracts pertaining to mobile and special services, and we have hired some 27 employees of Rod Service Limited.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1968-69 TREASURY BOARD-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF ITEM 5B
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether later in the day, when the motion is made to refer the supplementary estimates to the appropriate committee, the minister would make a full statement explaining the item of

the supplementary estimates relating to vote 5B, for the sum of an additional $105 million for contingencies. This item relates to the estimates of the Treasury Board. Will the minister make such a statement at that time?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this is a somewhat detailed question and I think perhaps it could be more reasonably asked of the committee, which is sitting tomorrow morning. I anticipate being asked this question and providing an answer there.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is it the intention of the government to set up a summer works program for university and high school students who will be seeking part time and full time employment within a few months?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question of summer employment for students is presently under consideration in the department.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I wonder whether, in view of the time of the year, and so on, relating to university students, the minister would avail himself of an opportunity at a very early date to make a statement on motions about the way in which his department is making plans for summer employment of such students, and how persons can avail themselves of the framework in which these plans are set up.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I shall be glad to consider that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister giving consideration to initiating in this country an inquiry similar to that carried on in the United States by a government agency into the alleged high price and low qualty of car repairs across Canada?
February 24, 1969


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker, not at the moment. I have previously answered that question, to the effect that my officials are watching the inquiries being carried on in Washington by the Federal Trade Commission, and also the anti-trust proceedings in California, to determine whether there are conditions which would require appropriate action in Canada.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister contemplating a meeting with the provincial ministers of agriculture prior to spring seeding in order to work out with his provincial counterparts suggestions for a desirable farm program for this year?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Much more than that will take place before the spring planting, in that an agriculture congress will be convened in Ottawa on March 24 when, in addition to many of the provincial ministers of agriculture, leaders from all sections of the whole industry will be here to discuss and to try to find acceptable solutions to many of the problems.


FARM MACHINERY
Edward Richard Schreyer: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. According to a news release from the minister's office today, the report from the royal commission on farm machinery prices is not expected until late 1969. I should like to ask the minister whether he has given consideration to asking the royal commissioners to try to have the report ready by the summer of tjtiis year so that action can be taken before 1971.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member knows that asking these royal commissions to report sooner than they feel is prudent is rather difficult, in view of the research which they need to carry out to provide proper answers to the questions referred to them. I have already advised the house that Dr. Barber will be providing us with an interim report, which can be the basis for a discussion of this problem at the agriculture congress next month.

Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DRYING OPERATION
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that there is limited time left in which to dry the damp grain still on prairie farms, will the minister make a statement to the house in the near future on the progress that is being made in the drying of grain locally on farms in western Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce announced on Friday, I think, we will have a report from the Canadian Wheat Board which will give us their estimate of the total volume of tough and damp grain left on the farms. Of course this is only an estimate. However, I do not accept the hon. member's premise that there is a limited time left for drying. It could be variable, depending on the weather.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In addition to providing us with information from the Wheat Board on the volume of grain to be dried, will the minister also provide us with information as to the number of driers which have been set up locally and the estimated drying that can be done.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR ROYAL COMMISSION TO STUDY CRIME
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I would like to direct this question to the Solicitor General. In view of the increasing reports of drug distribution, including not only marijuana and l.s.d. but heroin and hashish, will the government now give consideration to setting up a royal commission on international crime, as requested by several provincial attorneys general?


George James McIlraith: do not believe I can accept the premise on which the question is based. There are not requests for such commission from several attorneys general.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of the reference yesterday on C.B.C. "Sunday Supplement" to the effect that marijuana can be purchased in Edmonton seven days a week, and will he look into the situation?

February 24, 1363
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION


POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED NUMBERS FROM FRENCH SPEAKING NATIONS
Robert Muir: My question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of Canada's commitment to the new Francophonia agency, can the minister state whether there are any plans for increasing immigration from French speaking nations to Canada, as a means of assisting them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not sure
whether I heard the hon. member's question correctly.


An hon. Member:: Or wanted to hear it.


Robert Muir: Perhaps the minister would take it as notice, read it in Hansard and reply at his convenience.


CANADIAN CONFEDERATION
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: I have a question to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the Canadian Government contemplate any action regarding the alleged statement by the foreign minister of France that France would support efforts by Quebec to separate from Canada, if requested by that province?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not aware that the foreign minister of France has made any such statement.


Mr. Baldwin:: Aren't you on his mailing list?


EXTERNAL AID
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a question to direct to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the statement made on Saturday by President Nixon that the United States intends to step up its relief work to Nigeria and Biafra without becoming involved in the political aspects of the conflict, and his appointment of Professor Clarence Ferguson of Rutgers University to talk with both sides. In the light of this substantial alteration in United States foreign policy

in connection with relief operations, is the government reconsidering its own policy to make Canada's relief efforts more effective?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are always considering ways of making our relief efforts more effective, but I repeat, the best way of making them more effective would be to receive authorization from Colonel Ojukwu to allow daylight landings in Biafra.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In the light of this important statement by the President, would the Prime Minister see to it that this topic is raised during his conference with him toward the end of March, and meanwhile would he make himself more fully aware of the United States commitment in this regard?


David Lewis: May I ask
the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether it is not the case that Colonel Ojukwu's refusal resulted from the conditions set down by the federal military government in Nigeria, that no other planes would be allowed to land at Uli airport except relief planes and, if so, whether the Canadian government supports that Nigerian position?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is not the Nigerian position as stated to Professor Head of my office by General Gowon himself last October. The conditions laid down were that daylight flights should be used only for relief purposes and not for the transportation of arms. That was the only condition demanded by General Gowon, and it seemed to us a reasonable one.




Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Has Canada protested to Nigeria against that country's daylight bombing of civilians and Red Cross outposts in built-up areas of Biafra? Has the Prime Minister expressed the abhorrence of Canadians for this type of brutality?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have not made any specific protest. War is a horrible thing, and the sooner it is over the better. Therefore, the earlier we can get agreement upon a basis for negotiation the better. At the present time such a basis does not exist. We may deplore the acts of war but we cannot stop them as long as war goes on.
February 24, 1969


Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Will the minister condemn the Nigerians for this type of activity and protest to them, since we have not done so already?


Mitchell William Sharp: There are atrocities on all sides in all wars, Mr. Speaker.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: My question is directed to the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. What does his department propose to do to speed up mail delivery service from Central Canada to Prince Edward Island? We might as well be living in Siberia, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask him whether or not the welcome sign is still on the mat for him at the office of his old union, the C.N.T.U. since his government so unceremoniously dumped his brainchild Bill C-186, once its usefulness in the election was over?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I ask the Minister of Labour whether he has received any complaints about long delays of up to four or five weeks in making payments of unemployment insurance on Vancouver Island, particularly to loggers who have been out of work since early in December, and if so what action has been taken by his department to rectify this situation?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: I have received no such complaints directly in my capacity as Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. gentleman knows of any particular case, of course I should like to deal with it personally, in view of the fact that I am rather happy to see him back in his seat. I can assure the hon. gentleman that all such problems are dealt with immediately and I doubt whether there is any basis for his allegation.
Inquiries of the Ministry STUDENT UNREST


VANDALISM PROMPTED BY OUTSIDE POLITICAL FORCES
Steve Eugene Paproski: I should like to direct this question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. While congratulating the right hon. gentleman on his forthright statement to student lawbreakers, I would ask him whether the federal government is taking any action to get at the causes of the outbreaks of violence across Canada, and to deal with the suggestion that various Marxist or communist groups are behind them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Solicitor General has already stated in the house that his department and the R.C.M.P. have offered their co-operation to local and provincial police forces.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Does the Prime Minister not feel that something more is required than a statement by himself to a Liberal meeting?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


FARM MACHINERY
Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kent-Essex):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, based on an answer which the hon. gentleman gave a few weeks ago to the effect that it may be many months before the Barber Commission is in a position to make a report to the government. In these circumstances, would the Department of Agriculture consider making a direct and immediate investigation into the alleged availability of British farm machinery to Canadian farmers at greatly reduced prices by comparison with current Canadian prices?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have considered that, but Dr. Barber has indicated that he is inquiring into this very matter at the present time, and rather than set up another inquiry I think perhaps I should ask him for an interim report on this particular aspect of the matter.


Harold Warren Danforth: Does the minister believe there is a prospect of an interim report being provided before it becomes necessary to purchase machinery for this year's crop planting?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not sure whether an interim report could be provided in so short a

February 24, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry time. There are some farmers, I suppose, who think they should order the machinery they will need this spring right now, so they would have no time at all to wait for a report. However, I shall be in touch with Dr. Barber and we shall see what can be done by way of providing a report on his inquiries to date.


THE SENATE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: My question is for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there is now a Manitoba vacancy in the Senate-


An hon. Member:: How about you?


Stanley Howard Knowles: -would the Prime Minister make it clear that this vacancy will not be filled, so that we may begin the abolition of the Senate by attrition?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I direct it to the Prime Minister. Would he, in considering this matter of filling the Senatorial vacancies for Manitoba, consult with the provincial government, which is obviously a popular government and close to the people of Manitoba?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


TELEVISING OF HOUSE AND COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Now that the legislature of Ontario has decided to initiate television coverage of its proceedings, would the Prime Minister inform the house of the steps being taken here to give this subject serious consideration, with a view to arranging for proceedings both in this house and in the committees to be televized?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking a question which he has already asked before. Even if there were anything new, he is asking the Prime Minister for a statement, and a statement of that kind should not be made at this time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: With respect, Your Honour, the question I asked on Wednesday related to one particular committee charged with examining the procedures of this house. Today I am asking the Prime Minister whether or not this important matter-and many hon. members feel that it is important-could not be dealt with and discussed in some other way.
Perhaps I might put a specific question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he would be agreeable to allowing a day's debate at some time soon to ascertain the degree of support in the house for this suggestion.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lamberl (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In a news release handed to the hon. member concerning the congress to be held in March, mention is made of a document prepared specially for that occasion. May I ask the minister whether a copy of that document will be handed to members of the standing committee on agriculture before the congress so that they can look into it?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will check into that today. I was of the opinion that the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture had already received copies of three of the papers that are now ready for distribution.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of these papers not only to members of the committee but to all members of the house, would the minister see that they are distributed to all members?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that.


AIR CANADA
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask him whether he can tell the house when he will be able to carry out his undertaking or commitment to go to Winnipeg and meet with the employees of Air Canada and the C.N.R., which undertaking he will recall giving some time ago.
February 24, 1969


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have had many invitations from many parts of the country to pay visits. Winnipeg is very high on the priority list, but I will not be able to visit there for at least several weeks.


Edward Richard Schreyer: A supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. My question had to do with the transfer of employees of Air Canada from Winnipeg and also the transfer of C.N.R. employees to Winnipeg.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Churchill.


Edward Richard Schreyer: May I ask the minister whether he intends-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is repeating the question that he asked in the first instance. In view of this the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Churchill.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman could tell the house if the government is giving any consideration to a renegotiation of the Migratory Birds Convention Act in order that the government can once again fulfil this particular aspect of the Indian treaty rights.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this matter is part of the total question relating to Indians that is being considered by the minister of that department.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of regional and economic expansion. I should like to ask the minister whether he can tell the house if he is prepared to indicate to all hon. members the present and planned agreements that have and will be made between his department and the various Atlantic provinces in order to clarify some of this-not intended I am sure-confusion which surrounds the situation at the present moment.
fTranslation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I stated clearly enough, I think, that there was 29180-3711
Inquiries of the Ministry only one agreement to be signed with Prince Edward Island, that there was no planned agreement with any other province at this time, and that there would probably be none before the government organization bill is passed.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I and other hon. members have been asking the minister questions in the past number of weeks and there has been some confusion regarding the provinces of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. For example, on February 19-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should indicate for the benefit of the Chair what his question of privilege is, so that a ruling may be made. The hon. member might also indicate whether he proposes to move a motion as a result of the question of privilege he is now raising. I am prepared to hear it, provided it is a legitimate matter of privilege and the question is stated clearly for the Chair.


John Howard Lundrigan: I have to draw Your Honour's attention to page 5715 of Hansard where appear questions posed to the minister about the FRED program that is under negotiation with Newfoundland. The minister answered the question and indicated there was no such agreement. I posed further questions about whether there would be an agreement with the province of Newfoundland, and the follow-up answers indicated that there would be such an agreement within a week. On re-reading Hansard the following day no mention was made of a week; this had been changed, perhaps in the process of translation. In addition, on being questioned the following day the minister indicated that he did not intend to refer to Newfoundland, but rather to Prince Edward Island.
Therefore, perhaps the minister could take the opportunity to tell the house exactly what is planned or is being presently negotiated so that the whole matter can be cleared up. I ask Your Honour's indulgence to have the minister inform himself, because he does not seem to be aware of what he is talking about.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to rule that there is no question of privilege. The hon. member has asked whether the minister would make a statement. That is a perfectly legitimate question, but it seems to me that the minister has replied to the question.

February 24, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I would like to say a few words on the question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it would be preferable if there were no debate on the question of privilege. Obviously there seems to have been a misunderstanding in this matter. As far as the Chair is concerned the point is perfectly clear, and I have ruled that there is no question of privilege. The hon. member for Athabasca.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have recognized the hon. member for Athabasca; I will return to the hon. member later.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether, aside from indicating to the house the state of the protracted agreement with Prince Edward Island, he would indicate tomorrow the present status of negotiations with other Atlantic provinces in regard to future agreements between those provinces and his department.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have myself clarified this point three times at least for the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate and I think all he has to do is to read Hansard to understand what is going on.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, could I
rephrase my question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


STUDENT UNREST
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Yewchuk: I thank hon. members for the kind courtesy shown to me.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Paul Yewchuk: By way of explanation, Mr. Speaker, after giving the matter consideration, and in view of what happened last June 25, I decided to revert to the method that has

withstood the test of time as a means of increasing the Conservative population of this country.
I should like to pose a question to the Prime Minister which is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre. In response to a question on February 18 the Prime Minister stated that cabinet committees were looking into the problem of student unrest. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would be willing to state who are the members of these committees and what are their terms of reference.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is customary to reveal the membership of such cabinet committees, but I do not mind saying what I had in mind on this particular question.
The question is being studied by the Solicitor General, by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and by the Minister of Justice. We have occasion from time to time to discuss this problem in one guise or another in one or other of our cabinet committees. There is no special cabinet committee set up for the purpose.


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question. In due course will a statement be made on motions concerning the results of these investigations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General may consider doing that. The practice is that no report is made while investigations are pending. Once they have been terminated he may consider either taking action or making a statement in the house.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (for lhe Secretary of State) moved: that Bill C-171, an act respecting the National Library, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, from-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
February 24, 1969


Mr. Slanbury:: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the applause, although appreciated, is not for the same reason as that accorded to the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) a few minutes ago.
From concept to reality, the gestation period of Canada's National Library was even longer than that of medicare. Plans for a National Library were mentioned by Sir John A. Macdonald as early as 1883, but it was not until 70 years later, on January 1, 1953, that our National Library came into being. Now only 16 years old it is one of the youngest of our national institutions but already one of the most important. At a time when knowledge is multiplying at a dizzying pace, a national repository of fact and thought is assuming growing importance.
We must be certain that the legislative framework for such a vital institution does not restrain its ability to respond to current and future needs. In the 17 years since the National Library Act was first framed, the role and function of libraries have changed greatly and will be evolving rapidly in coming years.
The age of electronics is creating new opportunities for libraries to serve as complete information centres. As the key-stone of our country's library network, the National Library must be able to serve as the nerve centre of a fully integrated and highly automated information system at the disposal of the Canadian people and their institutions. The purpose of this bill is to update the charter of the National Library so it may assist Canadians to cope better with the current explosion of research and publications, which is a world phenomenon. It reflects the changes of the past 17 years in the library world and permits the National Library to assume the dynamic role required of it today. The bill also aims at avoiding costly duplication during this period of explosive library developments, while ensuring the best possible service with the human and material resources available. Automation is coming to libraries. Data banks will have to make bibliographic information available to all libraries through an inter-library communications network. Such developments are necessary, but expensive. We must ensure that they occur with adequate co-ordination so that we will get full value for our investment.
The National Library is now being asked to assist in the planning and co-ordination of
National Library Act
collections in research libraries and of electronic information retrieval systems. Two factors make such planning particularly urgent. First, considerable funds are now available to university libraries for the purchase of books, and there is wide recognition of a need for co-ordination of acquisition policies so that unnecessary duplication may be avoided. Second, the advent of electronic techniques for storing, processing and transmitting bibliographic information has had considerable impact on library methods and techniques. It has become imperative to achieve compatibility among the systems to be established by the principal libraries of Canada. The National Library of Canada must be at the very centre of our National Library network; at the same time, it is the logical instrument to co-ordinate Canadian efforts with those in other countries.
Government libraries, no less than others, can profit from co-ordination. They collectively own resources from which the entire country, as well as the government itself, can benefit. Within the government, as outside it, better co-ordination of book collections and the establishment of common services using electronic techniques should be ensured. The National Library should take the lead in developing the network of government libraries, as well as that of other research libraries in Canada.
This bill seeks to enable the National Library to fulfil its role more adequately at both the national and the international levels. Clauses 7, 8 and 9 are the key clauses in this respect. Paragraph (2) of clause 7 states:
(2) Subject to the direction of the Governor in Council, the National Librarian may co-ordinate the library services of departments, branches and agencies of the Government of Canada including
(a)	the acquisition and cataloguing of books;
(b)	the supply of professional advice, supervision and personnel; and
(c)	the provision of modern information storage and retrieval services including photocopying and microfilming services, electronic and other automated data processing services and facsimile or other communication of information services.
Clause 8 provides that the National Librari-as may enter into agreements with Canadian or foreign libraries in this respect.
In order to assist the National Librarian to carry out such a program more adequately, it was considered advisable to reorganize the National Library Advisory Council so that the National Science Library, the Library of Parliament, the Public Archives, the National Museums of Canada, the Canada Council and the Association of Universities and Colleges of

February 24, 1969
National Library Act
Canada would have ex officio representation on the council, which will be known as the advisory board. These provisions are found in Clause 9.
It is desirable that new Canadian publications be listed as soon as possible in the national bibliography, Canadiana; accordingly the time limit for deposit is being reduced from one month to one week. The present act requires the deposit of a single copy when the retail value of two copies exceeds $25. Enacted 16 years ago, this provision is no longer realistic and under clause 11 publishers would henceforth be required to deliver two copies of their books, unless the retail value of one copy exceeds $50.
Clause 15 repeals Section 52 of the Copyright Act, which calls for the deposit of two copies of a book at the time of its publication. Considering that this deposit in no way adds to the protection afforded a book through registration; that Canadian publications are deposited by virtue of the National Library Act; and that the majority of publications deposited under the Copyright Act are foreign publications which the National Library has no desire to receive systematically nor to keep permanently, it seems advisable to repeal this clause. This proposal is being made with the approval of the various agencies concerned.
I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to hearing hon. members' remarks on this subject. Detailed questions will be dealt with in the standing committee. If at that time there are proposals for amendments, I am sure the minister will be pleased to consider them.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As
has already been indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Secretary of State (Mr. Stanbury), Mr. Speaker, the moving of the motion for the second reading of Bill C-171 is an important occasion in the parliament of Canada as well as throughout the nation generally. It was in 1952 that the National Library Act was first approved by parliament. At that time it was thought that something concrete in terms of a building and facilities would be forthcoming in short order but, as already indicated, there was a long period of delay from conception through gestation until the actual library facilities became available.
While we in this parliament have the privilege of debating this important event, I do not think we should forget that many other

