1970-03-13

[Stage Direction]
Seventh Report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Hogarth.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of his announcement of his intention to introduce legislation to impose curbs or restrictions on the granting of consumer credit. Has the minister considered any degree of selectivity in the application of these credit curbs so as to avoid their application to products manufactured in Canada, or products generally that are suffering from a depressed market in Canada?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, of course this would depend on the terms which would be established for the purchase of various products, and I would think that in the case of automobiles, for example, the terms of credit would be such that they would not affect the sale of automobiles seriously in this country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. In addition to the terms upon which credit would be restricted, would the minister consider exempting, for example, products such as industrial rubber goods from the scope of these curbs in view of the depressed market that exists in Canada? I ask this question in view of the closing of Dunlop, and the announced cutbacks, lay-offs or at least temporary shutdown in the Goodyear plant?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think that these are largely the result of the softening in the automobile market and, as I indicated, special considerations would be provided in the case of automobiles.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister consider it is really necessary in the interests of controlling inflation to curb further the sale of products for which the market is already depressed in this country?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I covered that point exactly, a minute ago.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister and I put it to him because it involves more than one department. In view of the fact that old age pensioners have recently had their hopes raised that something might be done for them either by a pension increase or by relief from taxation, and in view of the fact that nothing has yet been done, will the government consider some emergency measure to come to the aid of these people before many thousands of them are starved out of existence?
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Valade:: Let's talk about the just society.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, if the Prime Minister is not going to answer that one. Will there be any action on behalf of old age pensioners at this session of Parliament?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said repeatedly that this problem would be dealt with as part of our over-all review of social security. If expectations have been raised in the manner the hon. member says, it has not been done by this government.

4986	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary
question might be directed to the Minister of Finance. Senator Croll, who of course is very close to the government, said it was expected that action would be taken to assist the old age pensioners having regard to the terrible position in which many of them find themselves as a result of the high cost of living. Will the minister say whether action will be taken or are the old age pensioners to be left in a state of suspended animation without hope?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member is repeating essentially the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, we cannot get an answer from the Prime Minister so I thought that possibly the Minister of Finance, who is usually very voluble outside the House, would be able to give an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Y orkton-Melville.


Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorklon-Melville):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Is it still the belief of the Minister of Finance that a pensioner can live on less than $30 a week?


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


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



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In conjunction with the acreage reduction program for western farmers, is his department, through the Canadian Wildlife Service, actively promoting and continuing the dollars for wetlands program?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the policy of the Canadian Wildlife Service and
[Mr. Trudeau.)

as regards the question brought up by the hon. member, I will be pleased to inquire and give him a reply. The same policy must still be in force.


Donald Craig Stewart: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This is a worthy program to protect our wildlife. Because of the serious shortage of cash for western farmers, would the minister consider increasing and making more realistic payments under this program?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will be
pleased to consider the hon. member's excellent suggestion.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In light of his indications in the House a week or two ago of disquiet about the United States government's decision to expand the anti-ballistic missile system, has the Prime Minister since that date had any communication with the President of the United States or representatives of the United States government on the subject and, if so, would he make a statement to the House about it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question.
Did the Dunton-Gagnon Commission tell him why the report prepared by sociologists Monique Mousseau and Line Ross, on the contents of English and French TV programs, has not yet been published?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that. I shall inquire thereupon and see if there is an answer to that. I did not know that such a study had been conducted.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The Prime Minister does not seem to be aware of anything, since yesterday, for-


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



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns specifically his department's announcement regarding a second national park in Prince Edward Island, something which is most welcome, and also the announcement that the federal government and the province will acquire the land on a shared-cost basis. Is the minister in a position to indicate the proportion which the dominion government will assume?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this project has not been definitely announced. My Parliamentary Secretary met with the premier of Prince Edward Island this week, and they made considerable progress with this plan to establish a second national park in Prince Edward Island. No agreement has been drawn up yet and federal government payments will come under the policy established in British Columbia whereby we pay 50 per cent of the purchase price of land situated along the coast.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he has any idea when these discussions will end and the progressive development of the park begin?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my Parliamentary Secretary and the premier of Prince Edward Island have agreed to start drafting an agreement and should meet again within a month.



BONNE BAY, NFLD.-PROGRESS OF DISCUSSIONS

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sf. George's-Sl. Barbe):: A supplementary question, Mr. Inquiries of the Ministry Speaker. Can the minister advise the House if any progress has been made in the discussions between the government of Newfoundland and the government of Canada with respect to the acquisition of land for the Bonne Bay park in western Newfoundland?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The situation is the same, Mr. Speaker.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport may I direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. In view of the order by Air Canada for 12 air buses from Lockheed and in view of that company having indicated that it cannot continue unless it receives substantial financial assistance from the United States government to the extent of $641 million, has Air Canada considered switching its order to another manufacturer?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will seek information from the department and try to give the hon. member an answer.


