1969-03-13

Mr. Speaker:: May I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of some members of the National Assembly of South Viet Nam. On behalf of all the members of the House of Commons of Canada and of the Parliament of Canada I heartily welcome them to Ottawa and to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



BARLEY AND OATS-STATEMENT RESPECTING FINAL PAYMENT

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement regarding the final payments on barley and oats.
Producers delivered 27,538,577 bushels of oats and 81,592,536 bushels of barley to the Canadian Wheat Board in the 1967-68 crop year. The pool periods for oats and barley were closed on January 31 and February 14 respectively. The amounts of the final payments to be distributed are $4,800,024 for oats and $3,490,962 for barley. These are not payments by the government of Canada, but represent the net returns of the Canadian Wheat Board in the marketing of western Canadian oats and barley for the 1967-68 crop year.
The board will begin mailing the final payment cheques for oats today, and immediately after the completion of the oats payment the final payment cheques for barley will be distributed.
The final payments are being made on a grade basis as prescribed in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The average final payment
is 17.4 cents per bushel for oats and 4.3 cents per bushel for barley. While the level of these final payments is lower than the previous crop year, it should be noted that the initial payments for these grains were increased by 5 cents per bushel for oats and 10 cents per bushel for barley at the beginning of the 1967-68 crop year.
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the statement being issued today in Winnipeg by the Canadian Wheat Board regarding these final payments.
The 1967-68 wheat pool account was closed on February 28 and the necessary accounting is now being completed. I expect to be able to make an announcement in about two weeks as to the level of the final wheat payments, when the board will be in a position to commence mailing the final payment cheques for wheat.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfooi):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the statement made by the minister my first reaction is one of pleasure on seeing hard earned cash going out to the farmers in western Canada. I will point out immediately that this money is the farmers' money being paid to them from the final sales of 27 million bushels of oats and 81 million bushels of barley. It is regrettable that the grain which sold the largest number of bushels should be the one bringing in the lowest payment-4.3 cents a bushel for the barley. The 17.4 cents on oats is a better payment but the total amount involved is small.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The recent report of the task force suggests we should be growing and marketing more barley and feed grain. I would only point out that there are 200 million bushels of barley still in storage. How can we justify taking nine million acres out of wheat this year and seeding them to barley and feed grains, when we have such a backlog in storage? Moreover, low final payments such as these will not encourage farmers to do as requested of them in the recent task force report.
So while initially we react with pleasure to see hard-earned cash being paid out to the

March 13, 1969
Movement of Grain
farmers of western Canada at a time of particular need, we see little hope of the suggestions of the task force being carried out, especially having regard to the low payment on barley.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: The low
level of return on the 1967-68 crop will be extremely disappointing to the farmers of western Canada, though I might say it will not be entirely a surprise to them as they saw the crisis which was looming on the farm front before the government did.
The returns being provided at the present time and the level of prices are not nearly adequate to meet the needs of the agricultural economy. I think it ought to be emphasized once again that western Canada and the agricultural economy of that region face a crisis and that this crisis is bound to effect the national economy. Farm prices have been falling over the last two years while farm costs continue to rise. During the past year the index of farm costs has risen by some 5 per cent.
We can also expect that the wheat payment will be low. This I feel is the result of the abdication of responsibility by the federal government particularly during the period between the expiration of the international wheat agreement and the commencement of the new international grains arrangement-it was during this period that the grain crisis developed to the full extent which we are witnessing today.
The downward trend of grain prices is continuing into this year. The level of Winnipeg cash prices for oats presently ranges around 86 cents a bushel compared with an average of 92 cents a year ago. Prices for No. 2 C.W.-6 row Barley are in the area of $1.07 compared with $1.25 a year ago. This indicates that the situation is getting worse, yet we have seen little or nothing in the way of government action to deal with these problems.
In addition to the price factor, the farmers of western Canada have this year been faced with extremely difficult problems involving damp and tough grain. On many occasions my colleagues and other members of this house have endeavoured to bring the full impact of this crisis to the realization of the government, but the government has been slow in taking action and in developing initiatives. The farmers of western Canada are extremely disappointed by the ineffectiveness of government action over the past several months.

The full impact of the crisis with respect to damp and tough grain will become more clearly known in the course of the next few weeks and will be entirely in line with the predictions made by the western agricultural organizations and by the farmers on the scene. Thus I urge the government, before it is too late, to take measures to deal with this crisis which is affecting all of Canada.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, we of the Ralliement Creditiste want to rejoice with the western farmers and congratulate the members of that wonderful organization, the Canadian Wheat Board, because, as was said by the minister, the money does not come from the country or the government but solely from the Canadian Wheat Board which has accumulated it to make a last payment to the farmers.
Those who like me have had the privilege to read about the very difficult start experienced by the board, can rejoice today over its achievements. In fact, we notice that the western farmers are wise to support at all costs their co-operative because I have always considered the Canadian Wheat Board to be just that, and we can see today how profitable the work of this board has been for the western farmers.
Mr. Speaker, several hon. members seem to wonder why the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is the spokesman for the board in this house? I think that I have found the answer and I want to pass it on to the house because several new members seem a little intrigued. We know that government money is not involved but rather the efforts of the Canadian Wheat Board to assist the farmers. I do not think that I am mistaken and if my memory serves me well, the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) used to be in the past co-chairman or honorary chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board. I think it is a title which the Canadian Wheat Board has bestowed upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I should like to know whether the present minister is an honorary chairman of that board. I trust he is, because when making such statements in the house he seems to talk on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board and I have the impression that the western farmers are happy to have him as an honorary chairman in view of the significance of that position.
Mr. Speaker, we are not jealous of the Westerners, but we, also, would like to be
March 13, 1969

represented by an eastern agricultural products commission of which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would be the co-chairman or the honorary chairman.
I ask him and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to help us so that one day we shall get the same results as the western farmers.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, seconded by Mr. Groos, I have the honour to move:
That the petition of The Perth Mutual Fire Insurance Company, filed after the time limit specified by Standing Order 90, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, with the eleventh report of the Clerk of Petitions tabled in the house on Wednesday, February 26, 1969, so that the Committee may make the recommendations it shall deem necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the urgent situation revealed in the unemployment statistics released today, showing 10.5 per cent unemployment for the Atlantic area, 8.4 per cent for Quebec, 6.6 per cent for British Columbia-6 per cent being the overall figure for the entire country-and the failure of the government to provide policies to cope with this situation, particularly its failure to provide alternative seasonal employment programs to take the place of the winter works program cancelled unilaterally by the government.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Having considered the hon. member's notice of motion I can do no better than to refer him to the ruling of the Chair 29180-4151
Labour Conditions
when a similar motion was presented by the hon. member for York South on January 16 last. In particular I refer hon. members to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener, made on March 23, 1959. On that occasion he said:
I have felt that the question of unemployment, which is a continuing one, can scarcely be brought forward under rule 26. The circumstance alleged by the hon. member for Essex East, namely a joint release by the Department of Labour and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, scarcely alters the situation, in my opinion, to a point where the house should be asked to interrupt its ordinary business.
Under the circumstances I do not think it would be in order to put the hon. member's proposed motion to the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to dispute Your Honour's decision and, under the rules of the house, cannot do so. With great deference however I would ask Your Honour, in interpreting the standing orders in future, to give some thought to distinguishing what might be termed continuing problems. If a problem continues to exist for a certain period of time surely there comes a point in time when it reaches critical proportions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In raising his point of order the hon. member himself has said that he cannot question the ruling of the Chair. I know what the hon. member has in mind and I can assure him I appreciate the fact that in some circumstances a continuing situation may reach a point where perhaps the general rule should be discarded. The situation might then be considered a matter of sudden emergency, to the extent that the motion should be allowed. As I say, I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I assure him that it will always be one of the considerations taken into account by the Chair when similar motions are presented to the house.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question which relates to an answer he gave me yesterday. He said that both parties in the Post Office dispute, namely the Post Office and the union, have agreed

March 13, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry to refer all outstanding issues to arbitration and that both sides have facilitated the waiver of delay. He said also that the agreement was to refer the outstanding issues, including of course the special one about lunch arrangements, but that the term "outstanding issues" is not restricted and would, he supposed, include all the issues which are raised by either side.
In view of the denial by the national president of the Letter Carriers Union that this is the case, and in view of his statement that in meetings over the weekend the union requested management to refer all relevant issues to arbitration, may I ask, considering the importance of this matter, whether the Prime Minister was inadvertently mistaken in the information he gave me. In view of its importance will he clarify this matter?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Posimasier General):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement the Leader of the Opposition refers to. The position of the department is that we are quite willing to proceed to adjudication of any and all issues to which the union might take exception. In fact, we are clearing the way for speedy adjudication of issues by waiving the intermediate steps. I think we have suggested to the union that we should take representative cases, instead of filing tens or hundreds of grievances that revolve around the same issue. To my knowledge, that has been discussed. We are quite prepared, under our contract, to proceed to adjudication of any outstanding issues.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I directed my question to the Prime Minister in view of the statement he made yesterday. If I may, I will pursue it with the Postmaster General, since he is in the house today. Do I understand the Postmaster General to say that all matters in dispute are being referred for third party consideration? The national president of the Letter Carriers Union has issued a public statement that this is not so, that only those grievances dealing with wash-up and travelling time were presented to the Public Service Staff Relations Board for adjudication. These are the only grievances on which management asked the union to facilitate the waiver of delay. A request for the reference of all other matters in dispute was made to the management of the Post Office over the weekend. Management officials flatly rejected this proposal. In the light of this statement by the national president of the Letter Carriers Union of Canada, Mr. Speaker, is the Postmaster General insisting that all matters in

dispute are being expedited and referred for third party adjudication?


Eric William Kierans: I would certainly insist that, Mr. Speaker, on issues which in any way were responsible for or caused people to go out on strike are being proceeded with immediately to the fourth and final stage. There may have been a number of other issues during the two day discussions on Saturday and Sunday which the unions wanted to proceed with immediately. I will have to check that and find out what they were. I was concerned of course with the issues at stake in this walkout.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I think it is clear that the Postmaster General has inadvertently given the wrong impression to the house and the country, as did the Prime Minister yesterday. I said inadvertently, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the importance of this matter and avoiding the escalation of disputes as well as having all matters settled peacefully, without disruption of the service, would the Postmaster General not reconsider his refusal to have a mediator selected, so that possible halts in mail delivery may not recur as a result of disputes in other areas in which the union is seeking immediate third party arbitration?


Eric William Kierans: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the union lawyer presented grievances to the Staff: Relations Board. To the best of my knowledge both sides are now busily engaged in preparing their case for the hearing before the board. I will call Mr. Decarie and find out if there are other issues he wants to proceed with. I will talk this over with him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Postmaster General to make sure he is fully informed as to the state-


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General. He is devoting much attention to staff relations. Would he also devote some attention to public relations and the service of the post office to the public who pay the bills.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of the unemployment statistics which have been released today showing the very heavy incidence of unemployment in
March 13, 1969

Canada-10.5 per cent in the Atlantic area, 8.4 per cent in Quebec, 6.6 per cent in British Columbia and 6 per cent over the entire country-I want to ask the Prime Minister if the government intends to announce a program to provide employment opportunities as asked for by the Association of Mayors and Municipalities. If so, when does the Prime Minister expect to be able to make such a statement?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has asked me to question, or at least I question, the statistics which the hon. gentleman has now placed before the house on two occasions. The opening statement in the D.B.S. report says, "Total employment increased slightly since the last report a month ago." I think these facts should also be put on the record, that the rate of unemployment in October was 5 per cent, in November 4.9 per cent, in December 4.8 per cent, on January 18 it was 4.3 per cent and on February 15 it was 4.3 per cent, which indicates a trend towards the better.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the work force of the country has increased by 20,000 people this month. We have been able to find jobs for these people. In addition to that, in an emergency debate not too long ago the Prime Minister indicated that with the establishment of the new department of regional expansion, and increased acceleration of the manpower program, we intend to tackle the problem of unemployment on a full-time permanent basis, rather than with ad hoc temporary measures.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the figures I quoted were issued today by the government, and in view of the fact that the minister was merely quoting seasonally adjusted figures, and that the number of persons added to the labour force is not much consolation to those who are unemployed, may I ask him, since 6 per cent seems to be the usual figure for this season of the year for three years in succession, whether the government has now accepted 6 per cent as its goal for unemployment in this country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Labour just indicated, we have plans in the new department to attack this problem on a logical and total basis. That is why we have a Government Organization Act, and we hope the opposition will co-operate with us in getting this act through the house.
Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPBUILDING



REQUEST FOR REPORT OF COMMITTEE CONSIDERING SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT

Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Ceniral Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister report at this time as to the deliberations of the committee, composed of persons from the shipbuilding industry and various government departments, which was set up to look into shipbuilding matters, with a view to alleviating the very heavy unemployment in the shipyards of the country?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The committee will report in due course, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEDURE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton who is chairman of the Committee on Procedure. In light of the remarks made by Mr. Speaker would the hon. member consider reviewing the provisions of Standing Order 26, having in mind that the condition of unemployment may well be chronic during the term of office of this government?



FINANCE


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Would he tell the house if the government intends to study the matter of interest rates, considering they are at their highest level in this century and, consequently, cannot attract foreign investments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, not only does the question seem very general to me, but it should be asked of the Minister of Finance.



HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
SHORTAGE OF MEDICAL DOCTORS Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
[Stage Direction]
March 13. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry In view of the statement made by the minister last night when speaking in Hamilton, that the present shortage of doctors is only a myth, is this the reason that the health resources fund has been cut back?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He was
talking nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PAYMENT OF SUBSIDY ON DRYING OPERATION

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. While the payments from the barley and oats pool will naturally be acceptable to farmers I would point out that the amount is negligible when regard is had to the tremendous cost of drying operations for damp wheat on the prairies. In view of this will the minister now see to it that there will be made available to the western farmers who need the drying apparatus, either through purchase or through rental, a payment of ten cents a bushel, either to the farmers directly or to those who provide the necessary service?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the house, as I did previously, that the reason the final payments are lower is because the initial payments were increased. That has to be taken into consideration. I think it is a rather worth-while point to make again.
With respect to drying facilities, the Minister of Agriculture said that we will soon have a report on the situation. We have already made cash money available to help farmers dry more than they had been drying on their farms, and I think we will wait and see what the situation is at the end of the month.


John George Diefenbaker: By the end of the month the situation will be even worse than it is now. Is consideration being given to paying farmers ten cents a bushel as an incentive for drying the wheat, and also as payment for the work that has come to them as a result of the untoward climatic conditions? That is the simple question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker; but I find it rather worth mentioning that when the opposition attacks us on the rate of unemployment, the only thing it can offer is the
[Mr. Rynard.l
suggestion that subsidies should be paid all down the line.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Mackenzie has a supplementary.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: In view of the fact that many farmers who have taken advantage of the emergency cash advances find the amount of money inadequate to dry all the grain they have, I would like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether consideration is being given to removing the lid on the amount that can be borrowed under that scheme?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the report of January's survey on the situation, and the number of people who invoked lack of funds as an explanation of why they had not been drying more was very low. As I recall, it was 125 out of more than 1,000.



INQUIRY AS TO AVAILABILITY OF BOX CARS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: In view of the statement of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on the export of barley-and I do not expect an answer to this question today-would he look into the situation in which farmers are moving their grain on the C.P.R. in preference to the C.N.R. because they cannot get box cars on the C.N.R. to move the barley off their farms?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board has been co-operating with the railways as much as possible, constantly bringing to their attention that situation.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is consideration being given to the suggestion of a national body, the Canadian Catholic Conference, that 10 per cent of Canada's armaments expenditures be spent instead on such peace efforts as the provision of food for underdeveloped countries?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that this question that he is bringing to the attention of the house is very wide in scope, and should normally be answered by way of a statement on motions.
March 13, 1969



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the Public Service Staff Relations Board been asked to give the government leave to prosecute 57 letter carriers in nine cities for participating in the alleged illegal strike?


Eric William Kierans: This is before the Staff Relations Board, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: Since the minister has
indicated that the prosecutions will not likely be proceeded with, how does he justify the expenditure of thousands of dollars for the board to travel to these cities to hear the cases?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is an argument, not a question.



DELAY IN MAIL DELIVERIES

Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Postmaster General. While it may seem to be a trivial matter, I think if it is a recurring one it is of national importance. I have in my hand a letter from a government department postmarked Toronto, February 14. I received this letter at noon today, March 13. Is this the new efficient service?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for an expression of opinion from the minister.
The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster.


Lee Elgy Grills: I have a supplementary question in respect of the mail service, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed a supplementary.


Lee Elgy Grills: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is in respect of a letter dated December 30 which was received by me on February 12. This is a delay of approximately six weeks. This letter originated in the Department of National Health and Welfare. I do not like to bring this up, but there must be something wrong. Perhaps they are short staffed, or-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry "TIME" AND "READER'S DIGEST"-ALLEGED SPECIAL CONCESSIONS TO U.S. PUBLICATIONS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Since it is the desire of the department of communications to promote a Canadian identity in the broadcasting media, would the department now consider assisting the creation of a Canadian identity through the written press by the elimination of special postal rate concessions granted to certain American publications such as Time magazine?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, we have already spent several days on this subject. I said there is no discrimination in favour of or against Time magazine and Reader's Digest. They pay exactly the same percentage costs as do other magazines in the magazine field.



TELEVISION INTERVIEWS IN AREA ADJACENT TO CHAMBER

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Prime Minister in respect of the matter of television for the house, which he said yesterday would be reconsidered. Will the Prime Minister take into account the charges made about the distorted replay on television outside the house of the debates in the house, such charges having been made by that well known author of parliamentary procedure, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens).


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the Prime Minister take into account the charges made by backbenchers? Whether they are bums or idiots, they have a role to play in parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Since he told the house yesterday that nobody is now holding the office of Queen's Printer, could he say now clearly whether the incumbent has been deprived of his office or

March 13, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry whether he has agreed to be transferred1 to another department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will note from the official report of the house that this question has already been asked, and it seems that it was answered.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might rephrase my question, because after reading Hansard, last night many things were still unclear in my mind.
May I ask the Prime Minister why the house has not been informed of that most important change, since the Queen's Printer was one of the few French-speaking deputy ministers in the Department of Defence Production and since he was deprived of his office without the house being told about it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question deals with the same matter.
I wonder if the Prime Minister, who is responsible for appointing deputy ministers in the public service, can tell the house how it can be that a deputy minister, namely the Queen's Printer, learned from another deputy minister that his position had been abolished.


Mr. Speaker:: This is argumentative.



COMBINES


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the steadily worsening situation in respect of lumber prices and supply, which has seen all prices increase drastically and some prices more than double between February 1968 and February 1969, which is having a disastrous inflationary effect on housing costs particularly, and the stability of the construction industry generally, will the minister consider recommending that the Combines Investigation Branch investigate the lumber industry?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Director of Investigation and Research

under the Combines Investigation Act maintains a scrutiny of all significant price movements, and in the event significant price movements indicate an offence under the Combines Investigation Act the Director has an obligation to prosecute or investigate under that act. Also the task force on housing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Hon. members opposite do not seem interested in an answer. The task force on housing also made reference to certain practices in the housing industry, to which they wanted to draw our attention. My officials are communicating directly with the officials of the task force. So far as the general subject is concerned, if anyone has any evidence that increasing lumber prices are in violation of the Combines Investigation Act I would be happy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Arising out of the reply of the minister on Monday last to the question of the hon. member for Churchill concerning the incident with regard to the health facilities for Indians at The Pas, Manitoba, would the minister say whether the lady administrator of the Indian health services was immediately and peremptorily removed from her post? If so, has the department conducted any investigation to ascertain whether this action was correct and fair?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the Indian community there indicated they did not have confidence in the particular person to whom the hon. member refers. I believe I interpreted the representation of the hon. member for Churchill to be that he requested action be taken in this regard, in order that the picketing outside the health facility there would stop.
The government and officials of my department looked into the situation and came to the conclusion that the person in question should not turn up for work, as she no longer enjoyed the confidence of the Indian community. We are endeavouring to make other
March 13, 1S69

arrangements for her to serve the department elsewhere.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't put her in the Post
Office.


William Gordon Ritchie: Are the employees and officials of the health services branch at The Pas now under the control of the Indian band in question?


John Carr Munro: They did not ask this in respect of all officials. They asked that the community health worker be responsible to the Indian band. We said we would look into it, that we had no objection to it and would try to work it out.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Considering the new policy announced by the Minister of Transport to the effect that several airlines will be granted landing rights in Toronto, can the Prime Minister give us the assurance that this new policy will in no way reduce the importance of the Dorval airport?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not see in what way this can be called a new policy, Mr. Speaker, and the importance of the airport in Dorval will in no way be reduced. I suggest that what might have such an effect would be the new international airport that we intend to build in the province of Quebec. Discussions on that matter are presently going on with the provincial authorities and I think that we shall be able to announce our decision in one or two weeks, at the most. As a matter of fact, our decision depends on consultations. We have had a great many consultations with the provincial authorities and we are about to make a decision on the basis of the final representations which we will be receiving from them.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether he is aware that the north shore has marked advantages-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Inquiries of the Ministry



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the minister held meetings yet with the three responsible ministers from the prairie provinces in respect of the Batten report?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. I met with the attorney-general of the province of Saskatchewan some time ago, and he indicated that he was most anxious to arrange a meeting with his two provincial colleagues from Manitoba and Alberta, and with myself. He has now arranged a meeting for this coming Monday in Winnipeg to discuss various aspects of the Batten report.



GASOLINE-REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION IN ALBERTA

James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Combines Investigation Branch concluded its study of the Alberta royal commission report on gasoline marketing and, if so, because of the national implications of this report will the minister make a statement to the house on motions?


Stanley Ronald Basford: We have not yet finished considering it, Mr. Speaker.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday I directed a question to the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in connection with a report released by the United States interior department. Perhaps I should repeat the question: Has the federal government undertaken a survey of our water resources and our water needs and, if so, when will a report to the house on these studies be made? I ask the question in view of the statement made by the United States interior department regarding the possible importation of water from Canada.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, studies in the area of the subject referred to

March 13, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry by the hon. member are going on in many different ways, and there are studies of many different types. I cannot tell the hon. member whether these studies will result in the kind of report which I would offer to have tabled in the house.


Randolph Harding: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask, again, whether a specific study of Canada's water resources, and the possible export thereof, has been set up.


Otto Emil Lang: I think I have really answered that question, Mr. Speaker. Studies of various types in that area are going on.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasi-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As he has stated that the shortage of doctors in the country is due to the rising trend toward specialization, has he any plans for reversing this trend, and has he discussed these plans with the provincial ministers of health?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would remind hon. members, as I attempted to do when a similar question was asked earlier, that questions cannot be asked in this way, relating to statements made outside the house.


Mr. Rynard:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he believes there is a shortage of medical manpower in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he is asking for an expression of opinion. I would not think that the question as asked is in order.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



BARLEY-DECREASE IN SHIPMENTS OVERSEAS

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the trend toward lower barley sales recently, can the minister explain why barley sales have been declining?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is argumentative.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last I directed a question to the Postmaster General, and he said he would look into the matter. I would like to know whether he now has an answer for me. My question was in relation to whether a decision had been reached in respect of representations made to the Deputy Postmaster General in mid-February on behalf of the postmasters of Canada.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister and myself have been engaged in negotiations. I will remind him of that question this afternoon.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

['supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this legislation was passed over two years ago, and in view of the fact that we now have an activist minister, cannot we get a little more speed than we have had?']
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the future Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
In view of the fact that, following a meeting many Canadians have set up retraining courses in political science with the result that they discovered the problems of economic disparity, could the minister assure the house that he is going to subsidize the Estates General in order to encourage them to carry on those political education courses?



Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can report to the house on the meeting he had earlier in the week with the ambassador of the U.S.S.R. In particular, can he tell us whether he discussed with the ambassador anything in relation to this country's proposed recognition of the Peking government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be unusual for me unilaterally to discuss the content of such discussions or such representations made at the demand of another country upon us. But I understand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has obtained the consent of the embassy of the U.S.S.R. to indicate that we did discuss the general problem of China, with no more detail than that.
March 13, 1969


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question lor the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having regard to the animosity, if not bitterness, between the U.S.S.R. and communist China today, have the border incidents that have taken place had any effect as a deterrent on the desire of the Canadian government to recognize communist China?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the recognition of the Peking regime is, I think, quite independent of these developments. We are not proposing to have relations with the Peking government because we agree with their philosophy or their actions; it is only in order to promote the cause of peace.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The eight or ten-man band to my right is very vocal today-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -even though they do not have their leader, the hon. member for Bur-naby-Seymour, here today. The question I asked, Mr. Speaker, was whether what is happening in the continent of Asia has had any effect on the rush on the part of the Canadian government to bring about recognition of communist China.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it has taken us a long, long time-many, many years-to get around to this point, and I do not think we should be deterred at this moment.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs can now tell the house when we can expect a decision to be made on the diplomatic recognition of mainland China.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have had the first contacts between the Peking regime and ourselves. I expect the negotiations will be very long. I assure the right hon. member for Prince Albert that we shall show just as much patience as the Chinese.


John George Diefenbaker: They did not creep on their hands and knees.
29180-416*
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the hostility existing between the Canadian Film Development Corporation and the members of the filmmaking industry, as indicated by recent representations, will the Secretary of State encourage the appointment of an advisory council from members of the industry to provide a continuing point of contact for discussions with the C.F.D.C., designed to facilitate the development of a feature film industry in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this very interesting question should be placed on the order paper.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I ask whether the Minister without Portfolio from Winnipeg South has tendered his resignation to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked a question, and there did not appear to be a response.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is indicating to me that I should get up on my feet. Perhaps he did not understand the question. I will repeat it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the Prime Minister heard the question. He can see it in Hansard, if he did not hear it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour supplementary to questions I have asked earlier in the session regarding the Canada Labour (Safety) Code. In view of the last statement the minister

March 13, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry made, which was to the effect that the regulations would be promulgated industry by industry, can he tell me whether the regulations for the railway industry have yet been drafted?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the representations of the hon. member I asked the department to speed up the finalization of all these regulations. I would like to take the hon. member's question as notice and report more fully on Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this legislation was passed over two years ago, and in view of the fact that we now have an activist minister, cannot we get a little more speed than we have had?