Canadians, inside and outside parliament, have been responsible for the achievement of the last few years in establishing this important cultural and educational facility. In particular I would like to pay tribute to a gentleman who was Dominion Archivist and National Librarian from the time the act was passed in 1952 until his retirement last fall, Dr. Kaye Lamb. He and many others, including the Canadian Library Association and L'Association Canadienne des Bibliothecaires de Langue Frangaise, have been closely associated with this project.
Then, too, Mr. Speaker, far too often when politicians leave this house they are gone and forgotten. I think we should recall that someone whom we all regret has retired, at least temporarily, from the political arena was the person who had the privilege of guiding the development of the new National Library building through its initial stages. I refer to the Hon. Davie Fulton who as minister of public works made the initial announcement that Canada would have a national library built in time for our centennial celebrations in 1967. This was one of the major projects that were designed to help Canada celebrate its centennial. Incidentally, it was one of the projects completed on time. In this respect there are others in the capital city, such as the National Centre for the Performing Arts, that have not yet been completed.
It is interesting to note that the National Library building was completed at a total cost of some $13 million, and it is not a bad building at that. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me in this regard, although I recall that Mr. Richard Jackson, at the time the building was first completed described it as the capital's ugly duckling. We have all sorts of architectural experts in the nation's capital who like to comment on the architectural style and achievement of individual building developments. Perhaps I might be permitted to quote from the article by Mr. Jackson in the Ottawa Journal of July 27, 1966, titled "Capital's Ugly Duckling," in which he wrote:
Well for one thing, the new library "doesn't reflect an architectural awareness of its setting."
Which means its too jammed up against Wellington Street, lacks the attractive framework that proper setting on the escarpment, overlooking the Gatineau, might have given it.
And those windows.
Like peepholes in a prison wall.
He suspects that the library's appearance was conceived to blend with, if not exactly match the two twin, veteran's and trade buildings, across Wellington.
February 24, 1969



And those, looking like something straight out of East Berlin, have been called all sorts of things. None of them flattering.
I do not know why it is that when we consider establishing cultural institutions in Canada, in particular in the nation's capital, we do not give careful consideration to the architectural style and make certain that it conforms to the high purpose of their cultural intent. But we cannot do much about it now. The buildings are there, and at least they provide the facilities that make it possible for the Parliament of Canada to re-enact the National Library Act and bring it into line with the current and expanding needs of library services in Canada.
One of the reasons for the delay from the point of conception to the point of realization was that Canada, like many other nations, had become obsessed with the achievements of the mass media as opposed to the printed word. There was a great explosion in knowledge and information immediately following world war II. It was in 1948 that the Canadian Library Association in conjunction with its French language counterpart, L'Association Canadienne des Bibliothecaires de Langue Frangaise, first approached the government of Canada with the suggestion that the time was long past when we needed a national library.
Unfortunately those earlier overtures coincided precisely with the time when we became obsessed, enchanted and almost hypnotized with the development of mass media, for that was the time when television was coming into its own. We were in the age of McLuhanism with its new gospel, "the medium is the message", and for a time we tended to forget that society as we know it today was made possible by reason of the availability of man's knowledge in the great libraries round the world. I know that Dr. Marshall McLuhan is at the moment the high priest of information, and I think we are still on the wave of McLuhanism which quite openly preaches that books are obsolete packages and that the real motivating force, from the standpoint of communication, springs from the idiot tube of the instant electronic medium of communication.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Some one has said that this has also resulted in the creation of an instant electronic folklore which is able to generate almost over night, or at least within the space of a few days, myths that become more far-reaching and more embracing in terms of their grip on
National Library Act
the minds of the people than the actual facts underlining a social situation. Someone also has said that our neglect of books and our tendency to become overly enamoured and mesmerized by mass media is one of the main reasons we are confronted with rather disconcerting examples of the generation gap today. We find ourselves confronted with a generation that has been educated almost exclusively by watching television with the violence and other selective distortions that are possible with this instant electronic creator of mythology. The result is that we have on our hands today a generation that has been cut off at the roots, as it were, and which has no deep and abiding connection with man's historic past or man's cultural past. We have what one might call a cut flower civilization, a civilization that has cut itself off at the roots and in which there are tendencies toward anarchy and even nihilism.
I wish to say these things briefly at the second reading stage because when the bill is before the committee we will deal with the mechanics of the legislation itself. I should like to emphasize, as I did in my opening remarks, that I believe this is a major development in the Canadian body politic because it means that at long last we are recognizing the importance of the printed word in maintaining the onward march of civilization. I think the pendulum is swinging back, as it must, in the face of some of the incidents which have been all too evident in Canada in recent weeks and months. There is a recognition that if we are to build for the future we must recognize that a creative and responsible future, and the young people who will provide the leadership for that future can only emerge if the young people become saturated-I almost used the word "indoctrinated" but it has a nasty ideological tinge today-with the values, accomplishments and cultural accumulations of the past.
While attending the University of Toronto I remember taking a course on empires and communications from that very eminent scholar, Dr. Edgar Innis. The thesis of that course was simply that the quality of successive civilizations, empires, or whatever you wish to call them, was directly related to the type of communications which prevailed predominantly in any particular period of man's history. I believe there is much truth in a thesis of that kind as reflected in the type of society and type of world in which we are living at the present time.

February 24, 1989
National Library Act
Actually there is not too much to say with regard to the bill itself. I have before me the brief that was presented to the cabinet, the government and parliament by the Canadian Library Association and l'Association Cana-dienne des Bibliothecaires de Langue Fran-gaise. As I compare the brief with the bill we have before us it is evident that a good deal of the inspiration for the revision of the act came from the recommendations of the two main bodies active in the area of library development.
I notice, however, one discrepancy which I believe is of some significance. No doubt there will be some discussion about this at the committee stage when we reach that particular part of our study. The associations recommended that the National Library should be a truly national institution rather than merely another department of government. It seems to me this is in keeping with parliament's attitude toward the C.B.C. and similar activities of that kind because the C.B.C. operates in a sensitive area so far as parliamentary and political control is concerned, particularly with regard to education and dissemination of information.
We maintain the posture that the control of such agencies by parliament and the government should be minimal. We know in respect of the C.B.C that the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) is the minister responsible for reporting to parliament for that body. I think it is for this reason that the library associations have recommended that the National Library of Canada should be set up as a Crown corporation to give it as much independence of action as possible in order to remove it as far as possible from direct and immediate governmental control and also to ensure that the objectives that are of major importance to Canada may be rapidly developed. I believe that this source of information should be a truly national institution embracing all aspects of Canadianism. The government has chosen not to accept the recommendation.
As I go through the bill I find it interesting to note that there are several clauses which specifically emphasize that the government is to have the closest possible administrative control. Let me refer for a moment to clause
4.	Under the heading "Administration of Library" it states:
The Minister shall preside over and has the supervision of the management and direction of the Library.
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
This is quite different from the solution applied in the reorganization of the national museums. That bill was passed last fall. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, as will other members of the house, that a board of trustees was set up which has the immediate responsibility for administering the affairs of the national museums in Ottawa as well as branches of the national museums in other parts of Canada. I suppose this was done because of the necessity in the cultural, educational and informational field of keeping the control by the government as far away from the agencies as possible. The government has chosen not to follow the same procedure in respect of this bill. We will be very much interested in finding out the reason this course of action has been taken.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I could refer to another clause, clause 7, which has the same sort of emphasis. Under the heading "Powers and Duties of Librarian" subsection 1 states "subject to the direction of the minister", and subsection 2 says "subject to the direction of the Governor in Council, the National Librarian may co-ordinate the library services of departments, branches and agencies", etc. So in every instance we find this strong, controlling influence to be exerted by the minister and by the Governor in council. This is a reversal of the usual formula which has applied to national educational services.
There is one other matter with which I should like to deal at this stage of our discussion. I want to pose a question, and perhaps this is not the time to do so as we will be able to deal with these matters in committee. However, I do want to give notice that members of the official opposition in probing this matter will be inquiring about the status of existing library facilities in the government service as well as in other parts of Canada.
The co-ordinating function is emphasized as one of the major purposes of the legislation. On this point a good many of the recommendations of library associations have been included in the legislation before us. Certainly the advisory board provided for by this measure is much more representative and broader than that provided under the original act of 1952 in that it includes persons such as the Parliamentary Librarian, the Dominion Archivist, the National Science Librarian and persons nominated by the National Museum
February 24, 1969

and the association of universities and colleges of Canada. It also recognizes the professional status of librarians in Canada at the present time.
I note that the brief submitted to the government recommended that there be direct representation on the advisory board from both the Canadian National Library Associations as well as its French-speaking counterpart. We shall be inquiring as to why this recommendation was not accepted.
It would seem to me that library science is still in the formative stage. We know there is a drastic shortage of qualified professional librarians, and it would seem to me that these professional associations at this stage would have a very important function on the advisory board in advising as to how all the problems of a rapidly expanding service could be handled. In addition to that problem I am wondering about our Library of Parliament. Hon. members are and have been very much concerned about the welfare of our own library during the long interregnum which has been referred to during discussions in the house, while we awaited the advent of The National Library.
The Library of Parliament has served both as the national library and the parliamentary library. As a result of this dual function members of parliament were assured exceptional service in terms of the availability of current publications. Now that the emphasis is moving somewhat from the Parliamentary Library to the National Library I trust there will be sufficient co-ordination maintained in order that both the upper and lower chambers of parliament will have ready and immediate access to the great flood of information constantly pouring forth from printing presses in this and other countries of the world. We do not want to be placed in a position where we have to depend for our sources of information on the mass media. We might become badly brainwashed if we are restricted to the impact from instant electronic communications which are so successful in perpetuating many of the emphases eating at the foundations of our society. We will, of course, pursue this when the legislation is before the committee.
I wonder too about the fate of such an outstanding library as the National Science Library. The advisory board will include the librarian of the National Science Library, but it operates under the National Research
National Library Act
Council and we must recognize that the National Library is essentially associated with the humanities and social sciences. I trust that in the gradual development and evolution of the functions of the National Library, programs will be sufficiently flexible to ensure the present high standard of our National Science Library.
I think my time has almost expired, Mr. Speaker, and before you bring me to an abrupt conclusion I shall voluntarily wind up my remarks. I have made these observations because we are moving in a slightly different direction in cultural development. We are giving close control to the government, the minister and the Governor in Council in an area of educational, informational and cultural development. This is a departure different from the government's handling of the C.B.C., the National Museum and other agencies of this kind. We will continue to prod the government in this regard before the committee to make sure there is going to be sufficient flexibility on the advisory board that we may get the best possible service from our National Library as a national institution in every sense of the word and not merely as an arm of government.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, I am a little apprehensive in following the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) in that I had intended to say that with one qualification, to which I will refer shortly, this is a commendable measure the government is bringing forward. When the hon. member began to argue that the products of linear culture are sweeping in nature and contrary to our purpose, I wondered whether I should withdraw my support immediately and recommend that we burn down the library.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Don't burn it down; we just put it up.


John Edward Broadbent: Fortunately some of us who are the products of the book culture as opposed to television culture tend to move in a somewhat non-conservative direction. I hope that a good number of those who use this major public facility will continue to do so.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I think this measure is a good one and is in one sense overdue. Canada as a political society has not been noted for its contribution to intellectual and scholarly activity. Even

February 24, 1969
National Library Act
though we have begun to move in this direction only in recent years, this is no reason why we should suggest the measure is a bad one. It is a move in the right direction, and I and my party applaud the development of the National Library.
I was particularly pleased to hear the hon. member who introduced the bill say that the library has incorporated all the most modern electronic devices that good university libraries across the country have introduced in recent years. I was also pleased to learn that on its advisory board it has a place for representation of Canada's universities.
I would make two points, one of criticism and one of suggestion. Like the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, I was somewhat surprised to find that under clause 4 the minister is to be given such direct control over the library. I think that potentially this sets an unfortunate precedent. When the bill reaches the committee stage, perhaps some good reasons will be brought forward for this provision. Unless this is done I would prefer to see the administration of the National Library organized somewhat like the administration of the C.B.C. It should be independent of day to day political concerns. Perhaps a good explanation for this move will be presented to the committee. If not, we will have to raise very serious objection to it.
I hope the government intends to devote a lot of cash to this project in the years ahead. As I said earlier, we are not a country noted for the devotion of a high percentage of our resources to intellectual and scholarly activity, to understate the case by about 100 per cent. I would like to see Canada move much more vigorously in this direction in the years ahead so that our National Library will not become just a home for Canadian scholars but will acquire an international reputation in the academic community.
Another point I wish to raise is related to intellectual life but not specifically to this bill. I hope the government will, with regard to the physical sciences, soon show a corresponding interest and demonstrate vigour at the national level.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this bill.
In the first place, a few general considerations. Surely, this is a national and essential service, since through the National Library
[Mr. Broadbent.l
we have access to the best source of information. The National Library is perhaps one of the most essential services available to legislators as well as to the Canadian public at large.
I have noted like other hon. members that the authority granted to the minister seems at first to be too extensive. Unfortunately, we often deplore the fact that ministerial responsibility is undermined, because some organizations enjoy a large degree of independence. I am referring to the C.B.C.
So I wonder why there should be criticism if the minister has precisely the entire responsibility, particularly in a matter that cannot give rise to controversy, because in my opinion, the service of the National Library is not likely to induce confrontation or disagreement.
The better the means of information of the National Library are, the more citizens will be able to take advantage of it and that much richer our national heritage will be.
In passing, I have a few comments to make on the microfilming of newspapers. I do not know why the microfilm service of the National Library is not better organized and why some dailies are not microfilmed.
In addition, I think the National Library should keep in constant touch and even make exchanges with the Quebec Library so that better information may be obtained.
Mr. Speaker, clause 2(e) reads as follows, and I quote:
"Published in Canada" means released in Canada for public distribution or sale, otherwise than by Her Majesty in right of a province or by a municipality.
I do not grasp the exact scope of that clause but, as far as I am concerned, it looks as if the National Library did not bother with provincial publications.
I suggest a very close relationship should prevail at that level so that we may be assured to obtain all necessary information from the National Library.
Mr. Speaker, that is what I had to say on this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
February 24. 1969	COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (for the Minister
of Finance) moved that Bill S-28, to amend the Co-operative Credit Associations Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the present Co-operative Credit Associations Act deals principally, as the house may know, with the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society, incorporated by parliament in 1953, and with those provincial central credit societies that become members of this federal society. At the present time, therefore, the provincial centrals for British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario are subject to this act.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
This act, which was passed by parliament in 1963, applies to certain parts of the cooperative credit movement in Canada. The movement is organized on three levels. At the first level are the local credit unions organized on a parish, a community, or an employment basis. They accept deposits from and make loans to their members. For the most part, members are individuals falling within the group that the local credit union is organized to serve. In some cases these credit unions may have other co-operative organizations as members as well as individuals. The local credit unions are incorporated pursuant to provincial law and are supervised by provincial authorities.
At the second level are provincial central credit unions. These organizations act as central credit unions for the local credit unions. They accept deposits from their members and make loans to them. Their members are the local credit unions and sometimes other cooperative organizations. The local credit unions rely on their deposits with the centrals as the main part of their liquidity reserve to meet demands for withdrawal of funds. The provincial central credit unions are organized under provincial law and they do not have individuals as members.
Finally, at the third level is the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society. This society is authorized to receive deposits from its members, to borrow or raise money from its members and from chartered banks, and to lend 29180-372J
DEBATES	5861
Co-operative Credit Associations Act money to its members. It also has certain investment powers. The federal society has for its members a number of provincial central credit unions and also a number of cooperative corporations carrying on business in two or more provinces. However, the act does not have any special application to these latter organizations other than indicating they are eligible for membership.
The original purpose of the federal society was to act as a central credit union for the provincial centrals, and also to some extent for the co-operative organizations doing an interprovincial business. This was to have opened the way for the exchange of funds from the co-operative movement in one region of Canada to that in another. A further purpose was to remove doubts that had been expressed about the constitutional position of the provincial centrals.
The bill before us amends certain provisions of the Co-operative Credit Associations Act. The amendments will have the effect of relaxing some of the restrictions now included in the act and granting some extensions of powers to the societies subject to it.
Over the past several years the credit union movement has asked that amendments be made to the act in order to permit the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society to be able to carry out more fully the purposes originally intended for it and to permit the provincial centrals subject to the act to continue their sound and orderly development, in the light of current conditions. The government is therefore proposing these amendments in order to meet these requests.
The main points dealt with in the bill may be outlined as follows. At present a provincial central may become a member of the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society and subject to the act only if declared eligible by parliament. It is proposed, therefore, to enable this declaration to be effected by the Governor in Council. Also, provision is made to effect amendments to the act of incorporation of the federal society by letters patent.
The federal society may now borrow money only from banks and from its own members. An amendment would broaden the borrowing powers to enable it to raise money from any source. Organizations subject to the act are at present limited to a maximum of ten times the capital, reserve and surplus in the amount of deposits they may accept or money they may borrow. An amendment would raise this limit to 20 times, subject to approval of the minister on specific application.
5862	COMMONS
Co-operative Credit Associations Act
A change would be made in the liquidity reserve requirements. At present, organizations under the act are required to maintain an amount equal to at least 5 per cent of their deposits in the form of cash and a further 15 per cent in the form of cash or government, municipal, or school securities. An amendment would delete municipal and school securities from the classes eligible to meet this reserve requirement since it is thought that municipal and school securities as a class are not always readily saleable and thus do not represent a good source of liquid funds to meet withdrawals of deposits.
Following the introduction of this measure in the other place, it has come to the government's attention that the immediate application of this change would result in undue losses to certain societies. The Goverment believes, therefore, that a transitional period should be allowed for its implementation in cases where undue losses might otherwise occur. It is proposed to suggest an amendment to this effect when this bill comes before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The change in liquidity reserve requirements would also permit provincial centrals to count as part of their liquidity reserve deposits with the federal society. The federal society may not now lend more than 10 per cent of its capital and deposits to any one member. An amendment would permit it to exceed this subject to certain conditions. The amendment would put the federal society on the same basis as the provincial centrals in this regard.
Investment powers would be changed slightly to make it clear that provincial centrals can invest in mortgage loan companies. The co-operative movement in some provinces has formed mortgage loan companies for the purpose of financing housing for its members. This amendment would clarify the power of a credit society to make an investment in such companies.
Certain other amendments are proposed by way of clarifying provisions of the act and transferring certain responsibilities from the Treasury Board to the Minister of Finance.
The Canadian credit union movement, including the caisses populaires, serves more than five million members, or approximately a quarter of our total population. It has accumulated nearly $3.3 billion of savings. As CUNA International, a voice of the credit