William Gordon Ritchie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Parliamentary Secretary also inquire as to the status of Lockheed's agreement to maintain Air Canada facilities at Winnipeg on which its air bus order was based?



GRAIN-SUGGESTED PERMANENT FOREIGN SALES MISSIONS

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement by the Secretary General of the Canada Grains Council that we should have permanent foreign selling missions to promote Canadian grains if Canada is to retain her markets and gain new markets, can the minister tell the House whether the government is actually considering the establishment of such foreign marketing missions?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, when the Canada Grains Council was set up it was envisaged that it would


Inquiries of the Ministry look into this matter and make recommenda- the hope that they may recapture some of the tions and, indeed, become involved in this wheat acreage quota lost this year by deliv-kind of activity.	ery to the Wheat Board on next year's quota?


John Leroy Skoberg: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give a direct answer to my question? Is the government considering the setting up of such missions throughout the world?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have not received a direct communication from the Secretary General of the council. All I know today is what I have read in the press about the paper he presented to a conference in Winnipeg.



WHEAT-TERM OF APPLICATION OF NEW QUOTA SYSTEM

Mr. A. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the announcement of the new quota system, regardless of whether or not there will be a dollar incentive next year will the new quota arrangement be in effect the following year so that farmers can work out their own salvation to some extent?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult at this point in time to make a definite decision on that, although there have been some discussions. What the quota will be based on for 1971-72 will to a large extent depend on the success of the wheat inventory reduction program being offered to western farmers this year.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the uncertainty about whether quotas under the acreage reduction program will take into account the whole of last year's summerfallow, could this be made part of the over-all plan for this year's quota?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to answer that kind of question because the preamble, if you can call it that, is not acu-rate. Part of the summerfallow for 1969 has been considered and taken into account for this year's quota.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture in all sincerity whether hi<= department and the department responsible for the Wheat Board intend to follow through with the same type of quota system next year in view of the fact that many of the farmers may increase their wheat acreage this year in


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my understanding that the hon. member is inviting the minister to make a statement on motions. Perhaps the minister would reply in those terms.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to make a statement today but I would refer to a reply I gave to a similar question some time ago. The changes which may be necessary for the 1971-72 crop year are very much dependent on what happens in 1970. While there may be uncertainty related to weather and farmers' planting intentions, one thing which is not uncertain is that we have about 500 million bushels more wheat than we should have in the inventory.



WHEAT-POTENTIAL SALE TO BRAZIL

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: In the
absence of the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board, I want to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister or the appropriate department been informed of a potential sale of wheat to Brazil, as stated by Mr. Dever, the Secretary General of the Canada Grains Council? If so, can he inform the House what immediate action is being taken to exploit this sales opportunity?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: A long time ago, Mr. Speaker. The negotiations have been going on for quite a while. We must consider it to be great news each time somebody discovers that there is a possibility of a sale somewhere in the world. I think the Wheat Board and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce also have good sources of information.



TEXTILES-ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW GOVERNMENT POLICY

Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since he seems prepared to answer questions this morning, I should like to know if, after the speech delivered last evening by the Minister of Finance, who did not provide any assistance or protection measures for the textile industry which is presently threatened and plagued by rather severe unemployment,


he can tell the House what he intends to do to protect this industry, particularly in the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister may answer briefly but if he wants to make a lengthy statement, he should make it on motions. However, he may give a short answer to the important question of the hon. member.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have already stated that I hope to make a statement on that subject in the near future. If the hon. member has some fabulous, original and new ideas to offer, I shall be happy to hear them.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question in reply to the minister's invitation.
Among favourable suggestions, would the minister be willing to make a statement today or next week on the measures he intends to take, after which we shall be able to make good and useful proposals?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Why not before?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
The chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. McNamara, has stated to the committee on agriculture that constitutional obstacles prevented the federal government from establishing minimum and maximum prices for feed grain raised in a province. Can the Minister of Agriculture tell the House whether studies have been made, in order to overcome those obstacles?


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



WHEAT-REVERSION TO CULTIVATED ACREAGE QUOTA SYSTEM IN 1972

Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I would like an indication from the minister as to whether in 1972 we will be reverting to the same type of quota system on the cultivated acreage basis that we had previously?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure the question is in order at this time. The hon. member is referring to policy affecting 1972. Because of this I wonder whether the question is in order. If the minister, who is an expert in these matters, feels there is some urgency, he might reply.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I agree with Your Honour's interpretation. There is some dependence on what happens in 1970 as to what the program will be for the ensuing years.