PUBLIC SERVICE


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
Could he assure us that the report of the inquiry into bilingualism in the public service will come out in the spring of 1969, at the latest, as announced some time ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not understand what report of inquiry the hon. member is talking about, Mr. Speaker.


André-Gilles Fortin: I mean the report that deals with bilingualism in the public service.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the term of office of the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland is due to expire shortly, has the provincial government made a recommendation to him and will an appointment be made shortly?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the question is in order. I would have to consult the precedents in order to decide, but I have some doubts about it.



YUKON TERRITORY


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the promise of the Prime Minister that a statement would be made before the end of 1968 and in view of several statements of the minister to the same effect, is the minister now in a position to make any announcement concerning governmental reform in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we are not ready yet to make a statement on that matter.


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question for the minister. Can he give the house an indication of when he intends to make such an announcement?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the benefit of hon. members, could the government house leader indicate the business for the rest of this week and for next week?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: As I indicated in last week's announcement, Mr. Speaker, it will be the government's intention to call for second reading tomorrow Bill C-178 dealing with the Statute Law (Superannuation) Amendment Act. Perhaps I could indicate in that regard that, as hon. members will have noted, there is a time limit in the bill of April 1. It would obviously be of value if the legislation could be brought into effect at the beginning of the fiscal year, and on that basis we would hope the bill could receive second reading tomorrow, be dealt with by the finance committee in the early part of next week, and then dealt with in final form by the house a week from
March 13, 1969

tomorrow. If we make progress with that bill tomorrow we would move on to the report stage of Bill C-102, with regard to drug prices.
Both Monday and Tuesday of next week will be devoted to allotted days for the opposition.
On Wednesday we hope to call the report stage and third reading of Bill C-172 with regard to the Financial Administration Act, assuming that it has been reported back to the house in time by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. This will be followed by further consideration of the report stage of Bill C-102 on drug prices which will be continued on Thursday if it has not been completed on Wednesday.
Next Friday, as I have already indicated, we intend to call the report stage and third reading of Bill C-178 with regard to the Statute Law (Superannuation) Amendment Act, to be followed by second reading of Bill S-15.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 12, consideration in committee of Bill C-173, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters relating or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau- Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Wednesday clauses 20 to 40 had been allowed to stand, and part IV of the bill, clause 41, had been called.
On clause 41-"Minister".


Mr. Jamieson:: Mr. Chairman, a number of explanations have been given at various times concerning the new Department of Supply and Services, most recently at the time of the submission of the estimates of this department, and I believe that hon. members have a fairly comprehensive idea of the components which will make up the new department. However it may be useful at the outset if I take a few moments to recapitulate some of the points so that hon. members may have a clear and immediate picture of just what is planned.
The new Department of Supply and Services is, in the first instance, a combination of
Government Organization the present Department of Defence Production as well as of the various functions now performed by the office of the Comptroller of the Treasury. One is the supply side of the department, the other is the service side. In addition, several other responsibilities have been added because it appears to us that they fall within the general objective that we have in mind, which is to establish what is essentially a common services agency for all government departments.
I think perhaps hon. members who are familiar with the Glassco report on government reorganization will know that what we are proposing here is on all fours with what the Glassco commission recommended. Indeed, some of the steps leading up to the formation of the department have been taken already and the results of these have been satisfactory and beneficial by and large.
Briefly, to give the committee the elements making up the supply side of the department there is, as I have said, the Department of Defence Production, the bureau of public pi'inting and stationery, the Queen's Printer, and the shipbuilding branch from the Department of Transport. These are the main elements making up the supply side of the department. We have therefore been designated in this legislation as the procurement agency for all government departments. In other words, from the previous arrangement where the Department of Defence Production was primarily concerned with only the Department of National Defence we are now moving to the point where we will be the purchasing and procurement agency for civilian departments of government as well.
This phasing in, if I may call it that, is going to take some time to complete. We have already assumed this purchasing responsibility for perhaps 60 to 70 per cent of the total requirements of the government in the purchasing field, and as a result of this legislation and the continuity of the plan already under way in time we will take on the full 100 per cent.
May I note in passing that the legislation, as hon. members will note, provides as well for the ability on the part of the minister to transfer back to specific agencies certain purchasing functions if it is deemed wise and desirable that these be retained on an individual basis. Of course I suppose the most obvious example of this would be purchasing for the National Gallery. This is a highly specialized type of buying and would not be the kind of thing that we would do through this common service agency.
March 13. 1969

Government Organization
Purchase of materiel is not in itself the totality of the picture. The Glassco commission recognized this and made recommendations which we are also implementing and for which this legislation provides, including materiel management. In other words, instead of merely buying the various things needed by the government and turning them over to individual departments it is the intention- and again a portion of this activity is already under way-that we will store this materiel in central warehouses in various parts of the country. Without going into all the details as to how this function is going to be carried out, I am sure hon. members will recognize the wisdom of ensuring that all these supplies are held at central points and that we can then distribute them to departments and agencies as they are needed.
Hon. members may be interested to know that in the Ottawa region, where we have already begun this effort, there is very substantial evidence that savings of the order of perhaps 20 per cent can be made through various efficiencies, through the capacity to buy in large quantities, and through the benefit of central purchasing. We are proceeding from this test establishment here in Ottawa to the point at which we shall have five or six central management houses across the country.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I touched on the fact that we have assumed responsibility-in fact we have had responsibility for some time-for the Bureau of Public Printing and Stationery. I was in the house a few days ago when questions were asked about the status of the Queen's Printer and it might be appropriate for me to explain what is planned in this connection. There is provision in this legislation for the retention of the Queen's Printer, and this is our intention. The difference is that he will now be a part of the over-all department rather than an offshoot of the department. The general heading will be the Bureau of Public Printing and Stationery but there will be a Queen's Printer, and an official of the department will be so named when the legislation we are considering has been passed by the house.
The nucleus of the service side of the department is the former office of the Comptroller of the Treasury. Those who have a considerable amount of experience in the house and in public affairs will know that the Comptroller is the official who at one time was called, I believe, the bookkeeper for the .government. That was many years ago. His is

primarily an accounting function, a chequeissuing function. One of his most important responsibilities is the preparation and presentation of the public accounts. This work will now be performed on the service side of the new department in the same way it was done previously except, of course, that the title is being changed. Incidentally, I have been most impressed by the manner in which the Comptroller of the Treasury side has functioned. It is faced with an enormous task, one which is extremely complicated, but it is performed by many responsible members of the public service in a manner to which I should like to pay tribute today because, generally speaking, these people are not often in the limelight. The whole process of issuing pay cheques, family allowance cheques, old age pensions and a variety of other payments which go out from the government is within the responsibility of the Comptroller of the Treasury.
In addition to these services, which might be described as statutory or obligatory, there are a number of other services which are to be brought into this department and made available on an optional basis. Those I have outlined are provided for by law and we must perform them on behalf of the various departments of government. But again, in line with the Glassco concept of reorganization, and very much in line with my own belief in the necessity for the maximum degree of efficiency in the public service, we shall bring beneath the umbrella of the service side the Central Data Processing Bureau. This is becoming an increasingly important tool in good management and by making this central facility available to all departments we have already demonstrated, I think, that substantial savings can be achieved, in addition to providing other departments with a vital tool.
We also intend to assume responsibility- and I should note again than many of these functions have in fact already been transferred-for the bureau of management consulting services. It is perhaps not generally known that there is within the government service, and has been for some time, a group of talented and able people who perform for government departments the same kind of consultative services with regard to management as are carried out for private industry by consulting firms. This group is functioning and will continue to function on the operational basis to which I have referred. It is not obligatory that a department should use the services of this agency but I am happy to say
March 13. 1969

there is a growing tendency to do so. We have carried out some useful and valuable work in this connection. Hon. members may have noticed details of a study having to do with the ages of various senior officials in the public service and pointing out problems which may develop within a short time when a large number of experienced personnel reach retirement age at virtually the same time. This is the work of the bureau of management consulting service.
Hon. members may also have noted that the bill provides for the designation of the Minister of	Supply	and	Services	as	theReceiver General of Canada. This, again, is in line with the whole concept of centralization, within one department and under one minister, of responsibility not only for the paying out side, the distribution of money, but also for the receipt of public moneys and the preparation of accounts. By designating the Minister of	Supply	and	Services	as	the
Receiver General we arrive at a straight line proposition from the receipt of the moneys to their ultimate payment and the preparation of the accounts relating to them.
In addition to the services I have already outlined in connection with cheque issuing, the service side will also assume from the Comptroller of the Treasury responsibility for administration and accounting in connection with superannuation, employee benefit programs and a variety of similar services.
It might be useful at this point to discuss briefly the philosophy behind this department. I think it is reflected in the Glassco assessment that an organization whose responsibilities are as broad and whose objectives are as wide as those of government ought to have a common service element. It is evident that apart from the financial advantages of reorganization along these lines it was wasteful of the time of individual departments to find themselves obliged to perform these support services for themselves. This is the whole rationale behind what we are now proposing. I am satisfied, from what I have noted to date and from what has already been accomplished, that this is a very wise proposal and one which will be of considerable benefit not only in terms of dollars and cents, though this is important, but also because it will enable us to develop within a single department a pool of talent and expertise which will be available to the whole of the public service. This will discourage the proliferation of service branches in individual departments, none of which might be large
Government Organization enough or sufficiently equipped in itself to do the job required. From now on they will be able to ask this new department to provide them with service on a reasonable basis.
My own personal approach is that these departments will be clients of ours. This work is not something we can do on a casual basis without being concerned about timeliness or efficiency. Ours, quite properly, is a business-oriented department and the more it can be business-oriented the better. I cannot sufficiently emphasize my determination to ensure that our clients are happy.
In some of these cases, as I have said, we have statutory responsibility. The departments have no choice but to accept these services from us; they are not able to pick and choose. For this reason it is my intention to establish an advisory committee within the government service, probably at deputy minister level, so that there may be a group which will have an opportunity to pass judgment on the manner in which we are performing and which can let us know, if necessary, where we are falling down on the job. This group would also be able to make suggestions as to ways in which we could improve our service.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a question at this point? I agree wholeheartedly with the general philosophy the minister is advancing about the advantages to be obtained by providing a central service carried out by people with special talent and expertise. However, the system might break down if there were too many demands on it at any one time and staff was not available to meet all the demands. I assume that some orders of priority will have to be established. But who is to determine the order of priority? Will it be the responsibility of the hon. gentleman?
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, to some degree it is. The position is that we will consult-in fact, we have already started consultations-with the different departments regarding the timing of bringing them under, if you like, our over-all umbrella. We have a chart, which I would be delighted to show the hon. member, indicating the progression up to 1971 or 1972, before we embrace them all. It is for precisely the reason that the hon. member mentioned that we have done it in this way. We do not want to bite off more than we can chew.
This is why we have also established a pilot project in terms of material management in
March 13. 1969

Government Organization Ottawa so that it is close to departmental headquarters. Various problems will be worked out at this level when they arise. So I assure the hon. member that it is not our intention to rush in in any way until we are sure that we have the capability and the personnel to do the job.
The other side of this is that as opposed to the obligatory services to which I have referred there are those which are optional to the department, such as data processing, management consultant services and that sort of service, and we are proposing to look closely at the wisdom of making a charge for this sort of thing. In the case of data processing, that is now being done. This assumes, if the department has to pay for it, that it will not be irresponsible in its request, first of all, and look for more than it needs; second, it also has the beneficial effect, it seems to me, of keeping the services personnel on their toes, because in effect they must compete with private interests in many instances. So that these are the two areas where we have managed to put in the kind of control that the hon. member mentions.
I should now like to move on quickly through the remainder of my comments. The department will have two deputy ministers. There will be a Deputy Minister of Supply and a Deputy Minister of Services. Their functions will be roughly along the lines I have mentioned, though again we have perhaps a unique development, in terms of a department, in that we have a common service element within the department. On the administrative and personnel sides there is one official in each of these categories who is responsible jointly to the two deputy ministers. So there are, if you like, parallel structures on the administrative and personnel sides. There are common administrative and common personnel services, and the heads of these two services are responsible to both deputy ministers.
I think I have covered most of the points in which hon. members may be interested. Not only will I be interested to hear hon. members' comments, but I shall be pleased to do what I can to answer any questions they may have.
Perhaps I might have the indulgence of the committee to make one final point, though I do not think it flows in sequence from the bill. I should like to discuss the Mint very briefly, and I ask hon. members whether they would agree, having gone through the clauses of the bill dealing with the Department of

Supply and Services, to discuss the Mint immediately thereafter, since it is part of the responsibilities of the Minister of Supply and Services.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the minister really got a licence to print money?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I only wish I had. However, I must report that I have already been advised that there are no free samples.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, that has been denied.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was the business you were in before you came here.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: According to Lord Thomson. I am sure all hon. members are familiar with the story with regard to the Mint so I do not have to go into it in detail. It is proposed to establish the Mint as a Crown corporation in order to eliminate, among other things, the problem that arises from the need to move quickly to make up a coin shortage. At the present time the Mint must function in accordance with the normal provision of moneys through this house. The details are set out in the legislation, and again if there are any further questions hon. members may have I shall be more than pleased to answer them.
In summary, then, this is a very wise concept. It is virtually on all fours with the recommendation of the Glassco commission and brings into play many of his most important suggestions. The experience that we have had even in the last few months confirms the wisdom of the Glassco assessment, and I hope that as time goes by we will be able to prove it even more.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we all appreciate the very fine introduction by the minister of this new department. We have been able to follow his presentation very well. I am glad to learn that the government is adopting more of the Glassco commission's recommendations, and I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity of reminding the committee that one of the finest actions of the former Conservative government was to appoint the Glassco commission in 1958 or 1959. The commission published its report in 1962 and one of the suggestions it then made we are dealing with today. I am at a loss to know why it has taken so long to set up this new department. It is almost seven years
March 13. 1969

since Glassco made this particular recommendation and I think it should have been adopted before now.
The Department of Defence Production has always been a misnomer, at least since the war. It was given that name in wartime but immediately following the war I think we should have changed the name. It has always been the department that has bought supplies for the government and provided services. However, I am very happy to hear it will now be called the Department of Supply and Services. I might say that I am sure it will be in the hands of a good minister and we look forward to good results under his direction.
This minister spoke of area warehouses, but I should like to point out one danger that may exist with warehouses scattered across the country. Although in theory this proposal may be all right I think the department will have to be very careful to see that these warehouses are not overstocked, with surplus supplies here and there, hither and yon. Any public corporation will tell you that warehousing is a very expensive operation, and it is quite conceivable that the savings the department is trying to make could quite easily be eaten away by poor management, overstocking and surplus supplies.
With regard to printing services, I was pleased to hear the minister say that there will be a Queen's Printer for Canada. However, clause 48, on page 18 of the bill, reads in this way:
The minister may, by order, appoint an officer of the Department of Supply and Services to be the Queen's Printer for Canada-
The word is "may". We on this side of the house would feel far better if the clause read: "The minister shall". We would then know for sure that there is going to be a Queen's Printer for Canada. Some observations have been made in the house that the name of this position is going to disappear, so we would prefer the word "shall" to the word "may".
I now come to that part of the bill that I find hard to understand. Glassco made many recommendations and suggestions, but he did not suggest that certain finances and the Receiver General of Canada should be within the jurisdiction of the Department of Supply and Services. For the life of me I cannot understand why matters of finance such as those we have been discussing today come within the Department of Supply and Services. To me it is like the chairman of the board of a corporation going to the treasurer and saying, "I am sorry, but we are doing away
Government Organization with your job; we are putting the purchasing agent in charge of finances." I cast no reflection on the minister's ability but, for the life of me, I cannot figure out who dreamed up the idea of making the Department of Supply and Services responsible for finance. It will be ridiculous for Canadians to have to write to the Receiver General of Canada in care of the Department of Supply and Services. All citizens expect the Receiver General of Canada to be either the Minister of Finance or the Treasury Board myself. I think this function should have been left with the Department of Finance or Treasury Board.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I understand that the Office of Comptroller of the Treasury is being abolished, as recommended by the Glassco commission. This work is now to be undertaken in various departments of government, each of which will conduct its own pre-audit. Deputy ministers will be responsible for that. They will be fully responsible for approving all payments that Treasury Board will have to make. I understand that 5,400 people work in the office of the Comptroller of the Treasury. What is to happen to them if that department is abolished? Where will they be moved and what will be the physical arrangements to take care of them? These are some questions we should like to have answered.
The idea that all departments will have to pay for the services they use is excellent. In so many words the minister said: "We have decided to charge departments for services we render, whether in data processing, consultation or any other field." In that way the maximum use will be made of existing facilities and we shall have a minimum of waste and inefficiency.
Until I arrived in the house I did not know I was to speak on this bill. May I say to the minister that 1 think the over-all recommendations contained in the bill are good but, as I said, for the life of me I cannot understand why the Department of Supply and Services is to carry out the functions of the Receiver General of Canada. The Mint is also to be transferred to this department. It really ought to be under the Department of Finance. What is happening to the Department of Finance? What will be its functions? Will it be shot to pieces, as seems to be the case? At one time it was next in importance to the Department of Justice but now it is being riddled with holes and its importance is being diminished.
March 13, 1969

Government Organization


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now they will have time to dream up more taxes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Now we can have two or three budgets a year instead of one.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Yes. I disagree with the minister's assertion that the recommendation with regard to the Mint came from the Glassco report. I do not think it made any such suggestion, nor did it say that the Receiver General of Canada ought to be the purchasing agent of Canada. I am sure that Glassco would have preferred to see this activity left to what might be termed the secretary-treasurer of the corporation of Canada.
Having made these remarks I shall finish by saying that we look forward to hearing further comments from other hon. members. When we examine the specific clauses of the bill I am sure hon. members on this side of the house will have a great deal to say about the proposed changes.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, as has already been noted, the establishment of this new department is the result of some of the recommendations of the Glassco report. As the hon. member for Wellington noted, that report was submitted to the government of Canada on October 1, 1962. Now, six years and several months later, we are finally establishing this department. In delaying so long in the establishment of the department the government has not displayed the efficiency that the commission recommended it ought to display.
The bill also provides for the appointment of two deputy ministers. This move may be justified by the proposed structure of the department and especially by the structure of the lower levels. Yet at first blush it could be questioned. Clause 44(2) on page 16 of the bill says in part:
The Minister shall
(a) investigate and develop services for increasing the efficiency and economy of the public service of Canada;
Many will wonder whether these aims can be achieved by using the means proposed. I am sympathetic to the idea of having adequate management at any particular level of departmental structure; yet I think the proliferation of officials in various positions needs to be watched. I do not say we should decrease the number of officials in the department, but we should make sure that we do
[Mr. Hales.)
not have more people in any department than are necessary to carry forward the objectives and policies of the government with respect to that department.
As the minister noted, the new department will be concerned with purchasing supplies and other related activities. It will also rationalize services to be made available to other government departments. I think we ought to examine some of the implications of this move and determine how it may affect the operations of government and government policy. Because of many new developments in government structures this move ought to be looked at carefully, although not necessarily along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Wellington. Primarily, the new Department of Supply and Services will deal with the purchasing of supplies and with various aspects of management and technical assistance to other departments. I understand that Treasury Board exercises financial control over government operations.
Finally, there is the Department of Finance which, after all, has the primary responsibility for fiscal and monetary policy and for the over-all direction of our economic affairs. As has been noted, the Department of Finance is to be relieved of some of its responsibilities. I do not think we should criticize this move. It seems to me that the Department of Finance is becoming a department responsible for economic affairs. This development is to be welcomed since we need a department or government agency that will be able to cope with our economic problems in the future.
I think that we need better co-ordination of government programs all the way along the line. Empire building within government departments must cease. Although we all concede that civil servants serve the government well, we must also remember that at present the Public service is a fragmented structure and ought to be co-ordinated into a homogeneous whole. Very often what is said by a government department is not said on behalf of the government as a whole. Because of fragmentation within the public service it is quite possible for the voice speaking on behalf of one government department to be in conflict with voices speaking for other government departments.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
When the Glassco report recommended centralized purchasing services, it was looked upon in some quarters as a great new idea. This is old hat to those of us who have lived
March 13, 1969

in the province of Saskatchewan. I would like to recount for a minute the history of the purchasing agency in Saskatchewan. It was established in 1944 when the C.C.F. assumed the reins of office in that province. One of the first steps taken by the present leader of the New Democratic Party when he became premier of the province of Saskatchewan was to establish an agency to purchase all supplies for the government. It did away with the situation which now exists federally and which the government of Canada is attempting to abolish. The existence of the purchasing agency in Saskatchewan over the past 25 years has saved the people of that province many millions of dollars.
If this plan is introduced at the federal level we must consider the circumstances that apply. The desirable and worth-while objectives of centralization are not achieved automatically. This depends on the effectiveness of the implementation and execution of the program. The theory that a government as a whole may be able to purchase 50 million pencils at a lower unit cost than one department can purchase 2 million pencils does not necessarily apply to the size of operation of the government of Canada. Other factors must be examined as well. One must not only take into account the saving of pennies on a particular improvement but also the costs in terms of the effect on implementation of programs. By centralizing the purchase of supplies $10,000 or $20,000 may be saved, but delays and red tape may cost much more in terms of the reduced effectiveness of programs.
I subscribe to many recommendations of the Glassco commission report but not to all. The Glassco commission report started off on the wrong premise by stating in effect that government is a necessary evil. I do not view government in that context, although I do not feel that government is automatically the best vehicle for all phases of life in our society. By starting off with a rather poor premise, the Glassco commission report reduced the effectiveness of some recommendations and approaches in the various aspects of its report.
The report correctly noted that in the year 1960 the government of Canada spent more than $1 billion for materials, supplies, equipment and service. It noted large inventories across Canada, the cost of keeping these inventories and the duplication of various services. In dealing with one aspect the commission concluded that warehousing and
Government Organization materials handling operations were unduly dispersed and fragmented. In 1960-61 the government operated 248 principal warehouses and 348 sub-stores located in 79 centres in Canada and abroad. Most of these were operated by civilian agencies, but in terms of dollar value an overwhelming proportion of the total inventory was held in 37 warehouses of the Canadian army, navy and air force.
The Glassco commission report recommended a central purchasing agency to serve civilian and military departments and agencies but not Crown corporations. The report recommended that the Department of Defence Production be absorbed in this process. It also recommended that the new department be given responsibility to develop in conjunction with user departments and agencies standard specifications for all appropriate items and to assume the function of the specifications board, including representation on the directorate of interservice departments for the Department of National Defence. There were other recommendations in the area of purchasing which I am sure the department will consider carefully.
The second major area of activity of the new department about which I am concerned is the rationalization of some services provided to some departments. This involves elements of managerial leadership and technical services required by government departments in order to carry on their operations in the most efficient manner. Leadership in this field is essential if Canada is to have the best possible government and if the people of Canada are to have respect for government. A commitment by the government is required with regard to the principle of political, economic and managerial planning. If this is not done the results of management operations will be indifferent and varied. The desired objectives will not be achieved by tinkering with the nuts and bolts of government structure. What is required is a basic commitment to the principles I have enunciated. Efficiency in the field of operations and management can be achieved. It is difficult to measure the results of such efficiency. A cost-benefit analysis or even more refined approaches must be used in gauging public programs. Private operations measure their performance on the principle of profit and loss. This is an important principle to bear in mind when considering public programs, and it is one of the items the Glassco commission did not consider sufficiently.
March 13, 1969

A good deal of political ideology and assertion are found in some of the statements made with respect to what governments should do in this regard. Some assert that everything should be left to unfettered free enterprise or private enterprise. They say that everything should be left to the private sector and automatically this will produce the supplies should be obtained from the private sector and automatically this will produce the greatest benefit for the government. It seems to me that this is certainly not the case.
In this regard we must view with some reservation the simple assertion of the Glas-sco commission, based on some studies it made, that wherever possible the government should buy. While I believe that private business can often do a job within our economy and society very efficiently and well, I certainly recognize that this is not necessarily and not always the case. So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to judge various situations on the basis of their merits and make decisions that will be in the interests of the economy and the country as a whole. I might give an example here with regard to the Saskatchewan government. In spite of the fact that certain supplies and various services were obtained internally within the government, it was often decided, because of a number of reasons, to buy other items rather than to make them. It seems to me that we need to take a pragmatic approach to this question and at all times keep in mind the public interest. The public interest does not always consist in making sure that certain private firms get the greatest possible amount of business. I also recognize that the Glassco commission made a valid point when it noted that in carrying on secondary activities within a government department the attention of officials can sometimes be diverted from the basic programs and purposes of the department.
One reason I doubt some of the advice of the Glassco commission in this regard, or some of its assertions about make or buy, was illustrated a few years ago when, following the 1964 change of government in the province of Saskatchewan, a royal commission on government administration was appointed. I certainly had a great deal of doubt about its conclusions in regard to make or buy inasmuch as it also concluded that the government should buy in all possible cases. I question the manner in which it accepted evidence as to the facts.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: What year was that?
Government Organization


John Stratford Burton: The report was submitted in 1965. On this point the royal commission accepted evidence very selectively. For instance, in the field of highway costs it noted that on a number of occasions it had been shown that the private sector could do the job cheaper than government crews, but when evidence was presented showing that certain government crews were able to do the job at a lower cost it dismissed that evidence as being irrelevant and not coming within its orbit of consideration.
I urge the judgments be made on the basis of merit in the light of all the factors. For example, on the question of highway cost, while I recognize this is a provincial matter I point out that the construction of highways may be cheaper using one method or the other, but if you rely entirely on one method, either on contracting out or doing the construction yourself, you may hold up the program. If you depend entirely on private contracts you may have instances where you cannot obtain bids. This involves various implications since, if you are then going to do the job yourself, you may have to assemble your own equipment at a great deal of cost, and certainly you are not going to assemble that equipment for one particular project.
Another point that came to light is that there is variability over time in the relative costs of doing various jobs or carrying out various functions by either public agencies or private agencies. It has been shown in a number of quarters that sometimes the job possibly can be done cheaper by a private than by a public concern, but that on other occasions it can be done on a cheaper basis by the public concern. I submit that this factor cannot be judged unless there is some government activity. For one thing, it is easier to keep the private sector honest when there is a certain level of public activity.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Highway construction which is a provincial activity, illustrates the point that unless some highway or road construction is carried on by public crews there is no yardstick by which to measure whether value is received from the private contractors whenever such jobs are undertaken by them. I believe that more objective consideration should be given to this point.
I should like to note as well, since the Canadian Commercial Corporation will come under the jurisdiction of the minister, that the purpose of this government agency is to
March 13. 1969

Government Organization arrange and manage contracts for Canadian goods on behalf of other national governments or international agencies. It is largely devoted to the export of material but does engage in other activities. It would seem to be the perfect starting point for carrying out the recommendations of the Watkins report that a government agency be set up to deal with Iron Curtain countries so that Canadian subsidiaries of United States firms would not have an excuse for not attempting to obtain contracts with these countries. They would deal directly with the Canadian Commercial Corporation which in turn would deal with the state trading agencies in some of these other countries.
I might deal with one other specific matter which will come under the jurisdiction of the minister having to do with moving and storage. This is a fairly important item within government operation because of the movement of government personnel throughout the country and because of various other requirements of the government. The minister will be aware that there have been some complaints concerning recent government policy and practice.
As I understand the matter, the federal government first instituted a new system of purchasing moving services at the start of 1969. Prior to that time civil servants who were being moved would obtain estimates from three moving companies acceptable to the government and would then make a choice concerning which firm they wished to move them. With the new system the employees' choice was taken away and the decision is made by the Department of National Defence in the case of service personnel or the Department of Defence Production in the case of all federal government employees as to who will receive the business. I understand that the business was supposed to be rotated among those carriers which met the government standard of equipment and service, as published in the government of Canada list of acceptable carriers.