DEBATES	February 24, 1969
union movement, put it in a brief to the finance committee of this house in 1967:
The credit unions and caisses populaires in Canada serve their members as non-profit service organizations, and play a vital and essential role in the economy and growth of Canada as a whole.
This government recognizes the importance of the credit union movement and is therefore presenting these amendments as a way of assisting it in carrying out this key role. The credit union movement is active in many parts of Canada including my own city of Windsor, and as someone who is himself a credit union member I am pleased to urge the house to approve this bill by way of second reading.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the changes proposed by the parliamentary secretary to the Co-operative Credit Associations Act have two objectives, one of which is flexibility in changing conditions. When I look at what is to be achieved and what is the end objective of the bill, I am brought back to the considerations which I expressed at the time of the changes in the Bank Act, that more and more of these organizations such as credit unions and caisses populaires are actually carrying out banking functions. To me the amendments to this act point up the fact that we are getting a hodgepodge of legislation dealing with banking.
The other day the government house leader indicated that amendments to the Trust Companies Act and Loan Companies Act will be put before the house. There again we have concerns that are carrying on some banking functions. Therefore when we want to consider the whole Canadian banking picture we must refer to the Bank Act and to the Quebec Savings Banks Act, which banks, mind you, will revert back to the Bank Act. We must also look at the Trust Companies Act, and the Loan Companies Act, and now we have the Co-operative Credit Associations Act as well as a number of related acts.
Frankly it is my view that we would have a much sounder and saner banking picture if we described the functions of banking, and if any organization, whether provincial or federal, wishes to engage in one of the functions of banking then it must conform to that general banking act. We would have none of this nonsense of provincial governments saying that because they have incorporated a particular co-operative they control its operations in the field of money and banking.
February 24, 1969

[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
This, to me, is an indication of the need for a complete revision. We must take a careful look at this picture if we are to have a sound banking system across the country. I remember occasions when we were dealing with associations incorporated under this act-I believe the last was from Saskatchewan-and when unfortunately there were certain complexities concerning the holding of shares. I shall not go into the details, but we had a difficult time. We shall consider the amendments more closely in committee, and I trust they will serve to iron out some of these difficulties.
The first major change indicated by the parliamentary secretary has to do with an amendment to section 4 of the act so as to allow the cabinet by Order in Council to authorize the inclusion in a co-operative credit association of a credit society incorporated under provincial charter. At the present time parliament has to declare itself on such applications. The amendment does not, of course, remove this power from parliament; it gives additional power to the cabinet. The exercise of these new powers is to be founded on Orders in Council and these, of course, will be published. I hope this does not amount to an expression of the mood of the government that more and more authority should be removed from parliament and placed in the hands of the Governor in Council. I see the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) shaking his head as though this were the one thing farthest removed from the mind of the government. Personally, I am not so naive as to take this all on trust.
We are to see a degree of flexibility introduced so that with the approval of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), which in effect means the approval of the Superintendent of Insurance, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) may alter a charter by issuing modified letters patent. I believe this is a good step to take. I do not think there is any need for the great majority of these co-operative associations to be asked to come to parliament for incorporation. The machinery within the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should now be sophisticated enough, and its personnel sufficiently large and sophisticated in most cases, to enable these arrangements to be removed from parliament.
DEBATES	5863
Co-operative Credit Associations Act
I shall reserve my opinion with regard to some of these proposed changes, particularly those relating to the powers and ability of these associations to borrow or raise money. If we refer to the original act-and I intend to make only incidental reference to section 8-we find that in this proposed amendment we are going far beyond the provision "to borrow or raise money from its members or from an association of which it is a member or from chartered banks in Canada...*
I do not think this is the purpose of such an organization as we are considering. This proposal is simply giving more and more people an opportunity to compete for money, whether or not as a result of competition they face from trust companies and the banks at the present time, which on occasion offer what I call deceptively attractive rates of interest that the financial situation of the country does not warrant. Now it is intended to give the caisses populaires and the credit unions the same right, and I shall want to say something on that aspect of the subject during the committee hearings.
There are other proposals which we shall need to consider in detail later but, basically, with the reservations I have mentioned and one or two others, we believe that by and large this bill should receive second reading, bearing in mind that it is to be sent to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. John Burlon (Regina Easi):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of the New Democratic Party I wish to welcome the amendments to the Co-Operative Credit Associations Act which have been placed before us by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gray). I believe this legislation represents a step forward for the credit union movement in Canada and is an indication of the growing strength of the movement and of the increasing role it is playing in the Canadian economy and in promoting the welfare of the Canadian people.
This legislation was requested by the credit union movement, I understand, and the bill now before us is supported by the interested organizations. I also understand that it has been requested for some seven or eight years, and it is regrettable it should have taken so long to bring this bill before parliament. I trust the legislation now before the house is an indication that the government intends to proceed with the long-delayed introduction of
February 24, 1969

Co-operative Credit Associations Act a federal co-operatives act, as has been announced. Account must be taken, of course, of the experience of previous years when the introduction of such a measure was also announced but was not proceeded with for one reason or another. I hope the fact that we are now proceeding to consider these amendments relating to credit unions and co-operative credit associations is an indication that at long last the government is going to proceed with the other legislation I have mentioned.
The details of the bill before us will, of course, receive further study in committee. I understand that this measure provides for greater flexibility in co-operative credit arrangements, enabling credit societies to join in the operations of the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society. I understand, also, that it extends the operating limits of participating members in ways already indicated by the parliamentary secretary.
I cannot join at this time in the reservation expressed by the hon. member for Edmonton-West (Mr. Lambert) with respect to the powers granted to the Governor in Council affecting new members coming under the scope of this legislation. I feel that adequate safeguards already exist to prevent any step being taken which is not in the public interest.
The credit union movement is playing and will continue to play a valuable and important role in the Canadian economy. In particular, it will continue to be of help to people whose financial circumstances prevent them using other financial institutions as they might otherwise wish to do. The credit union movement has developed and grown as a result of the initiative of people who joined together in voluntary co-operation to form their own organizations and develop them, often in the face of difficult obstacles. The present bill is to the credit of those who pioneered this development and carried it on to the point where the movement has become a sophisticated and mature organization on the Canadian scene. Often the progress that has been made has resulted in the face of grudging acquiescence or indifferent acknowledgement by government.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Many people owe some degree of financial stability and independence to the help given them by the credit union movement. I believe that in the future public policy needs to be geared to a greater extent to the encouragement and fostering of the growth of such

institutions. Further growth of credit unions and related institutions is needed, particularly in face of the unprecedented acceleration and spiralling of interest rates that we are witnessing today.
I note that the credit union movement has also had to increase its interest rates in spite of its desire to hold them down. The increase has been necessitated by the need to compete for savings funds which would otherwise go to other institutions that have considerably raised their rates since they are no longer restricted by law in the matter of interest rates on loans. Credit unions find it very difficult to do their job in view of the nightmare growth in interest rates that has taken place over the past two or three years and the increased cost of borrowing.
Present developments respecting interest rates, the cost of borrowing money and financing illustrate the folly of unrestricted rates. At the same time, for the many little people in Canada the credit union movement represents a small island of hope for survival from the advancing swells of uncontrolled financing costs. In this respect I welcome this legislation and I hope that in future we will see a public policy in Canada geared to a greater extent to helping movements like the credit unions to grow and prosper on the Canadian scene.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville- Carle ton):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words in support of these amendments to the Co-operative Credit Associations Act. I think it is significant that in this the first session of this parliament we as members should be presented, first of all, with these important amendments to this valuable piece of legislation and, second, that we should have been advised by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) on Thursday last that it is the firm intention of the government to bring forward a major bill providing for the federal incorporation of cooperatives. These measures indicate to me not only that credit unions and co-operatives have come of age and are important but that this parliament and the people of this country recognize their importance.
It is very difficult for me to add anything of a descriptive nature to the address of the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), the parliamentary secretary, who spoke on second reading of this bill. The background of the legislation was described by him. I think it is well known by all those interested in the credit union movement that it started in
February 24, 19G9	COMMONS
various provinces of this country with the organization of local credit unions or caisses populaires. As these local units grew in importance they found it desirable and helpful to federate into provincial credit societies or organizations for a similar purpose, called credit union leagues, where their surplus funds were pooled. The aim of these organizations was to ensure that the surplus that might be on hand in one credit union at one time could be made available for lending to another credit union which might be short of funds.
As these organizations grew across the country it became apparent that the experience at the provincial level could be duplicated with profit at the federal level. This resulted in the development of a movement in the early fifties for the incorporation of a federal co-operative credit society. This legislation was passed in 1953, and in that year the first and only credit society incorporated under it, the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society, was formed. This legislation is similar in form to other financial leglislation such as the Trust Companies Act, the Loan Companies Act and similar statutes which provide a general regulatory pattern for financial institutions and also provide that they must be incorporated by a private act.
At this stage in its history I think the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society can be said to have realized some of the purposes of its founders, but not all of them. This is recognized by the members and the directors of the society. To some extent the failure of the society to realize all the hopes of those who had a hand in its organization merely recognizes the democratic and free thinking mood of the credit union movement in Canada. Not every credit union or member of a credit union thinks alike, and as a consequence this society is not supported in its membership by all credit unions in the country.
I think it is also true to say that to a very large extent the reason the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society has not realized at this stage in its history all the hopes of its founders is that it has been inhibited and restricted by the conditions set forth in the Co-operative Credit Associations Act. It is extremely fortunate that this bill is now brought forward because it reproduces, I think faithfully, the request of the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society for responsible amendments that will remove the main restrictions that have inhibited its growth and development.
DEBATES	5865
Co-operative Credit Associations Act
I do not wish to create a wrong impression when I say that the organization has not realized all the hopes of its founders, because it has made very substantial progress and represents a valuable and responsible financial arm in the total credit union movement in Canada. The assets of this organization, as disclosed by its most recent balance sheet, exceed $577,000.
Of greater significance in measuring the strength of the credit union movement is the combined strength of credit societies in the four provinces which comprise the membership of the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society. These are the British Columbia Central Credit Union, the Ontario Co-operative Credit Society, the Saskatchewan Co-operative Credit Society, and the Co-operative Credit Society of Manitoba. The annual report of the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society presented at its annual meeting on April 8, 1968, indicates the strength of these four important member credit societies and the tremendous growth which they have achieved in the past decade.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In 1956 the combined assets of these four societies were $18,575,000. In 1966 the combined assets of these four societies had risen to $139,590,000. This is an indication of the growing strength and importance of the credit union movement in this country, to which the parliamentary secretary referred in his remarks. A total of more than $3 billion in savings are invested in credit unions. It is a matter of great significance that one of four Canadians is a member of a credit union.
I do not intend to repeat the description given by the parliamentary secretary of the proposed amendments. It would be more to the point to examine them in detail in the standing committee. But in view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) it might be helpful if I were to comment on two specific proposals. The hon. member referred to the fact that it will now be possible to add members to a co-operative credit society by Order in Council. I think the hon. member reserved his decision on whether this was a prudent move. He is probably completely unaware of the fact that this change has been urgently requested by the credit union movement and by the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society.
5868	COMMONS
Co-operative Credit Associations Act
I will not go into detail as to the legal structure in the Co-operative Credit Associations Act. It is unique in the legislative history of this parliament and represents an attempt by parliament to meet possible problems of jurisdiction in a sensible fashion. This statute provides that any provincial credit society which becomes a member of any federal credit society obtains the benefits of a parallel federal incorporation and is invested with the powers and authorities of a federal credit society as well as the preexisting powers of the provincial society. Membership in a federal credit society carries with it the added status of a federal corporation.
It was the feeling of parliament in 1953 that any organization which became a member of such a society would be named in the private act. This was found to be a very onerous requirement because when a new member wished to join the credit society the private act had to be amended. The proposed change permits new members to be added under the authority of an Order in Council. This is a highly beneficial change which will be welcomed by credit unions.
Reference has also been made to the enlargement of borrowing powers of co-operative credit societies. Formerly they were restricted to borrowing from other credit soci-ties and from chartered banks. These restrictions have now been removed and this will enable the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society to borrow money more generally. Anyone familiar with the co-operative movement in this country will realize the importance of the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society having the power to raise money more generally by bonds and debentures and by the issuance of other securities. This will,
I am sure, be supported by the members of co-operative associations.
The parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) have both spoken about the importance of the credit union movement in this country. This means of extending financial services has been important to people who for one reason or another do not have ready access to the banking system and the more standardized financial institutions. It must be borne in mind that credit unions over the years have filled a gap in the existing financial institutions of this country by bringing financial services close to people who needed them. They have been instrumental in providing instruction and knowledge in economics and in the wise use of credit to their members. They have in the very best and most realistic

DEBATES	February 24, 1969
sense of the term provided for self-help among the people of this country. They have provided a realistic competitive regulator in the financial market. Parliaments should recognize the achievements of the credit union movement and not restrict its legitimate development. It should be the desire of all hon. members to encourage the development of credit unions in this country. This they can do by supporting this legislation.
Last week I attended the annual meeting of a large credit union in my constituency. It was a very happy occasion for people who had borrowed money from that financial institution. The credit union had achieved a substantial saving in the past year. The most important act of the credit union at that meeting was to pass a resolution reducing the interest paid on loans made to members by approximately one-fifth. This is reproduced all over the country time after time.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The actions and activities of credit unions have been greatly beneficial to Canada. The support they have received and the encouragement that has been given to them by central credit societies has been important, and the most important of these central credit societies is the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society created under this statute. I think all of us can be hopeful, if these legislative changes are made, that we will make a great and significant contribution to the further development of that society and of Canadian credit unions.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, briefly I wish to endorse the purpose of this bill. Its passage will allow the expansion of credit unions. In the area where I live these unions are a force for development. They are fulfilling a role not served by other institutions. Their growth has been tremendous, almost fantastic.
I recall that a number of years ago a Saskatchewan Wheat Pool delegate came to a farm meeting in my area to persuade us to start a credit union. He succeeded in interesting a number of individuals who took out a few shares. A few years ago the activities of that credit union passed the $1 million mark. It is an excellent example of people in action doing for themselves the things they want to do and providing good service for themselves.
In many towns credit unions provide the only available banking services. Some years ago many branches of private banks were closed down for the sake of economy. Credit unions have stepped in to fill the gap. They
February 24, 1969

allow people to have some control over their own finances. They return excess earnings to their shareholders and in effect let their customers have money at cost.
The provisions of this bill will give the credit unions access to more funds. Passage of this bill will help the whole co-operative movement which is of great assistance to the farm community and to many urban sectors. This movement serves as a good balance wheel in our economy. I am pleased that the government has seen fit to introduce this bill and I hope it will have the approval of the house.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, credit unions in small communities are much more effective than many other types of financial houses. X understand one of the purposes of this bill is to provide for the transfer of surplus funds from one area to another, which I favour.
There is a housing factory in my area. The bill sponsored by the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) regarding another financial institution, which was discussed in the house a few days ago, would make money available for loans to larger cities and towns. It would not provide money to smaller areas. That institution would be willing to take money from my area but would not lend it to the people there. Credit unions serve a different purpose. They raise their money locally and lend it locally. In my area they lend money to build houses and thus help to provide employment. For this reason I certainly favour this legislation.
I believe the effect of this bill will be beneficial. I hope the co-op movement will expand to take advantage of these amendments. With regard to transferring capital between areas, if we have a good crop on the prairies we may well have a surplus of money which could be transferred for use in other parts of the country. Alternatively, when there is a surplus of money in Ontario or Quebec it could be transferred on loan to Saskatchewan or British Columbia. For this reason I support the bill.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order. If the Parliamentary Secretary speaks now he will close the debate.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond briefly to some of the comments that have been made and to thank hon. members for the thoughts they put forward. I am sure we will have a very useful discussion when we
DEBATES	5867
Co-operative Credit Associations Act examine these proposed amendments in detail in the finance committee.
I wish to confirm something the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) said when replying to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). He said in effect that the concept of having provincial centrals that wished to come under the provisions of the act included by Order in Council was a suggestion of the credit union movement itself. I wish to confirm this by putting on the record the following extract from the proceedings of the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee of January 17, 1967, page 1316. Mr. Wagar, who was then and I believe still is an executive officer of the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society, said:
One of the requirements of the present legislation is that in order to add a member, or in order for any other provincial central credit society to become a member of the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society, requires an act of the parliament of Canada and we suggested that there be an amendment that other centrals might become members of the society with approval of the Governor in Council rather than by an act of parliament.
It would appear that those most directly concerned in the general community with the operations of this act feel that the amendment in question is a most desirable one. I conclude by urging the house to support this measure and look forward to a more extensive inquiry with regard to it in the finance committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue) moved: that Bill S-10, to amend the Customs Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: that the bill be read the third time and passed.

February 24, 1969
Hazardous Substances


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: that Bill S-25, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: that Bill S-26, to prohibit the advertising, sale and importation of hazardous products, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), will be joining us here in just a moment or two. He did not expect this measure to be called so soon, but he is now on his way to the chamber. I believe hon. members generally would agree that we have come to hear the feature attraction, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), so without further ado I shall sit down.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, one can only welcome this bill

to prohibit the marketing of hazardous products and can only wonder why it took the government so long to get around to it. With particular reference to the hazardous ingredients in model plane glue, if this bill had been passed a year ago lives might well have been saved. It is not my intention to review the tragic roster of young children and some adults who have been found dead as a result of uninformed glue-sniffing, in many cases not even aware of the lethal effects. My only hope now is that the government will move with determination and force to keep these dangerous substances out of the hands of children and will not allow the prohibitory effect of the bill to be nullified by permissiveness in the regulations.
The minister and the officers of his department know as well as I do that the toxic substance in model plane glue is deadly dangerous, that young children have been induced by their friends to dabble in dangerous experimentation and that some have died. Therefore I wonder why the minister has placed this substance in a category in Part II of the schedule where the door can be opened to permissiveness under the regulations. If this happens and if definite action is not taken in spite of all the pressure that may be brought-and we know there is pressure-I warn the minister he will not have the confidence of the Canadian people. No one can tell me it is not possible for chemical companies who are always boasting about their research staffs to find a substitute for the toxic product in airplane glue or other model glues. It is up to them. It is not up to us to do their work for them.
I should like to bring to the attention of the house an article which appeared in the Toronto Star for January 25, 1969, which says in part:
The development of new, harmless glues in the U.S. should soon make it possible to ban the toxic varieties altogether. One of these was developed at the request of New York schools and it has turned out to be an effective, all-purpose glue.
It is not up to this house, nor is it up to Canadian parents to encourage or tolerate a dilatory attitude on the part of the authorities. I say to the minister "Get this stuff off the market, and the sooner the better". Let the companies find a substitute that will not endanger the lives and health of children. This should have been done many months ago. It is an extremely urgent situation. That is why it is hard to understand the apparent lethargy with which the government has proceeded with this legislation. There is certainly
February 24, 1969

Hazardous Substances
no problem about getting it through this chamber. Every member is in favour of it and most people have been clamouring for it. That is why it should have been brought in earlier.
But now that we have it before us I am rather surprised at the inclusion in part II of the schedule, among substances like bleaches and other generally non-fatal substances, of this dangerous and toxic ingredient which has caused a number of deaths in Canada. Why is not airplane glue in part I so it would simply be prevented from coming into Canada? What is the thinking behind this stranger arrangement? I ask the minister that question. The minister is not here; he will have to read it in Hansard. He has his experts to advise him, but they are not here either. He should be able to obtain an answer. With that proviso- and I warn the minister it is a serious one because I am not joking about this matter- speaking for the party I represent I say we warmly support the bill. We do express the view, however, that it should have been brought in at a much earlier stage when lives could have been saved, and, second, we insist with all seriousness that there must not, regardless of pressure, be any loophole in the regulations which would permit the continued importation into Canada of this dangerous substance so that it could fall into the hands of young people.
Before this measure passes I should like to hear an assurance from the minister concerning the reason the name of the ingredient found in model plane glue has been placed in part II of the schedule with generally nontoxic substances. Second, I should like the assurance that no loophole will appear in the regulations whereby this substance can find its way into the hands of children. Once these assurances are forthcoming we will all feel better about this bill.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak very briefly in support in general terms of Bill S-26, to prohibit the advertising, sale and importation of hazardous products, I wish, on the one hand, to commend the government for bringing this measure before us and, on the other hand, to join with the previous speaker who regretted that it has taken so long to have this legislation brought forward. There is no doubt in my mind that had this legislation been brought in five or ten years ago many Canadians would have been saved a great deal of trouble. I certainly support the idea that it should be applied in respect of materials such as paints,
particularly the prohibition in respect of advertising, selling or importation. Household products which are hazardous may be defined generally as paints, cleansers and sanitizers. 1 am sure there will be general agreement in the house and the committee as well as in the country generally that what the government is seeking is necessary.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In adding my measure of support to this bill I should like to draw the minister's attention to two bills dealing with hazardous products which appear in my name. I hope that a recommendation in one of my bills will receive detailed consideration when this bill is referred to the committee. I refer to Bill C-118 which has to do with the labelling rather than the advertising of hazardous products. The bill refers specifically to detergents and it was introduced last October. The explanatory note states:
Many houehold products In the nature of detergents are used every day by housewives and many of them do constitute a danger to health if ingested or inhaled accidentally by children or even if used for the purposes they are intended for.
It is advisable, in the circumstances, that the said products be labelled as hazardous to health.
I believe that the labelling of such products in that way might well be considered as a good move in addition to the purpose of the present bill which has specific reference to importation or advertisement.
The other bill which appears in my name is Bill C-53, a bill to include in food and drug legislation some control in respect of hazardous household products. This bill has reference to probably the most hazardous household product on the market-tobacco. It contains a proposal which would result in some control under the food and drug legislation. This matter might also be considered when Bill S-26 is being dealt with.
I am sure most members will now agree that cigarette smoking constitutes one of the greatest hazards to health in Canada. It is causing the loss of many lives and a great deal of illness. I hope my bills can be considered in conjunction with the bill now before us. I would be satisfied if this could be done rather than having to move an amendment to Bill S-26 introduced by the government.
In general terms I support this bill. When it is being considered by the committee I should like to put before that committee certain details in respect of the use of some products along with further recommendations which I hope will be considered at that time.