BARLEY-VOLUME OF SHIPMENTS TO MALTSTERS

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a supplementary question which normally I would direct to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Wheat Board, but because of the importance to the barley producers of the west, I will direct it to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the loss of identity in barley shipped to maltsters unless it is shipped in carload lots, will the minister give serious consideration to maintaining over-delivery of barley to the maltsters in order that this large market for domestic barley will not be lost to our producers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is no question of this market being lost to our producers. The most equitable technique is used to ensure that the maltsters receive the quality of barley that they require. This is a matter for consideration. Certainly no restrictions will be placed in the way of them obtaining the supplies that they require.



RESEARCH


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister about a matter in which I understand he demonstrated some interest as a private citizen before he assumed office. Does the government have under active or current consideration the question of granting some financial support to the Canadian Peace Research Institute, let us say, of the order of a quarter of one per cent of what we provide for the Department of National Defence?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that although the question is an important one it is one which ought to be placed on the Order Paper.


Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS



INDIANS AND METIS-APPOINTMENT OF PAROLE SUPERVISORS OF SAME ANCESTRY

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My
question is for the Solicitor General. Having regard to the growing role of the National Parole Board and the importance of this service in the rehabilitation of Canadians of Indian ancestry, would the hon. gentleman consider appointing supervisory personnel from the Indian and Metis groups so that supervision might be carried out within the communities of those concerned?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Solicitor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Some 40 members of that community are now receiving training under a scheme worked out in conjunction with the Indian Affairs Branch with a view to their employment in the correctional field as supervisors or otherwise. So there will be people of that ancestry working with parolees of similar ancestry.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Could provision be made for members of the Metis community to receive the same opportunity for training?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday last we held a meeting with the Manitoba representatives of the Indian and the Metis people and I gave an undertaking that we would examine the possibility of setting up a similar training scheme for Mel is. So the supervision of parolees from that segment of society would be undertaken by people of the same ancestry.



CANADIAN POLICY AND NORTH AMERICAN SECURITY

Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a question suggested by statements attributed to United States officials following the President's statement earlier in the week. Has the government of the United States, or spokesmen on its behalf, indicated directly to the government of Canada that in the view of the United States government our Canadian oil policy constitutes a threat to the security of North America?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: In our conversations earlier in the year the question of security did come up. I believe the term "security" as

it is used with respect to oil supply means security of supply. I do not think the reference is to national security in terms of defence. Certainly United States policy over the years has been based on the concept of security of supply from domestic sources. We have maintained-and I think this is so-that the Canadian position is different, that our policy cannot be identical to theirs because of the different circumstances that prevail in Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. Has anybody on behalf of the United States government suggested to the government of Canada that we ought to reduce our imports of oil into Canada in order to foster a secure supply of oil in North America?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, different views have been stated from time to time by different officials in the course of discussions. There are, of course, two views on the question of our importation of oil. One is directed toward security of supply, which might be diminished in the event that offshore oil, by reason of circumstances prevailing in other countries, could not be obtained. The other view concerns making our markets available to Venezuelan oil, as does the United States. I think this is in accord with the view taken by the United States as well as ourselves in regard to our foreign policy toward Latin America.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further supplementary question. Would the minister specifically answer the question whether the United States has made representations to Canada to the effect that we ought to reduce our imports, and thus our reliance upon imports, of oil from outside the country?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that representation has ever been made. I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out that our discussions with the United States since last March, when the President and the Prime Minister originally took the initiative in the matter of energy discussions, have been sporadic and on a broad plane. No firm positions have been taken by the United States or by Canada; and no position such as suggested by the hon. gentleman has been taken.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister undertake to make a full statement on motions next week outlining the state of the negotiations between Canada and the United States on energy policy?
March 13, 1970	COMMONS


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think I have stated the state of the negotiations. They are sporadic and are continuing. I do not think the President's declaration of this week will speed up those negotiations or propel them in any way. When there is anything specific to announce, or when arrangements have been made or a position has been taken by the Canadian government, this will be announced in this House or in whatever public manner is proper.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister could advise the House if any officials of the United States administration or any cabinet minister has indicated directly to the government of Canada that the national oil policy that has been in force in Canada over these past several years has constituted a direct threat to the security of oil supplies to North America?