James Hugh Faulkner: I must interrupt the hon. member to advise him that his time has expired.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to conclude my remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Stratford Burton: Since the introduction of this new policy the government has switched and


is now giving its business entirely to one particular van line, Atlas Van Lines. This van line originally published a lower tariff than did the other carriers in Canada. I might note it is my understanding that while Atlas Van Lines does meet the minimum federal government standards, its standards in terms of warehousing and equipment are not of the same high quality that is found among most other acceptable carriers. Since this van line published a lower tariff the other carriers have met its rates, but the latest information I have is that the federal government is still awarding all its moving business to the one company that was the first to cut rates.
There would seem to be some element of discrimination here. Although I cannot support this I have heard that Atlas Van Lines has undertaken this policy and approach on other occasions in an attempt to obtain business with the idea that once it had a corner on the market it would be free to start raising its rates again. I certainly hope the minister will take steps to ensure there is an equitable policy that will apply to the various van lines which are interested in this type of business.
In conclusion I might note that while there is a potential for improvement in government operations and services by the establishment of the new department, particularly in the area of the technical services referred to by the minister, I think we should take note of the fact that the simple transfer of functions in the area of purchases and supplies from other government departments and branches to this new department will not automatically bring about an improvement in government services. In fact, there are a good many questions which could be asked in this regard. I believe there will have to be a basic change in government policies and governmental approach to some of these questions before there is a real improvement in this aspect of government operations.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr., Chairman, this debate on Part V of Bill C-173 concerning the creation of a Department of Supply and Services makes us wonder whether the present problem will be solved merely because the name of the department will have been changed, even if it should offer increased services.
Mr. Chairman, I would not want to prolong this debate unduly, as the hon. members who spoke before me have already raised some points on which I intended to speak. In fact, the spokesman for the New Democratic party
March 13, 1969

has given us a brilliant summary of the general philosophy of the Department of Supply and Services.
First of all, I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to the new Minister of Supply and Services. If he brings to his job the same vigour and spirit with which he introduced the bill, we shall, I think, have to commend him on his work when he tables his first annual report.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong the debate unduly. I do wish to make some contribution to it, following in the minister's footsteps, and it is for that reason that I wish very humbly to draw his attention to a point which we of the Ralliement Creditiste consider of the utmost importance.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I hope he will be able to foretell all the consequences likely to follow the creation of the new department, in connection with as fundamental and as important a subject as bilingualism.
Mr. Chairman, Bill C-173 is broken down into 15 parts and involves several departments. Whether they relate to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce or to the Department of Supply and Services, amazing provisions are to be found therein, and I do not so much blame the ministers as those who conceived and' drafted this bill.
I do not understand why the very people who are planning to renovate the organization of Canada, to streamline it, to modernize it, to adapt it to the modern concepts of management, based on the guidelines and findings of the Glassco Royal Commission on Government Organization, did not think of incorporating to the bill provisions relating to bilingualism. That is the point on which I wanted to draw the minister's attention, and I shall give him only one example to illustrate what I mean.
On December 3 last, I put on the order paper question No. 936 which reads as follows:
Among the employees earning $17,000 or more per year-
Why that figure of $17,000 per year? Because, according to the administrative criteria of the government, civil servants become senior officials when they reach approximately that salary.
Among the employees earning $17,000 or more per year in the Department of Defence Production, how many are (a) Canadians whose mother tongue is French (b) Canadians whose mother tongue is English (c) others
Government Organization
Chinese, Japanese, Ukrainian, etc.
(d)	bilingual?
Here is the answer I have been given, and I quote:
(a)	Four;
(b)	Seventy-one;
(c)	One;
(d)	Twelve.
Now that a new department is proposed, the Department of Supply and Services, my first question is the following: As far as bilingualism is concerned, will the same discrimination, unfairness and injustice prevail as in the former Department of Defence Production?
Mr. Chairman, the matter has the utmost importance. I do not wish to flout the minister, because I know he can cope with the situation and give us, at the end of the debate, some explanations or, at least, the assurance that he will have several bilingual counsels at his service. In any event, when I conclude my brief remarks, I could make a few suggestions, after which he could express his opinion.
Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the establishment of those new departments will only amount to a change of names. The administration is improved, and perhaps made more efficient and up-to-date, but there is no solution to the fundamental problem of the federal administration which on the whole is Anglo-Saxon and in which there are no qualified French Canadians since the opportunities are not the same for French-speaking and the English-speaking public servants.
And I will quote another example, Mr. Chairman, to show the seriousness of that problem. On November 21 last, I put on the order paper a question related to the Polymer Corporation Ltd., which then was under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defence Production. My question was identical to that which I quoted a moment ago, except that it concerned the Polymer Corporation Ltd. Here it is:
Among the employees earning $17,000 per year or more. ..how many are (a) Canadians whose mother tongue is French (b) Canadians whose mother tongue is English (c) others (d) bilingual?
Here is the answer which I received, and I quote:
(a)	The mother tongue of 2.5 per cent of the employees is French.
(b)	The mother tongue of 95 per cent of the employees is English.
(c)	The mother tongue of 2.5 per cent of the employees is neither French nor English.
(d)	25.6 per cent of the employees are bilingual.
March 13, 1969

Government Organization
Mr. Chairman, it is unbelievable that the Polymer Corporation should have among its employees as many senior officials with a salary of $17,000 or more and whose mother tongue is neither French nor English than officials whose mother tongue is French.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, to go to the bottom of it, I asked another kind of question about the same company, and I am going to quote the answer given. That takes the cake, as the Quebecers of the Lotbiniere constituency would say. I therefore asked: For each of the proprietary Crown corporations, how many employees speak French only, how many speak English only and how many are bilingual?
For the Polymer Corporation, the answer was a very short one. I was told that none of the 2,744 employees of the Corporation spoke French only. There is no need to go on, because this is most provoking and is a clear indication of discrimination. But as I do not want to delay any further this debate, I want to tell the minister that we set very high hopes on the new concept of administration brought up in this bill and we agree on that. We approve this new department and the new practice it advocates in management, but we are very much concerned over the much talked-about question of bilingualism.
I have many more statistics to quote, but I should like to tell the other ministers concerned that nearly every department is facing the same problem.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the honourable minister who is suggesting this new department is among those best able to correct the injustice done to bilingualism.
I noticed that at the very beginning of his speech, he did not talk about bilingualism advisers. Will there be any in his department? If so, how many? Will courses be organized to provide a greater bilingual service? Will the ratio for bilingual officials earning $17,000 and over a year be more balanced than the one I mentioned, namely 4 against 71?
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the debate any further, but I must insist on that question of the utmost importance. I trust that the minister will be able to give us satisfaction in that respect.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is another matter which puzzles me very much, that of the Queen's Printer. Section 48 andi the next ones provide that one of the deputy ministers shall be an officer of the new Department of

Supply and Services, replacing the Department of Defence Production and posted to the Printing Bureau with the title of Queen's Printer.
e (4:20 p.m.)
The first problem I see is the following: if Canada is truly a sovereign and independent country, named Canada and not Great Britain or whatever you like, it seems to me out of date to still use in our legal texts such archaic expressions as "The Queen's".
Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding any respect due the United Kingdom, we could exclude from our legislation expressions reminiscent of a kind of colonialism out of fashion in our midst.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe that it would be advisable to strike out such expressions in our legislation, and I am surprised that while aiming at modernizing and updating the organization of the government in the light of 1969 concepts, we should persist in threading the beaten paths of colonialism. Therefore, we should not wonder why so many people are questioning the value of our legislation and the modernization of our government. For every step forward that we take, we take one backward; we move like a crab, which means that we are motionless. That is what our governments think.
My last remark is about the office of Queen's Printer. In the answer he gave on Monday or Tuesday to the hon. member for Prince Albert, the Prime Minister suggested that the position of Queen's Printer has now been vacant since December. It is very difficult to get information, but I would like to be enlightened on that subject. Is the office of Queen's Printer vacant or not? Who suggested to the Queen's Printer to resign, or did he resign on his own? In what department is Mr. Duhamel now working? We would like to know, to congratulate him on his new appointment.
In my opinion, it is fundamental that we be informed since there is every reason to believe, and I refer to the very remarks of the Prime Minister, that the Queen's Printer, Mr. Duhamel, was doing a line job. He was one of the few French-speaking deputy ministers in the Department of Defence Production. Mr. Chairman, we doubt that the government sincerely wants to establish bilingualism since it downgrades the sole survivor of the French Canadians in that department.
March 13, 1969

That is why we nourish the hope, Mr. Chairman, that bilingualism will be a living, effective and accepted reality, not only for the minister, but also for government officials.
As for the new Department of Supply and Services setting an example for the others, so that the federal government can be really bilingual, the true image of Canada, since all of us here seem to want a bilingual Canada, it is up to us and the various departments.


Mr. Thomson:: I want to put a question to the last speaker, if I may, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I should like to apologize for not being able to ask it in French; I hope to correct this before too long. My question is with regard to bilingualism in this or any other department. I did not quite understand whether the hon. member for Lotbiniere wished this to happen automatically at the top level. It might not be possible to get bilingual people immediately who could do all the types of work necessary. What was the intention of the hon. member in this regard?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for his question. It gives me the opportunity to show how important it is to establish bilingualism at every level of the government machine and within the departments.
I believe that if bilingualism is possible, we must establish it at every level of the government structure. To give but one example, having examined the questions on the order paper and the annual reports of the various undertakings of the Canadian government, I have come to the conclusion that bilingualism is not getting :a fair treatment. In fact, the answers the government gave me regarding the Bank of Canada, the Industrial Development Bank, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Eldorado Mining, COTC, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Polymer Ltd. indicate that 14.7 per cent only of the board directors are French-speaking against 85.3 per cent English-speaking.
You have only to compare those figures to the respective ratios of French-speaking or English-speaking Canadians to see that the federal administration does not reflect the true image of Canada. This is why I tell myself that if the government must reflect the true image of Canada it must do it at all levels. Does this answer the question of the hon. member?

Government Organization


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the Minister of Defence Production as he outlined the setting up of the new department which will be called the Department of Supply and Services. It is heartening to note the manner in which the minister has taken on his new duties and, in true maritime fashion, is endeavouring to get his department shipshape. We look for great things from the minister-I am not sure whether I should call him the Minister of Defence Production or the Minister of Supply and Services-and I hope he will not let us down.
The prime intent in the drafting of all legislation, is to bring greater efficiency to government services. The same is true in the case of this legislation, and according to the information which has been supplied to the Public Accounts committee by the Auditor General, it is high time that some attempt was made to procure and to purchase requirements in a more efficient manner.
In clause 46 (3) at page 17 of the bill it is stated:
The minister shall provide, on the request of a department, any or all of the following services, namely:
(a)	management consulting services;
(b)	data processing services;
(c)	accounting services;
(d)	auditing services;
(e)	financial services; and
(f)	such other services of any kind as are within the duties, powers and functions of the Minister under this Part.
Like my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington, I cannot help but wonder about the power which will be vested in the minister of this new department. I personally believe that the office of the Receiver General, for example, should have been retained under the Minister of Finance, not that I have any doubts about the ability of the present Minister of Defence Production but because it seems to me that the duties of the Receiver General go well together with finance, somewhat like fish and chips. I believe that greater government efficiency could be achieved if these two departments were kept together.
The same rule of thumb applies to the auditing services which will now come under the Department of Supply and Services. Quite frankly, when the department came under the office of the Comptroller of the Treasury, a heavy responsibility was put on the Auditor General. But I believe that the change proposed in this legislation will lay even
March 13, 1969

Government Organization greater responsibilities on the Auditor General and his staff. As a result it will be necessary to provide more funds for the enlargement of the Auditor General's office and staff so that he will be in a position to carry out the new and heavier duties which will be imposed upon him.
I note with interest that the new department will have two deputies, the Deputy Minister of Supply and the Deputy Minister of Services. I do not know, of course, where this proposal came from but I wish to register my strong objection to this course and to this part of the legislation. In maritime terms, the minister is the captain of the ship and, normally, for good operational efficiency a ship has only one captain and only one mate. It has been my experience that whenever there is a division of authority there is always a danger that nothing will be done. If the captain could always be on watch the mate would do his bidding, but I know that the minister, coming from Newfoundland, will realize that no man can stay on watch for 24 hours. He has to turn in sometimes, and when he turns in he is not watching what is going on, so that just about anything can happen. After all, this new department is really only a revision of the old Department of Defence Production with some new duties added. From the information provided to us by the Auditor General it seems to me that we have already had too much division of authority in this department, and a study of the evidence before the Public Accounts Committee would indicate that a tightening up of the procedures that are followed is long overdue.


Mr, Baldwin:: Maybe they have a pilot for the port side and a pilot for the starboard side.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I do not know if that is correct but I believe that this aspect of the legislation should receive a second look from the minister. There is a tendency to say: Let George do it. One deputy minister may well look to another, thinking he will do the work, and as a result nothing may be done.
The refitting of the Bonaventure is an example of what can happen. Recently we examined this affair in the Public Accounts Committee where we learned that improper estimates, poor supervision, insufficient inspection, slipshod purchasing regulations and improperly drawn: contracts had led to an escalation in the estimated cost of refitting

from $5 million originally to somewhere in the vicinity of $12J million.
The lax management practices revealed in connection with this project have been paralleled only by what took place in connection with the hydrofoil as disclosed in further evidence before the committee. Here was a highly sophisticated defence ship planned by the National Research Council for use by the navy at an estimated cost of $9 million. To the best of my knowledge, the National Research Council, the Department of Defence Production and the Department of National Defence all had a hand in the development of this ship. But in my opinion there was no single, real authority in control. The estimated cost, at the beginning, was $9 million. To date the hydrofoil has cost more than $53 million, and there are still grave doubts about the ability of this vessel to perform satisfactorily as an operational unit.
Further evidence of what happens when there is no one in real authority was placed before the Public Accounts Committee this morning, and I refer to this point because I believe it to be an important one. I do not want to see the minister start out on a voyage with two mates when I believe one will do. We were told that the contract for this ship was given to de Havilland; this company was to have full responsibility for the design, development, planning, inspection and delivery of the ship-full responsibility for the entire project. A fire broke out at a time when there were no officials from the Department of National Defence on board. They were not notified that tests were to be carried out. The fire cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $6.5 million. We learned there were no government inspectors on this project, and we were told none were required, apparently because de Havilland had assumed full responsibility. Nevertheless, when it came to paying the bills it was not de Havilland that was required to pay the cost of its own incompetence in failing to provide proper inspection. By some strange alchemy which I cannot understand, the cost of this fire was placed on the backs of Canadian taxpayers. Mismanagement of this type calls for a tightening up in procedures, and this is why I question at least one aspect of the legislation before us. If we endorse it we may find ourselves going off on two different tangents.
After all, Mr. Chairman, what is supply? What are services? Who will be responsible for these services? These questions are not
March 13, 1969



clearly answered in the legislation and I believe they require more searching study.
Certain clauses of this bill give the minister vast powers. I suggest he take advantage of them to call for a quarterly review of all national research projects to ensure that we are not undertaking in Canada work on scientific developments which has already been carried out and perfected in other countries. Today, improvements take place so rapidly that it is possible to spend money researching projects which are already obsolete as a result of technical advances in other areas. This seems to have been the case in connection with our defence ship, the hydrofoil Bras d'Or, named after the area in which the principle was perfected more than 60 years ago on- the Bras d'Or lakes.
The Bras d'Or displaces 200 toms and is 100 feet long. But the Americans already have hydrofoils in service of far greater tonnage and dimensions, specifically one named the Plainview which is 212 feet long and displaces 300 tons. I submit that national research projects should be studied by the advisory council which the minister proposes to set up as part of the machinery of this new department. If this course is followed there will, hopefully, be better control exercised over future projects of this sort and, of equal importance, better control over expenditures made in connection with these developments.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, earlier I listened with a great deal of attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Lotbiniere on the bill under consideration. I admire his conjuring ability which made it possible for him to relate his remarks to the bill without being called to order by the chairman. I hope that for a few minutes, the chairman will show towards me the same leniency.
I fully agree with the hon. member for Lotbiniere when he says that we, French Canadians, are not properly represented in the departments. However, I do not agree with his conclusions which, in my opinion, weaken his argument.
If we follow his thinking French Canadians who represent about 30 per cent of the Canadian people, should hold 30 per cent of the well-paid jobs in the public service. However, the hon. member for Lotbiniere should not mention discrimination too often and too loud because I do not think that it is mainly a matter of discrimination under the circumstances.
Government Organization
I should like to tell the hon. member for Lotbiniere very briefly and as kindly as possible because I know that he is trying, as we do, to get results and that deep down he would not like it-that we should not make a political bogey of bilingualism, which would of course take away the merits of his argument.
I admit that statistics are sometimes surprising in certain areas of the public service. This is a fact. However the hon. member for Lotbiniere should tell the whole truth and recognize that if that was true 100, 50, 25 and even 15 years ago, it is no longer the case today. Let us admit at least that the government has taken steps to alleviate the situation and I shall point out to the hon. member for Lotbiniere that we cannot reasonably expect a situation which has been so deplorable for a century, to disappear in two, three or even five years.
This is the work of a whole generation and if 1 wanted to be very mean I would say to the hon. member for Lotbiniere "doctor heal thyself" because, among the hon. members of the Ralliement Creditiste who are calling out for bilingualism, to my knowledge at least ten of them are not bilingual. Still, they are members of parliament-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order-


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: -who should grant to the others what they would have the others grant them.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


James Hugh Faulkner: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to see that my remarks interested the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) to that extent. Personally, I am also very pleased to hear his obliging remarks and I hope he will believe me when I say that no prejudice is intended to anyone.
However, I refuse to accept, Mr. Chairman-and this to my mind is a point of order-the fact that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres says that I do not act according to what I say in the sense that at least ten members of the Ralliement Creditiste are not bilingual; if he went around his own party he would see that the proportion there of unilingual members is perhaps even greater. Nor
March 13, 1969

Government Organization
can I accept his assertion, Mr. Chairman, which I find more serious, that the situation has existed for a 100 years.
If, in a 100 years, people had not obtained justice, they would have risen and then bilingualism-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the hon. member for Lotbiniere is thin-skinned today because I tried to tell him that in as friendly a fashion as possible, by teasing him. I should like to point out to him that it is possible that in this house some hon. members are not bilingual, but unlike those of whom I am now speaking, they are not clamouring for bilingualism, accusing those who are not bilingual of discrimination. That is the difference. Now, I continue my remarks.
Mr. Chairman, in the last 5, 6, 7, 8 or 10 years, the federal government has made a marked effort, especially in the last three or four years, to promote bilingualism. I feel that when bilingualism is being discussed and it is demanded that a clause be added to all the bills specifying that a certain percentage of bilingual employees is a must, that is where there is discrimination, and dishonesty, because of the circumstances.
The government has set up language schools.
It grants bonuses to bilingual public servants and has appointed superintendents whose responsibility it is to supervise the way this principle of bilingualism is followed in all departments.
I repeat that the implementation of that policy takes time. I assume the hon. member for Lotbiniere would not call for the dismissal by the government of all non-bilingual employees, for it would certainly be inhuman. The change will probably take place over a certain number of years.
I could moreover tell the hon. member for Lotbiniere why we do not find in the higher spheres of the public service the number of bilingual or French-speaking public servants we would like to have there.
He knows as well as I do-since he is a learned man-that for a 100 years, our institutions of secondary education trained their pupils for the priesthood, or to become notaries or lawyers and neglected to turn out economists, sociologists, engineers, in brief, experts, while during that same century, the 
Anglo-Saxons in this country, either through immigration or otherwise, increased in their midst the number of such experts who simply monopolized the positions. And all of a sudden, we realized that they made up the great majority.
Cursing them or accusing them of discrimination will not solve the problem but we should rather qualify ourselves properly and apply for such coveted employment. The hon. member for Lotbiniere knows that Quebec needs specialized technicians and therefore wants to keep them at home.
Moreover, the Anglo-Saxons are perhaps not by nature too anxious to emigrate, but the fact remains that more and more of them are coming over every year as the hon. member for Lotbiniere knows.
He knows, for instance, that the general manager of the C.B.C. is a French Canadian. He knows that Air Canada has a Frenchspeaking president and that all the other employees are bilingual. He knows, also, that the Chief of Staff of the Canadian Forces as well as a number of deputy ministers are French-speaking.
The hon. member is concerned about the problem of the library at the Printing Bureau. Maybe bilingualism is not the only problem in this connection.
Since I am not permitted to elaborate any further on the subject, I shall let the minister do so in due time. However, to say this problem is merely a matter of bilingualism is tantamount to fanaticism, Mr. Chairman.
May I suggest to the hon. member for Lotbiniere-since we both agree on the principle that there are not enough French-speaking Canadians in key positions and since we want to settle the matter-that we should put an end to idle talk and to charges of discrimination where others are concerned. Let us simply do as I am doing in my own riding.
When, for instance, there happens to be a top position vacant in the public service, I let my riding know, I advertise it by radio, I mention it in my lectures and I contact personally those in my riding or area who seem to me qualified and ask them to apply and sit for the examinations. Quite often, I can take pride in the fact that people answer, apply and succeed.
The next few years will see more improvement in this field then we have witnessed in the past 100 years. I must admit there is some kind of discrimination, today. We find it
March 13, 1969