February 24, 1969
Hazardous Substances [Translation]


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, like the two previous speakers, I should like to say how very pleased I am that this bill is being introduced today although, as was mentioned earlier, the government could have introduced it long before now.
Mr. Speaker, I think, that, on the one hand, it would have probably been easier, and even desirable that this bill be introduced a lot sooner but, on the other hand, I think that it was necessary to wait for developments, to protect the life of people by forbidding them to use certain products which can be found in almost every home and which are too often within the reach of children.
A few months ago it might have been difficult for the government to anticipate the danger of these products as it is rather difficult to anticipate that within a few months or a few years, other products might endanger the life of our fellow-citizens.
In my opinion, this bill introduced today fairly well covers all the dangers which can be brought about by certain substances contained in products of daily use.
I should like to ask the minister for some clarification with regard to this bill which, I hope, will deal not only with imported products but also with noxious products which could be manufactured in Canada. Besides, I hope that the bill will deal with products which can be marketed by some Canadian industries and which could be dangerous also for their users.
Mention is made in this bill of certain beans used in the manufacture of toys or ornamental pieces. I believe that we received some from Japan. I do not believe Japanese manufacturers wanted to endanger the life of Canadian people, but I feel it is up to the government to make sure that products used in the manufacturing of apparently harmless articles do not endanger people's life. I therefore believe the bill is justified and that nobody is opposed to it.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we must also take steps to remove the danger from aircraft glue. But I wonder whether this is not a fad among our young people. We note-although it is not general-a certain getting-out of hand of our youth. As a matter of fact, it would seem as if some young people were seeking things they cannot find in well-organized environments, that is adventure. Well, they have found it in glue sniffing which permits them to get intoxicated, to get high. Buying glue is easier

than buying cigarettes, marijuana, opium or other drugs. I believe the government should take steps in order to prohibit the sale of such products or to cope with the situation, as was mentioned a while ago by an hon. member from Edmonton, by inducing manufacturers to change their manufacturing process and make a non-poisonous product.
The same could also be said about plastic bags. They have been known to cause death, and can still do so. It is often suggested that their users should destroy them as soon as possible or perforate them.
Many other household objects can affect health, and even cause death. Consider, for instance, the excessive use of alcohol. Some people lose their health because of it. To my mind, the government has done very little to date to educate the people about the dangers of alcoholism. I would not go so far as to ask the government to past a law forbidding its use, because at times, alcohol can be useful; but when it is used unwisely, it can affect health and even lead to death. Alcohol is also, indirectly, the cause of almost as many accidental deaths on our roads as can be attributed to war.
The same goes for the immoderate use of cigarettes. I do not feel that the government should be asked to forbid their use either: yet, an immoderate use of tobacco can affect one's health.
Still, these things are available to thousands of people who, very often, use them without being aware of the dangers involved.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is timely although it comes a little late for some. To my mind, its implementation will lead not only to restrictions in the imports of dangerous products, but it will also constitute a warning about their use. This measure should be accompanied by a publicity campaign so that the people might know that we do not want to restrict their freedom but that instead we wish to protect them against the dangers involved in the use of certain products.
Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, we strongly support this bill.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, like the previous speakers on this subject, I am very pleased that the government is bringing in this bill and I would like to speak in favour of it. I would like, first, to make reference to two particular matters which I feel are important. One is a
February 24, 1969

subject with regard to which I brought in a private member's bill on October 15. Bill C-119 which refers to the labelling of products. The other subject is fire, which I think should also be discussed at this time. I would then like to refer to the bill itself and bring to the attention of the house an aspect which I think should be amended before the bill is passed.
On the question of safety generally, in Canada in 1966 there was a total of 11,400 fatal accidents, of which 2,200 took place in the home. A great number of these fatal accidents were caused by falls which, as we all know, are a major cause of death among the elderly. Of these fatal home accidents, 757 were caused by falls and 561 were the result of fires and explosions. There were a great number of suffocations, 327 in all. These, of course, were almost all children. There were 275 deaths from poisoning, 75 from firearms, 51 from drowning and so on.
I think it is obvious from these figures that fire and poisoning are very definite hazards in the home, and that the government should pay attention to household products. I suggest that the reason for many of these accidents is the tremendous range of household products on the market today. The consumer is faced with a bewildering array of different products from which to choose, and he or she may have no idea of their inflammability or poison content.
I think this is inevitable. As the range of choice increases, the knowledge of the properties of the products decreases correspondingly. For this reason I think it is important for the government to step into this area and assist the consumer in ascertaining what are the hazards of the products which he or she may purchase in the stores. I think that few members in this house disagree that this is a very legitimate concern of the government.
I now turn to the point which I mentioned earlier, namely fire. There are various methods whereby fabrics can be fireproofed. Unfortunately, all these methods involve considerable expense. For example, a normal household product such as a sheet can be fireproofed, but instead of costing, say, $3 as an unfireproofed product it costs $4 when fireproofed. In other words, there is an increase of 25 per cent. In addition, when fireproofed the life of the product is reduced by half. Therefore, instead of spending $3 for a sheet which will last for a certain length of time the consumer must pay the equivalent of
Hazardous Substances
$8 for the fireproofed product for the same period of time.
I think it is important to know that fireproofing is not something that simply requires regulation. It involves far more than that. In view of the fact that cotton, wool, silk, rayon and similar products are all to some degree inflammable, I think that the best the government can do is insist that manufacturers properly label their products so that, through a system of standardized labelling, the public will be able to tell at a glance the flammability of the product.
Some products should be excluded from such regulation and be banned outright because, regardless of whether the public knows of their degree of inflammability, they are a danger. In my opinion, government action should be to insist upon the proper labelling of fabrics so that the public is fully aware of the danger of fire therefrom. In this connection I might say that the public is, generally speaking, not particularly interested in fireproofing. The experience of various manufacturers selling fireproofed drapes, fibreglass drapes, is that the public is more concerned about having colourful or attractive drapes than the fireproofed product. Therefore I think the government will have to insist upon fireproof standards for all products. The public cannot be relied on to do so. I suggest that the government should insist upon proper labelling so that the public knows the danger connected with the product it is purchasing. I should now like to turn to the next problem area.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Public Service-superannuated federal employees-request for increased pensions; the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)-Indian Affairs-request for statement of functions of Minister without Portfolio; the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Laniel)-Historic Monuments-administration and maintenance of Vimy monument.
February 24, 1968

Supplementary Estimates SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B).


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could have the consent of the house to revert to motions in order to put the motion that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) referred to earlier today with regard to the supplementary estimates.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Has the
minister leave to put this question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I move, seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford):
(1)	That, in relation to the consideration of a motion or motions to concur in the final Supplementary Estimates (B) presented to the house this day and the passage of any bill to be based thereon, the provisions of Standing Order 58 shall apply, subject to the conditions hereunder stated.
(2)	That upon the adoption of this proposed order, the said estimates shall stand referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, as follows:
Votes 10b, 15b, 17b, 20b, 25b, 30b, and 45b, relating to the Department of Agriculture.
Vote 65b relating to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board.
Vote 10b relating to the Department of Communications.
Votes lb and 25b relating to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Votes 50b and L3b relating to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Vote 75b relating to the Dominion Coal Board.
Votes lb, 15b and L22b relating to the Department of External Affairs.
Vote 30b relating to the Canadian International Development Agency.
Votes	2b,	30b,	46b and L27b	relating to the
Department of Finance.
Votes 15b, 18b, 40b, and L32b relating to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry.
Votes	5b,	20b,	30b, 35b, 36b,	L35b, and L65b
relating to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Votes 38b and L82b relating to the Department of Industry and Trade and Commerce.
Votes 5b, 12b and 20b relating to the Department of Labour.
Votes 5b and 15b relating to the Senate and the House of Commons.
Votes	6b,	10b,	15b, and 25b	relating to the
Department of Manpower and Immigration.
Votes 20b and 40b relating to the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Vote L83b relating to the Department of National Revenue.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
Votes 10b and 15b relating to the Privy Council.
Votes 15b, 20b, 25b, and 30b relating to the Department of Public Works.
Vote 10b relating to the Department of Regional Development.
Votes lb and 2b relating to the Department of the Secretary of State.
Vote 40b relating to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission.
Votes lb and L103b relating to the Department of the Solicitor General.
Votes 7b, 8b, 15b, 16b, and L104b relating to the Department of Supply and Services.
Votes 3b, 15b, 20b, 40b, L107b, and LllOb relating to the Department of Transport.
Votes 57b, 60b, and 65b relating to the Canadian Transport Commission.
Votes 75b and 77b relating to the National Harbours Board.
Votes 5b, 6b, and 10b relating to the Treasury Board.
Votes 30b and 35b relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Votes L116b, L117b, L113b, and L119b relating to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
(3)	That, unless the committee has reported these estimates back to the house on or before February 28, 1969, it shall be deemed that the committee has so reported on that date.
(4)	That there be allotted to the consideration by the house of the said estimates and the consequent bill a total of three sitting days before March 27, 1969, in lieu of the three provided under Standing Order 58(7) for the period between March 26 and June 30, but such days shall not form part of the number of days allotted to the consideration of the business of supply for the period terminating on March 26, 1969.
(5)	That on the last of the three allotted days, if the bill be not previously passed by the house, the proceedings in relation to this proposed order shall be interrupted and disposed of in accordance with section 10 of Standing Order 58.
(6)	That the hour for private members' business, if any, on any such allotted day be suspended.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this motion, as I have had the opportunity to read it, is in keeping with the new rules that we have adapted and therefore the form of the motion is acceptable to us. I feel, however, that I must register a protest against what is being done in so far as the supplementary estimates covered by this motion are concerned. These supplementary estimates (B) were tabled today, and I find in them 51 $1 items. I submit this is an abuse of supplementary estimates. One dollar items are items of legislation.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
If this process goes much farther we could certainly shorten the session. We could have one bill with $1 items in it and the session would be over. As I say, I agree that these estimates should be referred to the committee
February 24, 1969

and that we should deal with them for the three allotted days back in the house in keeping with what we agreed to, but I register my protest against a much wider use of $1 items than I have ever seen in the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: 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 notices of motions, public bills.



NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give early consideration to measures for maintaining the purchasing power of Canadian currency by eliminating inflation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this notice of motion raises the question of the ever-increasing cost of living, the depreciation of our currency, and inflation. The cost of living aspect concerns most Canadian consumers while inflation and the depreciated value of our currency concern the economist, but essentially they are all the same thing.
In a way this is an anniversary for me because on looking back I see I first spoke on this subject in 1963, put a question on the order paper with regard to it in 1964, again spoke on it in 1966, and now in 1969 I find myself raising the question once more. There has been one important difference since I first raised it in 1963. At that time the cost of living was increasing at a rate slightly less than 2 per cent a year; now it is increasing at a rate slightly more than 4 per cent a year. My representations in 1963 and 1966, although I think eloquent, have obviously failed to achieve their purpose.
Since 1949 the cost of living in Canada has gone up slightly more than 50 per cent. That means that $1 today is worth in purchasing power slightly less than 66 cents in 1949. I compare the present time with 1949 because, as all hon. members will remember, that was
Finance
the year when we first settled down after the second world war. There was a big jump in prices after controls were removed following the termination of the war. In 1949 prices settled down and we began to have what was then termed creeping inflation at the rate of 1 or 2 per cent a year.
As I said, creeping inflation has ceased to creep and has begun to run, and we now have inflation at the rate of about 4 per cent. I realize that, as has been pointed out by many experts, the figures established by the cost of living index do not necessarily take into account improvements in quality. Part of the increased cost of goods is no doubt due in some measure to increases in quality, better and more elaborate packaging, and advertising costs. We get our quid pro quo for advertising costs through free radio and television programs and that sort of thing. Nevertheless, after taking due account of all those factors, undoubtedly the value of our money is going down and the cost of living is going up.
The point I would like to make is that inflation is basically a tax. I believe that most economists would agree with this or at any rate would agree that inflation has the same result as a tax. It is a particularly regressive type of tax because it has the same effect as a sales tax on everything that is bought. In other words, now that we are having inflation at the rate of 4 per cent a year, it is the same thing as if the federal government set a universal sales tax at that rate on everything that is bought and on every transaction of purchase and sale in the country. The inflation tax is a tax for which the federal government is basically responsible, and I think every federal government should take the responsibility for this tax. I think it should be recognized as a tax.
Now let us consider who collects the inflation tax. I think that the government collects about a third of the total cost of the inflation tax to the consumer. I say that because it is generally recognized that governments today take about a third of the gross national product. Let us say that one-third of this tax which is levied upon everyone in the country, on every purchase and sale that takes place, goes to governments and presumably is used for useful purposes, so perhaps we cannot complain too much about that one-third.
Where does the other two-thirds of the tax go? It goes to any corporation or any individual who anticipates inflation and decides to raise his prices or services more than the in-

February 24, 1969
Finance
flationary rate. In other words, if a doctor or a businessman anticipates that there is going to be inflation at the rate of 4 per cent and is at all smart, he will sit down at the beginning of the year and say to himself that there is going to be inflation in Canada at the rate of 4 per cent and that in order to stay even and to make the same amount as last year he will have to raise the price on his goods or services by at least 4 per cent; but if he can raise it by 5 per cent he will make a bit more. So it is my guess that while governments get about one-third of the proceeds of this general inflationary sales tax, two-thirds go to those people who are well organized enough, smart enough or quick enough on their economic feet to anticipate inflation and profit by it. It is well established that there are people in any country who profit substantially from inflation and two-thirds of any inflationary sales tax goes to them.
When governments get one-third and two thirds goes to unnamed individuals and corporations which make up our economy, we know who gets the tax. But who pays for it? Obviously some of the people who pay the tax are those who are stupid enough to own government bonds or any bonds; because if you own a $100 bond at the beginning of the year and there is inflation at the rate of 4 per cent, at the end of the year your bond is worth only $96 in terms of purchasing power. So anyone who is stupid enough to own a bond, a mortgage or any instrument evidencing fixed debt is hit by the tax in full measure. Also, anyone who owns insurance policies or anyone who is on a fixed pension gets hit by it. The income of retired civil servants, for instance, has remained the same but at the same time it has been cut down in value every year by the inflationary rate which, as I said, is now at 4 per cent.
I can recall when a pension of $250 a month was considered a very generous and large pension for a retired civil servant who had spent half his life in the service of the federal government. Such a pension might have been adequate ten years ago but certainly is no longer adequate because of inflation. Those are the people who own debt instruments, widows, orphans and pensioners, unorganized wage earners and salaried people. These are the people who pay the general sales tax of which I spoke.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Obviously, therefore, the people who pay the tax are in most cases the ones who are least able to afford to pay it. For this reason
[Mr. Wahn.l
it is natural that government should want to protect them in some way. Governments do try to protect these people to some extent. For example, under the Canada Pension Plan it has been agreed that the pension payments should rise as the cost of living rises. However, I believe there is a limit of 2 per cent a year placed on such an increase and, if so, it is not enough because the cost of living is rising by 4 per cent a year.
If we permit inflation to continue there must be ever-increasing government intervention to protect people against the effects of this particular tax. Increasingly massive intervention by the government in the economy will be necessary to give these people the protection they obviously need. Indeed, in the final analysis the whole process is self-defeating. If we begin compensating, through escalation provisions, for the increase in the cost of living, we increase the rate of inflation still further. It is like a dog chasing its own tail. He goes faster and faster but he cannot catch it. If he were to do so he would be very surprised.
In our case, we cannot catch up. Any suggestion that we can compensate all those segments of the population which cannot protect themselves, by writing in escalation provisions, is unsound. This would not provide effective protection. Many times in this house suggestions have been made that the government should, for example, increase the pensions of retired civil servants. This question comes up regularly and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) just as regularly points out that the matter is being constantly considered. I believe these pensions should be increased because in my view we have a special responsibility toward retired civil servants. But if these pensions are increased, what about all those people who retired under private pension plans? They contributed to the economy too. They have no claim upon their employers for larger pensions. If the retired civil servants get a pension increase should not the holders of private pensions be treated in the same way? So one could go on from one group to another, never finding it possible to achieve equity in these circumstances.
Very often one meets people who say that inflation is not nearly as bad as it is made out to be because, though the cost of living has certainly risen, disposable income in the hands of consumers has risen even more. Of course it has, because productivity has been constantly increasing and, obviously, if
February 24, 1969