John James Greene: No, Mr. Speaker, that position has never been taken, although the question of security of supplies has certainly been a matter of discussion from time to time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that we should pass on to another subject at this moment. There are a large number of members still waiting for an opportunity to ask other questions.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a most important subject, as I think Your Honour realizes, and there are some fundamental questions with regard to which I think the government can furnish information to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is suggesting that this is the most important subject. Yesterday it was another subject that was the most important and on which hon. members wanted to ask questions for the whole question period. The Chair has to make an adjudication. I feel embarrassed when I see some hon. members who are anxious to ask questions and who are very patient from day to day. Sometimes they do lose their patience and I cannot blame them entirely. I am sure that in a moment we will have time to return to the hon. member for Edmonton West.
DEBATES	4991
Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS



NORTHERN QUEBEC-TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OVER ESKIMOS

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development say whether or not representations have been received by him from Eskimos in northern Quebec, in particular from the Eskimo Council of Sugluk, the Eskimo Community Council of Great Whale River and several others, taking the strongest possible objection to having jurisdiction over any of their rights taken away or removed by the federal government? At the same time, will the minister say what happened to the meeting that he said would take place between officials of the government of Canada and the government of Quebec in connection with these people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, indeed, I have received representations from some New Quebec groups recently. I am preparing to reply to them and to establish the government policy concerning New Quebec. As regards the officials of the federal and provincial governments, they are still in the northern areas. They have visited most localities and should submit their report to the responsible authorities immediately upon their return.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. A number of requests have been made that these people be heard, and they are asking to be heard instead of being pushed around. Will the minister give the assurance that these Canadians will not be denied the rights of other Canadians and placed in the position of being chattels as a result of the action of the federal government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I object to the very colourful words used by the right hon. member. I have myself visited the New Quebec territories last Summer, and I have since despatched officials of my department- they are accompanied by provincial officials- to consult with the Eskimos. No decision has been reached as yet. That means that we are having consultations with the Eskimos and, in that respect, I must say to the right hon. member that I have been the first Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to


Inquiries of the Ministry meet with the Eskimos of New Quebec, whereas during the administration of the right hon. gentleman, nobody bothered to go and meet them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suppose the right hon. gentleman has a further supplementary, and I will recognize him in a moment. Again I ask all hon. members to co-operate with the Chair so that we can get on as quickly as possible with as many questions as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that affects Canadians as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Hon. members on the government side laugh. The minister said that he was the first to visit the Eskimos. They say that he was the first not to listen to them. I would ask the minister this question: If a private member like myself wanted to go to this area, would he have the co-operation of officials of the Canadian government and the minister's department so that this matter could be looked into and justice done?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will always be pleased to invite the right hon. member to come with me. I fact I did invite him to come to meet the Indians of his own constituency, but he could not accept my invitation.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman offered me was a trip to Prince Albert. I am talking about those areas in northern Quebec where these people are being neglected by the government.


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


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister, but time is running out.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has indicated that he is the first Canadian minister to visit the area of new Quebec. I would wish to inform him that I visited Great Whale River-


John George Diefenbaker: He has no records at all in his department.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -as early as 1961 to
ensure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -that the Eskimos there have the very basic rights of all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member does not have a question of privilege.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the most important subject this week, and that is why my question is directed to the minister without housing in charge of portfolios.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Gilbert: I apologize for that Freudian slip, Mr. Speaker. In view of the serious decline in housing starts for the first two months of this year, I should like to ask the minister whether he is intending to call the building contractors and investment companies together to discuss ways and means to solve this serious problem?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, my reply to the hon. member who would like to be the minister without housing in charge of portfolios would be that this is the same question he asked the other day. I am consulting regularly with all those who are involved and concerned with this matter, and that is essentially what I said to him in response to this question the other day.



MINAS BASIN-PUBLICATION OF STUDY

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and whatnot; I forget the third title for the moment.


An hon. Member:: Hot air.
March 13, 1970	COMMONS


Robert Jardine McCleave: Could the hon. minister advise when the feasibility study on Bay of Fundy power might be made public?


John James Greene: Very soon, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. In the plans to make $200 million available for housing for low income groups, will consideration be given to making part of this sum available for the acquisition or perhaps rehabilitation of existing housing for lower income groups?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are seriously considering such a use of these funds which are in fact capital funds. We are looking at that kind of proposition.



SUSPENSION OF CMHC LOANS IN LARGER CITIES

['Mr. Speaker, the Canadian delegation alone will be signing the agreement. Obviously, in addition to the chairman of the delegation, there will be the representatives of the different provinces, but it is the Canadian delegation that will sign and not the provincial delegates.']
John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. Can he tell the House whether CMHC has cut off housing loans in cities of over 10,000 population and, if so, why?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in my statement on the capital budget I indicated that the Section 40 allocation of $110 million would be reserved primarily for remote areas, small communities and new resource towns. In so far as the Section 40 allocation of $110 million is concerned, it is going to those kind of areas. But all the other funds of the CMHC capital budget are available including the $200 million reserve fund and we are working out approaches to the larger urban centres.



Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielfe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
DEBATES	4993
Inquiries of the Ministry
We heard, last night, that Quebec would take part in the Niamey conference. Would the Prime Minister advise the House if, according to conditions that led to acceptance by Quebec, this province will have a special place at this conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if Quebec wants to feel that it occupies a special place but, as far as I know, all the provinces will hold a special place among the Canadian delegation, in the sense that every province will be able to display its own flag along with the Canadian flag, etc. I think there is a real effort being made to reconcile both parties. The result is a gratifying one for all participating provinces as well as for the federal government.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the House whether, when it is time to vote, Canada will abstain from voting on cultural matters and will let the province of Quebec do it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, nothing was said about this during the discussions between the federal and the provincial governments. Such a formula would surely not be acceptable.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Considering that, at Niamey, Quebec will be signing the treaty for the creation of the Agence francophone, does this entitle that province to some privilege? Shall all provinces have the same right?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian delegation alone will be signing the agreement. Obviously, in addition to the chairman of the delegation, there will be the representatives of the different provinces, but it is the Canadian delegation that will sign and not the provincial delegates.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of his emergency announcement on March 2 that steps would be taken to prevent the sale to a


Inquiries of the Ministry foreign owner of what turned out to be Denison Mines, could the Prime Minister say whether legislation on this matter will be introduced before Easter or whether parliament will be told within that time what steps are being taken?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly not before Easter will there be legislation, Mr. Speaker, but it is possible that before Easter government policy in this respect will be announced; if not before Easter, then shortly after.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Some time ago I questioned the minister on whether he would indicate in a statement on motions what action the government intends to take in respect of the Barber commission report on the price of farm machinery and his answer was soon, he hoped. Could he indicate whether he will make this statement before the House recesses for Easter?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a complete report on what we have done because a number of the discussions we have had are still in that stage. I would hope that before we recess I can make a statement on motions advising the House on the steps that have been taken and the progress that has been made to date.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-CONSIDERATION FOR FARMERS WHO MADE REDUCTIONS LAST YEAR

['Order, please. We have just a few seconds left and I wonder whether we might try to get a few more questions asked.']
Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. What consideration is being given to helping those farmers who voluntarily made a drastic reduction in their wheat acreage last year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there are provisions in the regulations, and some of that detail has been announced, to take into account substantial reductions that took place between 1968 and 1969.



Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and, like the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it has to do with government policy but on a different subject. How long a gestation period is necessary for the government to make up its mind and deliver a clear and constructive statement on government policy in relation to family planning and our contribution to the United Nations in this field?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Nine months, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in order that we may determine whether this nine months is going to result in an abortion, a miscarriage or a stillborn statement, when did the nine months commence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The state has no room in the bedrooms of the nation.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just a few seconds left and I wonder whether we might try to get a few more questions asked.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Is he aware that some federal civil servants have urged the Eskimos in northern Quebec to protest against the Quebec administration in order to keep their positions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that federal civil servants have intervened in any way whatever in this matter. They are trying to co-operate as much as possible with the Eskimos in New Quebec. Besides, I do not think that there is anything to gain by fanning the debate right now while both provincial and federal officers are there consulting the Eskimos.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I wonder whether he would take the first opportunity to define exactly what he means by the new Quebec, in view of the eager territorial greed of certain people in various parts of Canada who refuse to recognize certain historical factors?



TAXATION


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In the flush of his great budget of last night, can the minister now state the number of letters on the white paper that he has received and answered and whether he has any evidence of Liberal members who are disdainfully throwing these letters in the waste-basket unanswered?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edgar John Benson: am sure that a Liberal member would never do that, unlike the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed the following bills to which the concurrence of this House is desired: Bill S-21, an act to amend the Criminal Code, and Bill S-22, an act to incorporate National Farmers Union.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


George James McIlraith: that Bill S-19, to amend the Parole Act as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on March 11, 1970, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Parole Act
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time, by leave now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


George James McIlraith: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take part in the debate, but is the minister not going to explain some of the mysteries of this bill for the benefit of those who did not sit on the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs?


George James McIlraith: The bill is designed to redraft two sections of the present act to put them into language that will mean what they were thought to mean when they were enacted by Parliament and what they were thought to mean by the administration administering the Act. They involve no change in principle in any way and no matter of substance. They are purely technical. In one of them, the change becomes necessary by reason of an interpretation put on one of the clauses by a court, and the other amendment was made necessary as a result of a question that was raised-and this matter did not go to court- as to what the existing language meant. The matter was dealt with in the committee; it is purely technical and no change in substance is involved.
[DOT] (12 noon)


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the minister put it very fairly when he said that these are, in fact, technical changes designed to overcome some of the problems that were encountered when the former measures were interpreted. Indeed, so technical was the language of the bill, and so difficult the study thereof, that even the best minds in the House of Commons frequently found themselves in great difficulty. I refer of course to the members of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. However, we did our best with it and passed it after a good study. Sometimes bills are passed unanimously in committee, sometimes they are passed on division. This one, we felt, was passed in confusion. None the less, as the minister noted, it makes two important technical corrections to what we thought was the intention in the existing legislation. But I think it should be added that these changes have not taken away any rights for which people have fought and which they obtained in the courts. These changes conversely, will be of benefit to the people who are now undergoing penitentiary sentences. In other words, we are not depriving anybody of