among a certain type of individuals. In my opinion, however, it is rather a cave of conflicting personalities. There is no such feeling at the government level which is responsible for these top positions. Of this, it has given signal proof for the past three or four years, to the point of getting blamed, in Anglo-Saxon circles, for opening too wide its doors to the French-Canadian side.
It was only fair for me, Mr. Chairman, to put the record straight in the house.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the minister on his very brief outline of the bill. If the bill were as simple as his explanation of it I am sure there would be no questions on either side of the house in regard to the implementation of its provisions so far as the proposed Department of Supply and Services is concerned.
In the short time I have I should like to refer very briefly to supply and services as they pertain to consulting services and the types of contracts that are let which, as the minister suggested, will be under his supervision. I noted from the minister's remarks that these new services were optional. The minister assumes responsibility for management consulting services for individual departments.
Sometimes questions arise not only in the minds of members of parliament but also among the vast majority of the public in regard to the letting of contracts for government services, including both Crown corporations and individual departments. I should like to point out that I have six questions on the order paper dating back to December 3. I should like to refer to one in particular as I believe reference to it will outline the situation generally. I asked the government the following question:
What are the government regulations with regards to the hiring of consultants, including advertising consultants, in order to assist government departments i.e., in the areas of planning, studies, feasibility reports, economic analysis, legal assistance, architectural advice, etc.?
The question then goes on to deal with other matters. If this question and the many others I have put on the order paper had been answered by now, many of the disappointments I have at the moment would have been removed. There appears to be some reason for not disclosing advice given by consultants generally, and I hope that when the minister replies he will relieve any fears I have about the hiring of such consultants.
Government Organization
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Tenders for construction contracts are invited by public advertisement. Tenders are invited for purchase or service contracts by public advertisement, or a representative list or lists of suppliers is submitted. The intent of the pertinent regulations is not clear. It is bad practice for departments of government to choose consultants or other outside professional people who will be of service to that department from a preferred list. Also, there should be no preferred list of suppliers of any other services. I do not think that management consultant firms on the proposed list ought to be employed to the exclusion of other, similar firms. Many suppliers or firms of consultants will go to almost any lengths to be put on a preferred list. What bothers many in this house is that by employing firms on preferred lists the government may be indulging in political patronage, something we do not like to see. In fact, the preferred list could lead directly to political patronage.
Wherever possible I submit that Crown corporations should be included under this department as under the present regulations it is provided that these corporations may be included, but not necessarily. In advertising for tenders for any job the government should not be guided by any firms that may be on a preferred list. Suppliers of every service ought to be employed on their merits and not on the ground of political patronage. I hope the minister will clarify this matter later. Very often when a department retains a favoured consultant it is found that the consultant's report contains exactly what departmental officials wish to see. I suggest that in any democratic process this sort of thing is bad.
Some time ago the hon. member for Fundy-Royal asked in the house whether the government had considered implementing reforms similar to those applied in Sweden in this field. The recommendations and findings of consulting firms are not always made available to members of parliament, and this is bad. I agree that in special instances it is not in the public interest for such recommendations or findings to be divulged; yet I cannot help feeling that withholding such information is undemocratic. Speaking in the house on February 17 of this year the President of the Treasury Board said in part, as reported at page 5631 of Hansard:
There are a number of instances in which investigations are sought, in which proposals are asked for or information is sought, which it would not be in the public interest to disclose.
March 13, 1969
6584	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Many reports affecting government departments and operations are being brought down by consulting firms and not being made available to members of this house. We should see those reports if we are to do an intelligent job in making suggestions to the government. I submit it is not our democratic way of government to refuse hon. members access to such information.
In this year's budget the government has allocated about $397 million, compared with $329 million last year, for professional and special services, which no doubt would include consultants' services. Clearly, we are to spend more on consultants this year. We are well aware that the consulting field in this country is dominated by United States personnel and management techniques. The Glassco commission suggested that when the government employs consulting firms it ought to make sure that, wherever possible, Canadian consulting firms are employed. I was pleased to hear the minister say that an advisory committee would look into the use of the services bureau. That is a step in the right direction, and there will be little opposition to that from this corner of the house.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. The time being five o'clock shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 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 Kam-loops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand)-Television- Kamloops, British Columbia-Request for alternate service; the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Income Tax-Deduction for babysitting service; the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)-Fisheries-Seals-Report alleging fraudulent film presentation of killing methods.
The time being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 16, consideration in committee of Bill C-101, respecting London and Midland General Insurance	Company-Mr.	Lind-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
James Hugh Faulkner: When the committee rose on Thursday, January 16, clause 1 of the bill was under consideration.
On clause 1-Change of name.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, someone asked me the other day what the disposition of the bill concerning London and Midland General Insurance Company would be. I suggested there was an easy solution to the problem that has confronted that company in the past and may confront it in years to come, a solution that is within the purview of the sponsor of the bill. I wish to know whether he has conveyed certain information to the Avco Company or to Mr. H. P. Paterno, president of London and Midland General Insurance Company. A number of hon. members oppose the change of name, being of the opinion that the company will be United States owned and that Canadians will not have the opportunity of controlling it should they so desire.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
We have gone into the reason advanced for the change before, and I disagree entirely. As I have indicated on previous occasions, I disagree with the contention of the sponsor of the bill that the company has lost money and wants to change its name because it is similar to that of a British insurance company. I indicated that the business of this company is increasing under the name of London and Midland General Insurance Company. I believe the reason is that the Avco Delta Corporation of the United States and Great Britain wishes to set up a company under their own name. This is a legitimate situation. If this is the reason, this company and other companies should give consideration to the national aspirations of Canadians who wish to own their own corporations and financial institutions.
The sponsor of this bill, if he has not already done so, should suggest to the president of the London and Midland General Insurance Company that this bill will have
March 13, 1969

speedy passage if this company will agree to a clause other companies have agreed to. That clause would provide for Canadian investment in the company and, over a period of time, Canadian control.
The question has been asked on a number of occasions why it is necessary to have so many of these companies doing business in exactly the same categories in Canada. I have before me the report of the Superintendent of Insurance for Canada, volume 2, which relates to the annual statements of fire and casualty insurance companies in Canada-Canadian, British and foreign owned. There are probably 1,100 companies in the casualty field doing almost the same type of business, and I cannot see any advantage in increasing this number.
The Union Mutual Life Insurance Company of the United States has been doing business in Canada for some time. They decided that rather than have a branch operation they would start a new company in Canada under the auspices of the federal Superintendent of Insurance. They provided an opportunity for Canadians to purchase that company. They not only investigated the possibility of Canadians being able to own the company, but they wrote into the act of what is now known as the Transcoastal Insurance Company the provisions that within five years they would undertake to sell 25 per cent of their stock in Canada and at the end of ten years to sell 49 per cent of their stock. The aspirations of Canadian nationalism would be sufficient reason for Canadians to purchase stock in this company, increase the value and do business with the company. Privately the company indicated that they expected that in five years the value of the company would have increased to a level where they would be able to sell a half interest. They felt they would retain a very favourable business by being a shareholder along with Canadian shareholders. They were willing to bow to Canadian nationalism to that extent in order to have their company develop.
This is not new Mr. Chairman. Many countries are giving consideration to development of their own corporations and industries and have passed laws to make this mandatory. Japan in particular has been very interested in this field. I quote from a Canada-Japan Trade Council newsletter:
Figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development show the
Private Bills
inflow of direct foreign investment for six member states:
Canada	(1962)	$14.5 billionUnited States	(1964)	$ 8.4 billionUnited Kingdom	(1962)	$ 4.2 billionFrance	(1964)	$ 4.0 billionGermany	(1964)	$ 2.8 billionJapan	(1965)	$ 0.7 billion
Japan is interested in developing its own industry. Foreign capital can be invested only to a limited degree because they wish to own the businesses within that country. Japan is now doing business in Canada where we do not have such a limitation.
The Union Mutual Life Insurance Company, a very large company in the United States, was organized in 1848 and commenced business in Canada in 1868. They were asked the question, "Why should another new insurance company be chartered?" They replied:
To enable an existing insurance company, domiciled in the United States but doing business in Canada, to cease doing business in Canada; to return to or leave in Canada the servicing of the existing Canadian business of the United States insurer; to cause Canadian insurance business to be done by Canadians.
Servicing does not refer to the basic contractual relationship between an existing policyholder and the existing insurer. This contractual relationship will continue. However, since the U.S. insurer will be withdrawing from solicitation of new business in Canada, and hence would be forced to close its current offices, the answering of questions, payment of claims, changing of beneficiaries, and other services will be rendered by the personnel of the new company, in the offices of the new company. However, in most instances these personnel and offices will have been assumed by the new company from the old. Hence, existing policyholders will suffer no inconvenience and no change in contractual rights. On the other hand, the new company will have an immediate source of personnel, offices and service revenue with which to operate.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I suppose that in the insurance field in the United States Union Mutual is larger than Avco Delta. I believe it does more business in the United States than Avco Delta. It is a large and fairly progressive company. I was interested to learn it is large enough to have offered the American government to operate an American medicare plan covering all the states in the union on a fee for service basis.
If it can make this kind of concession to Canadians, why should the company we are now considering continue to come before us and ask for this type of consideration? The directors of the other company have indicated they were very surprised at the reaction to the agreement to make this kind of concession to Canadians. Although the Senate passed the

March 13. 1969
Private Bills
bill, it was not passed without considerable debate and questions.
There is a simple proposition here, Mr. Chairman. You and I know that most senators are either directors of insurance companies or of banks or other financial institutions. Therefore it is almost questionable whether or not a senator should have the right to make a decision on these matters because of his involvement. However, it is interesting that all the questions were aimed at the 49 per cent ownership feature. They were not seeking to expand it but to take it out of the bill. In this we saw the fine hand of others in the insurance business who might not desire Canadian ownership of Canadian insurance companies, and hence the effort to delete this provision. But I am pleased to see that the bill as finally recommended by the Senate committee retained the provision for Canadian ownership. I would like the sponsor of the bill now before the house to indicate why he is not proposing an amendment to provide for such ownership.
I hope to have an opportunity of going before the committee that will be discussing Transcoastal because I am curious why they could not provide Canadians with 51 per cent ownership. I was very surprised to learn that the Superintendent of Insurance informed them that if they gave Canadians 51 per cent control of that company then they, with 49 per cent, would be able to vote only 10 per cent of their stock. This seems to be a very odd provision to put into the bill. I hope the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill will consider the question of the percentage of Canadian ownership.
If this company wants to do business in Canada it must be of the opinion that business in Canada is a good thing for it, that London and Midland Insurance Company will be able to do business economically in Canada, that it will be able to operate with some success as a subsidiary operation in Canada. However, the directors of this company must be poorly informed on the wishes and aspirations of the Canadian public if they are not aware of the fact that there are people in Canada who would like to see the opportunity provided for Canadians to buy into financial institutions doing business in Canada.
Union Mutual is not only going to provide an opportunity to Canadians to buy into it but it is going to make it lucrative enough for Canadians to do so. In fact, its directors have made it a condition of their charter that this will be accomplished in ten years or they will

give up their right to their charter. They did not oppose penalties being included in the legislation whereby sizeable fines would be imposed upon directors and executive officers of the company if they did not accomplish the stipulated degree of Canadian control within the ten year period.
It is interesting to note that members of the other place did not pursue the matter of penalties. I was also interested to note that the Superintendent of Insurance said that that company had gone far beyond the requirements of the form bill that is provided for insurance companies being chartered in Canada and therefore there was no need to have this type of penalty in the bill. I entirely agree with the Superintendent of Insurance. I am sure that company is honest, I am sure it is straightforward, I am sure it is going to make that attempt, and I am also sure the Canadian public will buy into that company and make it possible for the directors to live up to their obligations to parliament. However, I am not the least bit sure that all other companies that would agree to such a clause would do so and would be so apt to fulfil their duty. Therefore I see no reason why the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs should not again put in the penalties for Transcoastal and other companies like it.
The London and Midland bill has been before us for some time. The company does not mind the penalty that is being paid by not having had its name changed to Avco Delta. It would like to be accomplished, but if one reads what Avco owns in other areas one finds there is not much in a name. Avco owns the Moffat Stove Company. They have not changed the name to the Avco Delta Stove Company. It owns a large number of other companies and has not changed their names. If you are interested in credit cards you will probably think of credit card companies. You will probably think of Carte Blanche, not the Avco Delta Corporation. It owns a large number of small loan companies and several life insurance companies. It is doing business with a number of companies in Canada whose names have not been changed, but it is interesting to note that when it went into farm machinery and bought the New Idea Farm Equipment Company it added the name Avco to that company. Among the many companies it owns is London and Midland General Insurance Company.
If the directors of this company want this legislation passed the answer is simple. We
March 13, 1969

are quite willing to have them come into Canada and do business under their own company name, but they should be willing to make the concession to the Canadian people that they have a right to some control in this company if the market is right. For this reason I urge the sponsor of the bill to consider what has been done with respect to two other major companies in the insurance field in Canada, where clauses providing for Canadian ownership have been inserted in their charters.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The change in name from London and Midland General Insurance Company to Avco Insurance Company or L'Avco, Compagnie d'Assurance Generale might appear to be the crux of the subject, but I believe the change in name is really not the crux of the matter and is not the reason the bill is being opposed. I believe it is being opposed for the simple reason that we agree with many persons who believe one important aspect in respect of insurance companies and financial institutions is that they be Canadian controlled. For this reason we strongly urge the sponsor of the bill to consider this point before the bill comes before parliament again so that speedy action can be taken in respect of having the transfer arranged.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed that the sponsor of this bill did not rise to answer some of the questions asked by the previous speaker. When a minister or private member sponsors a bill in this house it seems to me they should be prepared to answer questions directed to them. Again we have an example of a private member of the Liberal party sponsoring a bill in this house. We are rather anxious to know whether it is his personal conviction that insurance companies, which are part of the financial picture of Canada, should come increasingly under the domination of outside interests. I believe the hon. gentleman should make it abundantly clear to hon. members and to the constituents he represents where he stands on the issue of foreign ownership. Is he in favour of handing over the financial institutions of Canada lock, stock and barrel to outside interests or does he intend to stand up in this house and take a firm stand?


Mr. Lind:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see how the hon. member's remarks have anything to do with the changing of the name of this company. First of all, it has been a reputable and well 29180-417
Private Bills
thought of insurance company which has offered services to the public across Canada. It is only asking for a change in name. No corporate change is being requested. It is purely a name change. I do not believe there is a desire on the part of this insurance company to be anything but a good corporate citizen and to do business in Canada in the way it has for a long time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Randolph Harding: I am delighted to hear the applause from the Liberal benches because it is good to know where they stand on these issues. The previous speaker asked whether the sponsor of this bill, the hon. member for Middlesex, went to the company and asked its officials if they would accept an amendment to this legislation. I should like to know the answer to that question. We have been asking such questions for a period of time.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: I again rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I do not know how it can be amended in any way to make it any simpler. I fail to understand the thinking of the hon. member. I believe he is confusing the issue. I think he is reading something into the bill which is not in it.


William Arnold Peters: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether the sponsor of the bill would agree that Avco Delta Corporation is a United States owned corporation? Would he not also agree that London and Midland is listed in the report of the Superintendent of Insurance as a Canadian company and that this change of name would not only change the name but would change the ownership of this company from a Canadian company? The hon. member for Ottawa Centre shakes his head. I suggest that the evidence provided to the committee of the other place indicates that this company is now totally foreign owned and should no longer be listed as a Canadian company. Is this not correct?


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: That is not correct. This company is not totally foreign owned. As a matter of fact, this company is controlled by Avco Delta Corporation, but there are common shares in the hands of Canadian shareholders.


Randolph Harding: One per cent or less. Now, Mr. Chairman, may I continue. Again I ask the sponsor of the bill where he stands. We have had other private bills in this house in respect of which substantial amendments have been offered which in effect gave

March 13, 1969
Private Bills
Canadians the right to buy back the shares. I do not know what the members of the Liberal party generally think about the ownership of our financial institutions, but I should like to place on the record a few remarks from a very responsible and reliable source concerning what is happening in respect of the control of the financial institutions of this country. I should like to place this on the record because it is very important. In 1956, 12 years ago, the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects stated in its preliminary report:
Foreign ownership of the stocks of the Canadian chartered banks and of life insurance companies, which are incorporated under Canadian law, is not particularly large at the present time. It is desirable that Canadian control of these institutions be maintained. The commission suggests, therefore, that appropriate action be taken to prevent any substantial measure of control of the chartered banks and of life insurance companies from coming into possession of non-residents. One way in which this might be accomplished would be to provide by statute that any shares in such institutions which are acquired by non-residents of Canada in the future would be ineligible to vote. This restriction should not be applied to existing non-resident holders of such shares.
I did not make that statement. That comes from a group of Canadian economists. They are warning the people.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Yes, but may I ask the hon. member a question?


Randolph Harding: What is happening is-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor.


Randolph Harding: Did the hon. member wish to ask a question? I will gladly give way.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Does what the hon. member has just read have any connection with the change of the name of London and Midland General Insurance Company?
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Randolph Harding: It certainly does. That was no question, Mr. Chairman.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. I have been listening to this exchange and it is just a repetition of the same question and the same answer. I think the hon. member should proceed with his speech.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. However, we intend to try and get information from the sponsor of this bill before the debate is concluded. I referred to 1956. I should now like to come to 1959. I shall read

what the Superintendent of Insurance at that time, Mr. MacGregor, said in 1959.
In my reports in recent years I have drawn attention to cases where control of a Canadian life assurance company passed from Canadian interests to interests outside Canada. In the three or four years preceding 1958 there was much activity in the shares of Canadian life assurance companies and control of a number of companies was acquired by external interests through purchase of a majority of shares from Canadian shareholders. This makes-
He is referring to 1959.
-the sixth life insurance company where control has passed into external hands in recent years.
In 1960 we had another warning from the Superintendent of Insurance, the watchdog of all the insurance agencies in this nation. This is what he told us in 1960:
The acquisition of control of established Canadian companies by British and foreign insurance companies means a permanent loss in the share of the life insurance business in Canada transacted by Canadian companies under Canadian control. The formation of a new life insurance company is a difficult undertaking and requires the investment of large amounts of money with no expectation of a return on the investment for many years in the future. Such companies are difficult to replace. The chance of repatriation of control is much less than if the shares were in the hands of individuals.
Again we had this warning from the head man in the insurance field. And what do we get in this house? We have private member after private member introducing private bills, some of them to hand over Canadian insurance companies to the very people the former Superintendent of Insurance has been warning us about. No wonder people are becoming apprehensive. During 1961, control of nine Canadian fire and casualty insurance companies passed to British or foreign hands. These transfers are largely responsible for the reduction in the proportion of fire and casualty premiums written in Canada by Canadian-controlled companies, from 26.5 per cent in 1960 to 22.4 per cent in 1961. So, on down the line have we gone until today.
I should now like to refer to the 1967 report, the latest one which I have. All hon. members have received this report of the Superintendent of Insurance. Let us consider the fire and casualty insurance figures for 1967. If people think this is unimportant, all they have to do is consider the portfolios of investment that these companies control in this nation of ours; they will then realize the tremendous power they wield. We should appreciate the necessity of keeping control of such companies within the confines of our own nation. Warnings have come from people
March 13, 1969

who certainly do not belong to the party which I represent. They must be looked upon as extremely responsible people. They have warned this government, and the elected representatives of the government, to be careful or we will lose economic control of our own nation.
In 1967 the net premiums written amounted to $1,467 million. This is a tremendous sum of money. Canadian companies-we call them Canadian companies-controlled about 43.2 per cent of this business. However, a number of these Canadian companies were controlled by British or foreign companies. I shall not give the percentages because it would take too long to read them, but the bulk of the investment control does not lie with Canadian companies in the fire and casualty insurance field.
These statistics should alarm any thinking Canadian. It is amazing to me that anyone elected in a riding of Canada would come to the House of Commons and try to turn over another little chunk of the Canadian economy to outside interests. We in the New Democratic party, are asking members who sponsor private bills to talk to the companies that come to them. They should tell these companies that they are Canadians, interested in Canada. They should ask the companies to accept amendments to their bills which would mean that Canadians would have an opportunity to buy back over a period of time control of the companies. Such a suggestion was made by the previous speaker.
Two or three companies have already done this because they realized that Canadians from the east to the west in this nation were becoming concerned about the problem. We have asked that these questions be dealt with. The hon. member said he has not approached this company and there is no need to approach it. But he willingly accepted the job of coming to the House of Commons and trying to persuade his colleagues to accept this and other private bills which would allow a sell-out of another chunk of our economy.
Our party is saying it is time we called a halt to this practice and sat down as members of political parties-every one of us is interested in Canada-and arrived at a solution to the problem. If one is interested in Canada, he does not start selling this nation piecemeal, bit by bit. We are asking that the sponsor of the bill seriously consider the matters we have raised. It is not too late to do this, because I doubt whether the bill will pass this evening. I suggest that the hon.
Private Bills
member go back to the company and place before it the proposition that other companies have incorporated in their bills. This bill can be amended; it is not too late to do it. There can be included in the bill the very provision for which we are asking, namely, that Canadians be given an opportunity to become part owners in this country and its economy. Such a provision must be written into the bill. We ask that such amendments be made to it. We suggest that the hon. member sponsoring the bill should rise in the house this afternoon and tell us that he will take this proposition back to those who asked him to present the bill to the House of Commons.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, we have just been treated to the kind of speech which in the past few years we have heard in this house during private members' hour. We have listened to such speeches as N.D.P. members have fervently argued in order to retard the business and economic progress of Canada. No one can argue this case better than do the hen. members who, throughout their history in the House of Commons, have been confined to the far left hand corner of the house because of the theories which they hold with regard to business and economics in Canada. The case before us this afternoon hinges on the view of hon. gentlemen opposite of what is a Canadian company. A Canadian company might be a company which is wholly owned by Canadians. It might also be a company which is, in part or even to a considerable extent, controlled by people abroad who felt it was worth while to come to a country of business growth and of economic stability such as Canada and to invest money for the progress of their company and to the benefit of the Canadian people. But hon. members opposite, who have held up these bills, have constantly argued that foreign capital militates against the progress of the Canadian economy and industry. We do not believe that on this side of the house.


William Arnold Peters: That is not true.


Grant Deachman: They argue that it is unCanadian unless a company is Canadian in the terms which they describe, that is to say that it finds the bulk of its capital in this country and that it does not find the bulk of its capital from outside of Canada for any investments which might add to the production and to the benefit of the Canadian economy.

March 13, 1969
Private Bills
I want to ask: What is a Canadian political party? That would be a good thing to discuss here apropos of what has been said of Canadian companies this afternoon. Is a Canadian party a party which is for the most part supported by U.S. unions, for example, and which in the eyes of virtually all Canadians who have watched them over the years is not much more than a Canadian subsidiary of U.S. unions which dominate Canadian unions?


Mr, Harding:: You do not know your history.


Grant Deachman: We know on this side of the house that the leader of their party, who has gradually beat a retreat across the west, has been finally pushed off the mainland onto an island, but still clutching firmly a piece of Canadian soil. We know he went down to Boston during the last election and there he was promised the support of the United States unions which own the N.D.P. Yet, they come into this house and call themselves a Canadian party.
We do not mind saying they are a Canadian party. We know they are good citizens, misguided though they may be. We know they are misguided in good faith, but we do not deny them the right to call themselves Canadians. There is nothing wrong with that.
All I want to say to these gentlemen is-


An hon. Member:: We are better Canadians than you are.


Grant Deachman: -that there are different ideas with regard to what constitutes a Canadian entity or organization than the example one sees when examining that very party.
So, I wonder whether or not we could look at this bill which is before the house in a more practical light, in the light of how we have developed this country by bringing people here from abroad, some of whom have become members of that party. Do we say they are not fit to be Canadians? No, sir. It is a privilege to come from abroad and to become Canadian. It is a privilege to come here with one's capital, to make it grow and to assist in the development of Canada. But hon. members opposite find something wrong with it. Let me say that we do not. I ask them this afternoon to reflect on what constitutes Canadians. They are people with faith in their country, sufficient faith to come here and settle, to take part in its political life and its development. They are people with enough faith to bring their capital here from abroad,

to invest in the country and assist in making it grow. That is what has helped to make Canada great.
I want to say that certainly we must struggle to retain our own political freedom in this country and to maintain a growing investment in our own equity. This is part of being good Canadians economically, to take part in the economic development of the country and to invest our dollars in it. But we would be going against the history of the economic development of Canada if we were to follow the kind of theories which have been put forward by hon. gentlemen opposite as they defeated these bills one after the other, year after year, during the period in which I have been in the House of Commons. It is hokum of the highest kind and will continue to be hokum as long as they preach it.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-101. I understand that this insurance company wants to change its name, and take an English name and a French-Can-adian name. So this insurance company will have two names.
Generally speaking, we have nothing against insurance companies. We believe that there are too many of them in this country. I think that their premiums are too high for the services they provide. On every street corner there are insurance salesmen trying to squeeze money out of Canadian taxpayers, on the pretence that their companies know where to invest, and that they can better manage that money than the individual.
Earlier, I heard the sponsor of this bill say that these companies come here to invest capital. I want him to know that they come here to seek Canadian funds to invest later on. Insurance companies have no need to invest capital, as they gather funds as soon as they start to operate. So, they raise funds to form the company and as soon as this is done, they do not need this capital any longer. It is put in a reserve. In the past many insurance companies were raising capital in Canada to invest abroad. Isn't that a shame, Mr. Chairman? There lies the evil. A company should be exclusively Canadian, and all the capital it extracts from the Canadian nation should be reinvested exclusively in Canada. Parliament should act to make compulsory for all insurance companies and all other companies that draw off Canadian capital in order to reinvest it elsewhere, to invest in Canada. In fact, we
March 13, 1969

need capital, and above all foreign capital, because we do not have enough. If our capital is sent abroad, the situation will be even worse.
Mr. Chairman, several insurance companies claim to be exclusively Canadian, yet they are not at all. They come to seek Canadian capital and are contributing to the development of other countries. Then is the time to act. Those insurance companies should be exclusively Canadian, not only in name but also with regard to their operations.
It is asked to replace the present name for a Canadian name. That will only be a Canadian name and not Canadian capitals. The steps which will be taken by those companies should benefit Canadian citizens. Investments and all the money collected, all the profits of those companies, should be reinvested in Canada.
So far, few insurance companies have come to make investments in Canada, after earning money abroad. Almost all foreign companies transacting business in Canada have come here to extract Canadian capital and invest it where they pleased.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The investments of some of those companies are ill-distributed. As far as I am concerned, I live in a remote area of the Eastern Townships. Some insurance companies come and squeeze money out of the inhabitants of that area, but they never reinvest anything there. They do not reinvest to develop our area, under the pretence that it is not profitable. How do you explain that they come and take our money, but do not reinvest? Insurance companies are not working in the interest of society. They are not logical. They come and squeeze considerable amounts of money out of some areas of the country, but those very areas do not derive any benefit from this. In my area, it would seem that people are only good enough to pay insurance premiums since they do not receive in exchange anything which would promote development of the area. If we do not get anything, in my area it is because, it would not be profitable to invest, so they say. It is not profitable to reinvest but it is profitable to come and pocket thousands of dollars at one time from us.
We should put our foot down and ask again to insurance companies to reconsider what they are doing. If they are allowed to come and take Canadian funds they should be able to distribute their investments. Unfortunately,
Private Bills
they are allowed to reinvest according to their own will and where they see fit. When it comes to increasing interest rates however, they make no bones about it. Mortgages are allowed in several areas of Canada, at a certain interest rate but a few years later, they can be increased. Thus those who have borrowed from those insurance companies instead of from other companies have to pay a higher cost, because there is some difference between interest rates.
Mr. Chairman, all kinds of things are going on in insurance companies. We should establish an agency whose task would be to see that these companies are consistent with themselves, in the best interests of the Canadian economy.
Canadian Parliament should be kept informed of those companies' activities. I cannot blame too much the members of the New Democratic Party who want to know what those insurance companies do with the capital that they squeeze out of Canadians. And we lead people to believe that insurance is a beautiful thing. It is always good after one's death, but there are a great many other means for Canadians to make more profitable investments than in insurance companies.
Mr. Chairman, there are certain things that should be cleared up and reformed in our insurance companies. I mention that particular one, but I might lump all the existing Canadian insurance companies together in that respect, for they do not appear to provide the benefits they should, if one takes into account the amount of money they get out of the public.
Moreover, there are insurance agents-I do not hold it against them, though-who earn more than manufacturing concerns having 75 or 80 employees. Is there not something surprising in the fact that one man, by himself, with his small brief-case, can earn as much? Something is going wrong inside the insurance companies, Mr. Chairman. I spoke about the small agents at the bottom of the scale, but what about all those who earn $50,000, $75,000, $100,000 or $125,000 a year, all that at the people's expense. Buying insurance policies is not always a wise investment, as we can see. They begin by paying themselves huge salaries and this explains why many insurance agents do not want to become members of parliament since they earn four times as much selling insurance in their region.
The insurance companies are exaggerating and there is extravagance somewhere. If we

March 13, 1969
Government Organization want a just society and a sound economy we must at all costs inquire into the insurance business as well as into many others. There is no need to kneel to the insurance companies and trusts which generally take advantage of the people, without saying a word. Nothing is said because many members of parliament are associated with them. Many are drawing large dividends from insurance companies which up to now have always succeeded in protecting themselves and have always found a way to outwit the Treasury. Yet, they should not be better treated than others; on the contrary, they should be dealt with in the same way as all other enterprises in the country.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I ask parliament to appoint a committee to enquire into all aspects of our insurance companies, so as to be in a position to intervene should there be anything there that is not according to Hoyle. It is now six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.