productivity goes up and if there is inflation, total disposable income must increase. But the question is: who got this increase? This argument really involves the hardship of averages. Total disposable income has increased faster than inflation because of increased productivity. The averages conceal the fact that many people who are least able to protect themselves have suffered a very large reduction in their effective purchasing power, though others who are better able to protect themselves have received substantial increases. In other words, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer whenever the state permits continuing inflation.
Someone on the other side said all this was the responsibility of the federal government which fortunately, at the present time, happens to be a Liberal government. I agree it is the responsibility of the federal government. There is even a provision in the Criminal Code which deals with the clipping of our coinage; it used to be section 398, and I have referred to it in this chamber on previous occasions. It says:
Everyone who impairs, diminishes or lightens a current gold or silver coin with intent that it should pass for a current gold or silver coin... is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.
So this is a serious offence. Yet recently there was a wholesale exchange of our silver currency and nickel was substituted for silver. In other words, our currency was lightened very substantially so far as silver content is concerned, in the course of quite a normal transaction. It thus appears that one can practice coin lightening provided it is done on a large enough scale, when it ceases to be a criminal offence and becomes a legitimate operation of high finance.
To show that this is not just a concern of mine but that it is fairly general, I should like to refer to something which was said by Professor Clark in his report on social security submitted to this house some years ago. He was asked who suffered most from inflation and the rising cost of living, and he replied as follows:
Inflation is inherently unfair to those economically or politically incapable of defending their interests. This includes some categories of salaried employees and those on pension-both private and government. Recipients of government old age pensions are in a position to exert some political pressure on their own behalf-
As we have seen.
-but those on private pension usually have little opportunity, and no contractual claim to have their pensions raised to offset inflation since their
Finance
retirement. Those widows, orphaned children and retired persons who are largely dependent financially on the proceeds of life insurance policies, annuities, interest on government or corporate bonds, or other investments at fixed, or nearly fixed, rates of interest, suffer from inflation with no prospect of relief.
Professor Kenneth Boulding, using somewhat less academic language, puts it this way:
Inflation is a refined method of taking bread out of the mouths of the aged, the infirm, the widows and orphans.
Some views on this subject have also been expressed in recent years by the Economic Council of Canada and also by Mr. Ras-minsky, the respected Governor of the Bank of Canada. At one time there were people who said a little inflation was good for the economy, that if there was not inflation at the rate of 1.5 per cent or 2 per cent a year there would be high unemployment rates, and that to keep the economy prospering a little creeping inflation was necessary. More recently it has been recognized that any degree of inflation is bad for us. Since this is an important point, I should like to quote a statement made by Mr. Grajiam Towers in January of this year. Mr. Towers was at one time Governor of the Bank of Canada. He was referring to a suggestion that a little creeping inflation was good for the economy.
In discussing the thesis that we can and should accept inflation as a means of achieving high rates of output, the Governor of the Bank of Canada in his last annual report expressed the opinion that this option is not really open to us. He said, and I quote "It would soon become just as difficult to prevent price rises from exceeding a high target rate as it now is to prevent them from exceeding a low target rate. The same policies of restraint would come to be required. Nothing would be gained in employment or output; the difficult efforts to adjust to inflation would thus have been to no avail and our ability to grow steadily would be continuously threatened by the impairment of our international competitive position."
A little later Mr. Towers said:
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Another evil of accepting a certain degree of inflation as inevitable and tolerable is that it tends to make governments complacent. Why take politically unpopular measures to fight a rise in the general price level if a little inflation is part of the so-called "trade-off" against unemployment? Eventually, of course, steps have to be taken if only because substantially rising living costs are widely unpopular. But by that time the problem is more difficult to solve and all kinds of disruptions and distortions have occurred. Moreover, one can never in this modern world get back to the level of prices and the cost of living that prevailed in earlier years. So I believe that governments should and must set their faces against

February 24, 1969
Finance
any continuing rises in the general level of prices. They may not be 100 per cent successful. But, if they try hard, they should be able to do a pretty fair job and avoid the quite disastrous effects of destroying public confidence in the value of money. If, on the other hand, governments accept continuing inflation as inevitable, even to a limited degree-often defined as 1or 2 per cent per annum -they are defeated before they start.
Before concluding perhaps I might also mention the effect of inflation upon what is of concern to all of us, namely, very high interest rates. Let us consider for a moment what happens when there is a 4 per cent rate of inflation. Suppose you go to a corporation which perhaps is in the 50 per cent tax bracket, or to an individual whose top income is in a tax bracket of 50 per cent, to borrow $100. This company or individual knows that if they grant you a loan of $100, at the end of one year, with a 4 per cent rate of inflation, they will get back only $96 worth of purchasing power. Therefore they must charge you 8 per cent interest just to stay even. We must remember that they are paying an income tax of 50 per cent on the interest and they have to cope with a 4 per cent increase in inflation. By charging 8 per cent interest the loss in purchasing power by making the loan to you is just cancelled out. Therefore it is pretty apparent that the combined effect of inflation and income tax rates at that level are bound to make interest costs high. There is really no way to keep them low except by subsidization. The problem we are facing in raising money for housing mortgages and other useful purposes at the present time is largely due to this factor I have mentioned-inflation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I have to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I heartily concur in this motion because in its terms it is as good a motion of non-confidence in this government as one could possibly devise. The hon. member says that he has put forward this motion in these terms since about 1963. That could be. But in discussing this subject I find myself in the position of not wanting to repeat my budget speech and other speeches made this year about finance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The poor Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) might perhaps suddenly decide there was some truth in what he said about inflation, having
[Mr. Wahn.l
been a member of the administration in the past that blithely disregarded inflation and told us that it was nothing very serious. However, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has belatedly decided to lay the cornerstone of some sort of policy. Having seen the problem he now says he is taking care of it. He said that on television during the course of the winter, I think around New Year, and has gone around preaching restraint on the part of others but not the government.
I agree entirely with what the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) said about the reaction of the public to the spending policies of the federal government. The minister has been raising spending limits for this coming year to the tune of $900 million. We have had a budgetary deficit that was acknowledged in the estimates at the time to be some $730 million. We have also had some supplementary estimates in the amount of some $151 million, though the figures do not quite jibe in view of what the expenditures are now and what they were said to be at the time of the budget. I would say that the net result is roughly another $100 million expenditure. These supplementary estimates are Supplementary Estimates B. I am waiting to see the final estimates which will include the bill for agricultural price supports and a number of other matters. These will come in around the end of March.
I do not agree with my hon. friend from St. Paul's when he says that inflation is entirely the responsibility of the federal government. The federal government must provide leadership in meeting inflation but inflation, regardless of the way you measure it, results from the increase in wages, the difference between the demand for a return and the increase in the production of goods and services. That is what it comes down to and it is a modem phenomenon.
On the other hand I think the federal government can slough off some responsibility on to some of the provincial administrations. Most of the provincial premiers will declare that they have had a 15-year honeymoon, that they have gone on spending and spending until they have come to the horrible realization at the present time that they have to cut back their spending. This year we will see some agonizing reappraisals of provincial policies, but we will see some much greater agonizing reappraisals on the part of the federal government. One of these reappraisals will concern medicare. If there ever is a penny-wise, pound-foolish program it is medicare
February 24, 1969

as presently designed. The Minister of Finance has to be credible in his government policies. One has only to note our bond prices to realize that the market does not for a moment believe the government.
The hon. member for St. Paul's gave us quite an academic dissertation on the causes and effects of inflation. Certainly the bond market is hedging against the inflation. Incidentally, in recent weeks we have observed that the cost of living index has changed its base, 1961 now equalling 100. I looked at the returns that came into my office this morning. They were most interesting. Today the cost of living index has risen to 122; under the former 1949 index, which I agree was a little unrealistic, we would be up to 160. If anyone is interested in this, the cost of living for the average individual last month rose by .27 per cent. The index is already almost four points higher than it was in January, 1968.
This sort of thing cannot continue. The government must show leadership by cutting expenditure, not by adding $900 million to budgeted expenditures. The Minister of Finance says it will be only $900 million, but quite frankly I do not believe him. I think it will be more than that. He has made no changes in his post-secondary educational program, nor in the hospital insurance program. He now wants to start on medicare. The first two programs have been blamed for the increase in costs. Lessons have been learned and the appropriate steps should be taken.
I would have thought that the recent speeches made by the Governor of the Bank of Canada were an absolute "back of the hand" from Canada's central banker to his superiors, the government, an indication that their spending policies were entirely unreasonable and unrealistic in view of the problems existing today. The provinces must share some responsibility. The drive or impetus is there whether it is municipal, provincial or federal. Currencies of other countries have been debased as a result of inflation. It makes no difference whether this inflation is slow, creeping or galloping. On the one hand the people are encouraged to be responsible, save their money and invest. On the other hand, the government is asking for permission to nibble away at these savings by establishing the Canada Development Corporation.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
As there are many others who wish to speak, I will limit myself to those remarks. I
Finance
am glad to have had the opportunity to speak on this motion. I commend it to all hon. members on the government side. May it
pass.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether to be amused or pained by the inference of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that this is a no-confidence motion, which seems to delight the hon. member. This is a perfect illustration of how difficult it is to persuade some members in this house that constructive criticism can come from members on the government side, as well as those on the other side, without in any way suggesting that the government is rocky at the knees or is about to fall.
When I had the honour of being elected to this house to represent the people of Winnipeg South Centre, I was expected to use what intelligence God had given me. I do not know if that intelligence is set aside when one joins another party. I have seen no indication of that in this party. On the contrary, I have had to scramble like the very devil to keep up with the intelligent discussions within this party.
I commend the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) for raising this subject. I think this discussion is very valuable, and I do not believe the motion is a criticism of government policies. Practically every government in the western world has these problems. No one has put forward a final, doctrinaire answer to be used as a guide line. We have attempted various methods, one of which has been to cut down our expenditures. A demonstration of this method has been the removal of the winter works program which no longer served the purpose it originally set out to do. We were damned for cutting out this program. If we had not done so, we would have been damned for keeping a program which was no longer useful.
There is only one member of the Conservative Party in the house at this time when we are discussing a matter which that party considers to be so important.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Not right now; do you mind if I complete my remarks?
This government shares all the broad goals which every civilized government in the

February 24, 1989
Finance
world shares, such as full employment, economic growth, price stability, balance in external trade. Unlike the opposition, the government has to reconcile all the diametrically opposed elements within this objective which occur on a day to day basis. This is not easy to do. The government is fully aware of the fact that as long as there is inflation people will get hurt, mainly the older people and the poor. Elderly people who have given service have every right to believe they should be able to live without undue stress and strain in their old age. Nobody wants inflation. On the business side, inflation leads to troubles with which we are all familiar.
It is difficult to obtain money to invest in an enterprise. It is particularly difficult to get mortgage and bond money, which is the type of money required for government and social long term objectives. It has been suggested if people would restrain their wage demands, we would no longer have inflation. It is true higher wages help cause inflationary problems. Management helps cause inflationary problems when it is less than careful with expense accounts, or less than diligent in having the most up to date equipment in factories to cut down production costs. Management not only hurts operational efficiency and the workers' ability to produce, but society as a whole, when through selfish motives production machinery is allowed to become run down.
There are two sides to this question. There are those who want high tariffs for inefficient industries to hide behind. The problem is a broad one which has to be attacked in many ways. As the hon. member for Edmonton West intimated, it is not something for which we can completely blame the worker. A great deal of the inflation is caused by government spending. This government should not be criticized for attempting to rationalize spending and bring it under control. Instead of saying to the provinces you can have 50 per cent of X dollars, the federal government is attempting to define X dollars and the objectives for which those dollars will be used in order to rationalize and control its budget. I have great confidence that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will be able to bring his budget under control. It will take time because rationalization will have to result from discussions with provincial governments. Provincial governments must use restraint, as must the federal government.
The new department of regional development is a great step toward rational growth

in areas where it is desperately needed without fanning the flames of inflation. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) has proposed the creation of an independent public agency to study, investigate and report on the problems of rising costs and prices. There is no one single solution. I am confident that this government has as good brains as any government ever had. which is all one can hope to find. This government is attempting to solve a situation which has not been solved conclusively by any government anywhere. I would be less than honest if I did not say the government must be like Caesar's wife; it must appear to be irreproachable as well as being irreproachable.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
A greater effort must be made by the government to spend less money frivolously on offices, to restrain itself. The government should think twice about expenditures that the public will take as examples of frivolous spending because people will say, "What the hell; if they are doing it, I will do it too."
There are areas in which we can all help the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). I would suggest that we, ourselves, think twice about whether we want an office repainted. Nobody has asked, me, as a backbencher, if I want mine repainted. If they did, I would probably try to act like a good Canadian and fight inflation by saying, "Let it be for a while." There are attitudes that members of the government can take that will help the general climate, that will help the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance to achieve their objectives. These objectives, to a great extent can be achieved by themselves, but to an equally great extent they have to be achieved by example.
I would like to close by reading from the economic report of the President of the United States to congress in January, 1969, which included the annual report of the council of economic advisers in the United States with respect to combating inflation:
It requires clear comprehension by all groups of the overwhelming importance of this goal.
We are doing good things. We should continue to try to do those things and more. We should continue to try to set a good example in our own house so that people will not say, "If the government can spend money like this, then I can do it too."


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope hon. members will not mind if I bring to their
February 24, 1969

attention the fact that a number of hon. members are anxious to participate in this debate and we are running short of time.


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, since this is the kind of debate in which so many members wish to participate, I shall restrict myself to fewer remarks than I might have made otherwise. I have found that few worthwhile suggestions about inflation have been made in the debate to this point. Everyone is against inflation. We all realize that inflation creates problems. I am not at all sure that the previous speaker's suggestion that he would not repaint his office would make any significant contribution to the struggle against inflation in the Canadian economy. However, it was a worthy gesture on his part.
We must really ask the question, and it is a question which has not yet been asked, why have we got inflation? In my opinion, the answer is that we have reached a position where those who are strong in the market place laugh at the market place. Adam Smith may be dead a couple of hundred years but it is only today that his theory is being buried. Those able to dominate the market place and fix prices in oligopolistic industries are not subject to the kind of forces discussed in the day of Adam Smith. This is what we have to recognize. When the strong ignore the dictates of the market place, when competition has ceased to be a significant factor in our life, or as significant as it used to be, then the weak are going to suffer.
The answers are not easy; they are not simple. I, for one, face the future with some hesitation because I think the result is inevitable. Unless we bring in some measure of price control, we are not going to solve the problem of inflation. We are now getting the worst of both worlds. We are getting inflation and high unemployment. At one time one would have thought that if we had the kind of unemployment we have at present in Canada, inflation would have been contained. But that obviously is not the case now. Unemployment is not working to offset inflation. Unless we bring in some measure of price control, or at least a prices review board, we cannot stop inflation.
The question of adjustment in pensions was raised. This must be government policy because no matter what measures we may take to contain inflation, inevitably there will be some industries that must have their prices raised. Industries in which productivity
Finance
cannot increase as quickly as in others will want to raise their prices and competition will have to be made to work in such cases. We shall have to make some very significant changes in our tax system.
I would like to deal for a moment with advertising and selling costs. We have a situation where it is obvious that the economy is under some strain so far as price increases are concerned. But what is happening? Everybody is breaking his neck to try and get people to borrow more money to buy things that are not really necessary. One of the difficulties is that advertising almost nullifies the government's attempts to encourage restraint. It is like trying to hold back the flood waters, and I think the government should have taken a lesson from King Canute.
I was particularly disturbed by the phrase used by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) when he said it was stupid to own government bonds. Mr. Speaker, we are having enough trouble selling government bonds without supporters of the government adding to the problems of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). In some ways the government is responsible for the position in respect of bonds because the tax system as it now exists discriminates against the holders of government bonds. On the one hand we say, "Buy our bonds," and then we design a tax system which says, "Bonds are a bad thing for you to buy."
Certain things, like dividends from equity in Canadian corporations, are deductible from taxable income but income from bonds is not deductible. If we are serious about reducing the price of government financing we should neutralize the tax system, and realize that it is usually people of limited means who invest in government bonds. We should make it possible for income from government bonds to be deductible for tax purposes.
A country has only so many resources, whether in manpower or in money. It is very important that we start thinking in terms of planning our economy and the way we can allocate resources, because we must remember that what goes into one sector cannot go into another sector. We have to make some value judgments about what is important in our society and what sort of activities should receive the most resources. We have failed to do this, and it is important that we do it. Otherwise, the war on poverty and our efforts to overcome regional disparities will fall on barren ground. There is much more I would like to say on this subject but since there are

February 24, 1969
Finance
other hon. members who wish to speak I conclude by saying that I appreciate having had the opportunity of saying these few words.


Mr, Alasiair Gillespie (Elobicoke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment a number of those who have already spoken on this subject. They have dramatized for all of us the seriousness of this question of inflation, but to state the seriousness of the problem is not to solve it. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) since he was prepared to admit that the federal government alone is not responsible for inflation or for curing it. I think this is something we too often overlook. Too often when there is a problem, we take the attitude "Well, let the government settle it."
The hon. member who spoke after the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) indicated that restraint was necessary, that we all had a responsibility for restraint. I think the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) underlined this when he referred to market power. Market power I believe is a significant concept in this discussion of inflation both from the point of view of those who are selling goods and those who are offering their services in the form of organized labour. Those who are in a position, because of their particular situation, to extract an 18 per cent increase in wage rates are in a position to affect unit costs. When this sort of thing occurs with some frequency, such people are in a position to affect the climate of opinion just as those who are selling goods and services and are in a position of market power can abuse their position. What I am attempting to say here is that inflation is very largely a question of attitude. It is very largely affected by one's expectations of the future. I think the federal government has recognized this problem and has underlined it on a number of occasions. I believe the budget presented to this house on October 22 underlined the government's attitude when the minister introduced measures which will balance the budget.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The minister underlined the seriousness of inflation when he met head on this whole question of expectation, the need to show those who are most concerned that we can in fact manage our economy. In this connection, I should like to say a word or two about the effects of inflation. Too often we talk about

inflation as if the taxpayers who will suffer are not also lenders. I am suggesting that the beneficiaries of social security programs, such as pensions and life insurance, are also those who are the lenders in the final analysis. Their premiums are the savings which buy the bonds that are the basis of investment in the private companies in Canada. These savings also underwrite and finance government programs. I am saying that the lender is not the large institution, is not the life insurance company, is not the pension fund, but is the person whose premiums flow into the pension fund, or into the life insurance companies and which are invested on his behalf.
I believe that too often we tend to regard inflation as something which affects only a few, the weak. So it does; frequently, they are affected more than anybody else. I am concerned about this because they are least able to defend themselves. Equally, however, inflation affects almost everyone in Canada. Almost everyone in Canada now has an interest in a pension plan. I think the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn), when he referred to inflation as a tax, was accurate. I believe it is a tax. Not only does it tax everyone, but it taxes those least able to defend themselves. But inflation is not something which is generated only within a country; it is generated as well by events outside a country. I believe that in Canada we are particularly sensitive to the actions of the United States in this regard. Over 70 per cent of our trade is with the United States. What happens in the United States affects us quickly. The United States has been concerned with a major inflationary problem and has imposed a 10 per cent surtax on income taxes to cope with this problem.
I should like to add as well that I share the view of the hon. member for St. Paul's with regard to creeping inflation. I think the Economic Council gave more credibility than it should have to that suggestion by calling it a trade-off. I think the trade-off between a certain percentage of inflation, perhaps 1.4 per cent, to obtain the 3 per cent employment rate which the economic council says is a goal is no more than an invitation to the very thing to which the hon. member was referring. I was happy to see that the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Rasminsky, in a recent speech abroad drew attention to this question. He said:
Expressions of concern about inflation sometimes draw the reply that we must choose between inflation and unacceptable rates of unemployment. I think we are today seeing more and more evidence that this is an illusion.
February 24, 1969