Parole Act
a specific right. We are clarifying the technical language, to preserve the rights that we thought they enjoyed already.
It might be of interest to note that there is a retroactive provision in the bill, since the section shall be deemed to have come into force on the 26th day of August of last year. The reason for it is that was the date of the proclamation of the parole sections of the omnibus Criminal Code with which we dealt during an earlier session of this Parliament. Part of the difficulties for which this bill is the remedy arose because of some imprecise drafting which did not fit the intentions of the administration and, to be fair, of all members of the House, in relation to the very important matter of parole.
Perhaps I could be allowed to make two very quick points in concluding my brief remarks. The first is that the study of this bill gives us all an opportunity to pay respect to one of the great public servants of Canada. I refer to Mr. George Street, the chairman of the National Parole Board. I am very pleased that Mr. Street's tenure of office has been extended by this government. He was appointed by the administration headed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). He is truly an outstanding Canadian, and perhaps part of the ease with which we finally stumbled out of the technical jungle in which we found ourselves was because we knew that Mr. Street was prepared to light a torch and lead the way for us. We on this side of the House, and I am sure on the other side as well, have great faith in that gentleman.
The other point I would like to make very briefly deals with the fact that when we have technical bills such as this, which really are measures designed to bring about what we originally intended to bring about, the procedure should be short and simple. I can think, for example, of my own bill relating to some sections of the divorce act with which difficulties have been experienced in the court. I hope we can devise a law reform procedure whereby such bills as this one, and the one I am sponsoring, can get rather quick study without opening up the subjects they deal with the widespread discussions that go on and on for days and days. In other words when we need technical remedies we have to find a way of achieving them rather quickly, otherwise minor and technical reforms in the law have to wait for an unjustified period of time. Fortunately, this criticism does not apply to this case and I say on behalf of my colleagues that we support the measure.


John Gilbert: 

STANDARDS COUNCIL OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-163 to provide for the establishment of a Standards Council of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lundrigan (p. 4726).
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I recently pointed out the importance of considering without delay the way in which to change our system of weights and measures. The scientific or mathematical demonstration of the importance of the metric system is so conclusive by itself that it is not necessary to take it up again.
The process to be followed effects obviously the very subject matter of the bill on standardization. We wish this change would be carried out as soon as possible with as few drawbacks as possible so that Canada may have the same system as most countries in the world. Of course, our decision is closely tied to that of our neighbours to the South, the United States. Nevertheless, we could already bring about this change in a number of fields without adversely affecting our industrial and commercial relations with the United States.
Mr. Speaker, we therefore wholly agree with the principle that it is necessary to establish standards systems.
In closing I would like to repeat that it would perhaps be advisable to consider the possibility of coming to an understanding with an association existing already, and see if it would not be possible for the government, particularly in this austerity period, to effect savings by accepting a kind of mixed association with a view to protecting the interests of all Canadians.
If Bill C-163 is passed without amendment, the folding up of the Canadian Standards Association will necessarily follow.


Standards Council of Canada


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is not true and I said so four times yesterday.