Progress reported.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-173, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters relating or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau- Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
James Hugh Faulkner: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At 6 p.m. the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, I had taken some time prior to five o'clock in an attempt to bring to the attention of the congenial minister the concern I have over the method of allocating service and purchase contracts. I understand that tenders do not have to be called for construction contracts if an emergency exists and the cost is less than $15,000. If I am incorrect about that, I am sure the

minister will correct me. Although I agree emergencies may arise in certain circumstances, I believe that all too often, as is apparent from previous cases we have witnessed throughout the country, they are a figment of the imagination. Departments decide that an emergency does exist and they allocate a contract without public tendering.
I should like to impress upon the minister the importance of doing away with preferred or representative lists and using instead the widely accepted procedure of tendering by public advertisement. In this way the new Department of Supply and Services, the other departments of the government as well as the elected representatives will not be subjected to the type of criticism we hear so often today, namely, patronage. I would expect the minister to make sure that the regulations are clearly defined so there will be no likelihood that the type of "pork barrel" situations that have arisen in the past will become commonplace.
One matter that does bother me considerably with regard to these preferred lists is how the persons or firms who are on these lists qualify. Perhaps the minister would clarify this at the end of the debate. Surely, qualification should not depend on the particular government that is in power at the time. I am sure that the group to be established to review the situation continually will take this question into consideration.
As I mentioned before five o'clock, the proposal to establish a group to review the approach taken by the various departments to obtain information, with a view to improving the quality of such information, is a step in the right direction and one that we can support. However, I think the minister must set guidelines which really mean something; and if he is able to do that he ought to be commended. On the other hand, if this is another government department only, and if it cannot bring about closer liaison between other departments of government, there is no purpose in establishing it.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
There is no sense in having a freeze in public service hirings if the government, as seems evident from increased allocations in this year's budget, is to seek the services of outside consulting firms. I believe that under this minister we ought to develop expertise within the department and make possible the provision of specialized services for every department of government, thus, bringing
March 13. 1969	COMMONS
about closer relationships between government departments than has been experienced in the past.
I hope the minister's philosophy in this new department will be not only business oriented, and I use that term loosely knowing that hon. members will know what I mean, but oriented to the needs of every part of our nation. Without this type of expertise in all social sciences this country and this new department will be the losers. I say to the minister that the clients he has to please are every man, woman and child of this country, and especially those of low or fixed income who are unable to fend for themselves in this highly technical world.
Naturally, officials of the various departments, as well as employees of departments, would like to set their own guidelines. If the minister is sincere in establishing guidelines for the new department that will really do the job we think ought to be done, we will support him, as will all those in this country who benefit.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a most interesting and valuable discussion on this very important bill and I think that it reflects, by and large, agreement with the proposals on which this bill is based. I do not know how hon. members would like me to deal with the various matters which have been raised. As I understood the discussion, a thread seemed to run through the minds of hon. members, and perhaps I could deal with specific topics that have been raised. The two matters which seem to have been raised most often by hon. members were the fact that in the new department there would be two deputy ministers and that the functions of the Receiver General were to be transferred to this department. Hon. members wanted to know the rationale behind that. I would like to deal with these two matters first, before touching on other specific matters raised by individual hon. members.
In so far as the two deputy ministers are concerned, Mr. Chairman, this does not mean an increase in the actual personnel of the department. It is simply a redesignation, if I can call it that, of the former Comptroller of the Treasury. Hon. members will note from early clauses of the bill dealing with this department that one of the responsibilities I have from the outset is to designate clearly and unmistakably what the duties of the two deputy ministers will be. This I intend to do. It is clearly evident, I think, that there will
DEBATES	6593
Government Organization not be what may be described as a crossover of responsibilities. The Deputy Minister of Supply will be the gentleman who already has that post and performed his duties admirably for many years. The Deputy Minister of Services will be the former Comptroller of the Treasury. So, there will not be the confusion that some hon. members understandably might anticipate, and I apologize for not making that clear in my opening statement. I am satisfied that this is the appropriate arrangement. It is not, of course, unique in the public service of this government or of many other governments. At the federal level there are quite a few departments with two deputy ministers.
On the question of the function of the Receiver General and the appropriateness of having this function as part of the responsibilities of the Minister of Supply and Services, I think there are real advantages to be gained in identifying with a single minister the closely related functions of the receipt, custody, disbursement and accounting of public funds. I want to emphasize that this is essentially the Receiver General's function, which is essentially a service function. There is no suggestion in the bill, nor is there any intention in the over-all plan, that the Receiver General shall have any responsibility in terms of what I might describe as policy decisions with regard to financial matters. His is the purely technical function of the retention or control, in custodial terms, of public funds. On the other side, there is the disbursement of all public funds. We are sat'sfied with this; a great deal of thought and work went into this matter, and we think that the present relationship in this field is an appropriate one.
There is a straight line through, as I said before, connecting the receipt of moneys, the custody of those moneys, the ultimate paying out of those moneys and the preparation of accounts relating to those public funds. I would be pleased to go on at greater length on this matter but it is not necessary. I will only say that identifying all the functions I have mentioned, which are closely related, with a single minister, responsibility and accountability are properly identified. The function can be most efficiently and economi cally handled on an integrated basis and there will be considerable convenience to departments, agencies of government, contractors and suppliers, as well as members of the general public, if a single office is identified as the control point for receipts, payments and inquiries related to either. As I

March 13, 1969
Government Organization said a moment ago, this is the rationale behind our thinking and I am satisfied that this will work satisfactorily.
In any event, may I also point out to hon. members that the Office of the Comptroller of the Treasury ceases to exist under this new arrangement and this is the mechanism we have devised which we think will take its place most effectively.
The hon. member for Wellington asked a number of questions, and I shall deal with those in a moment. Also, there was a reference by an hon. member opposite to the length of time since the Glassco report was brought down for some of its recommendations to be implemented, as they are now being. This is not strictly correct. Since 1964, a number of Glassco Commission recommendations have been implemented on a progressive basis and this is merely the logical conclusion of something which has been under way for a considerable time.
With regard to the dangers of overstocking and the surplus problem in warehouses under the present arrangement, I suggest that the effect of what we are doing will be the exact opposite. By consolidating all government supplies in six very large warehouses across the country, we shall no longer have to deal with 600 centres in which supplies for government departments are stored. Also, I should say we have developed a quite sophisticated and efficient method of data processing which will enable us, when the full scheme is in effect, to determine through a set of coded numbers and the like if goods or supplies needed in Victoria or Ottawa are in Halifax or somewhere else. I do not think it is necessary to be concerned about this so called excess or surplus to which the hon. member for Wellington referred.
On the question of the Queen's Printer, I wish to make it perfectly clear in this house, and I make this a commitment at this time, that it is our intention to appoint a Queen's Printer. While the wording of the act says may rather than "shall"-this is a semantic rather than legal argument-I assure the house that a Queen's Printer will be appointed when the necessary authority is granted to us under this legislation.
As for moving the Mint and why that should appropriately come under the over-all framework of the Department of Supply and Service, here again the rationale behind the move is that the Mint performs essentially a service function. We have within the department perhaps more experience than other

departments in terms of running small and large plants. For example, there is Canadian Arsenals. The responsibility of the Department of Supply and Service for this organization has built up among its officials great expertise. Our officials have great knowledge of all these matters. I think that, as with the Receiver General of Canada, this move is in line with recommendations of the Glassco Commission which suggested that common services could better be provided by a single agency. In this way the officials of specific departments and, indeed, ministers of specific departments will be relieved of the so called bookkeeping and housekeeping chores which can best be carried out under the new arrangement we are now proposing.
9 (8:20 p.m.)
Some question was raised as to the future scope of the former comptroller of the treasury. I want to emphasize that while there is a pronounced change in some of the responsibility which this office will assume under its new title of the services section of the department, there will not be an immediate or overnight transition.
The Glassco commission recommended, and it is our judgment they were correct in so recommending, that the pre-audit function ought to be the responsibility of individual departments rather than the comptroller of the treasury, as at present. Hon. members will recognize this is not something which can be done equally in all departments. We anticipate it will be some time before all departments are able to carry out this work on their own. There will not be a major and immediate disruption with regard to the staff of the comptroller of the treasury because of this transfer of duties. It will be gradual.
As has happened steadily throughout the public service, there will be a certain amount of attrition. A task force has been set up to look at the whole question of a new approach to coping with the possibility of employees being displaced under the new arrangement. We are reasonably satisfied there will not be a major disruption. I can assure hon. members we are taking this into account in the phasing in plan. As the hon. member for Burnaby Seymour asked this afternoon-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: He keeps moving his riding. In any event, it is going to be a phasing in and we are satisfied, with the task force
March 13, 1969

being set up, we will be able to deal with this problem. It is our intention and objective to do the work with less people. This is one of the savings we have in mind. I repeat this will not be done overnight. I am sure it will work out satisfactorily for all concerned.
I agree with the hon. member for Wellington with regard to charges for our services. It is the intention of the department, when providing services for a client department, to make a reasonable charge. It is a matter of time to determine the proper rate of charge. Hon. members will agree if it is going to cost more to charge and assign a particular department, it will not make sense to impose a charge. The department is working out a system to determine the actual cost for services to be provided. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre asked why we were so long-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Regina East.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am not doing too well on constituency titles. The hon. member for Regina East made a comment with regard to time. I believe I answered that by saying we have been implementing portions of this since 1964. I agree this should be done quickly. I also answered the question he raised with regard to the two deputy ministers. Let me re-emphasize it is not additional persons, but merely a re-designation of the former comptroller of the treasury.
One of the main reasons the department has been established is to bring about co-ordination which will eliminate one department having a surplus of materials while another department is purchasing the same because of a lack of rapport between them. The new data processing methods will be very beneficial. May I say to interested hon. members that we would be happy to arrange a tour of the pilot project in Ottawa. The hon. member and I are in complete agreement, Mr. Chairman, that the real test will be the effectiveness of the system. I am sure this will be successful. There is no point building a better mousetrap unless it works.
We must continue to assess our methods and carry out consistent checks. I personally feel very strongly that we need an advisory committee so that other departments can inform us how well we are serving them.
With regard to the matter of delays, I refer to my opening statement that we are a business oriented department and we must ensure that our client departments are given
Government Organization good service. On this pilot project delivery times are less than normal for commercial enterprise. If there was time this evening, I would give details of the bureau of standards. It has been proven that we can standardize and we are attempting to ensure there is uniformity throughout the supply sector. An item of general use can be supplied to all departments. We have not found many variables in terms of one department requiring a particular item and another department requiring the same item with a different colour. It is a very complex subject and problem, but progress is being made toward resolving this problem.
It would not be appropriate for me to comment this evening on matters now before the public accounts committee, such as the Bona-venture and hydrofoil. It is my information several meetings are planned and a number of witnesses will be called. The appropriate position would be to wait until the report is received from the committee. On the matters raised by the hon. member for Regina East and the hon. member for South Shore, it would be better to wait until the report is received. However, I would say in a general way we are looking forward to this report and recommendations of the committee. Although improvements can be made, I do not accept the general criticisms which have been levelled. There are answers and these may be in the committee report.
The hon. member for Regina East commented on moving and storage. This is a very sizeable activity of this department and the government generally. As hon. members know, there is a good deal of mobility in the public service and the armed services in particular. The situation is not as my hon. friend describes it. I was a little surprised that representatives of my friend's party went to bat for the moving business because, as hon. members are aware, there have been suggestions that an investigation should be conducted into this industry with regard to combines practices. However, I will not go into that. Until recently the position has been that companies charge the same rates.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Therefore under that arrangement it was a matter of allowing a certain amount of leeway and choice to the persons or group being moved to decide amongst themselves. But the fact of the matter is that there is another company and this company has in fact met our requirements and standards and has given a rate which is considerably lower. I

March 13, 1969
Government Organization wish to emphasize that this is an all year round rate, and it is a national rate. In other words, it applies all across the country and it applies 12 months of the year.
The hon. member is probably right when he says that in the face of this new competition some of the other lines have agreed to come down and meet the rate now being offered by this national company to which I have referred, but they have not agreed to do it either on a year round or on a national basis. So, therefore, I am satisfied-and I may say I have gone into this very thoroughly since the hon. member and others brought it to my attention-that in the long run we are getting a substantial savings to the public treasury by operating under the scheme which we have at the moment.
I may say too that this company is not capable of doing anything like all the work that is necessary, and that other companies get a substantial volume of the work, perhaps as much as 70 per cent or 80 per cent. But I am not happy with that situation and it is my objective as well as that of my officials to get competitive tendering all the way through. If these companies are anxious to get into the business let us have a thorough airing of it, and let us have real competition throughout rather than have the single rate policy with which we were faced all along until this new development came about. This is essentially the background of the story, and if necessary I shall be glad to fill in any of the details.
I believe I have touched on most of the matters raised by the hon. member for South Shore, Mr. Chairman, but unfortunately he was not in the chamber at the time. I hope he will not ask me to repeat all of them. On the question of the auditing services, I believe that perhaps there may be some misunderstanding between the hon. member and me on what is meant.
The pre-auditing function is being assigned to the individual departments in line with the Glassco Commission recommendations, and whether or not the Auditor General will need additional staff to deal with the new arrangement is something I am not capable of judging at the present time, but it is not an issue related to this particular bill. In other words, all we are doing is moving the pre-auditing function back into the hands of the individual departments as recommended, so that the responsibility is centred in the departments and they have to take the full responsibility for what they are doing. It may very well be that the Auditor General will require additional

people because he himself may now have to do some of the things that were done previously by the Comptroller of the Treasury, but the two are separate questions. I am sure an appropriate occasion will arise when we can deal with the matter of whether or not the Auditor General needs additional personnel.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw-I think I have got a second one right, I am really batting close to 1,000 tonight-raised another matter and I am not at all sure I understand fully which corporation he is speaking of when he talks about consultant services. If he is talking about Management Consultant Services, we have had conversations with this group-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister but his time has expired, unless he has unanimous consent of the committee to continue.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It will only take me a moment to wind up.


Albert Béchard: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I was about to explain to the hon. member for Moose Jaw that we have had discussions with the representative association of management consultants and it is not an easy matter to resolve.
On the one hand, I believe it is important that we have a strong management consultant capacity in this country. It is not our intention to undercut them, or to assure that all the business goes in any one direction, or anything of this nature. The difficulty with open tendering is that the association itself is not sure whether this is the appropriate way of going at it.
If we use open tender for all business, the argument is that if all of these people are preparing a tender they will spend a very sizeable amount of money on the preparation of their tenders, and the total spent by all of them in this way may exceed the value of the job itself. So, we have been holding discussions with them in the hope of finding another and more appropriate way in which to do this, but I can assure the hon. member that we are aware of the situation.
In this connection, so far as I am aware our department does not have a preferred list. There is nothing of that nature within the department. Any company that wishes to be listed as interested in any form of business- and this I will relate as well to the hon.
March 13. 1969	COMMONS
member's later reference to the business of what I believe he called invitational tendering-can be listed and will be advised when there is business available or when there is a tender to be called.
The difficulty with advertising, that is in the normal sense of making it known through public advertisement, is that there are literally tens of thousands of different items which we are asking for at one point or another, and the ability to advertise these nationally on a continuing basis would be an extremely expensive one and not very practical.
I believe that if the hon. member checks with most companies that do business with the Government of Canada he will find that there is quite general agreement that the present policy and the present system are the most appropriate. If he has specific evidence to the contrary, or knows of some company that does not feel this arrangement is appropriate, I will be delighted to look into the matter for him; but to try to advertise all the needs, all the things needed all across the country would be an impossible task.
I believe I have covered all of the points, Mr. Chairman, and I can only say in closing that I have as great hopes for the department as hon. members seem to have. I think we can do an effective job. I am sure, too, that the savings will be evident in the first report of the department a year from now after it is established.
I do not want to take my seat without talking about the matter raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I am very conscious of the matter that the hon. gentleman raised. I can assure him in the first instance that the Comptroller of the Treasury portion, which will now become the services side of this department, has a very large bilingual capacity. A great many of the employees of that department are bilingual, though not as many perhaps as we would like. Certainly, on the supply side, we are doing precisely what the hon. member has suggested, and that is that we have now in the department, and will have in the new department a language or bilingual adviser. We are working towards the objectives he has outlined.
Of course the Queen's Printer, the Printing Bureau, has a very large percentage of its work force which is bilingual. So, as with all government departments, it is my intention to advance with all reasonable haste the objectives which the hon. member outlined and which I share fully. I believe I have covered 29180-4182
DEBATES	6597
Government Organization all the points, Mr. Chairman, and I am very grateful to hon. members for the kind words they spoke during the discussion today.


John Stratford Burton: Before he resumes his seat, would the minister permit a question?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes.


John Stratford Burton: Would the minister care to indicate if the government is studying or has any intention of using the Canadian Commercial Corporation, or some other means or mechanism, to fulfil the functions suggested in the Watkins report with respect to a state trading agency?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I can only say in answer to the hon. member that we are studying this. It is part of the examination of the whole pattern. Whether the Canadian Commercial Corporation is the proper or appropriate instrument I could not say in any dogmatic way at the moment, but it has possibilities and we are looking into it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 42 to 45 inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 46-Other duties.
Stanley Howard Knowles: have just one little question for the minister on this clause. I notice that under this clause the Department of Supply and Services is to provide certain services which I now gather are being provided by the Central Pay Office and also certain services in relation to employees' benefit plans and superannuation or pension plans. I should like to know whether this means that the Superannuation Branch will be transferred to the minister. You know, he seems so humane I hope it is true.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I regret to advise the hon. member that unfortunately, the great generous person that I am, I am not going to have the opportunity to do what he suggests. This department will perform certain administrative duties in respect of keeping accounts with regard to superannuation, pay and the like, such as issuing cheques which may not be as big cheques as my hon. friend would like. However, he will have to argue with somebody else about how big they should be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister would exercise his humanity in the cabinet on this issue.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Maich 13, 1969
Government Organization
On clause 47-Other services
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In respect of clause 47, I wonder whether the minister could give us a little better explanation of what this clause means. It states that nothing in this part precludes the minister from providing, with the prior approval of the Governor in Council, any services that are within the ambit of the duties, powers and functions of the minister under this part. Could the minister amplify the responsibility this clause defines?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, this clause enables the minister, subject to a request from a customer department or agency and approval of the Governor in Council, to provide any services dealt with in the act on behalf of Crown corporations and other government organizations. The services in respect of purchasing and supply at the federal level can be further increased, if these services are requested, to provincial or municipal governments in Canada so long as the cost would be recoverable from the agency concerned. If it should become evident that in respect of some bulk purchase we could be of assistance to a provincial government or some other agency we are not prohibited from doing that, provided the cost is recovered.
In so far as Crown corporations are concerned, the act stipulates that there are certain classes of Crown corporations which are automatically included in the procurement responsibilities of the department. Some are outside such as, for example, the C.N.R. and the C.B.C. This, however, is an enabling clause in the sense that if these agencies wish to take advantage of our purchasing capability they have the ability to do so and we have the ability to respond.


Albert Béchard: Shall clause 47 carry?


André-Gilles Fortin: I would like to ask a very short question, Mr. Chairman.
Could the Minister of Supply and Services tell us if the appointment of auditors for the various Crown corporations will come under his jurisdiction now that his department and the office of the Treasury Board have merged?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I would have to take this question as notice. In terms of all the departments, my inclination would be, I
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) J
would think, that in some instances the answer may be yes and in others no. I am not sure about the uniform nature of this, and whether we do it for every one. I would suspect with regard to certain Crown corporations, such as Canadian Arsenals, that the auditing would be done by government auditors. It may be also that the Polymer Corporation might have its own auditors as well as the government audit. I shall be glad to look into the matter and give my hon. friend a detailed reply.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 48-Queen's Printer [Translation]
Albert Béchard: Shall clause 48 carry?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, a moment ago, in the course of my remarks, I asked the minister what had happened in respect of the Queen's Printer.
According to some statements made by the Prime Minister, the Queen's Printer was transferred or dismissed sometime in December. Could the minister tell us to which department the Queen's Printer was transferred and whether this was done against his will or not so that we may send him a letter to congratulate him.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, there has been no change in the status of the Queen's Printer. Until such time as this bill is enacted, the Queen's Printer and the gentleman who holds that title are as they have always been. As for the future of the gentleman in question, once the bill is enacted I undoubtedly will be holding discussions with him. I think my friend can be reasonably sure we will reach an amicable decision as to his future.


André-Gilles Fortin: Does the minister mean that Mr. Duhamel is still employed by the federal government as the Queen's Printer?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Duhamel is still in the government service and still the Queen's Printer. He is official Queen's Printer until such time as this act goes through. At that time an official of the department will be designated as Queen's Printer but Mr. Duhamel, as of now, is the Queen's Printer.
March 13, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	6599
Government Organization
[Translation]	On clause 71-Definitions


André-Gilles Fortin: I have a last question, Mr.	The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 71
Speaker. Would not the minister think it carry? advisable to replace the designation Queen's	'
Printer, by a more Canadian one, one that is Mr. Peters: Mr. Chairman, does the minis-less archaic and that smacks less of ter intend to indicate the reason for this colonialism?	change in respect of the Mint?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Chairman; I do not feel that way. As you well know, sir, there are many members in this house who do not share the views of my friend. The fact of the matter is that in many other Commonwealth countries the expression "Queen's Printer" is used. It is used I believe by all the provinces of Canada. There is a separate act at the moment which designates and establishes the office of the Queen's Printer and it is not our intention to change that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 49, 50 and 51 agreed to.
Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I believe this afternoon there was agreement that we might proceed at this time to section 71 in respect of the Royal Canadian Mint because of the combined nature of the responsibility.


Albert Béchard: Is it agreed?


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, there was no understanding on our part.


André-Gilles Fortin: As for us, Mr. Chairman, we do not object at this time to proceeding with clause 71 dealing with the Mint.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As a courtesy to the minister and in view of the fact that the Mint is also within his responsibility and since I do not believe there would be very much contention about the provision with regard to the Mint, might we call these particular clauses now? I certainly discussed this with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I understood him to be agreeable to the proposal.


Albert Béchard: Is this agreed?


Donald MacInnis: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I misunderstood.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Béchard: Part X, Royal
Canadian Mint.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I did this afternoon in my opening statement. Briefly, however, I might say that the main reasons are the greater flexibility it provides for the Mint, the ability to move quickly to meet situations respecting shortage of coins, and that kind of thing, as well as the ability to move in fact in respect of international sales of coins and various things of that nature. We think it is a more reasonable and rational way of approaching this matter. It appears at least to have had the general support of anyone to whom it has been mooted or proposed.
c (3:50 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am not directly interested in the Mint except in so far as what has happened in the past, and that is probably a poor way of looking at it. We have been concerned with the fact that the Canadian Mint has not developed to the extent of being able to meet current needs. We are buying coinage at the present time from the United States; they are minting our coins. We have also had considerable difficulty meeting requirements in the past. Now the-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Don't try to pronounce it. I can't either.


William Arnold Peters: At any rate, I refer to the coin collectors, the numismatic people. As I have always told the minister of finance, this is a great business. You sell $1.91 worth of coins for $4, which seems to me the kind of business in which the government should be engaged. Yet we have failed on many occasions to meet the needs of this kind of export. The Mint itself has been a reasonable operation, it has been a satisfactory operation. It is surprising that when students from my area come to Ottawa, this is one of the few things they want to see, that is, how we make our money. The Mint has been a rather cluttered operation. Its machine shop could stand a great deal of improvement; the equipment is out of date and the quarters are insufficient for the operation. I think this is one field in which members of parliament would agree there should be some expansion. The expansion would probably pay off and would be

March 13, 1969
Government Organization self-liquidating, because of the interest in this field.


Mr, Jamieson:: Mr. Chairman, I thank my hon. friend for making the introductory statement for me, because it is precisely for these reasons that we are moving in this direction, including plans for the building of a new Mint which will give us a greater capacity. Then, instead of having to buy from the United States I hope we will be able to sell, if not to the United States, to other foreign countries.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, does the minister believe that the new Mint will keep up with government expenditures?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer that question.


Albert Béchard: Shall clause 71 carry?