I should also like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that government policies are starting to bear fruit in this area. In the issue of the Globe and Mail for February 21 under the heading "Problem sector showing gains" there is an article which contains the following information:
During the past four months the rate of unemployment has dropped steadily from 5.1 per cent of the labour force in October to 4.3 per cent in January, after adjustment for seasonal factors. The rise in the consumer price index, on a year-to-year basis, declined during the same period from 4.2 per cent to 3.8 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Gillespie:: Mr. Speaker, I say that the government has accepted its responsibility and, further, that its policies are bearing fruit.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour set aside for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. I now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. Basford) for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs of Bill S-26, to prohibit the advertising, sale and importation of hazardous products.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment at six o'clock I was discussing hazardous products, in particular the inflammability of garments. Let me point out briefly that this is not the only problem which this bill is meant to cover. There are a great many other aspects to it, poisoning notably among them. In view of the fact we are perhaps a little short of time I will leave it to other members to discuss these other aspects, and move on to the Bill itself.
Hazardous Substances
The actual wording of Bill S-26 in its present form is not acceptable to me, and it is my hope that at the committee stage and on third reading other members will consider seriously the points I will be bringing forward this evening. I am not a member of the committee and thus I ask for your indulgence in allowing me to mention at this time the specific provisions of this bill to which I take exception.
Clause 8, subclause (3) would require that any amendment made by the Governor In Council to the schedule of this bill must be placed before this house within two years of it being brought forward as an order in council. My personal view is that this would result in this bill being amended every year, for no minister could risk leaving these amendments to the final year. Keeping in mind the amount of legislation the government house leader wishes us to consider this year, would place an intolerable burden on this house and result in a serious uncertainty in the law. For example, as a result of an election or delay in passing legislation we may well be unable to deal with this specific amending legislation, and the various hazardous substances which the Governor In Council had decided should not be placed on the market would once more become available for sale in Canada. This is what I mean by uncertain law.
If you look at subsection 3 of section 8 sir, you will see that the Governor In Council is prohibited from bringing back any of these particular items which had been dropped from the list as a result of not being brought before Parliament. This would mean considerable uncertainty which would, I regret to say, result in hazardous products being placed on the market from time to time with attendant danger to the consumers, particularly children.
The essence of this legislation in my mind should be to allow the minister or the Governor In Council to act with speed. We do not want to have a dangerous toy sold in Canada for a period of time before something can be done about it, nor do we want this toy to come back on the market through too rigid legislation. We want to have something done quickly. A subsection such as subsection (3) of section 8 would nullify the intent of this legislation.
Let me give notice that if this measure goes to the committee and I am unable to have my views adopted there, I will propose an amendment to this house at the third reading

February 24, 1969
Hazardous Substances
stage. I will suggest that, instead of having a period of only two years during which time such orders in council can be presented to this house, we should have a period of perhaps eight years. This should meet the objections to the original bill of those who put in section 8(3). The bill should certainly not be amended by parliament every two years, but should remain in force for a substantially longer interval, namely eight years. Perhaps eight years is too short a period of time, and it should be longer but eight years is my suggestion.
If this bill is passed in its present form it would introduce an element of uncertainly and risk into the law. This is always unfortunate. If the legislation is examined, it will be seen that section 9 allows for a board of review, which is flexible and allows sufficient or adequate appeal from decisions of the Governor in Council. If we carry on with section 8(3) as it now is we would be introducing a guarantee which in my opinion is quite unnecessary and indeed damaging to the object of the bill. With those remarks, I will resume my seat. While I support the bill, I sincerely hope the committee will take note of my remarks. If it does not and the bill comes back to the house in its present form, I will propose an amendment along the lines I have suggested.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order in respect of the remarks of the previous speaker who has just indicated that he will move an amendment in respect of the bill. While it was distinctly suggested by the house leader of the Conservative party that members of the government do not move amendments to bills, I wonder whether Your Honour would like to rule on the priority of the hon. member indicating that he would propose an amendment during the committee stage.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, this does not involve a point of order but rather the grave danger in which the hon. member has placed his political career by daring to threaten the distinguished ornaments of the treasury benches who, from time to time when allowed, come into the house to discuss matters with which we are concerned. I will deal with those later.
I am very glad that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) has pointed this out because I think he has certainly opened the door to a very careful examination of what has taken place. Generally,

however, I accept the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) who, in a brilliant and eloquent speech, placed his position and that of this party on the record in respect of the bill as it is presently constituted. There are, however, two collateral lines which I want to pursue. During the course of the debate I was wondering who would bell the cat for the government. I have now found that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) will, from now on, be the official cat-beller.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
This opens a consideration of clause 8 and the amendment introduced in the other place. I hoped that the minister, rather than seeking some way to circumvent the very sound and statesmanlike decision which came out of the other place, would have accepted it. It must have been a chastening but enlightening experience for him to go into the other place and there be met with the wise and solemn decisions made by men who have served their country for years, the majority of them members of his party.
I have had an opportunity to read the reports of the other place. I have read the report of the Committee on Banking and Commerce, which committee examined the bill. I think eminently sound reasons were given for the amendments which have been introduced.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, I would be delighted to have questions.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I hope the hon. member is not implying in his remarks that we cannot expect wise and solemn decisions in this house, too.


Gerald William Baldwin: I expect wise and solemn decisions from this side of the house, but in the light of experience during this session I am somewhat doubtful of the decisions which come from the government side. The government, through the medium of the minister and his officials and after what I presume was long and careful consideration, has carefully enumerated specific products which in part I are the subject of outright prohibition within the terms of the bill and in part II are the subject of conditional prohibition.
This is the basis on which I put it. If what the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich said is correct, and that is what the minister and his officials had in mind when they first
February 24, 1969

framed the terms of this legislation, why-have a schedule at all? Why did they not simply give to the Governor in Council the right to say that any product which had been examined had been deemed to be hazardous in accordance with the provisions of this act? We have a schedule because the government and its officials, having examined the whole range of products, have said this specific product and that named product are to be brought under the schedule. I accept this. As one who has lived in a household with children for many years, this defect in our law has long been apparent.
I believe that other approaches could have been made to meet the evil that exists, and provisions could have been framed in other ways. There is an evil in this respect. There has been a gap in our law, and I am glad to see that the government is attempting to deal with it. However, it is completely wrong to suggest that, because this is the case, we should give to the Governor in Council the right to add new products, without any limiting conditions.
I have said in this house on many occasions that it is necessary in the age in which we live to give to the government the right to move swiftly, firmly and directly if a product is put on the market, a toy or anything else, that is hazardous. If a government, when operating under this legislation, is of the opinion that a product should not be allowed on the market because of its dangerous characteristics, the government should have the right to move and should not have to wait until parliament meets in order to secure amendments to the legislation.
There should be the right to move swiftly and decisively in this regard. But if the government decided it was essential to secure the consent and approval of the majority of the members of this house and of the other place to say that certain products were hazardous, why should it not have to come here after taking care of the immediate danger to ask that additional products be added to the list?
I can see no danger arising when the government moves by order in council under the provisions of clause 8 of the bill. Then, the product cannot be sold because it falls squarely within the terms of the bill. There is a board of review in this respect. If the manufacturers, producers, or anyone affected wishes to do so, they can ask the minister to establish a board of review and in this way might be able to overcome the impediment which the bill places upon them. But if this is 29180-373
Hazardous Substances
not the case and parliament has not said that product A, B or C is in fact a hazardous product, the government is compelled within the period of two years to come back to parliament to secure the approval of this house and the other place before the views of the government can be sustained.
This is apparent from a reading of the transcript of the proceedings in the other place and the statements made in the committee. I suggest that the attempt by the government to circumvent this very wise and sensible decision by persuading its members to secure amendments to comply with the government line is wrong. I hope there are members on the other side of the house who hear or will read what I have to say and will consult with the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) about this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: I hope they will not be prepared to go along with the views expressed by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) which I am sure conform to the views of the minister in this regard.
I suggest, therefore, that members of the standing committee should be vigilant and alert to ensure that the government is not allowed to circumvent the amendment which was proposed in the other place and which now has found its way into this bill. I urge members on the committee to ensure that this is the case. I suggest to them that in the light of the question of privilege which was raised, and which Your Honour held was not a question of privilege but which aroused some controversy, they will show the people of Canada that they will not toe the government line.
I will be happy to rise in my place when this bill comes back here if government members have in fact, as I hope they will, in co-operation with members of the opposition stood squarely against the government and the minister in their attempt to remove this amendment from the bill. I hope they will stand against that attempt and return the bill to this house unimpaired and with this amendment still in it.
I have been trying to be objective in these remarks. I have tried to rise above politics. I will try to rise even further now. This bill is a clear illustration of one of the grave defects in our political and constitutional system. The only way the minister can deal with this problem is to invoke the criminal law, as is the case with so many of the other aspects of

February 24, 1969
Hazardous Substances
our social structure which come under his jurisdiction, such as restrictive trade practices.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
When the government tabled in the house its position paper for the federal-provincial conference with regard to constitutional change, there was one aspect of it which appealed to me very greatly, namely the proposition that the highest courts of the land will not be bound by the principle of stare dicisis. In other words, with regard to constitutional law-and this has been a great defect for many years-the highest court in our country is free, if it so chooses, on the facts which are brought before it, to disregard previous judicial decisions of either the Privy Council or the Supreme Court of Canada and to come to different conclusions. I am not suggesting that the Court should legislate to the extent which at times the Supreme Court of the United States does, but I do think there is room for a greater degree of freedom and for far more flexibility. I hope that the provinces will accept this proposal.
In any event, I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the government will seek ways and means of trying to bring about a change in our judicial practice at the highest level so that the Supreme Court will be entitled to disregard previous decisions. This is an example of a case where the government should not be compelled to try to circumvent the constitution, as judicially interpreted, by invoking the criminal law. The problem should be dealt with by regulation, the breach of which shall be punished by suitable penalties. The government should have the right to regulate and control, a right which does not exist at the present time.
I would like to think that, just as important as some of the other problems to which the Prime Minister has referred and which have been placed on the agenda of federal-provincial conferences, would be issues which affect so many millions of people, as certainly this bill does. Surely, the provinces brought together at the common table to discuss these matters with the federal government would be prepared to say that in many areas of our social, political and cultural life there is a means of giving the federal government the power to act and to regulate. I stand four square for the preservation of provincial authority in many aspects of our life. It is essential to keep those aspects on the basis on

which they were established in the constitution on which our confederation was established. But in view of the mobility of people today we should be entitled to expect a uniformity of regulations and legislation in matters of this kind.
So, I say to the minister in all sincerity that I hope he and his colleagues will use their influence with the Prime Minister and with the Minister of Justice to see that matters of this kind are brought to the stage where we no longer have to worry about being able to legislate. When we come to deal with some of the great problems which will affect our society, problems such as water and air pollution, we will face precisely the same difficulty long before we may have accomplished our mission of dealing with such matters as language rights. I am not one to say they are not important, but to me these subjects are equally important and in some ways more important because they affect intimately the personal lives, the comfort and safety of so many millions of people. I hope, therefore, that this aspect of Constitutional problems will be regarded as the number one priority of this government and that, irrespective of other constitutional changes, ways and means will be found to ensure the right of the federal government, possibly in cooperation with provincial governments, to proceed not by invoking the criminal law but by means of regulations.


Max Saltsman: Before commencing some of my general remarks on the bill, I would like to participate in the discussion of the specific question of the powers that the minister may have by order in council to act without coming to parliament. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has pointed out, quite eloquently I think, the need for the minister to have authority on which to act rapidly in cases where substances come onto the market, and their chemical derivations cannot be anticipated because of the rapid changes which are taking place in technology. I believe that the minister needs some discretion to be able to take a product off the market. On the other hand, I recognize the validity of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Peace River that one cannot assign unlimited power to governments by order in council. I would like to suggest to the minister for his consideration, and this is just a thought that occurred to me as the debate was taking place, that there is another approach which we might take to this problem. We might give
February 24, 1969

to the minister the power he requires but ensure that the decision of the minister comes back to parliament. Instead of giving him unlimited power to legislate, let us give him perhaps six months. If he decides to take a product off the market, then within the six months he would come to parliament and ask parliament to put it on one of the schedules. I hope the minister, and perhaps the hon. member for Peace River, will consider this proposition as an attempt to recognize the difficulty which the minister might encounter by not having the power to remove an item from the market which is not in the schedule now but which may obviously be a hazard to health in his judgment.
I am very pleased to see this bill come before parliament. It represents one more nail in the coffin of Mr. Caveat Emptor. Mr. Buy-er-Beware has been buried with very little mourning. The government is accepting its responsibility to take a look at the hazardous substances that come on the market and to protect the public from the sale of them.
I would like to make a number of points on this subject. When the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) spoke he raised the question of cigarettes as a hazardous substance. I notice that the bill does not deal with cigarettes, but where it deals with advertising it seems to give a rather broad definition of that term. I wonder whether it could not be made quite evident that it is not only advertising that will be prohibited if the substance is considered dangerous to the public. For example, if one considers cigarette advertising, the manufacturers may be anticipating that some legislation will be passed soon restricting their ability to advertise cigarettes. They are already moving into a whole new range of gimmicks which may not be classified as advertising but which may very well be transferring expenditure in the publicity department from one form of promotion to another. I refer to such things as giving-away large sums of money, cars and so on. I think that the definition of advertising should be made clearer in order to ensure that it covers all types of promotion. In some cases, such promotions may be more damaging than advertising. I am thinking of door to door sampling and things of this type. I think it is fairly important for the minister to make sure that sucji a possibility does not exist.
[DOT] (8:30 p.ra.)
There is one omission from this bill. Looking at clause 8, this bill lists what shall not be
Hazardous Substances
put on the market. I think that to be completely effective or to be more effective the bill should also include what must be put on the market. I am thinking particularly of containers which may be hazardous in themselves. They may contain hazardous or semihazardous substances, yet the container may be more dangerous than its contents-pill boxes of various kinds. I am wondering what provision the minister is considering to take care of this particular problem.
A while ago I raised the question of glue sniffing. I am pleased to see that glues are covered by this bill and that the minister will have power to remove them from sale. No one at this point can be certain what the answer to this problem might be. Eliminating the sale of glue might help in some cases, or legislation in terms of assisting persons who sniff glue by recognizing this as a psychiatric problem. I have a private members' bill to that effect.
The power to help is contained in this bill. I think all those concerned with this problem will breathe somewhat more easily knowing that, upon examination or following research, the government does have the power to take glue or substances similar to glue off the market or ask that they be modified in some way to make them less dangerous.
The overall impression I get of this bill is that while there is a schedule of some specific things such as bleaches, this term encompasses a whole area of production; namely, cleansers, sanitizers or household goods containing chlorine. There is a remarkably wide range of products covered by that definition. The impression one gets is that the minister will possess very great powers to act. Perhaps the big question which arises in my mind at this point is to what extent he will be willing to act and to what extent will he and his department be vigilant in the pursuit of these hazardous substances. It is not enough to have a bill which says certain things can be done. We know the government has all kinds of legislation now under which it could act in other areas and it has been very reluctant to take action; it has not used its power enough, rather than over-used its power, as is the fear of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
Let me in closing congratulate the minister on this bill. I think it is a very good step in the right direction. I indicate I will support an amendment reviving the one deleted by the Senate, perhaps putting a time factor into

February 24, 1969
Hazardous Substances
that kind of amendment so that the power is not completely arbitrary.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: I am
pleased to rise to support the legislation now before the house. I have spent the day in this chamber listening to the debates. I am impressed by the broad support which the legislation has received from all parties. Of course, this bill has very broad support in the country; it has received the attention which it deserves and requires. It provides machinery which hopefully will be used to protect the interests of consumers in a very broad way. The interests of consumers are catered to by the bill satisfactorily, in my view. There has been discussion, as well, as to the interests of parliament. Will there be a right of review later? The Senate revision remains. There has been an interesting discussion about it. I intend to support in this respect the suggestion made, notwithstanding the views of the house leader of the opposition. I would prefer to see the legislation stand, without the necessity of the house going through the awkward business of reviewing a two-year accumulation of regulations.
I should like to turn to the area of the producer because there has been no discussion today of the interests of the producer, and with respect I should like to make one suggestion for an amendment which I hope may be introduced before the bill is finally enacted, that is, an amendment to section 9. As background, may I say that a very fair right of appeal is provided for any producer who is a victim of, if I may put it that way, an order preventing the goods he has purchased or imported from being sold. Provision for appeal is made and those who have imported goods and find they are the subject of an order in council which prevents them from being sold can, under clause 9, within 60 days, ask that a board of review be constituted to consider the order in council which was passed. Unfortunately, in the normal course of events the products to be considered would be products already in existence. More than likely they would be products someone had already paid for-either the producer or the importer. The producer or the importer would have a legal right to appeal but in fact they may not have a real appeal because of the fact that there is no requirement at all in clause 9 that the appeal be dealt with within any given period.
The board might be set up in the normal course. It might review the evidence in the
IMr. Saltsman.]
normal course. However, the Board might take too long in arriving at a decision for an ordinary producer or a small producer to be able to take advantage of the right of appeal. He might find he was bankrupt with an inventory of goods which were considered hazardous and not have the opportunity, because of the fact that an appeal might not be heard in time, to save himself from what might be an injustice. In any event, I would point out that it would be most desirable to include a requirement in clause 9 that the board render a decision on the appeal within a time which would be meaningful to an ordinary producer or importer. In this connection, I suggest that a period of seven days might not be inappropriate.
Seven days is not a great deal of time within which to prepare a case, but one would hope that if an order in council had been passed against a particular product it would be supported by an investigation of the goods in question and that certain experts would be genuinely of the opinion that the goods were hazardous. So the case for the Crown, if I may put it may, would be immediately available.
If the importer or producer wished to have his case heard quickly he ought to be entitled to have it heard quickly by the representatives of the government. With that amendment, I intend to support the bill. I will support it anyway, but I do hope consideration will be given to the possibility of an injustice being suffered because an appeal is not heard in time save a producer from an unfortunate situation.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I have been in touch with consumers and housewives and other people across Canada and I am quite sure I have found out exactly what the minister has found: that this bill will be one of the most readily accepted pieces of legislation to have come out of Ottawa for a long time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Winona Grace MacInnis: But
the original draft of this bill received more public approval than is going to be the case if this new clause 3, which the other place insisted on inserting, is passed. I say that in the interests of the consumers of this country.
Having said that, the bill is an improvement over the bill of last year. It is much
February 24, 1969

broader than the bill that was proposed last year. Instead of hazardous substances, the bill refers to the hazardous products, a broader category. In addition to chemicals, glues, household cleansers, bleaches and polishes, the bill will include articles like matches, flammable textiles, mechanical toys, electrical appliances and dangerous lawnmowers.
Under the original draft of the bill, the minister was empowered to act swiftly and decisively to ban hazardous substances directly they came on to the market and before damage was done. I agree with what my colleague said a little while ago that there is much more chance of the minister's powers being underused than overused. Although the minister and I may differ on a lot of things, I trust the Minister with powers to act quickly in putting substances that really are dangerous on the schedule and safely out of the reach of people, rather than making him come back to parliament every time he wishes to add a substance to the schedule. People are worried about parliament today because they feel parliament moves far too slowly to meet the needs of this day and age. If the minister has to come back to parliament to debate and pass a measure of this kind every time he wants to deal with a fresh hazardous product then, I think the consumers of Canada will have a perfectly legitimate grievance.
When the original bill was drafted, the Consumers Association of Canada wrote to members of parliament indicating that the bill was a good measure and they hoped it would be supported. As I say, the minister was empowered under the original bill to add any substance he thought hazardous to the schedule. I believe the minister is quite capable of using his discretion in this regard. There are many experts to assist him in his department. With all the red tape in government departments there is far more danger of the minister not using this power than overusing it.
A similar situation arose when the drug bill was in committee. Some members worried unduly about the need for the insertion of what were almost impossible safety standards. This was really an expression of lack of confidence in the food and drug directorate. I feel that until such time as the food and drug directorate errs sufficiently to lose our confidence, it merits trust. In the same way, I think that this minister and his department can be trusted sufficiently to test a substance to determine whether it is hazardous. If it is,
Hazardous Substances
it can be placed on the schedule and removed from the reach of consumers before it can do any damage and before somebody gets killed.
I should just like to refer to the proceedings in the other place when this bill came up for debate. Dr. Crawford, the Deputy Minister of National Health and Welfare was quoted. He appeared in 1967 before the Senate committee on banking and commerce and was asked how his department had dealt with the emergencies that had resulted from the appearance on the market of necklaces made from the poisonous jequirity beans and the plastic ice balls from Hong Kong which contained contaminated water. In his reply to that question Dr. Crawford stated:
Well, we had to deal with the provincial departments on this. We telephoned and telegraphed and told them of the hazard which was in their shops and they dealt with it provincially. This is how we had to handle that situation. Of course it was a pretty time consuming process.
Of course it was. If the federal government is going to show leadership in the matter of one standard of safety for necessary products for Canadians from Victoria to St. John's, the department must have some jurisdiction for determining what are hazardous substances so that they may be put on the schedule to this bill.
According to the latest available statistics in regard to accidents in the home, in 1966, 275 deaths occurred from poisoning. I say that is 275 too many. I suggest that if parliament has to give approval every time a substance that is determined to be hazardous is put on the schedule of a bill, then while the bill is waiting to be dealt with along with all of the other bills before the house, accidents involving the use of this substance will occur and prove to be fatal.
I was appalled to learn that the banking and commerce committee of the other place that inserted what I consider to be a piece of dangerous red tape in the first draft of the bill did so by a vote of nine to three, thus taking from the minister the power to determine what are hazardous substances and to place them on the schedule. While there may be some amendments moved in regard to various safeguards, in regard to the appeals machinery and so on, I hope very much before the house is through with this measure the provision to which I refer will be eliminated in one way or another. This will restore to the minister the power he should have through this legislation to protect the consumers of this country against hazardous substances.