René Matte: I do not understand how we can have two standards systems.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it is not true. There are already seven or eight.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, the minister gives me the impression that, after his discussions or negotiations with the Canadian Standards Association, he has lost his perennial smile. Does he want to illustrate that, when you cannot come to terms with the government, you have to pay the piper? This looks like his attitude. In any case, in a field such as this, we must encourage change while safeguarding the taxpayers' interests. If we realize that that organization will cost quite a lot of money and that its services are more or less interesting, we will have to wonder whether we did not go astray from the outset. The purpose of my remarks is simply to prevent such things from happening.
It is worth repeating once more what I said yesterday about the representation within that agency, which I believe must take into account the provinces to a great extent, and in particular the province of Quebec.
I believe the minister should answer the questions we are raising and attempt to find amendments or to support those that we may be submitting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Hon. Hon Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister for Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), who is the sponsor of this bill, yesterday ably put before the House the need for it, the need for the standards council of Canada and the great things that the council working in close collaboration with those in the private sector, can accomplish in promoting voluntary standards. I do not want to repeat what he said yesterday in support of the council, but I should like to add some brief comments from my particular point of view as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
In our department we receive month in and month out thousands and thousands of consumer complaints. An analysis of these shows that many can be traced to the lack of satis-
[Mr. Matte.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate on a question of privilege.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not mind an hon. member of the House, the ordinary backbencher, misinterpreting the position of the opposition, but when we get the minister deliberately misrepresenting the position taken by the opposition which yesterday did agree with the need for co-operation, fostering, promotion and support but that the bill in question went too far, then I think the government should be brought to order and forced to present the facts of the situation.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, to a Conservative any movement at all is too much-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) on the same question of privilege.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of privilege, may I suggest to the hon. member who raised it that he should not be surprised if the minister finds certain things incomprehensible.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: He is incomprehensible.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the consumers of Canada will find incomprehensible the official opposition's desire to kill this bill and put it off for six months.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The people of Canada are not taken in easily.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I hope the remarks coming from the opposition side of the House indicate my remarks are hitting the point. May I continue, after having been so rudely interrupted?
As I said, consumer standards, apart from food and drug standards have, in my view, suffered neglect in Canada, and this is a serious deficiency. There is an increasing pres-
DEBATES	4999
Standards Council oj Canada sure to fill this gap from informed consumers, from the Consumers Association of Canada and from the Consumers Council which I appointed. Some progress has been made in limited fields such as garment sizing and care labelling of textiles, but there is an enormous job still remaining to be done. Despite the very considerable accomplishments of the Canadian Standards Association, the Canadian Government Specifications Board and a number of other standards-making bodies -all of them have been doing exceedingly good work-there is an urgent need for a truly representative and truly national body to promote and co-ordinate development by standard-setting agencies which will benefit the ordinary people, the ordinary consumers of this country.
I believe that the proposed standards council of Canada will have an essential role in achieving this aim. It will represent the whole spectrum of agencies concerned with and interested in standards in Canada. It is quite natural that such a body as the standards council of Canada should have heavy representation from industry because of the highly technical nature of many of the issues in the field of standards. However, I can forecast confidentally that consumers will have, and must have, an important voice in the work of the council. There will clearly be participation by my department, by the Consumers Association of Canada and by the ten provinces which will have a real interest in promoting the consumer interest.
It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the standards council of Canada will give priority attention to the problem of product safety. There is ample evidence that an unwarranted number of Canadians are being killed and maimed every year in accidents involving seemingly innocent household products. Products that are inadequately designed, insufficiently labelled or easily subject to misuse cause both untold suffering and great economic loss. This morning I announced new regulations under the Hazardous Products Act which would deal with the labelling of a wide range of consumer chemical products. In 1967, the last year for which figures are available for this country, there were over 15,000 cases of children under four years of age being poisoned from household products. We announced this morning appropriate regulations governing the labelling of these products so that, hopefully, we can develop voluntarily some proper lids for these products and cut down on these kinds of poisonings.


Standards Council of Canada
The economic cost to this country as a result of such injuries and poisonings in terms of providing hospital and medical services and in terms of losses suffered by those who are employed is enormous. Anything we can do to develop greater product safety and eliminate accidents arising from faulty products will be of great economic benefit to Canada, altogether apart from any humanitarian considerations with regard to personal suffering and injury. We need to improve our statistics on household accidents, but enough clear evidence exists to show conclusively that more rigorous safety standards for consumer goods would contribute greatly to the public good. In the United States, the National Commission on Product Safety has been examining over 2,000 commonly used consumer products. Its report to be published later this year will bring to light, I am quite sure, inadequacies of design and of performance in many products sold widely in the United States and Canada and will highlight the need for better consumer product standards and regulations. I hope that the Standards Council, working with the private agencies, can promote and develop great numbers of voluntary standards that will govern products and product safety.


John Howard Lundrigan: Will the minister permit a question, Mr. Speaker? The minister indicated in his earlier remarks that the provinces and existing councils and organizations supported the government's move to become involved in the matter of standardization. Can the minister indicate whether there has been any critical response from existing organizations and provinces? Are they wondering whether the provisions of this legislation are along lines that were discussed when the legislation was originally proposed?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be and will be dealt with in detail when my colleague speaks in winding up the debate. I wish to make two points that my colleague referred to yesterday. There has been extensive consultation with private agencies and provinces, and I think there is a wide measure of support for this legislation. I am making these remarks in my capacity as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I can inform the hon. member that there is wide support throughout the country for this legislation on the part of consumers who want to see this sort of agency established. I should think that considering the impassioned speeches the hon. member for Newfoundland

has made on behalf of the poor people of his province, he would be in favour of this type of legislation.