William Arnold Peters: I have another question on this clause, Mr. Chairman. How far have we progressed, in the commercial sense, in the adaptability of the new coinage? I understand that some companies are still importing from the United States silver coinage because of the inability of their equipment to handle the new coins. Can the minister give us a report as to how close we are to meeting the change to nickel coinage from silver coinage, and how this has affected the various commercial operations dependent upon the use of these coins?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I cannot give my hon. friend an immediate answer off-the-cuff. I understand, however, that we are closing the gap in terms of our purchases from outside. I am told that the demands are being met except for some 25-cent pieces. We are still importing some of these. Our aim, of course, as I said earlier, is to reach the point where we can not only cope with our own needs but have a surplus of coins which we can sell elsewhere. That is perhaps the only surplus we will get out of the Mint. However, I will be glad to obtain a full report for my hon. friend and pass it along to him.


William Arnold Peters: I thank the minister for this information, Mr. Chairman, and would like to make a suggestion that I hope he will consider. I suggest that the operation of the Mint, in co-operation with the Minister of Finance of the day, should further develop coinage. I am very appreciative of the fact that the former
[Mr. Peters.l
minister of finance allowed for centennial year the printing of a commemorative gold coin. I know that a number of provinces are now approaching the Mint with plans for coins for centennials and other types of celebrations. It seems to me this is a field in which we can make considerable money on our coinage. We should not be too reluctant, therefore, to make the necessary arrangements that will allow commemorative coins, even of gold, to be minted .
Coming from a gold-mining area, I am personally very pleased that the gold coin was a success. The knowledge I have and the information I have received, at least from my bank, leads me to believe that none of this product is used as coinage and it is not likely, because of the coin dealers' price, that any of it will be. Therefore, it has become truly a commemorative coin and not a matter of currency. I think the experience we gained should be repeated, because the government obtained a great deal more than the $35 an ounce for the gold which it put into this project.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I have just one other piece of information to give hon. members. We are not now buying coinage from outside the country. The contract for the $85 million worth, I believe it was, of 10-cent pieces is now finished and the only contract outstanding is with respect to a comparatively small number of 25-cent pieces.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister could tell us if there is any indication that we are going to get rid of this cotton-picking quarter. Its size is unrealistic. We should have a quarter the size of which is more realistic and which does not look like a nickel.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have received many
representations in this regard, Mr. Chairman, and am inclined to agree with them. We will take a look at it. It is easy enough to get rid of them, incidentally.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clauses 72 to 94 inclusive agreed to.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might have just a moment to thank hon. members for their courtesy and consideration. I am very appreciative of the manner in which they have assisted me in passing these clauses. I thank them very much.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
might have passed around a few samples.
March 13, 1969


Donald Campbell Jamieson: We will strike some more.


Albert Béchard: We will now proceed to part VI, which is to be found on page 19 of the bill. This part relates to consumer and corporate affairs.
On Clause 52-


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister would be prepared to make a brief statement. Certainly, it is our hope to pass this section very expeditiously because we studied this matter in the health committee when it was dealing with the estimates. A number of matters affecting the department have been referred to the committee, but I think there are also a number of matters on which the minister should comment. Perhaps he will take this opportunity to make a brief statement to the committee.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, because the reorganization of my department was discussed in the Health and Welfare Committee when my estimates were before it, I did not feel it necessary to make a statement. But I would be happy to say a few words off the cuff on the reorganization. As hon. members know, when the announcement of government reorganization was made last July, it was stated that the whole of the standards branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce would be transferred to my department. It was announced that certain functions under the Food and Drug Act under the Department of National Health and Welfare relating to fraud and the economic aspects of the sale of food would be transferred and that the retail inspection function of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fisheries would be transferred to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Previous to this reorganization, the department had been doing research in matters of consumer interest, playing a representation role within the government on behalf of consumers, and co-ordinating existing or planned consumer programs within the government, as well as running a consumer complaint and information service. With the reorganization that this bill will bring about, the department can establish a field staff by reason of transfers from other departments and give it an enforcement function.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Clause 52 (1) makes amendments necessary to transfer to the department the functions previously performed by the standards
Government Organization branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and amendments necessary to transfer to my department the Weights and Measures Act, the Precious Metals Marking Act, and the National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act. Subclause (2) of clause 52 allows us to establish an inspection service within the department from transfers of people from the Food and Drug Directorate, from the Department of Agricultre and from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and also gives us a field staff of inspectors for which-provision must be made under subclause (2).
As a result of these transfers that are authorized by this act it has been possible to completely reorganize the consumer affairs branch of the department. As I explained to the committee, we now have within the department a new standards branch which is made up of units of the former standards branch of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the policy unit of the Department of National Health and Welfare concerned with fraud and the economic aspects of the sale of food. We are establishing within that standards branch new units in the fields of textile and chemical products. This new branch will be dealing with weights and measures and with labelling regulations. We also have a consumer research branch, a new operations branch-


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the minister a question with regard to weights and measures standards? Is it intended under the new legislation to instigate a continuing study with regard to the transfer to the metric system?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Not within this reorganization legislation. Conversion is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. However, there is within the government an inter-departmental committee in which a number of my officials are extremely involved.
I mentioned the reorganization that was made possible in the consumer affairs branch of the department. I also mentioned that we have a consumer research branch and a new operations branch to direct the work of field units acquired from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fisheries. As a result of this reorganization, we will be opening regional offices of the department in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax.
I think that the creation within the department of a field staff and the provision of field

March 13. 1969
Government Organization inspectors, field liaison officers and field advisors will make the whole operation of consumer protection more meaningful to the public of Canada because they will have an office of the department in their region to which they can go to learn about our programs. This is where our officials will be able to deal with the work of the department at the grass root level and to deal with the complaints that are received by the department.
We have also been able to establish a consumer service and information branch as well as a new legal branch which will deal with the enforcement of our existing consumer protection legislation and will assist in the development of new legislation and new programs.


James Aloysius McGrath: example of window dressing. We trust the functions which the minister has taken over from other departments will put teeth into the minister's efforts to protect the consumers of Canada. Finally, I again express the hope that the minister's functions will be more clearly defined so as to avoid the likelihood of a conflict of jurisdictions.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, we can have little quarrel with the amendments proposed in this bill. They relate to the transfer of functions from the standards branch and from the Food and Drug Directorate to the department, and to the provision of inspection services. We favour these changes. We also welcome the minister's announcement that he intends to open regional offices. This would be a move toward decentralizing the administration. Nevertheless, it seems to me the minister has not made much of an attempt to outline the functions of his department in general.
I am not entirely satisfied that there was a thorough examination of this subject in committee. There were aspects of the subject that we had no chance to question at the time. Thus, while we are discussing the reorganization of government departments, I think we should take advantage of the opportunity to say some of the things which are on our minds. I want to talk for a while about the purpose of this department. As now constituted, the department has three branches-one might call them the three faces of Eve: consumer affairs, corporate affairs and combines investigation. Corporate affairs, the swinging, capitalist personality, is responsible for all matters involving corporations and corporate securities including such matters as bankruptcy, patents, copy rights and trademarks. In general, to use the words of the minister, this part of the department is concerned with administering many of the federal laws which regulate the businesses which supply goods and services. In this connection, the minister sees the role of the department as "increasing investor and shareholder confidence and enhancing the opportunities for raising capital." In addition he sees the department as an instrument for "ensuring probity in the marketplace." I prefer to take the minister's words rather than those of anybody else when they are available.
The combines investigation branch seems to me a most insecure and secretive personality. It is supposed to ensure a vigorous economy through a sound competition policy basic to a
Government Organization prosperous and vigorous economy. Again, I use the minister's words.
Finally, the consumer affairs branch is supposed to protect consumers from the abuses inherent in this same vigorous, competitive economy. I emphasize the word "inherent". It is supposed to protect them against fraud and deception by manufacturers through substandard packaging, inadequate labelling, misleading advertizing, games, gimicks and questionable credit practices.
In addition to concern about the safety and quality of products, the department is also supposed to be concerned with their price. After all, the department was set up after an investigation into the prices of consumer goods with particular reference to the price of food and the price of housing. I do not think we should lose sight of these circumstances. At the time, a great deal of credit was given to the boycotts by women consumers around this country as being instrumental in bringing that investigation about and giving final weight to the request for a department of consumer affairs.
The department was supposed to operate not only in terms of obscure and personal price indexes and figures relating to the performance of the economy but also in connection with the specific problems of people, including people living on low incomes, people living on fixed incomes and people without enough information to be "rational" consumers-people without proper protection.
The minister referred to the first aspect of these functions when he spoke during the budget debate on November 8, 1968. He said:
I rise to speak today because of my particular interest in the performance of the Canadian economy from the point of view of the consumer whom it is my statutory obligation to represent.
Despite these fine sentiments and some real effort on the part of the minister, the department has failed to deal with the most urgent problems faced by people. I think it is doomed to continue this failure unless at least two important changes are made. First, the department has to overcome its schizophrenic personality. Second it must relate directly to people, and learn to work with them directly.
As far as the schizophrenic personality of the department is concerned, the minister says it is his statutory obligation to represent the consumer. But because of the way in which the department is now constituted it is also his statutory obligation to represent

March 13, 1969
Government Organization businessmen, the producers. He himself recognized the contradiction inherent in this position when he spoke on December 9 and told us it was no secret that consumer interests and producer interests were often in conflict. Nevertheless, he continues to try to make these conflicting interests work in double harness. I do not think it can be done well within the same department. He said he was striving to obtain for all citizens just and fair economic treatment whether they were concerned with the supply side or on the consumer side of the market, whether they be consumers, investors or businessmen.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The truth is that when they are talking to their business friends, the minister and his officials keep explaining away their responsibilities to consumers. I see the minister smiling but just let him wait. Let me again quote Gordon Osbaldeston, the deputy minister of consumer affairs, who by the way has had a long career in the public service looking after not the interests of consumers but the interests of the Canadian business community in the Department of Trade and Commerce. In my view this is not an ideal apprenticeship for looking after the interests of consumers. From a recent speech in which he said that free enterprise was the goal of the department, I quote:
We want businessmen to know what we are all about. That's why we start from the premise of free enterprise, and work from there.
This leads me to inquire: What is the purpose of the department? Is it to satisfy businessmen and the free enterprise system? Is it to protect the consumer? Or is it to give each one the idea that the department is on its side at one and the same time? Mr. Osbaldeston's view makes it clear that, in his opinion at least, the interests of business come first. And Mr. Osbaldeston is deputy minister of the consumer affairs branch, the official who is supposed to speak for the interests of consumers.
From the beginning the minister has insisted that, and again I use his own words:
A knowledgable customer is no threat to the honest businessman and certainly no threat to the market place.
Surely, it is not the qualities of customers that threaten the marketplace; rather it is the inherent qualities of uncontrolled free enterprise. The minister is keen on consumer education to deal with this, but education is a two-way process. It is not just a question of informing the consumers how to be more

careful shoppers; it is also a question of giving the consumers the chance to let the department know what they want and where they need protection.
The department has so far set up two new pieces of machinery that are supposed to carry out the function of protecting consumers. These are Box 99, the complaints department, and the consumer advisory council. But characteristically, the approach of both is impersonal.
As far as Box 99 is concerned, people can write to it if they know about it. Here, I give the department credit for taking steps to make it known. Possibly some time later on a letter will be received from the company that caused the particular problem, but what chance does one get personnally and publicly to discuss one's problem? Who knows about it? Does the department publicize the names of the companies that are taking unfair advantage of consumers? What measures are taken to protect other consumers from the same abuses by the same companies?
These are questions that I have had asked me by many correspondents who, as consumers, have had difficulties. The truth is, I believe, that the department of consumer affairs is not prepared to name names or even to provide an agency that will do so. It is simply too much interested in its heartfelt responsibilities to the business community to become effective in carrying out its over-riding responsibilities to consumers.
The second piece of machinery is the consumers advisory council, which according to its chairman ought not to look after shortterm, specific problems. Dr. Leighton has said:
It seems much less productive to me for the council to tackle highly topical questions, such as popsicles, than to study long-term problems.
Who, then, will study these tough, shortterm problems? Such specific problems- including popsicles-are the very problems that the consumer has to face day after day.
The consumers advisory council would, in my opinion, be well advised to hold its meetings not always in Ottawa but at various points across Canada, including at each meeting at least one session that is open to the public and at which consumers can make themselves heard. This would put real meaning into the term "participatory democracy". Failure to do this is to substitute verbiage for the real thing.
Another piece of machinery that the minister envisions is a prices and incomes commission. We, in this party, have recommended
March 13, 1969	COMMONS
and shall continue to recommend a prices and incomes review board which would be exposed to the full light of publicity. As the minister presently explains the function of the commission, this body too will undoubtedly engage in long-term, impersonal studies that will have little to do with the immediate problems of people. It, too, will be non-participatory as far as the consumer is concerned.
The proliferation of bureaucratic institutions which stand like a fence between the minister and consumers, coupled with the department's failure to give the public the chance to be heard, dooms the consumer branch to ineffectiveness. And this despite regional offices, which are all to the good and which I hope will knock down a few of the palings in the fence so that at least we can get the odd look at the minister and his department.
This fear of public exposure and review carries itself to the House of Commons. Why is there no standing committee of the house to review the estimates of the department? I address this question to the government house leader as well as to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. With all the other important departments having their standing committees, if the consumers of this country are also important why is there no standing committee of this house to review, in particular the estimates of the minister's department and to undertake special inquiries into consumer problems as they arise? I think this matter is very important and such a committee would at least permit some airing of these problems.
I realize the minister proposes that reports from the prices and incomes commission should be sent to a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons. Why not send them to a committee that is directly responsible to the elected House of Commons?
In my opinion, business interests are already more than adequately represented in the other place. Let us not load such a committee with people who are not responsible in any way to the consumers. I think the House of Commons should have its own committee, instead of squeezing consumer affairs problems in with the already heavily taxed committee that considers the estimates of the department of health and welfare.
May I make one final point. The Combines Investigation Act needs to be overhauled so that it can become effective in protecting consumers. The hon. member for St. John's East
DEBATES	6605
Government Organization has already referred to the Batten report and the role that should be played by the combines investigation department. Last fall we had the Batten commission appealing to the combines branch to investigate directly grocery prices on the prairies. To date, we have been unable to get any information that indicates that the combines branch is doing anything to deal with this matter.
The hon. member for St. John's East mentioned the period of a few weeks, but it has been five months since the Batten report was tabled. This royal commission appointed by the prairie provinces appealed to this department for help in protecting consumers.
Questions I asked during the minister's estimates last fall elicited that the minister had, at least at that time, no intention of bringing down the kind of amendments that would enable the combines branch to carry on such an investigation. He said-


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the hon. lady permit a question in order that I can correct the record?


Donald MacInnis: I will if I can have a few seconds added on.


James Aloysius McGrath: I did not refer to the Batten report. I was referring to the Alberta royal commission report on gasoline marketing.


Donald MacInnis: I thought the hon. member was referring to grocery prices on the prairies as well.


James Aloysius McGrath: I did refer to those but not in the context of a few weeks; that was the Alberta report.
o (9:30 p.m.)


Donald MacInnis: I am glad to be corrected. Until we can get these amendments the Combines Investigation Act is of little use to the housewife who is held up for ransom every time she goes to the grocery store. That has been proven to the satisfaction of almost everyone on the prairies, although it may not have been proven to the satisfaction of the combines director. The situation is, I submit, that the combines director is not satisfied with the evidence. I say that he should be given teeth by our putting teeth into the Combines Investigation Act; that way he could make the necessary further investigations that will satisfy even him that grocery prices on the prairies are away up because of combinations in restraint of trade. Until such

March 13. 1969
Business of the House
time as we can get a Department of Consumer Affairs divorced from the claims of big business-and I urge the establishment of a Department of Consumer Affairs, period-I urge the minister to bend over backwards to strengthen his consumer branch. I urge him to reflect on the profound words of truth which he himself uttered in the budget debate of November 8, 1968, when he said:
In any event, the effects are no mystery to the victims of inflationary forces. These victims are the Canadians who are old, who are poor, who have no means of adapting their circumstances to the rapid change. They are not organized to insist that their incomes reflect rising price levels. They have no power to insist on a fair share. Citizens who enjoy no bargaining power cannot bargain for a better deal. A fixed income should not mean a fixed injustice.
Until the minister is willing to take the measures necessary to protect the consumer, to bargain for those who have no bargaining power, the fixed injustice will remain. I beg the minister to take additional measures, some of which I have tried to outline constructively tonight and which are essential if the consumer is to be protected.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In accordance with section 5 of standing order 6, Mr. Chairman, may I ask, with the approval of the committee, to interrupt temporarily the work of the committee so that the house may be in a position to deal with a motion which I propose to move to extend this day's sitting?


Albert Béchard: The proceedings of the committee will be temporarily interrupted for the purpose of proposing a motion under section 5(a) of standing order 6.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 5(a) of standing order 6 I move, seconded by Mr. Andras:
That the committee do continue until 12 o'clock p.m. this day for the purpose of continuing consideration in committee of the whole of Bill C-173.


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


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The motion is not debatable. Accordingly, since less than ten hon. members have arisen-


William Arnold Peters: Would you please put the question, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, we would be ready to sit until 11 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
And less than ten members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: And
less than ten hon. members having risen, the motion is agreed to.


William Arnold Peters: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think you enunciated the rule under which you are proceeding. If an hon. member opposes the motion should not an additional motion be put?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: According to the rules, if after the motion is put less than ten hon. members rise, the motion is deemed to be adopted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If somebody objects to the motion Your Honour is supposed to ask those opposed to it to stand. I think my hon. friend for Tim skaming meant that Your Honour had not asked hon. members to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Will those hon. members opposed please rise?
And less than ten hon. members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Fewer than ten hon. members having risen, the motion is deemed to have carried. The house will now resume in committee of the whole.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the government house leader whether there will be debate at the normal time of adjournment. I have a very
March 13, 1969

important matter I wish to put on record, and wish to avail myself of existing grievance procedures.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite prepared to interrupt proceedings, provided there is unanimous consent and also provided that immediately after the debate the house would revert to consideration of the bill presently before it. Of course, in the strict sense it is not open to me to extend unanimous consent. Perhaps on the understanding that present business would be resumed there might be debate at the normal time of adjournment.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a real grievance and I should appreciate the opportunity to put my remarks on the record. I would, therefore, ask leave of the house to make my remarks at ten o'clock.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The government would consent, if it is understood that we return to committee of the whole and continue consideration of the bill, in accordance with the order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Perhaps at ten o'clock the committee might rise and report progress, with the understanding that after the brief interruption present business will be resumed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-173, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters relating or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Bechard in the chair.
On clause 52-
Barry Mather: 
Stanley Ronald Basford: I intend to make just a few remarks. First, I want to thank the hon. member for St. John's East for his helpful contribution to this debate. As I explained to him this afternoon, I will be going to Winnipeg on Monday to meet with the Attorney General of the province of Saskatchewan, along with his counterparts from Manitoba and Alberta, in connection with the Batten report. This is a report of a royal commission appointed by and reporting to these three western provinces. Each provincial prairie premier directed one of his ministers to study recommendations of the Batten report and their possible implementation in their respective provinces.
The chairman of that committee is the Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Mr. Heald. I will be meeting with these provincial ministers to discuss the federal-provincial implications of the Batten report. When the Batten report was made public, it was immediately brought to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, now the Minister of Justice, who acted very quickly in having it referred to the combines investigation branch. At that time Judge Batten remarked on how very gratified she was by the fast action and speedy reaction she had received from the federal government.
a (9:50 p.m.)
Many of the recommendations in the Batten report have been made by other committees and commissions, including the one that Senator Croll and I headed. Within my department we are looking at a great many programs for the protection of the consumer, and in the course of time we will be dealing with many of the things with which the Batten report deals. Some have been dealt with already and we will be dealing with more which are general consumer programs. I should have more to say on this subject when I return from Winnipeg on Monday night.
With regard to the Alberts Royal Commission on Gasoline Marketing, I should say that this is still being researched by the combines investigations branch. It was received by that branch only a short while ago, but I did say in the house that it was not my intention to amend the Combines Investigation Act until such time as the Economic Council reports on the government's reference to it on competition policy.
I also pointed out that the Alberta royal commission appears to deal with many of the same subjects with which the 1962 Restrictive
March 13, 1969

Trade Practices Commission report on tires, batteries and Accessories dealt. That T.B.A. report made recommendations on many of the things upon which the Alberta royal commission appears to have made recommendations. For this reason when the Economic Council was asked to consider combines and competition policy the T.B.A. report was referred specifically to it, and for this reason also I have sent a copy of the Alberta study to the Economic Council. I repeat it is not our intention to act on the Combines Act by way of revision until such time as I have the Economic Council's report, and I thought the Economic Council should have before it these various provincial reports.
I concur with the remarks made by the hon. member for St. John's East that we must avoid conflict with the provinces. This is essential, particularly in a new area such as consumer protection in which at both the federal level and the provincial level new departments are being formed and new programs being developed.
I think it is fair to say that in this area of consumer affairs and consumer protection, there is probably a higher level of goodwill and co-operation existing between the federal government and the provincial governments than in many other areas. We had a most successful, most useful and most co-operative conference of officials, federal and provincial, concerned with consumer affairs, last fall. At that time, it was agreed that there would be a federal-provincial conference of ministers concerned with consumer affairs, and the work leading towards that conference is going along well and apace. Therefore I, like the hon. member, am conscious of the necessity for federal-provincial co-operation. I think at the moment we have it. It is my determination to ensure we keep it.
With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I had difficulty following some of them although she was kind enough to quote me. Apparently some of my remarks she quoted with approval, and others with some disapproval. I thank her at least for those of which she approved.
It has always been a bone of contention with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that this department is called the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. At the time the department was set up I could not agree with the hon. member, and I cannot agree with her now. It seems to me that by having some of the corporate statutes that are within my department we are able to do a far
Government Organization better job for the consumer than we would otherwise be able to do. I refer, for example, to the Combines Investigation Act. Ineffective as the hon. member appears to believe it is, it seems to me it is far better contained within a consumer oriented department than within some other department.
The hon. member also mentioned the subject of credit granting. It seems to me that as an instrument to affect the credit granting industry and the practices within that industry, one of the most effective instruments is the Bankruptcy Act, which is in the course of revision, with an input into that revision by the consumer people in my department.
I go back again to the committee that Senator Croll and I chaired, and of which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was a very active and valuable member. One of the recommendations we made in that committee was that there should be much better and fuller corporate disclosure than there is at the present time. I ask, who can bring in the best corporate law revisions from the point of view of the consumer but the minister oriented to consumer problems and consumer considerations? That legislation is being readied within my department-


David Orlikow: Where is it?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member for Winnipeg North knows. He reads Hansard and he knows my answer on that subject. It seems to me that these corporate instruments within my department and my responsibility provide much of the legal framework within which business operates. Thus, I can do a more effective job for the consumer than if those statutes were not within my department.
I have one other comment to make with regard to the hon. member's remarks about the Batten report. I have explained my position with regard to that to the hon. member for St. John's East. The fact of the matter is that that report was referred to the combines investigation branch. The officials of that branch studied the report and the evidence within it, and met with officials and research staff of the Batten Commission. With the assistance of that staff, the combines branch saw information that has not yet been made public. They saw all of the working papers of the royal commission, and it is the view and the advice of my officials, who have to act within the law, that the royal commission does not show evidence of an offence under the Combines Investigation Act. I have tried to explain to the hon. member that the royal
6610	COMMONS
Government Organization commission report shows many other things but it does not, according to the advice of my officials, indicate an infringement of the law under the Combines Investigation Act.
I revealed at the time, Mr. Chairman and it is very unusual to do so in the course of an investigation simply because that is the best way for the evidence to disappear, that my officials were carrying on an investigation into the pricing activities of a major marketing organization on the prairies. I agree with the hon. member that the Combines Investigation Act needs revision. I had hoped that she would have quoted my previous remarks on that subject, where I stated that I and my officials are determined to revise the act as soon as we have the Economic Council's report.


David Orlikow: When?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member for Winnipeg North keeps asking when. Surely, he would not want me to revise it without waiting for the Economic Council's report-


David Orlikow: Why not?


Stanley Ronald Basford: -and the advice of the
Canadian Labour Congress, which I am sure has a great deal to say about combines policy and a good deal to put into the report of the Economic Council.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway says that I and my officials are wrong because we have not done certain things under the Combines Act as recommended by the Batten report, and seems to indicate that in this respect the Batten Commission is absolutely 100 per cent correct. Yet for some years the hon. member has urged that we have a prices review board, something which the Batten report specifically recommends against establishing. Now, is the Batten report right or is the hon. member wrong in urging a prices review board?
I have to judge the recommendations of that Commission. I have to look at the evidence and their recommendations-


Donald MacInnis: May I ask the minister a question?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Certainly.


Donald MacInnis: I would like to ask the minister whether in view of the representations of the Consumers' Association of Canada he does not believe that there should be an investigation forthwith into grocery prices on the prairies, and the Combines Investigation Act ought to be amended, without waiting for

DEBATES	March 13, 1969
the Economic Council report, in order to make that possible?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, I don't think the Combines Act should be amended until the Economic Council reports. I, and two of my predecessors, have made that very clear. If I might just say-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten
o'clock.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Albert Béchard: Order. It is my understanding that I shall rise, report progress, and that the committee shall be granted leave to sit again later this day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order 40, and pursuant to special order made this date, is deemed to have been moved.