February 24, 1969
Hazardous Substances


Mr. Keith Hymmen (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly on this bill and to support the minister. May I congratulate him on his creditable performance and the leadership he has given since he assumed his portfolio last summer.
This bill, as hon. members are aware, is very similar to Bill S-22 which was previously introduced in the other place, passed there and placed on our order paper, but which with the prorogation of the 27th parliament died on the order paper. We are making progress in this house, though I am not suggesting that we ought to have more elections or prorogations.
I should like to recall a rather amusing book with the title "Mr. Blandings builds his Dream House". According to the book, the only way to build a perfect house was to build one, tear it down and then build another. In the same way, the reconsideration of this bill makes for refinement. As a result, I feel that Bill S-26 is better legislation than was Bill S-22. At the time Bill S-22 was introduced, there was no active Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs headed by the present minister. Aside from the subsequent hazard of substance, the other bill also dealt with another matter, the question of the advertising and sale of contraceptive devices. This part of the legislation should be under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
We have had a very commendable record in this country in ensuring purity and safety of food and drugs under our Food and Drug Directorate. However, there have been a great many products, and new products are arriving daily on the market, which cannot be classified as either food or drugs but at the same time are very important in the evei'y day life of the consumer. In this respect, the legislation currently being introduced by the minister, covers matters that are important to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In the eyes of the consumer, we have been far behind our neighbours to the south and other countries of the world in providing legislation for the protection of the consumer.
I would like to refer, Mr. Speaker, to one particular section of this bill, namely the one covering poisons. Of 11,000 fatal accidents recorded for the year 1966, a little over 2,000 occurred in the home. I will not go into the details. As an hon. member previously mentioned, 275 of these resulted from poisoning.

With 20 million people in our country, 275 is not a large number, but this bill will be important if even only one life is saved. There were actually over 400 accidental poisonings in the year 1966, 30 per cent of which occurred outside the home.
I would refer to the statistical evidence on poisoning accidents, every one of which could be a fatal accident. This evidence indicates 70 per cent of these accidents involved children under the age of five years. The very high incidence of drug and non-drug poisoning involving very young children points out the urgent necessity for control in this area. It is impossible to prevent every poisoning, but what is required is more awareness by parents and the general public; better labelling, improved packaging and other safety measures in order to reduce accidents to both adults and children and the potential serious injury or loss of life.
Schedule 1 of the bill is very specific. Schedule 2 is rather general in character covering many household cleaners, bleaches and solvents presently used in the home. There are many other hazardous substances in addition to the ones specified. We cannot, of course, know in advance what products will arrive on the market in the future or to what extent they will be hazardous. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) or his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) must be in a position to act by order in council to add or delete possible classes in schedule 1 and provide reasonable controls for the type of product included in schedule 2, subject of course to the other provisions of the legislation. I am very pleased to support this bill, Mr. Speaker, which is an important step forward in protection of the Canadian people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I must inform the house if the hon. minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Stanley Ronald Basford: My first words, Mr. Speaker, must be of apology to the house for being absent when this bill was called for second reading this afternoon. Apparently, because of the new rules passed before Christmas, business is being dealt with very expeditiously in this house. I apologize for not being present.
I had the advantage of listening this afternoon and part of this evening to the debate, a debate which indicates that there is support
February 24, 1969

for this measure in all comers of the house. It is gratifying to note that this important piece of consumer protection legislation is receiving the support of all parties.
In this legislation we, as parliamentarians and legislators, have recognized our obligation to protect the public against products that are a hazard to health or safety. Products that can predictably injure, maim, sicken or kill must be controlled or banned. The magnitude of this problem in Canada is impressive.
There is, of course, no easy explanation for accidents. Carelessness, faulty equipment, misuse of something through ignorance and human frailty play a large part in causing these mishaps. But a startling number of them can be traced to common everyday household products. The attractive, innocent looking bottle of cleanser or furniture polish which a mother sets down momentarily to answer a phone, becomes a lethal poison for her three year old child. Faulty wiring in a poorly made electrical appliance electrocutes an innocent visitor to a home. A young girl is permanently disfigured by a highly flammable sweater or hair band because of inadvertent exposure to a flaming match or lighter. A couple waterproofing their basement with an unlabelled chemical are burned to death because of its unrecognized explosive characteristics. Children are badly burned by explosive cracker balls which look exactly like cereal or candy but which explode when chewed.
Hon. members in the course of this debate have mentioned other examples of hazardous products. The ones I mention are purely examples of cases on file in my own department, the Department of National Health and Welfare, safety councils across the country, poison control centres and emergency wards in the hospitals of Canada.
I could go on describing the grisly details of injury and death caused by hazardous products, products which looked perfectly innocent to the user and which contained no warning of their potential hazard to health or safety, but I think I have made my point. The question now arises how can we prevent this unnecessary death toll and suffering? Because this is new legislation in Canada, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the record I would like to outline very briefly what a few other countries have done with regard to the problem of hazardous products.
Hazardous Substances
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
In Britain, a committee on consumer protection was appointed in 1959. As a result of this committee's recommendations the Consumer Protection Act was passed in 1961 giving the Home Secretary, after due consultation-and I might say to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin)-very wide powers to make regulations as to composition or contents, design, construction, finish or packing for any, and I repeat for any, class of goods, and requiring that they be marked or accompanied by appropriate warnings or instructions. The effect of this act in the United Kingdom was to authorize the compulsory imposition of standards and the provision of information about the goods by means of labelling in the interests of consumer safety.
Regulations made under the British statute, or kept in force by it, so far have concerned fireguards, portable oil heaters, children's cribs, mandatory flame resistant materials for children's clothing, and the safety of toys. Regulations now under preparation and consideration in Britain relate to the toxicity of pencils and crayons, and the colour coding of flexible cords attached to domestic electric appliances. The consumer council in Britain is looking at a number of other appliances to which regulations should apply.
The question of consumer safety has also been the focus of attention in the United States in recent years. Public concern regarding the flammability of clothing, which was a concern mentioned this afternoon by many hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson), was roused in the United States in the early 1950's following cases of serious burn injuries to wearers of highly flammable sweaters and cowboy play suits of brushed rayon which had appeared on the market at that time. As a result of these incidents and accidents the Flammable Fabrics Act was passed in 1953 and amended in 1967.
Another major piece of legislation in the United States in the field of consumer safety was the Federal Hazardous Substances Labelling Act of 1960, which introduced for the first time mandatory cautionary labelling of packaged, dangerous household substances such as detergents, waxes, bleaches and paint thinners. But this was a labelling measure only, and furthermore it was confined to hazardous substances that were packaged.
In 1966 the American Congress, recognizing the weakness of that act, amended it and

February 24, 1969
Hazardous Substances
renamed it the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. The amendment extended the requirements of the original legislation to cover all hazardous substances, regardless of whether or not they were packaged. It authorized the banning of household substances so hazardous that cautionary labelling was insufficient protection. It extended cautionary labelling requirements to include further warnings and data specifically related to children.
Perhaps, the potentially most significant measure taken in the United States recently in the field of consumer safety was the establishment in 1967 of a National Commission on Product Safety. This body is undertaking a comprehensive study and investigation to determine what type of household products could be consideed hazardous, the extent to which self-regulation by industry in the United States affords protection against potential hazards, the protection afforded at common law, and the extent and effectiveness of protection currently afforded by federal, state and local laws.
A list of some 200 household products is now being investigated by this national commission which has invited comments on the safety aspect of these products from all interested parties. When the legislation before this house is passed, as I hope it will be, I expect that the information flowing from this commission in the United States will not only be extremely useful to them but extremely useful to us in Canada in working out regulations under our Hazardous Products Act.
I mention what has happened in other countries, in Britain and the United States, to show that what we are doing in Canada today, and what we are asking parliament to approve, is nothing terribly revolutionary, nothing terribly radical, but is being asked in recognition of the need for parliament to protect the Canadian public against hazardous products, a need that the United Kingdom and the United States recognized some years ago.
We face in our country the same problems as the United States, Britain and other advanced countries where the proliferation and sophistication of consumer products have been accompanied by a corresponding increase of hidden hazards against which the consumer cannot defend himself unaided. We face the same high accident toll and the same complacent assumption by the public that what it buys is safe. Many hon. members who spoke this afternoon recognized this, and in fact some said that this legislation was five or
[Mr. Basford.l
ten years late. I would agree with them, and for the sake of those who have been killed, maimed or injured in the interval, I would have hoped that we could have had this legislation passed some time previously.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be introducing this legislation this evening. I point out that apart from the specific drug legislation which I introduced some time ago, this is really the first major piece of consumer legislation that this new department of mine has introduced. I think the fact of its being introduced and the fact that hon. members have recognized the need for it shows the wisdom of establishing a department of government on consumer affairs to devote itself to the attention, protection, interests and the welfare of Canadian consumers.
The hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Hym-men), and a number of other hon. members, gave statistics during the course of the debate relating to accidental poisoning. The hon. member for Kitchener mentioned that in 1966 there were some 35,596 cases of accidental poisoning in Canada. It can be assumed, Mr. Speaker, that many more thousands of poisonings occurred but were not reported. As the hon. member pointed out, the striking factor about these accidental poisonings is that over 70 per cent of them involved children under five years of age. Products involved in the non-drug poisonings ranged from cleaning and polishing agents to fuel and lubricants.
To anyone involved in the field of consumer protection, of safety and of poison centres, it is clear that the major problem lies in keeping children and potentially dangerous substances such as A.S.A. tablets, bleaches or corrosive agents away from each other, except in cases of need and under supervision. Their improper use, mainly ingestion by children, can result in very serious tragedy.
Bill S-26 is designed to provide the authority to deal with substances of a poisonous, toxic, inflammable, explosive or corrosive nature which are hazards to the health or safety of the public. My department also hopes to be able to promote safety standards for consumer goods in co-operation with existing standards setting bodies and the proposed Standards Council of Canada. Such standards could be embodied in the regulations associated with this legislation to provide a basis for prohibiting or controlling hazardous substances and products.
February 24, 1969

Some examples of the kind of products that could be covered under this legislation have been mentioned this afternoon, and they include dangerously flammable clothing, defective matches, dangerous children's toys, power lawnmowers, household electrical appliances or any other type of consumer product that might be dangerous to health or safety if it has design or construction defects.
Hazardous products will be listed in the schedule, and as has been pointed out the schedule to the act is divided into two major parts. Part I lists hazardous products which cannot be advertised, sold, or imported into Canada; in other words products which are intended to be absolutely prohibited, forbidden for sale, importation or advertising. Part II lists products which may be advertised, sold or imported only when they comply with certain specified regulations prescribed by the act.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Many members have mentioned the kind of products which might be listed in part II and some types of regulations we might have. It was suggested that we might have warning labels in appropriate cases or, as the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) mentioned, that we might have safety packaging in some cases. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) mentioned glue and the extent to which we would be able to regulate it under a provision of this kind in this piece of legislation. As has been mentioned in this debate, there are examples of products which are to be banned absolutely and outright. The jequirity bean grown in the Caribbean area and used to make necklaces and eyes for dolls has recently received notoriety and widespread publicity. One of these beans if chewed or swallowed contains enough poison to cause death in a few hours. Children's furniture or toys coated with paint containing lead compound beyond a certain allowable tolerance will be banned, as will extremely flammable paints or paint and varnish removers for household use.
As time and experience dictate, other products which are deemed to be dangerous to the health and safety of consumers may be prohibited. In general, products will be banned where it is found that the hazard involved in their use is so great that the public health and safety can be adequately protected only by removing the product from the market place.
Hazardous Substances
The products which are placed in part II of the schedule are those that may be dangerous to the health or safety of the consumer if used in a manner not intended by the manufacturer. Examples of such products are household bleaches and cleaners. These products are often hazardous to children whose natural curiosity leads them into danger. Regulations will be required by the act compelling manufacturers to label these products with appropriate warning or cautionary statements. Instructions will also be required on the package prescribing the antidote to be taken or other necessary information in case of accidents.
Another example of products requiring regulatory legislation are those containing toxic chemical additives such as toluene and acetone. Hon. members are well aware of the problem of glue sniffing among young people. The hon. member for Waterloo mentioned that this is a social and psychological problem. I am the first to agree and concede that all the regulations in the world will not solve a social and psychological problem, but the information we have is that some regulation can help. During a recent inquest at the city of Ottawa a local police official reported coming in direct contact with 88 sniffing cases in the city during the year. Regulation will be proposed to prohibit the sale of these toxic substances unless they contain explicit cautionary labels which warn that the vapours in these products can cause serious bodily harm or death. We are also looking for other possibilities in respect of the regulation and sale of these products to minors. Before Christmas I sent an official of my department to the state of New York and the city of Washington to examine the kind of regulations they have in those two jurisdictions.
I repeat that the addition of a hazardous product to the schedule in the act will prohibit its advertisement, sale or importation into Canada if it is listed in part I, or will allow it to be advertised, sold or imported into Canada only if it complies with the regulations if it is listed in part II.
In order to protect legitimate and responsible manufacturers or distributors, this legislation provides for the establishment of a Hazardous Products Board of Review. This Board, consisting of not more than three persons, will be called upon to review the decision to add a product to part I or part II of the schedule if a manufacturer, distributor or person having the product in his possession files a request within 60 days in which

the customer his right to expect that the product he buys will not maim or disfigure because of a defect in construction or design.
At the very least, consumers must be warned of the precautions they must take for their safety after buying a product which is potentially hazardous if misused or left within reach of children. The government can, as parliament can and must, ensure that these rights for the consumer are protected. This is clearly an obligation we cannot escape. I hope that this motion will pass and that the bill will go to the committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, where it will be considered as expeditiously as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that Bill C-138, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreement Act and the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act, as reported (with amendment) from the Standing Committee on Trade, Finance and Economic Affairs on Wednesday February 12, 1969, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order purely for the purpose of clarification. I think it would be helpful if Your Honour would give the house your interpretation. Your Honour will note that the report included two minor amendments which were accepted by the committee. Under normal circumstances, it would have been deemed that the amendments to the clause would open a debate. This would be deemed to be the purpose of the amendment, and if there was to be an amendment at the report stage there could be a debate on the clauses. While it is true no formal notice has been given by any individual members or a 29180-374J
Finance
member on behalf of the goverment in respect of these amendments as they were made in the committee, is it deemed that, having been made in the committee, they are brought in forthwith without debate and the motion is put and, if the motion is adopted, the bill stands as amended by the house?
If this is the case we could then proceed immediately to third reading. As Your Honour knows, if there are amendments at the report stage, there is a debate and the report is finally adopted and, there having been an amendment and a debate, we cannot proceed to third reading until the next sitting of the house. I should like to have this point clearly established. When a bill is reported by a committee with amendment, does this preclude the third reading of the bill on the same day without the leave of the house?


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for raising this point which has perhaps been left unanswered and uncertain because of circumstances which have occurred when we reached this stage of the proceedings on other occasions.
My understanding of standing order 75 (14) is that if the report from the committee does not include an amendment, at the report stage there can be third reading without debate on the same day. The standing order reads:
(14) When a bill has been reported from a standing or special committee and no amendment has been proposed thereto at the report stage, and in the case of a bill reported from a committee of the whole, with or without amendment, a motion, "That the bill be now read a third time and passed", may be made in the same sitting.
The hon. member has referred to an amendment which was not proposed at the report stage, but was proposed and adopted at the committee stage. It is only when there is an amendment adopted at the report stage that there cannot be two stages on the same day. When an amendment has been made by the committee and there is no further amendment, then under the standing order there can be a debate on third reading the same day.
I am not sure this is completely clear but I hope the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who is I believe in agreement with my interpretation of the standing order, is satisfied with the way I have attempted to interpret the situation for the guidance of hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps I may say a few words, Mr. Speaker. In

February 24, 1969
Finance
doing so, may I first say I am in agreement with the interpretation you have given the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). However, there is one point in respect of something which Your Honour said I should like clarified.
May I say to the hon. member for Edmonton West that I think his point is covered by Standing Order 75(2) which says:
All amendments made in any committee shall be reported to the house. Every bill reported from any committee whether amended or not. shall be received by the house on report thereof.
In other words, I submit the implication is that the way the bill comes to us from the committee is the way we have to deal with the bill. But there is one other point, and this is my reason for rising, in respect of which I should like some clarification. Your Honour said if there was no debate at the report stage, there having been no amendment put down, third reading could be proceeded with that day as provided by standing order 75(14).
There is one qualification to this, and that is provided it does not override Standing Order 72 which says there cannot be two readings on the same day. In other words, if second reading takes place earlier in the day and then the report stage, third reading cannot take place that day except by leave.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in the same way I was in agreement with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Obviously, standing order 72 always prevails. If there has been a previous reading on the same day, there cannot be a subsequent reading.
What we have before us is the report stage, not a reading stage. This is why we can have the adoption of the report stage and third reading the same day. Having said this, I will put the motion for third reading to the house.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


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


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may say something on the basis of a point of order. It is my understanding that there is no right of reply on third reading, under our rules as presently constituted, without the

unanimous consent of the house. It is my understanding that several hon. members on both sides of the house wish to express themselves at this stage of the debate, and I wonder whether I would be permitted to, in effect, inform the house that it is my intention to reserve my remarks until other hon. members have been heard. Therefore, I will not only be presenting my own views on third reading, but I will be in a position to reply to hon. members' comments.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On the
point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that is quite right. The parliamentary secretary has not moved third reading and therefore, it is quite in order for him to speak. This difficulty arises only when the minister in charge of a bill proposes third reading and then, not saying anything, is deemed to have spoken.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He has spoken.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He has
spoken, and will therefore have to seek the leave of the house to speak later.