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare this question:
In view of the news today that businessmen can now take their wives on trips and deduct the expense from income tax, will the minister now consider allowing mothers who work outside their homes to deduct the expense of paying babysitters?
For years some of us have been trying to get income tax deductions for several groups of Canadians. One group is workers who require tools and special equipment. These are people like mechanics, plumbers, carpenters and electricians. These people have no means of deducting these necessary expenses for income tax purposes. It is not permitted under the regulations. Another group is mothers who work outside the home and who, in order to protect their families while they are gone, must have babysitters to look after the family. These mothers, and there are thousands of them across the country, are not permitted to deduct these expenses for income tax purposes. This is a tremendously serious problem. I receive many many letters from constituents and others across Canada. I
March 13, 1969	COMMONS
should like to read one which I have from a constituent:
For the past 10 years I have been a member or the countless number of women in Canada's labour force who wholly support a family by working every day. During these 10 years I have provided an equally important source of employment to the individual who makes it possible for me to be employed by tending to the needs of my family while I'rn not there.
Now I pay this individual a good enough wage so that she is self-sufficient, even though unskilled, and has not become a burden to society.
However, when the end of the year rolls around and it's time to "square up" with the government I find that I'm not only liable for my own exorbitant income taxes but must also pay the tax on the wages I've provided for my babysitter.
This does not seem fair to me, nor does it seem fair to numerous women with whom I am in contact daily faced with the same situation.
As I say, this is one letter out of many letters I have received since I came here from desperate women across this country. In the face of the situation in respect of ordinary workmen and their tools and in respect of ordinary mothers working outside the home who are faced with the expense involved in having to have babysitters, we find a notice in the latest issue of the Canada Gazette to the effect that an employee will not have to pay income tax on money paid for his wife's travelling expenses provided she travels with him at the employer's request and that the main purpose of her going is to assist in attaining the business objectives of the trip.
A government official said the notice, which is not a new law but a new interpretation of an existing law, reflects a more liberal view of expenses advanced to travelling wives. Believe it or not that word "liberal" is not capitalized. It certainly is liberal, and I would hope that the party across from me does not accept it as a rule, because if ever there was anything that was an unfair interpretation and a discriminatory one, it is that. Last year the vice-president and general manager of the Toronto-Dominion Bank lost an appeal of the re-assessment of his 1963 taxes of $15,985. The Tax Appeal Board ruled that $241 which the bank paid toward the expenses incurred by his wife when she accompanied him on a trip to a bank meeting in Saskatchewan was taxable income. This is the case from which arose this new liberal interpretation of the Income Tax Act. The point I want to make is that in order to pay income tax in the amount of $15,985 this man must have been receiving an income of between $30,000 and $40,000. He appealed in respect of $241.
As a result of this appeal this broader interpretation was given. This poor mother to
DEBATES	6611
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion whom I referred, who had been out working in a self-respecting way and paying the wages of a babysitter, in all likelihood receives the average wage for women in industry. That average wage is around $2,500 a year. We have the government reviewing the income tax regulations which affect this man and others like him who receive incomes in the neighbourhood of $30,000 and $40,000. By implication, the government is saying it cannot possibly afford to allow the woman with an income of $2,500 a year an income tax deduction in respect of the money she spends on a babysitter in order to protect her home.
I want to suggest that this is discrimination of the most rank and unjust kind. It is an open invitation on the part of this government to businessmen to live high on the swindle sheet. The Carter Commission, when it reported on these matters, indicated that deductions made in respect of income tax at the time the report was made ought to be carefully hedged around and should not be allowed to get out of bounds. These deductions should be kept very carefully within limits at their existing level.
Now, the income tax regulations are being broadened to permit business executives to take their wives with them on business trips and to deduct their expenses for income tax purposes. There does not appear to be any hedging here. Who is to decide in respect of the purpose of the wife going along? Is there to be any affidavit to the effect that she is on a business trip? Indeed, is there to be any affidavit that it is his wife who is going? There have been cases where it was not. Is this regulation to apply to people all the way down the scale? Is it to apply to workers who are not presently allowed income tax deductions in respect of their tools? Is it to apply to their wives when they take them on business trips? This is an inequitable, unfair, unjust tax, and I wish to say so in no uncertain terms.


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


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. lady has made clear that her suggestion in her original question and I shall use her words-that businessmen can now take their wives on trips and deduct the expenses from income tax-was not correct. She has now quoted a report saying a deduction of this type would be acceptable to the income tax authorities only if the travel was at the
6612	COMMONS DEBATES	March 13, 1969
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion employer's request for purposes clearly connected with the business activities set forth by the employer for the trip. Also I think the hon. lady is not correct when she suggests the income tax regulations were changed to do this. It is my understanding the memorandum issued by the Income Tax Department was one of an explanatory nature only and which may well have arisen not from the case she mentioned involving the Toronto-Dominion Bank but from another court ruling involving some circumstances connected with a life insurance company executive where the wife apparently was very closely connected with the business purposes of the convention in question.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I would also like to point out to the hon. lady that the suggestion she made in her question, which is one that people on all sides of the house have brought to the attention of the government, namely, that mothers who work outside their home be allowed to deduct the expense of babysitters to care for their children, would require, if it were to be put into effect, not a simple change in the interpretation of the regulations but an actual amendment of the act. Representations to this effect are receiving study during the examination of the recommendations of the Carter commission and other proposals regarding tax reform from other sources. This study is under way at the present time by the government.
As the house knows, the government has said it intends to table a white paper in June setting forth its proposals for tax reform. I am sure the hon. lady knows it is not customary for the government to announce recommendations for changes in the Income Tax Act except in the course of a budget presentation, unless there are special circumstances in which it puts forward a series of proposals as part of a white paper. The representations in the area the hon. lady has mentioned are similar to those which have been put forward, as I have said, by hon. members on all sides of the house, and they are receiving consideration at this time.



FISHERIES-SEALS-REPORT ALLEGING FRAUDULENT FILM PRESENTATION OF KILLING METHODS

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my grievance refers to the question that I directed to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) yesterday and the day before regarding a film which is once again being circulated around the western world and is

doing great harm to Canada's international reputation. I asked the minister if he would agree to having a memorandum, which very thoroughly goes into this subject, tabled in the house so that hon. members can read for themselves the real facts. Only today there was a demonstration at our consulate in New York City over the showing of this film on New York television a few days ago, and there have been demonstrations in Germany and other countries in western Europe. I am particularly concerned because I understand the film in question, produced by Artek Films Ltd., was commissioned by the French network of the C.B.C., Radio Canada. Reference was made to this in the Maclean's magazine edition of March 5, 1966. I would like to refer briefly to the memo, which reads as follows:
This has reference to your request for the facts we know concerning the first film made on sealing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The information we possess is given below:
1.	The film was made by Artek Films Ltd. of Montreal in March of 1964.
2.	The chief cameraman was Mr. Andre Fleury, assisted by Mr. Uwe Konemann.
3.	Mr. Serge Deyglun wrote the script and voiced it for the film. Mr. Henri Stadt arranged the background music.
4.	The filming commenced two days before the opening of the sealing season.
5. Before the film crew went to the ice, they allegedly asked for permission to do so from Fishery Officer Beauchesne. Mr. Beauchesne does not recall having given such permission to Fleury or Deyglun. but even if he had been asked he would not have been able to prevent them from going to the ice for the purpose of shooting film. The fact that seals were killed before the opening of the season, however, constituted an illegal act.
6.	Three, and possibly four Magdalen Islanders were employed and we have written statement from Mr. Gustav Poirier in which he states that he was asked by the people making the film to torment a seal with a knife.
7.	The film was shown on the Magdalen Islands on the evening of March 7th, 1966, at which time positive identification was made of three of the Magdalen Island hunters who appeared in the film.
8.	Following the showing of the film Messrs. Mark Ronayne and A. Arsenault and Fishery Officers Dudka and Beauchesne had a discussion with Messrs. Konemann and Stadt who were also present for the showing.
9.	Under questioning Konemann admitted that he had attempted to skin the live seal but that this had made him ill and one of the hunters shown in the film partly finished the job. He was asked for a written statement but said that he could not provide this since he was afraid of being boycotted in the film industry. He indicated, however, that if a formal inquiry was initiated, he would answer questions put to him.
10.	The hunter shown in the film using a rifle with a scope to shoot adult seals both on the ice and in the water was identified as Serge Deyglun. The killing of these seals was done out of season.
11.	One portion of the film had a scene with a Magdalen Islander poking at an adult seal with what appeared to be a knife.
March 13, 1969	COMMONS
12.	Messrs. Konemann and Stadt both stated that they did not have any control over the final version of the film; also that they did not lie the way the film had been done and regretted the impact it had on the sealing industry.
That memorandum to the Minister of Fisheries is dated Ottawa, February 29, 1968. Yesterday in a daily trade publication published in New York City, reference was made to the questions raised in the house by myself a few days ago. I will quote from that publication, which is called Women's Wear Daily, the retailer's daily newspaper. It refers to a New York official of the S.P.C.A. and reads in part as follows:
Thursday morning, he added-
He is talking about today.
-there will be pickets outside the Canadian Consulate and Tourist Office here. Placards with photos and statements will protest the Canadian seal hunt.
This film has been circulated every year since it was first produced under commission by Radio Canada in 1964. It has been shown extensively in West Germany and other western European countries, and in the United States. It has resulted in demonstrations at Canadian consulate offices and embassies in these countries. I suggest it has done great harm to Canada's good reputation abroad and is doing very serious damage to the sealing industry in this country, which is so important as a supplementary source of income to the islanders of the Magdalen Islands, the fishermen of Newfoundland and. the fishermen of Gaspe.
I submit that the very serious allegations and charges made in this memorandum which was submitted to the minister last year, referring to the film which is once again being circulated, are serious enough to warrant a parliamentary investigation. My purpose in bringing this matter to the attention of the house and the minister is to ask for such an investigation. I request that this matter be referred to either the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry or the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts for a thorough investigation. I ask for this investigation because the film has done more to hurt Canada's image abroad than anything else in the last 20 years. It has done serious damage to the Canadian sealing industry, and is doing so every day.
I know that the minister and the government are genuinely just as anxious as I and other hon. members to have this matter cleared up once and for all. I submit that the
DEBATES	6613
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion only way this can be done is for the government to agree to having the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry or the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts for a full parliamentary investigation, so that Canada's good reputation can be protected.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) does not expect me to comment on the various sources which he quoted, the magazine, newspaper articles, and so on. I am sure, also, that he does not really expect me to comment on the material which he sent over to me and which I described as part of an internal memorandum which was prepared by the Department of Fisheries just over a year ago for the use of the then minister of fisheries.
I can say to him that I am endeavouring to check some of these alleged facts. I have been making an inquiry, particularly with the C.B.C., which did contract for the original film back in 1964. I am determined to find out what happened in respect of the production of copies of the film. I understand the original of the film is still the property of the C.B.C., and is in the possession of the C.B.C.
0	(10:20 p.m.)
We are concerned about copies which are being shown in other parts of the world. I am concerned also, to the extent of working with the Department of External Affairs, to find out who is showing this film and under what circumstances. I do not think that at this time
1	can promise the hon. member that I would ask to have this matter referred to one of our parliamentary committees. First I would like to know more of the facts myself. It is a serous matter and, as the hon. member says, it is creating a good deal of disturbance in other countries. A great deal of misinformation is being broadcast around the world as a result of the copies of that original film.
I am sure he is also aware of the fact that other visits have been made to the hunt in recent years and that films taken of the hunt itself, particularly in colour, are also bound to cause some distress in some parts of the world. It is a serious subject and I will do my best to produce some of the facts for which the hon. member has asked.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Pursuant to a special order made this day, the proceedings on the motion to adjourn are now terminated. The house will now resume the business which was interrupted at ten o'clock.
March 13, 1969

Government Organization



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-173, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters relating or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Bechard in the chair.
Albert Béchard: Order. The house is again in committee of the whole on bill C-173. The committee will now proceed to clause 52.
On clause 52.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I will just be a minute longer to remark on some comments of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway relative to the box 99 program which she said was impersonal and unrelated to people. I want to deny that charge, and I do so rather vehemently. I think it is a rather unique program and the government should be commended for setting up a special branch called the Canadian Consumer, Box 99, Ottawa, and for spending money and effort to go out and urge people who have complaints and suggestions to write to box 99.
This is a rather unique experiment which is working very well, and I say this on behalf of the officials in my department. We have a problem to make people aware of the fact that box 99 exists. My officials and I spend a great deal of time and effort trying to get the concept of box 99 across to people. Everywhere I go I speak on hot line programs. We send out mail, communiques and notices. My officials go on speaking tours and talk about box 99 all the time. We want to involve the people of Canada in that program, and this is the exact opposite of being impersonal or unrelated to people. This is one of the most people-related programs of the government of Canada. As the hon. member said, we do not go about naming people who have made complaints to box 99 and in this way getting headlines because the average citizen who writes to us with a complaint does not want his or her name in the newspaper. My officials are concerned with solving that complaint and not with getting headlines. If the complaint shows us that some criminal or other offence has been committed under the Weights and Measures Act or under an
fThe Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
agricultural products act, then we report the evidence to the appropriate authorities, either federal or provincial.
So, I do not agree with the criticism of that program made by the hon. member. I think it is one of the most people oriented programs of this government.
I will conclude by referring to the remarks made by the hon. member for Surrey and will mention only one of the three points he made, namely the one regarding automobile safety. This matter is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport, but there is an interdepartmental committee on consumer affairs and my officials are on it and take an interest in the subject.


David Orlikow: I was interested in the remarks made by the minister about the proposed anti-combines legislation. This is my seventh year in the house and it is the seventh year that I have heard ministers explain why this month or this session is not the time to bring in legislation to do something about the spreading of the iniquitous combines which exist. We have had anti-combines legislation in this country for almost 50 years, legislation introduced by a Liberal government under the leadership of the long-time Liberal prime minister of this country, Mr. Mackenzie King. For many years, until the public realized the futility of that legislation, the Liberal party and Mr. King used to make out that this was one of the jewels in the kind of good, progressive government which they were giving this country. We have not heard much about that subject in recent years because there is not a person in Canada who does not realize that our anti-combines legislation is, to a large extent, futile, and where it is not futile, is a hoax.
The department has some very good people carrying out investigations into these combines when they have complaints. I can think of many such investigations, such as the one into the possible combine in the price of prescription drugs, investigations about paper, about paper boxes, and about glass. There have been dozens of investigations which were very carefully and capably conducted, as a result of which many combines have been found to exist and the cases were taken to court. Over the past 50 years we have had, I suppose, hundreds of companies investigated which I could take the time to name but which I will not because I am sure the minister knows the subject better than I do.
March 13, 1969

These companies were prosecuted and convicted not just once but, speaking from memory, as many as four times. The companies were fined and, until very recently, the maximum fine imposed on them was $10,000. Recently, the fine has gone up to $25,000. As the Leader of the Opposition said on other occasions, what is a fine like that? It is a darn cheap licence to steal from the public.
The minister said we had to wait for the report of the Economic Council of Canada before drafting amendments to the anti-combines legislation. I do not know whether or not the minister or the government gave the Economic Council a deadline by which they should report, but why do we have to wait for the report of the Economic Council? Is there any question that we have combines operating flagrantly and openly in this country? Surely, there is none if we study the number of successful prosecutions that we have had. Is there any question that the present legislation and the penalties prescribed by the law as well as the attitude of the judges have failed completely to stop combines and to stop companies from getting together in combines to set exorbitant prices? Almost from the first year I came here I have had on the order paper a private members bill, which has been discussed two or three times, in which I propose a simple amendment to the legislation, that an officer of a company convicted for the second time of being party to an illegal combine which milks the public should be subject to a mandatory jail sentence.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
I am not one noted for feeling we ought to be tough on those who break the law, but I know that when I try to discuss this question I can hardly get hon. members opposite to listen. They think it is terrible I should make this suggestion. But I do not see why a person who robs a grocery store or a bank should go to prison while a corporation director, who may be a member of the Rideau Club across the street, should be considered to belong to one of the top drawers of society. I think he should be penalized in the same way. The government, of course, thinks this is nonsense. Canadians often tend to look down their noses at the way things are done in the United States. We tend to think Americans are not like ourselves, and in many ways they are not. Their legislation is not perfect but the other day they set us a good example, using legislation which is much better than our own. In the near future, the minister is to
Government Organization bring before us again a bill which hopefully will do something about reducing drug prices. I suppose we shall support that bill while pressing for certain amendments. But the minister knows, as I do, that this measure will do very little to improve the situation.
By contrast, look at what happened in the United States within the last month. Five or six of the biggest United States drug companies, all of which have Canadian subsidiaries, were charged in a United States court with having combined to keep the price of one particular drug, tetracyclin, at a price much higher than it ought to have been. Under United States law, after a company has been convicted of having been a party to an illegal combine, a consumer has the right to sue for damages. I am speaking from memory, but I believe I am correct when I say a consumer has the right to sue for triple damages. When the companies realized they were going to be convicted and that various state, municipal and other institutions such as hospitals, the veterans' administration and so on, intended to sue them in respect of the over charges they had made in the pricing of this one drug, they agreed to settlements out of court under which they would pay the sum of $120 million.
We beg, borrow and steal enough ideas from the United States. Why cannot the minister bring in legislation of this type? Why must we wait another six months or another year or another two years for the Economic Council to bring in a report? I have obviously more confidence in the minister's officials who have been working in the field of anti-combines legislation for many years, than the minister has himself. I do not think there is any need to wait for a report from the Economic Council. The Economic Council is a good group of economists, probably the best we have in Canada, but they can tell us only what we already know. They can document probably in more detail than is so far available the fact that in every important facet of Canadian life there are combines. I would point out that the Economic Council does not to my knowledge have lawyers on its staff, the kind of people who can tell us exactly what should be in the law if we really intend to do something about combines. These men are employed by the minister's department. The minister ought not to tell us tonight that he has to wait for the Economic Council to study this question.
There have been so many examples of conduct of the kind we ought to be suppressing.
GS16	COMMONS
Government Organization Not more than a year ago, because of the war in Viet Nam and because of the strike of copper workers in the United States, one major Canadian company which only a month or so earlier had announced the largest profit it had ever made in one year-I am speaking of Noranda

increased the price of its copper by eight cents a pound. I am speaking from memory. Why was this action taken? The answer is: because the market was there. And immediately, International Nickel, Cominco and all the other companies followed suit. I suggest to the minister that a combine was operating in this case. These companies got together and agreed they could get seven or eight cents a pound more.
The former minister of trade and commerce told us he would look into this situation. He did so, and then suggested we were very lucky, because in Britain the price had been raised by twice as much. But, Mr. Chairman, there was no need for this increase in the price of copper, an increase which led immediately to higher prices for all consumer goods in which copper was used. What did the government do about the increase? Nothing.
It is no service to the Canadian people for the minister to tell us tonight that he can do nothing about amending the anti-combines laws, laws which I think not even the hon. gentleman would defend as being adequate, until he has received a report from the Economic Council. After he gets such a report he will, I suppose, hopefully, tell his law officials to go ahead. That will take a year or two, by which time there may be another election and a new administration which will not even agree with what the present government might propose. I suggest the minister should tell us tonight that he intends to move forward in this field, and act not later, but now.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I hope the minister will not get the impression that this is my day to have a vendetta with him. I can well appreciate his reasons for not amending the Combines Investigation Act piecemeal. However, we are faced with an anomalous situation.
When the legislation was first brought in, it dealt with commodities, or tangible goods. Subsequently, the fixing of insurance premiums was brought under the act. Insurance is the only service industry aspect with which the law presently deals, and in this day and age where service industries probably account for 35 per cent of our gross national product it escapes me why the act cannot at least be

DEBATES	March 13, 1969
extended to cover service industries, even if the rest of it is left unchanged. We are well aware of price fixing arrangements in service industries which are completely escaping the purview of the act at present.


William Arnold Peters: Because of the way in which responsibility is distributed within our caucus, I did not expect to have an opportunity to speak on this particular part of the bill. However, as a result of the arrangements made possible by the government, and I certainly wish to thank the people of the house in this connection, an opportunity has been afforded to me and I believe I should avail myself of it.
I have been interested in all aspects of Bill C-173 but particularly in the part which concerns the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Everyone in the house expects a great deal from this department, more, perhaps, than from any other department with the possible exception of the Department of National Health and Welfare from which we also expect a great deal. These two departments, I suggest, affect the lives of individuals in Canada more than any other section of government, with the one exception of the department headed by the Minister of National Revenue, at a time that is shortly approaching.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
I am pleased that authority over the combines investigation branch is remaining with the minister. I am sure that if the minister is able to make any immediate change in any of his new responsibilities, it will be here. In my office-I think the same is true of other members-I have row after row of reports made under the Combines Investigation Act dealing with such things as gasoline, tires, fencing, automobile accessories and so on. It has always interested me to note that after an investigation is completed, and due process of law has taken place, a company that has made $5 million or $6 million from a particular combine is only required to pay a penalty of, say, $10,000. The company is not required to pay back the money it illegally collected from the public.
It seems to me that if I were a bank robber any bank I robbed would want its money back. They would not think it sufficient that I pay the penalty of a bank robber, eight or ten years in jail, and that I keep the money I stole. The other day I read in a paper that somebody had stolen $1.4 million, I think it
March 13, 1969

was, and although the thief went to jail the court wanted the thief to pay the money back. Yet, we do not ask combines to refund their ill-gotten gains; payment of a penalty is sufficient. I am pleased the maximum penalty has been increased, but it is still not high enough to prevent the same firms committing the same offence again.
I can call to mind two combines as examples, flour and steel. In each case no refund was made to the consumers even though the companies concerned were found guilty of combining and illegal price setting. Although the court decides in most cases how much money has been made by a combine operation, it does not require repayment of that money to the people; although guilty of the offence, the combine keeps the money.
Why the distinction between such cases and bank robbers? If he pays his penalty to society, why cannot the bank robber keep his ill-gotten gain? I am sure that the Economic Council would not look at this question from the layman's point of view but from the economic point of view, how it has affected the industry concerned. If the industry is not particularly competitive then the penalty will be paid.
I am pleased to see corporate affairs retained in the department, because I feel it is here the minister will make the biggest impression. I think even the smallest effort will produce results in this field. Even though Canada is industrially developed it is not able to enforce the honesty of advertising as other countries do.
For example, a television advertisement shows a very attractive girl in a bathtub using a particular brand of soap. It is, of course, the best soap. The impression is created that if all women used that kind of soap, they would also be attractive. This is not true.


Mr. Aiken:: How do you know?


William Arnold Peters: Well, I do not think it is true, but I would willingly refer the matter to the Economic Council for further study. It might even be decided to hold an investigation, and I would be happy to serve on the committee. But it is safe to say that most advertising of this kind does not guarantee the results indicated.
When I was a miner people would knock on my door and claim that if I bought, say, a blender I would save so much money on baby food and on other items that have to be predigested. I was told that if I bought a freezer
Government Organization I would again save money by buying under a freezer plan.
It always reminded me of a neighbour of mine who had a particular make of car. As people are prone to do, he kept telling me it travelled so many miles to the gallon and was the best vehicle on the road. We all like to think that because we do not want to admit we have made a mistake. I always used to laugh because the young boys would tell me that, having told me how far his car would go on a gallon of gas, he often had to stop the car and pump gas out of his tank because he was getting more mileage than he thought.
Obviously there is something wrong with the claims of people who knock on doors and tell the housewives they will save so much money by buying certain products. This policy just does not seem to work. I suggest that it is with this sort of thing that the m'nister of consumer affairs will have to concern himself.
If I may give another example, I recently stopped at a grocery store to buy an aerosol can. It seems these products have very little labelling to indicate the contents of the can. In some cases the can weighs one pound, in other cases 12 ounces and in still other cases eight ounces, yet the cans are all the same size. Naturally, it is difficult for housewives to determine how much liquid is in the can.
The same is true with other products. In this regard, I think the minister will find himself running into problems with packaging. For example, I have talked to many women who tell me that they really want the tea towel contained in a box of soap powder more than the soap powder itself. If the box were full it would contain a great deal of soap. Since it probably contains a towel, the size of the box bears little relation to the amount of soap it contains. The housewife does not know how much soap she is getting; nothing on the package tells her that accurately. Consequently, she cannot compare the prices of brands A, B and so on, of soap.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
Another problem we run across is connected with the labelling of po sonous or semipoisonous substances. Many commodities, like aspirin, do not harm adults when taken internally in fairly large doses but can prove lethal to children. Many household cleaning substances are not marked "Poison" because it is not expected small children will use them. Many housewives of course keep these cleaning materials within reach of children
March 13, 1969

Government Organization and may not be aware of the danger to which they are exposing the children. The other day I read in the newspaper where a child swallowed an L.S.D. capsule, with disastrous results. An adult would have been affected differently. As for the child, its respiration stopped, heartbeat was reduced, and if medical attention had not been immediately available it would have died. Clearly, the child obtained a commodity which was not dangerous for adults but dangerous for children.
I also wish to raise the matter of grading clothes according to size. We seem to have no standards for grading the size of clothes. A woman may go to a store to buy a size 8 garment for a child, only to find it does not fit that child. Our clothing is made to fit average people; but since most children are either below or above their average in height or weight, clothes often do not fit. While sizing clothes this way may not be dishonest, it certainly is irksome to the housewife. These remarks also apply to shoes as well as to many types of wearing apparel for adults and children. The department ought to establish some standards with regard to sizing, so that we may know exactly the size of the clothes we buy.
Labels on clothes or curtains are often misleading. Materials that are said to be washable are found after washing to shrink. The same is true of dry cleaning. I have been to a local laundry and heard women complain that curtains which, according to the label, could be dry cleaned had shrunk after dry cleaning. Another complaint is that labels on some consumer goods are not specific enough to enable consumers to determine exactly what they are buying. Sometimes a consumer will not know if goods are being sold at bargain prices, mainly because labels describing those goods are not clear in their meaning.
Last year the agricultural committee visited western Canada. I had the opportunity of visiting several flour mills and was interested, on talking to grain commissioners, to find that flour shipped out of this country must be labelled accurately. We, in Canada, buy flour of two grades-general purpose flour and cake flour. Yet those countries buying our flour know whether they are buying No. 1 Northern, No. 3 Northern, No. 3 Milling and so on. Our flour is not graded in our grocery stores and it may be that the consumer is not buying those grades of flour to which he is entitled. The minister said that an investigation is being conducted into this matter, as 
well 'as into the matter of groceries in western Canada. Before introducing changes in this field, I know he must wait for that report.
Other investigations in other fields are being conducted in this country. In northern Ontario an investigation has been going on for a number of years into gasoline prices. No decision has yet been made and the price structure of gasoline in northern Ontario has not changed. The industry knows up there that it is being investigated, yet seems unconcerned. There would be no harm in making inquiries under the Combines Investigation Act public inquiries. People being investigated could make representations and we would know where they stood. A number of factors are involved in the matter of gasoline in northern Ontario. For one thing, there are too many gas stations for the area to support. That is the fault of the gas companies which have built more gas stations than are needed. Owners of these gas stations cannot make a decent living unless they charge exorbitant prices for gasoline, the result being that gasoline prices in Northern Ontario are considerably higher than in other parts of Canada. I point out that the blame does not lie with operators of the stations but with the big companies which have built too many stations, to the detriment of the community.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, may I again address myself to the minister. I am distressed by his inability to understand one or two of the points I tried to make. I will make it a little easier for him to understand what I am driving at by asking him three specific questions. I would, appreciate his answering those questions. I asked a question before in connection with "Box 99", and I want to raise the matter more specifically now. The idea of "Box 99" being the point to which people can address their grievances is good so far as it goes, but it breaks down because consumers have nowhere to go to hear the results of their inquiries. There is no advantage to consumers in having "Box 99". It seems that the consumer will ask a question or bring up a complaint, and that will be that.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
I ask the minister, where legitimate grievances are found following investigation, will his department publish the result so that consumers may be spared buying faulty products
March 13. 1969

from companies who are defrauding and shortchanging the public in various ways? Secondly, will the minister consider discussing with the consumer advisory council the desirability of this council holding meetings in different Canadian centres, and that such meetings include at least one's session at each centre for a public hearing?
Third, will the minister consider pressing for a House of Commons standing committee on consumer affairs strictly accountable to this house? I would appreciate answers to those three specific questions. If the minister finds it difficult to understand those questions,
I will make them even simpler for him. I really want answers to those questions.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I regret the answer to all three questions is no. With regard to Box 99, my officials are and will deal with the individual complaint that has been made and make every possible effort to correct the situation. If there has been a breach of the law revealed by that complaint, we will take action to see that the person breaching the law is properly prosecuted. If the complaints demonstrate that people need education in a certain area, we will use our communique and other means to inform consumers of the possible dangers or hazards. If the complaints indicate that legislation should be passed, and we decide it should be passed, every possible effort will be made to pass it.
On the second point with regard to the consumer advisory council, this is an independent council and I am not in a position to decide whether they travel around. This council has a limited budget for the first year and for the moment that money could be better spent establishing themselves, hiring research assistants and getting some projects under way.
With regard to the third question, my concern at the moment is the establishment of the price and incomes committee and the parliamentary committee that goes along with that. That is my priority for the establishment of committees. As the hon. member knows, it is up to this house to establish committees. Last October and December, the committee on procedure studied the committees of the house and a consumer affairs committee was not established. The unanimous decision of an all party committee was that the committees of the house as listed in the order paper were to be the committees. They did not include one on consumer affairs.
Government Organization


John Leroy Skoberg: I was somewhat surprised, Mr. Chairman, at the attitude the minister displayed toward my colleague from Van-couver-Kingsway, and the offhand attitude he displayed in this house this evening. I agree that his department is probably well versed in problems affecting consumer prices, but I cannot understand why the consumer must go to the department to get action. It is completely idiotic to expect people who buy a package of cereal to write to Box 99 to the effect that in less than three weeks an item such as "Shreddies" has gone up five cents while the price of grain has remained the same or has decreased. It does not seem proper in this modern day for the minister to expect people to go to his department for action.
There is a lot of talk about a price and wage review board. Prices and wages have gone up, but the government has done nothing to see why profits have gone up. If there is to be a price and wage review board, then the government must look into the question of profits. I am amazed a department will be set up under this reorganization without any recommendation from the minister to include responsibility for prices, wages and profits. If the minister would be serious for one moment, he would realize this has to be initiated from the top. It cannot be done from the bottom.
Letters have been received from senior citizens and families now subjected to consumer costs beyond their means. It is completely wrong that a department should suggest to these people that they must come to the government to find out why prices have risen. Any member of the minister's department could go into a store for one, two or three weeks and he would find out where the profits are and why the prices are so high.
It is strange the research people the minister mentioned cannot do something to find out why these prices have gone up. Possibly, it might be wise to go back a few years to the time price controls were lifted and see what happened then. Price increases followed immediately without waiting for wage increases. The price of steel jumped 12 per cent, but the government did not ascertain the reason for this. Transactions such as this are often put into effect in the stillness of the night without any previous announcement. The government did not do anything to stop excessive profit making by Canadian corporations from that time to the present, and no doubt will not do anything in the future. It is true that certain Canadian corporations were
6620	COMMONS
Government Organization prosecuted for price fixing, but at the same time as they were being prosecuted price fixing continued. The profits rose merrily without a word from the government or anyone else in a responsible position.
In 1966 the profits of Canadian corporations were $5.5 billion, all extracted from a population of 20 million people. I ask the minister whether this is fair. I would give the minister credit for initiating this program if there were somebody at the top who would take the initiative to do something about this problem.
In presiding over the trial of certain Canadian bakeries, Justice Boyd McBride stated:
It was a system of misrepresentation and fraud, a system of plunder comparable to meeting a man on the street and forcibly robbing him of his money ... practices of this kind perpetuated by so-called reputable companies must be scathingly denounced by this court and I do denounce them.
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)
The minister knows it is many years since this happened. Since that time there has been no effort on the part of any government to do anything about the matter, even though a Supreme Court justice made such statements.
The Vancouver Sun of April 20, 1961, carried the statement of the manager of an electrical firm in which he admitted that knowledge of price fixing went all the way to the top and that he had been ordered to attend illegal meetings with competitors to stabilize the market. Hon. members left in this chamber, and not too many of those who voted to stay are here, know what is going on today. All they have to do is look at the prices of products on store shelves. I think it is shameful that the consumer is subjected to this type of treatment.
E. P. Taylor, who controls all but one of Canada's major breweries, has been reported as saying:
I am sure that we have the power to control prices and sales practices and while it may be necessary for us to start local price wars here and there to discipline a small competitor, I am sure the profits will prove most gratifying to the shareholders.
E. P. Taylor is recognized as a great Canadian, but I suggest that any Canadian who would make a statement such as that is not doing a service to the country or to those he is supposed to represent.
Adam Smith, a well known political economist, stated:
People of the same trade seldom meet, even for merriment or diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices.

DEBATES	March 13. 1969
Surely, the minister and the government must know that there is a conspiracy right now to raise prices. Prices are being raised, and the effect is greatest on those least able to afford them. We have now got to the stage where people have to write to a box number to tell the minister about increases, but this serves no useful purpose. I am sure the minister and his department look into situations that are referred to them, but after doing so do they really prosecute those responsible in the courts? Do they let the people of Canada know what they are dealing with? I do not think they do.
We must realize the defenders of the so-called tight money policy and of the profit system are those who are taking the actual dollars out of the individual's pockets. The government should be willing to tell these people that the country will stand so much and no more. A government big enough to stand up and do that would have the respect of the entire population. It would not be subject to the treatment that most politicians get, including the minister, when he goes out on to the hustings, finds large families in want and tells them to write to Box 99. I am sure he is not proud of having to do that in our present day society.
The greatest problem facing Canadian families today is the ever increasing cost of living. This is the first item mentioned by people in reply to questionnaires that I have sent out. Pensioners and others on low fixed income are going to lose their homes and everything else due to the rising cost of living. The results of a recent Gallup poll showed that 47 per cent of those questioned cited high living costs as the source of their biggest troubles. We can imagine the category in which the others are, when the cost of living does not bother them.
Since 1965 the cost of food has gone up 12 per cent, clothing 13 per cent, housing 11 per cen-t, transportation 10 per cent, health care 12 per cent and recreation 12 per cent. These figures are not up to date, but I am sure the minister has the most recent figures. In the same period, despite some unusually large wage gains in 1966-67, over-all wage increases have barely kept pace with price increases. Many hundreds of thousands of workers in low paid jobs have actually seen the purchasing power of their earnings diminish.
All members in this chamber, even with the great amount of money they are now receiving, know that the purchasing power of that money is steadily declining. We all
March 13, 1969

should know what it must be like for those with incomes below $3,000 a year.
Those who are hardest hit by spiralling living costs are pensioners and others on fixed incomes. They are our senior citizens and our retired civil servants. With this so-called inflation, those who were previously self-supporting can no longer be self-supporting. I suppose this is the type of people the minister suggests should write to box 99.
When these people are completely down and out, and have to go into nursing homes for which they cannot pay, they must go on the welfare rolls. We all know that at one time $4,000 a year was considered the minimum at which a person could have any reasonable type of living. This figure has skyrocketed since then. We know that there are millions of underprivileged people in this country right now, and still we sit in this house and piously say we are going to set up a Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If the minister is really concerned with the poor people, then please let him do something. Let him initiate action and not wait for action to be initiated from some other source.
Some governments and some members of parliament suggest that labour is the villain responsible for all our problems, but this suggestion does not stand up to examination. If labour is not the villain, then it should be obvious that prices are being raised arbitrarily to increase company profits. I am sure we do not have to look very far to find what is going on.
If profits are a sacred cow to the minister, his department and the government, then that explains why the government does not act. More than anything else, the word "profits" is the root of the entire economic ills of the country. Now, Mr. Chairman, I should point out that no one in this party has ever said that an investor is not entitled to a fair return. It has been suggested that we would like to go after corporations and cut out their profits completely. This is completely false. Anybody making that suggestion is putting out a red herring. If this department were to have responsibility for the three areas of prices, wages and profits, then I would have more respect for it.
[DOT] (11:20 p.m.)
Many cases come to mind of individuals who have written to us and told us about conditions. I imagine every member of this house has been in this same position. We 29180-4191
Government Organization have the situat:on in the maritimes; we have seen the situation out west and everywhere else. I am sure similar conditions exist in all these areas. If one looks, I am sure one will find them, but if one chooses to hide his head and tell the people to write to box 99, he will not find these conditions. If we are not prepared to do something about this, then we will have to cont'nue with the profiteering racket we have in this country. We know that in a short period more than 200 Canadian corporations have been found guilty of price fixing, some of them two and three times. That is quite a record in respect of the corporations of this country. The average fine for price fixing in fact amounts to one tenth of one per cent of the firm's annual profit. Such fines are little more than a licence to steal. I am sure the minister is concerned about this, and therefore he will realize that if we are prepared to allow these robbers to steal the consumers blind we can sit here forever and a day discussing this bill.
I should like the minister to stand up and say he agrees there are three areas in so far as the consumers are concerned. I ask the minister to try to initiate some pricing examination in the supermarkets which we have today. If he or the officials of the department would do this, I am sure they would receive many more letters addressed to box 99. So long as the people themselves have to write individual letters, and do not know what happens in respect of convictions, we will accomplish very little.
In closing, may I say that I give the minister credit for trying to have a people-oriented program by means of box 99. I am sure it may be small consolation to him, after what I have said, that I mean what I say in this regard. If he himself will initiate an examination of this nature, I am sure the people will follow along. If the government is not prepared to lead the way in an examination of consumer prices, then the government can expect very little support from the people of this nation.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it is the minister's misfortune to be in charge of this department at a time when everything is going up or whether, as some people might suggest, that since he is in charge of consumer affairs he is responsible for things going up. I would like to take the kinder view and assume he is just unfortunate that this happens to be an awkward time. I think the responsibility in respect of this type of thing is more than just doing
March 13, 1969

Government Organization something wrong; I think it is in not doing the right thing to change the situation. I believe this is where we might be critical of the minister. Since the problem is here, and since he has this department, I think it only reasonable to assume that he should have some responsibility to see that prices are maintained at a reasonable level. It would seem that often his job as minister of consumer affairs has only involved explaining why prices have gone up. I am not prepared to accept this. I believe he should be prepared to take some action to restrain prices and help the people meet the increased cost of living. I think he should get in motion.
I should like to mention a couple of items which I think are responsible for part of the increase in the cost of living. Not too long ago in the province of Saskatchewan, the Liberal government of that province instituted a prices commission headed by Mrs. Batten. She suggested that the stores there were overbuilt and that they actually outran the needs of the people. I would think that the minister perhaps would look into a situation like this and consider the recommendations made by Mrs. Batten. This might be part of the reason prices have gone up.
At the present time the Alberta legislature is looking into the problems of service station operators in that province. These operators are being squeezed. In this case, while the service station operator puts his effort into tne running of the station, the public does not benefit too much. It is oil companies which benefit. I wonder whether perhaps the minister would look into the problem of improper pressure being put on small individuals by large companies.
I suggest that part of our service economy is overcapitalized. I wonder whether there could be some encouragement given or some restraint offered in respect of some sections of our industry so that the needs of the public will not be abused. I do not think this is an ureasonable request.
We educate our people to a great degree so that they can go out, earn money and become princes of industry. One area which I believe we have neglected, however, is the area in respect of budgeting for families. I should like to see some education offered to housewives or family people in the field of budgeting and buying efficiency so that they would be better able to meet the changing conditions. I think this is one area at which the minister might well take a serious look.

There is one last matter I should like to mention. I had a letter from the owner of a bake shop in my riding. This gentleman produces a very good local product. He suggested that the problem in his case was different. He stated that the large bread companies were offering bread in this area at a rate with which he could not compete. If in the long term this situation should continue I believe there might be a reasonable argument that this is a service to the people. But what has happened in some cases in this type of thing is that the price cuts in respect of bread are maintained only so long as the small business remains in operation. Once this business has been eliminated, prices return to a more normal level. I think this is another area in which the department might become interested. I believe in efficiency. I would like to see prices cut in order to help those who have a problem because of the cost of living. But let me suggest there are many situations in this regard which are not desirable. I have referred this particular case to the minister, and I hope he will look into it seriously.
I am not too sure just to what degree it is necessary to have proof with regard to these situations. These things are a bit on the vague side. Is it necessary to show that somebody deliberately cut prices, that there was an actual combine, or is this little business just to go out of operation because some large company wants to see it go? This is a problem for the minister. I am not sure I have the solution, but I hope that he will take a serious look at it. It is in effect a restraint in trade.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I shall not take up too much time on this bill, but I have been waiting for this section to come along so that I might say a few words about it. Of all the departments in government, this is one of the most important.
e (11:30 p.m.)
I think this is one facet of government where something could and should be done to control the sharp increases in living costs which are bedevilling the Canadian people, particularly those on fixed incomes. For quite a long period of time we have heard a great deal about the sharp increases in the cost of living. We have heard various political parties and individuals talk about solutions to these problems. Yet as time goes on we find that the problem, instead of getting better is actually getting worse.
March 13, 1969

I would like to indicate to hon. members my feelings about consumer price trends. Other hon. members have spoken about a number of aspects of this department, and I think this is one of the most important. It is a continuing fact. As time goes on, people realize that sharp increases are taking place in living costs, but from month to month I believe individuals do not actually realize the loss in the value of the dollar as far as purchasing power is concerned. A year can quite easily slip by without people generally realizing just how hard they have been hit.
From December, 1967, to December, 1968, the consumer price index in Canada rose by 4.1 per cent. In the preceding five-year period it advanced 17.7 per cent in total. This represents a drop of about 15.1 cents in the purchasing power of the consumer dollar since 1964. To put it a little more simply, a dollar today is worth about 84.9 cents in terms of a dollar's purchasing power just five years ago. I believe this fact should concern the House of Commons and the people of Canada.
Another very upsetting aspect of the consumer price trend is the fact that the 4.1 per cent increase in 1968 was the largest rate of increase in any year since 1951. We find that in a span of 18 years, 1968 had the largest increase in the consumer price index of this country. This means but one thing, namely, that this government has been unable to check the rapidly rising cost of living by the methods it is currently using. This is a clear indication that other methods should be employed.
I would like to put on the record a few more facts about the percentage increase in the consumer price index. To realize the seriousness of the problem one has only to go back to one of the most recent publications dealing with the period to the end of 1968. When one considers these figures you have the up-to-date facts. In the last five-year period, we find that the average increase was 3.3 per cent. As I mentioned a few moments ago, the increase in 1968 was 4.1 per cent.
Back in 1964 it started out at 1.9 per cent, and every year since 1964 there has been an escalating rise in the cost of living index. In 1964, it was 1.9 per cent; in 1965 the increase was 2.9 per cent; in 1966 it went up to 3.6 per cent; in 1967, it was 4 per cent; and in 1968, it was 4.1 per cent.
Members of the house are aware of the components that make up the cost of living index. I do not have to go into them all. There are some very general categories. We
Government Organization have food, housing, clothing, transportation, health and personal care, recreation and reading, tobacco and alcohol, and so on. Every one of these, almost without exception, shows the same steady climb. Some are, I think, a little more disturbing than others. We find that we talk in this house about regional disparities. When we look at the eastern side of Canada one thing that strikes me in these statistics is the fact that last year the greatest percentage increase in regional cities consumer price indices was to be found in St. John's where the figure was 4.8 per cent. This is an area which is. generally classed as one which needs assistance because of regional disparity. The city with the lowest increase is the city of Vancouver, where we find the increase last year amounted to some 3.1 per cent. This is an area where there are some substantial gains so far as labour unions and other groups are concerned. This is of interest. The areas that can least afford these sharp increases are the ones that seem to be hit the hardest.
Let us consider housing for a moment. We find that so far as housing is concerned, again the average for a three year period is 3.3 per cent, but in 1968 we find that it was 4.8 per cent, the biggest increase of any year over the past five years. We are desperately in need of housing units and yet we find that for those who wish to own their own homes the cost has risen by 8.1 per cent in 1968 alone and rents have risen by an average of 4.3 per cent. This is why members of the house are extremely concerned about these sharp increases. We ask the minister: What is he going to do about it? We are now at the start of a new year and when we look into the business sections of our newspapers we find that building costs have gone up and the cost of lumber has gone right out of sight. This will add to the over-all cost of construction.
[DOT] (11:40 p.m.)
Bill after bill regarding interest rates has gone through the house but the ceiling on interest rates has been taken off, and again they are rising. Every time a percentage point or a fraction of a percentage point is added to interest rates, up and up go housing costs. Unless some checks are put in effect by this house we shall find that 1969 is a worse year than 1968 has been as far as escalating costs are concerned. I do not need to say very much more; I have picked out two or three fields; they are all the same. But here is the question: who is caught in the squeeze? It is the Canadian people who are harmed most of
6624	COMMONS
Government Organization all, especially that large group of people who live on pensions, including those who retired years ago on an income which in terms of purchasing power at that time was adequate. Today, they find themselves in trouble.
This is the field in which action must be taken by the government. Surely, we can sit down collectively in the House of Commons and contrive measures which could halt the slow but steady erosion of the purchasing power of the dollar. Some of the necessary decisions will be unpopular, and it is quite obvious they will be out of line with present government thinking.
We have talked for years about establishing a prices review board. What is wrong with setting up a prices review board? Everyone knows there are a number of factors in this over-all picture. One of my hon. friends has just spoken about spiralling profits. These are a fact. I am convinced that a prices review board would go a long way toward keeping prices down. Price increases should be justified. What is wrong with setting up a board and telling any corporation: You must justify your proposals for price increases. Until this government and the members of this house are prepared to take steps such as those needed to constitute a prices review board I am convinced we shall see a steady increase in the cost of living, and the purchasing power of the dollar crumbling away. This will give rise to a host of other problems. The need to increase basic old age pensions is evident to everyone who can read. It is heartbreaking to see old age pensioners obliged to reduce their standard of living month by month while a bunch of politicians sit here in Ottawa afraid to tackle the basic problems facing this country. This is what worries me as a newcomer to this house.
I believe the minister is trying to do a good job and already some measure of success has been apparent in the operation of certain branches of the department. But if he really wishes to succeed he will have to be a pioneer in his party, and to be a pioneer in the Liberal party one does not have to be very radical. A great deal of ground has to be covered. I suggest the hon. gentleman should look into some of the ways and means by which the spiralling cost of living can be checked. If the minister does this he will make a name for himself in the Department. At the same time, he will earn the gratitude of consumers throughout the nation and do a real service to those on fixed incomes, people completely at the mercy of an inflation 
DEBATES	March 13. 1969
that has apparently got out of hand and which to date has not been remedied by the government.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, we have heard about Box 99 tonight and I should like to know whether it has been used to any extent. I understand from my colleague from Vancou-ver-Kingsway that Box 99 has had some publicity. If we have done nothing else tonight, we have publicized Box 99 and it is likely that the minister will receive further letters.
In this regard, I recall questions I asked the minister during the daily question period, to which he replied that if members are not satisfied about some of the highly priced commodities they should use the procedure whereby five members make a complaint and an investigation is initiated. Members may find Box 99 a good place to make a complaint, because I presume that they will receive an answer of some kind in due course.
A number of suggestions have been made this evening, and we appreciate the government's making this time available to members. However, there are two or three fields the minister has not touched on and one of them is bankruptcy. I have been told by somebody who knows that the bankruptcy legislation is being abused more than any other legislation, and this abuse has had a great effect upon the cost of certain commodities.
I would also ask the minister to consider another matter about which he spoke some time ago, though I have not heard about it recently. I refer to the involvement of young hockey players in contract negot'ations. If I remember rightly, when the minister was a private member he raised this important subject on several occasions, and I think it is a matter that bears investigation.
In northern Quebec and northern Ontario there are many local hockey clubs, particularly in relatively small communities, some of which are developing professional potential. But if these young players are put under contract at the age of 12, they may find themselves legally committed for the rest of their hockey career. I suggest this is wrong.
I am sure anybody interested in the development of hockey players will agree with what the minister said previously, namely that an investigation into this particular field would do much for the sport, particularly in areas like Noranda, Quebec, Kirkland Lake, Timmins and other communities in northern
March 13, 1969

Ontario. The minister has heard of many problems tonight. In this connection, I think we ought to ask the Economic Council to study the matter of advertising. Sometimes consumers must pay unreasonable prices for products because companies selling those products use gimmicks in their selling techniques and other companies in the same field must follow suit. Grocery stores in my area advertise trips to Hawaii. One television program promised a trip to Las Vegas, with spending money for gambling. Gimmicks like this must increase the cost of goods and the minister ought to investigate them.
[DOT] (11:50 p.m.)
We all appreciate that the minister has listened attentively to us. We also wish to thank the government for having given us this opportunity to make these remarks.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 53'-Council established
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the inclusion of this clause in the bill. I wish to make one or two comments on it and I hope the minister will reply. I notice that, in the main, this clause reconstitutes the National Council of Welfare. It makes a few changes that perhaps are not too important or significant but they should be noted. Instead of the council consisting of the Deputy Minister of Welfare here in Ottawa, the deputy ministers of welfare in the provinces and a number of other people, the council is to consist of 21 members, none of whom is identified in the legislation. I will be glad to hear the minister's comment on this. I notice also that there is provision for members of the council to be paid remuneration and reasonable travelling expenses, something that did not obtain previously. But a couple of things that obtained in the former arrangement still hold. The one that bothers me most is that it is still provided that the National Council of Welfare may consider only those matters referred to it by the minister. In the wording of the legislation there has been a change from "Governor in Council" to "minister", which is not too significant. But the other point still stands, namely, that the council can consider only those matters that are referred to it by the minister. It seems to me, if this National Council of Welfare is to do a real job, give good, solid advice to the minister and be the means of our making progress in this field, that the people appointed to it should have
Government Organization the opportunity to put items on the agenda that they think are important and give their advice to the minister on those items. In my view this council ought to have prestige equal to that of the Economic Council of Canada and 1 hope the minister will agree to make some changes that will give this council more authority and more prestige than it has at present. I wanted to raise one or two other matters, but I see the minister is anxious to answer the questions I have put to him and I will be glad if he does so.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I would answer the hon. member as follows. The 20 council members would be from various labour groups and social organizations concerned about these problems, to many of which the hon. member has referred. The reason for providing for pay is that by this means we shall obtain the services of people working in the social welfare area who otherwise, because of insufficient income, could not afford to come to Ottawa and assist us in this kind of work. That is why we have provided for remuneration. I think we are being a little more democratic by providing for this payment.
The other question of more substance was this: The hon. member indicated that council members could only consider matters I referred to them. I have an amendment that would change clause 7c so that it would read "refer to the Council for its consideration or the Council considers appropriate." In other words, I refer matters to them for their consideration or they can consider other matters they would feel appropriate and render advice in that regard. I have the amendment ready and I could proceed wth the clause and get it to a vote tonight. I move:
That Bill C-173 he amended by striking out lines 16 and 17 on page 21 thereof and substituting the following: "refer to the Council for its consideration or the Council considers appropriate."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe we should sit this late at night more often, Mr. Chairman. It is not often that five minutes before quitting time one finds a suggestion met so readily. This makes a real improvement in the structure of the Council if, as I understand it, it makes it possible for the members of the council to put on their agenda matters they themselves think are appropriate. I welcome this amendment and I am going to agree to it quite readily.
6626	COMMONS
Government Organization
I wonder however if something similar should not be done to subclause (2) of that clause which at the moment reads:
The national Council of Welfare shall meet at such times and places as the Minister may direct.
There is not much point to the council having authority to make up its own agenda unless it can meet when it wants. Limiting the meetings of the council to those times and places decided by the minister is a bit unnecessary. I feel it would be consistent with the amendment the minister moved to modify the other part of it at least to that extent.


Albert Béchard: Order. Pursuant to special order of the house, shall I rise and report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If we could continue a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, there is the prospect of getting these two parts through.


Albert Béchard: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
DEBATES	March 13, 1969


Albert Béchard: Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Munro) agreed to.


Albert Béchard: Shall clause 53 as amended carry?
Clause 53 (as amended) agreed to.


Albert Béchard: Shall clause 54 carry?


William Arnold Peters: Twelve o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Albert Béchard: Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (12 midnight)
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being after ten o'clock this house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock.


Thomas Miller Bell: Today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Today.
At 12.03 a.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Friday, March 14, 1969