Mr. Speaker;: Order, please. I want to make it clear to the parliamentary secretary was rising on a point of order. The Chair would not deem that he has participated in this stage of the debate, and he can speak at a later time without seeking the unanimous agreement of the house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be reasonably brief. Hon. members of the committee and of the house may wish to read the proceedings of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, starting with volume No. 22 and moving through to volume No. 25 inclusive. They will find that the hearings of the committee on this bill were of considerable assistance to the members of the committee, as they will be to any hon. member who wishes to read them, on the subject of international monetary agreements.
We do not have to go through the whole panoply of methods or forms of financial resources that are at hand for participants in the International Monetary Fund, but having heard in detail what existed and what is proposed we can better understand the implications of the bill. We had in the committee the very competent assistance of officers of the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada. In addition we were able to elicit testimony from economic advisers of
February 24, 1969

two of our chartered banks. These people did not make representations on behalf of the banks but on their own behalf.
We heard arguments against the theory of fixed exchanges. Dr. Marsh of Montreal, in fact, said he wanted to get away from the idea of a fixed exchange rate entirely and believed, rather, in the idea of a fixed form of reserves under which each country would have to defend its rate on the basis of its performance. I think all committee members who followed the hearings in detail have a much clearer picture of how settlements between countries are now effected, what are the causes of disequilibrium, and what in many instances has caused some of the crises we have experienced in the last three years.
Notwithstanding all the explanations that have been given, the fact that the special drawing rights scheme has been set up and, hopefully, enough countries that participate will ratify this agreement so it will come into effect, we still have the nagging suspicion that all is not well because there have been recurring crises.
Let me say right away that the crises have been more intense each time. One might wonder where the shoe will pinch next, and who is going to start another crisis. One wonders where another crisis will happen and whether one of the European currencies will become embroiled in some form of raid. Or, we ask, is it perhaps the turn of the United States dollar again, or the Canadian dollar?
I suppose one would have to look at the background of each country to see whether certain conditions prevail which would make a crisis rather more possible; in other words, is it providing fertile ground? Here I think we can look to balance of payments problems, cofintrol of inflation and interest rates. In this regard, Canada is not entirely out of the woods. Therefore by the adoption of this change in the bill we, in Canada, cannot say we are completely safe and are sheltered from any further assaults in the international monetary field.
One of the interesting features that came about as a result of this examination was the form of international policing that can be carried out by the World Bank through the International Monetary Fund on, shall we say, the second layer or the second slice; first of all, the gold slice in the reserves. The country in question can draw on those unconditionally and has no problems. But when the country wishing to borrow from the International Monetary Fund starts to draw on its
Finance
national currency reserves, the fund directorate can impose conditions. That is where I feel there is a better hope in a scheme of this kind than there would be in a scheme of a free and unfettered exchange. You might say, let the country carry out whatever policies it wants, and it has to defend its position. Its currency may be driven down, and let it take the consequences. I have a suspicion that there is here too much danger that we will go back to the pre world war II financial jungle conditions with regard to international monetary exchanges.
At least one of the witnesses who was in favour of liberalizing the fixed exchange system conceded that there was this power of policing the economic policies and performance of a country that was finding itself in trouble. The special drawing rights which are the subject matter of the amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements Act do not come directly under the policing, if one may call it that, of the International Monetary Fund, in that the drawing rights once established may be drawn upon by the country in question and used unconditionally. The special drawing rights are not designed to do away with situations arising out of crisis. They are, in fact, a line of credit established to provide working capital for greater world trade. In other words, the volume of world trade is such that the gold slice in the national currency reserves held by the International Monetary Fund and the countries' international or foreign exchange reserves held on their own account, were insufficient to deal with the volume of world trade. Therefore, these special drawing rights which are established by quota are available to a participating country and can be used for trade purposes, not for crises purposes.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
However, I feel that there can be a form of indirect policing of the economic policies and performance of any individual country in the establishment of quotas because various indices which are laid down in the Bretton Woods Agreement with regard to the special drawing rights are used to determine the quota. When the officers of the International Monetary Fund allocate the quota of special drawing rights to a country, I say this is a form of judging, estimating, assessing and in fact policing of the economic performance of the country. Having said that, I want to say that we certainly have not completed the refinement of those things that countries can

February 24, 1969
Finance
use with regard to their international settlements. Obviously, there is nothing that will replace confidence in one another's currency. Confidence in another country's currency is based upon its economic performance. What is its balance of trade? Is this a steady deficit? Is there a run away inflation? What about interest rates? What is the form of performance of the government?
There are a number of other factors which lead to a degree of confidence which other countries will have in your currency. As long as that confidence exists, there is less danger Of negative movements with regard to one's own currency. There are other things that have to be done. I do not know just in what direction but, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, one is left with a nagging feeling that we are far from having settled the final form, and there may be further events. After all, 1969 has just started. In 1968 we saw two world monetary crises; the next one may be a lot worse. I am hoping that if there is to be one it will not be as bad. Frankly I do not think any good comes out of them anyway. The corrective measures that have to be taken to deal with crises, either the imposition of temporary surtaxes or temporary taxes which have their origin in economic nationalism, merely add to friction among countries. You can have as much economic friction with deleterious results as you can have military or political friction. I do not want to point the finger at any particular country or countries, but if we go back to 1968 we realize there was just as much international friction as a result of economic thinking and actions of France first of all vis-a-vis the dollar, then vis-a-vis the pound sterling and the German mark, as actions of the French government in other spheres. The action the British government has had to take to shore up its own economy only led to difficulties.
We have seen our exports to Great Britain cut back and we had to take action in order to replace them. It seems to me that economic nationalism is entirely negative. Therefore, what we want to do first of all is to remove one of the root causes of these various aspects of economic nationalism, that is to have as steady a system of foreign exchange settlements as may be envisaged under the Bretton Woods Agreement. It is not the final answer but I hope it will provide us with some improvement. It could be that perhaps a little
IMr. Lambert (Edmonton West) .1
more flexibility, as was indicated by some other hon. members, perhaps instead of a plus or minus 1 per cent above the fixed exchange rate 2 or 3 per cent would allow movement and would make those working on interest arbitrage much more cautious of entering the market and therefore upsetting it. This may be a partial answer. Perhaps averaging once a year on what was claimed to be a crawling peg or a movable peg, may be another satisfactory answer. However, having examined these things I believe that the alternatives have been put before us much more clearly by the committee and it has been for the benefit of the house. Therefore, I for one support the third reading.
Mr. Max Sallsman, (Waterloo): The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) spoke of some nagging feelings about this measure when he indicated support for the bill. I, too will indicate my support for the bill on behalf of my party, but I support it with very strong reservations. I say this for a number of reasons. I do not feel that the examination of the bill in the committee was very helpful. I say this not because the chairman and the members of the committee did not do their best. I think they worked very hard. We had witnesses from the Bank of Canada and a number of people from the chartered banks of Canada. However, I suggest that this study was not sufficient to examine the implications of a policy as important as the one with which we are dealing. My feelings were that the committee was being appealed to on the basis of "let us be good international citizens". This is something all of us understand, appreciate and wish to be. The committee did not have the expertise to challenge the witnesses who appeared before us. We had to accept their word that this is a good measure for Canada. But there is much doubt whether an international banking bureaucracy is not developing and whether they have more in common with each other than they have with their own countries.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
This may not be the case. I am prepared to accept the fact that our people are committed to international stability; that they are committed to the organization; that Canada believes in its role in world affairs, but until we can get a clear impression or a clear confrontation with the negotiators, that doubt
February 24, 1969

Finance
remains. One is also disturbed by the fact that the one country in the world which has a veto is the United States, and one wonders to what extent the international monetary fund really reflects world opinion and to what extent it is more an instrument of American policy. We support it because we have been assured that it is a good measure for Canada and for the world, but for the record we indicate our reservations.
Canada is a very special kind of country and to say we have to behave the same as every other country in the world is to fail to observe the special conditions of this nation. It seems to me that the present arrangement with the international monetary fund whereby we are on a fixed exchange rate is not the best arrangement for Canada.
I do not think it can even be demonstrated that Canada being tied in this particular way is necessarily a good thing for the rest of the world, either. I think we should clearly look at our position with a view to continuing our examination of this question of fixed versus floating exchange rates. We are a very open country, a major trading nation, and this creates special problems with a fixed exchange rate. The greatest difficulty it has created is that on many occasions our domestic policy has been hamstrung because of the nature of the combination of fixed reserves and a fixed exchange rate. Until 1962, Canada was on a floating rate. It had worked very well until then and were it not for the economic panic of the government of that day it probably would have continued to work. The government of that day was pursuing disastrous policies with the exchange rate. On one hand, they were trying to support it and on the other hand they were trying to knock it down. Then they were trying to stabilize it. They did not know what they were doing. While the government was pursuing one set of fiscal policies, monetary policies were working in another direction.
They permitted our exchanges to get into such bad shape that they thought the only way out was to accept the conditions laid down by the international monetary fund in order to save the rate at that time. The conditions, imposed on Canada were severe. I do not think it was necessary for us to accept those conditions. The government had alternative methods. They could have brought in exchange controls; they could have used more
intelligence in co-ordinating fiscal and monetary policies. They have left us a heritage of a fixed exchange rate which does not operate, in my opinion, in the best interests of this country.
The argument is made that fixed exchange rates permits stability or gives some indication of the relative values of currencies of the various countries. No statement could be farther from the truth. We know that a lot of countries in the world find ways around the restriction of a fixed exchange rate. They have various forms of taxation which they can use to subsidize their exports. They have ways to discourage imports, and the purpose of the fixed exchange rate, which is to provide stability, is frustrated in this way.
One has to wonder whether we would not be further ahead to have a full and thorough discussion and examination of the full benefits of one type of rate as against another. In this country all kinds of suggestions are being made at the moment but parliament has really not examined this question thoroughly. The effect of accepting the Bretton Woods Agreement is this: the condition is there, and it is a take it or leave it agreement; there is nothing which can be modified in any way, it has to be either accepted or rejected. This means that any improvements which some of us might think of making to amend the bill are out of the question.
The amendment would have one effect. It virtually doubles the price of gold and by creating special drawing rights under various conditions, each country gets, in effect, increased liquidity. The advantage of doing it in this way rather than doubling the price of gold is that presumably it does not have the same evil effects on those countries which do not hold their reserves in gold or which have dollars in reserve rather than gold as has been the case in Canada.
With these reservations, I hope the government will indicate its intention to place this measure before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for full examination, to call expert witnesses and to give the committee far more staff than it now has so that the committee itself can have some assurance that the witnesses appearing before it are receiving the proper examination, and that the answers given are not open to challenge.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
February 24, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.



PUBLIC SERVICE-SUPERANNUATED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES-REQUEST FOR INCREASED PENSIONS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, February 4, as reported at page 5113 of Hansard, I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) whether certain sums of money in the estimates for the ensuing fiscal year which he had tabled that day, moneys which were to be placed in certain superannuation accounts, would be used to increase the pensions of civil servants already retired.
In his reply, the President of the Treasury Board said this was not the case but that these sums were for the purpose of covering certain actuarial deficiencies. He ended his answer with these precise words:
I regret to say that as yet no decision has been taken to make additional funds available to superannuates.
I asked a supplementary question, but got nowhere with it. Then a week later, on February 11, as reported on page 5372, I asked another question on this subject and got the answer that has been given us hundreds of times, namely that the matter was still under consideration. In fact, on February 11 we were told it was under serious consideration.
A few days later, on February 17, one of my questions on the order paper was answered and the answer is to be found on pages 5572 and 5573. It gave some interesting statistics. Among other things, the figures told us the number of retired civil servants and the number of widows of civil servants who have been dying in recent years. If hon. members will look at these tables they will discover that the rate seems to be established at a little over 1,500 retired civil servants and a little over 500 widows of civil servants w}io are dying each year. This means that in the year and nine months since May 8, 1967, when a unanimous report was tabled calling for action to raise the pensions of retired civil servants forthwith, a total of 2,625 retired civil servants have died and a total of 875 widows of civil servants have died. That makes a grand total of 3,500. This figure does
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
not include pensioners of the armed forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and so on.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
A little earlier this evening, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford) admitted jus personal regret that a bill he was speaking to at that moment had not been brought in five years ago. He said that it was too bad people had been hurt during the past five years in accidents, or had lost their lives, as a result of the absence of the kind of legislation being discussed in the house this evening.
I submit that if the government is sincere in that position and really does regret that the absence of that kind of legislation has resulted in people losing their lives, then the government ought to be concerned about the fact that, while it is stalling on this question of increasing the pensions of retired civil servants, every month another 125 retired civil servants die without getting the increases that were promised them. Similarly every month another 40 widows die without getting the promised increases. Surely, this is not something of which the government can be proud.
The government continues to say that it is giving the matter serious consideration, to tell the house time and time again, as no doubt the parliamentary secretary will tell the house tonight, that there is concern about this matter in all quarters of the house. I will no doubt be told that the member for Winnipeg North Centre is not the only one concerned; there is concern everywhere. While this concern is being spread around, these people are dying without having had the advantage of the increase in their pensions that was recommended by the joint parliamentary committee nearly two years ago and which the government has said through all these months that it has been considering.
There is not time in the late show period- indeed I do not need to do so because I have done it so often-to make the arguments as to the rights that these people have and as to the obligation of the government to maintain the standard of living it promised these people. I again plead the force of the argument that a joint committee representing all parties in both houses has unanimously recommended on May 8, 1967, that action be taken forthwith. How much longer, Mr. Speaker, are we going to have to wait before that action is taken?
February 24. 1969	COMMONS


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening to respond to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), on behalf of and at the request of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury).
I must say I personally regret that there is nothing I can add to the response of the President of the Treasury Board when he answered the hon. member's question on February 11. However, perhaps I can repeat what I have said on other occasions when I have attempted to answer similar questions, namely that concern over the question of increased pensions for retired civil servants has been expressed by members on all sides of the house. The government has been giving consideration, and continues to do so, to this question of retired public servants. I can assure the hon. member that the matter continues to be, to paraphrase the words he quoted, under both serious and active consideration by the government at the present time.



INDIAN AFFAIRS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF FUNCTIONS OF MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, on the 19th of the month I posed a question to the Prime Minister that I think I should re-read now. As recorded at page 5710 of Hansard I asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, in the absence of both ministers involved with Indian affairs and northern development I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can enunciate clearly at an early date what the responsibilities and duties are of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras) in respect of his association with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, because there is a great deal of doubt about this in the minds of the native Indian people. They should like to know what his functions are.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was in the house that day. He did not stir from his slumped position or even acknowledge that he had heard the question. I have no personal complaint about that, Mr. Speaker, but other people do have an interest in it. The question was posed to the right hon. gentleman because a number of native Indian people had asked me about the responsibilities of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras) and I was unable to answer. I acted partially as a representative of native Indian people who were concerned about this, and I got no response.
DEBATES	5899
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The hon. member for Port Arthur, wherever he spoke last fall left the impression with the Indian native people that he was concerned about the plight of these people. On many occasions he condemned the past failings of governments in their dealings with Indian people. He indicated that he had an insight into the problems of our native Indian people. As I said, he left a good impression.
When the announcement was made in this house regarding the reorganization of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development the member for Port Arthur, the Minister without Portfolio, complained bitterly and publicly that he had not been consulted about that reorganization; that he had no knowledge of it and that he had doubts about its values as far as the Indian people were concerned. That was the first time we got any indication that perhaps the hon. member for Port Arthur did not really hold a responsible, authoritative position in the government.
The Prime Minister stated, when asked, that the hon. member for Port Arthur did not have any responsibility in so far as this department was concerned. It was this, plus other comments and the fact that the hon. member's involvement in northern affairs has declined in recent times, that has led many Indian people to wonder just what is happening. The Indian people wonder whether one of the ministers is a propagandist while the other who has the responsibility for doing something about the affairs of the Indian people so far has done relatively little.
As I have stated I do not mind that the Prime Minister chose not to give a reply to my question. This is one of the chances we take in this house. I do not feel slighted by it. If it is the Prime Minister's desire to ignore any member, he can do it. He has done it on a number of occasions.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
But I submit that the Prime Minister of all people has no right to ignore, as he did, and in effect by ignoring thus insult the very people whom government has ignored for many years, our native Indian people. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister did not bestir himself, but if he had made some comment or recognition of the fact that it was necessary to outline the responsibilities of the hon. member for Port Arthur, when the question was asked on February 19, then the Parliamentary Secretary or whoever it is who is going to reply this evening would not have
February 24, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion had to be here. We would have, in effect, had an answer from the horse's mouth.
I am looking forward to the reply that will be given in the hope that it will contain some clear announcement about the responsibilities of the hon. member for Port Arthur in order that our native people will know where they stand in dealing with him in the future.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, it is gratifying to hear the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) speak so well of at least one minister of the Crown. I am sure the government will appreciate this very much. If my memory serves me correctly the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) dealt with a question similar to this in the House of Commons. I have not had a chance to refer to the particular question on the day mentioned by the hon. member, but I was in the house when the Prime Minister answered a question similar to it. At that time he stated that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) is the minister responsible for discharging the activities of that department. The Prime Minister stated as well that the minister is being assisted in one special aspect of his duties by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) from Port Arthur. The Prime Minister made it clear that the line of responsibility runs through the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) to the minister with portfolio.
I think it is common knowledge to us all how active have been these two ministers in past months in meeting with the native peoples of Canada so as to learn at first hand the problems and the desires of our oldest citizens. There is considerable evidence of the feeling of good will that has been engendered
by these activities, a feeling which I am sure will continue throughout this administration.
As the Prime Minister has said on other occasions and as has been repeated by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the government has in principle agreed to the preparation of new legislation which will deal with the status of Indian peoples in Canada. It is in an attempt to determine the content of that legislation, and the policy most acceptable to the native peoples themselves as being the likeliest to meet their expectations, that the two ministers are now engaging themselves. Certainly, in the end result the beneficiaries of this activity will be, as we all want them to be, the native peoples themselves.



HISTORIC MONUMENTS-ADMINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE OF VIMY MONUMENT

Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is in order but I rise on a question of privilege to point out that as the minister has been detained in Montreal and his executive assistant informed me that the minister wishes to answer my question personally, I agreed not to discuss it to-night. However, I hope that the house will allow me to raise the matter again during the next proceedings on the adjournment motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I do not think there is a strict provision concerning proceedings on the adjournment motion, but I can tell the hon. member that his remarks have been noted and will be conveyed to whom it may concern.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house adjourned at 10.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 25, 1969