John Howard Lundrigan: Why does the minister not tell the whole story instead of playing games?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is too much to hope.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Hazardous Products Act passed by this House last session provides the framework for the most comprehensive consumer product safety programs in the world, and provides the legislative tool which can be used to back up some of our safety standards. Once satisfactory standards have been developed by the council in co-ordination with private standards-setting agencies, there will be no excuse for allowing dangerous or substandard consumer products on the market. In some special areas, it is possible for the federal government to develop product safety standards, but in most other areas it is essential to rely on the special knowledge and technical competence of industry, safety organizations and the medical profession; and the council will provide an excellent vehicle to bring together this knowledge, this expertise and this competence. It is hard to overestimate the need for an agency such as the standards council to sponsor a consistent and broad gauged plan which will lead to the elimination of many of the booby traps in Canadian homes. Consumers will look to the council to exercise leadership and to co-ordinate the development of voluntary standards in this area.
I want to dwell briefly on another responsibility of the proposed standards council of Canada, its role in relation to converting to the metric system. There has been, so far as I can judge, widespread support expressed for the very excellent and forward looking statement that was issued by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on the question of metrication just before Christmas. This statement makes it clear that the metric die is cast, even though the timing of conversion is indefinite and a great many very complex problems remain to be resolved. A great deal of attention has been paid to the implications of converting to the metric system for industry and commerce, but I would also like to note that any general adoption of the metric system in Canada has profound implications and advantages for consumers.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
The cornerstone of a market system is that the consumer has full, complete and factual


information so that he can properly judge the product he is buying and make an intelligent comparison of it with other like products. The metric system would greatly enhance the consumer interest in proper information, product and package comparability. The existence of a standards agency, with balanced representation from all sectors of the economy, will be vital if we are to deal satisfactorily with the abandonment of our traditional measures of pounds, quarts, inches and gallons and the adoption of a far more logical and consistent system of weights and measures. The conversion process, as the experience of Britain makes clear, is not a simple one, and I believe that the standards council of Canada will have a major contribution to make in easing problems of conversion which inevitably must be made. Hopefully, this can be achieved in the future with a minimum amount of difficulty and problems. We are creating an agency which, I think, can ease our way to conversion.
Finally, I want to say a word about international standardization. While it is obvious that the development of standards is of crucial importance to international trade in industrial machinery, building materials and so forth, there is increasing concern being shown over international standards for consumer goods. The International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission have recently established a joint body to deal with consumer standards. The ISO has an active technical committee on consumer questions. Recently, the OECD established a committee on consumer policy. In addition, a number of ad hoc international committees have been convened to deal with special problems. Many of these committees are dealing with issues which are important to Canadian industry and to the Canadian consuming public. I feel that it is important that Canada's participation in these international standards associations be as strong as possible and that we assure that all international developments are kept under careful scrutiny. From the point of view of prestige and continuity, I believe that it is absolutely necessary for Canada to be represented by an agency created by the Parliament of Canada, which will reflect all the interests involved in any discussions or negotiations on the international standards scene.
There has been some hesitation about this bill, Mr. Speaker. Noting the advantage to Canadian consumers of greatly improved systems of voluntary standardization, I find it

Standards Council of Canada very difficult to understand why that hesitation exists. I can only conclude that such hesitation stems from a misunderstanding of the intent and purpose of the standards council which will have great benefit, not only to Canadian industry, commerce and trade, but also to the ordinary Canadian consumer.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, the minister has gone to considerable length to put on the record the allegation that the official opposition is not concerned with standards in Canada or with protecting the consumer. I say to the minister if his external brilliance is any indication of his comprehension of the facts, it is an absolute misrepresentation. What we say is the Canadian Standards Association is already set up. This association is doing a good job and we do not believe it is necessary for the government to be sticking its nose into every part of society today. We have the new Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as well as several other agencies, including the Food and Drug Directorate. These departments would only have to give assistance to the voluntary agency which is already established. We could proceed from there with standards in other areas.
In my opinion, Bill C-163 is just another duplication. It is an unnecessary government exercise. Many attempts have been made by this government to introduce through the back door what can be termed as seemingly innocuous legislation, but this bill is certainly a strong candidate for first prize. The government is asking us to accept the need for a federal corporation to foster and promote the voluntary standardization of weights and measures, quality and performance of goods, and industrial and commercial methods and practices.
The Canadian Standards Association has been functioning for 50 years. It has a very good reputation. There have been few complaints registered against this association. The CSA operates independently of industry, government and supplier to establish standards for consumer items manufactured and sold in Canada. It works with other standards groups throughout the world to establish and maintain standards for consumer goods in the markets of international commerce.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Will the hon. member accept a question? If it is true that the CSA is so perfect, why do some of the officials of that organization keep referring to the major


Standards Council of Canada changes that are taking place in the organization and to the tremendous new programs that they have in mind for the future?


Cliff Downey: I do not think there is anything wrong with referring to programs for the future. The government talks about the future all the time. It should not criticize a voluntary association that looks to the future in the same way. I cannot see any legitimacy in that argument.
Throughout the 50 years of its existence, the CSA has built up a reputation for excellence that places Canada high in the opinion of other countries. The best testimony of this is the fact that many countries accept Canada's standards as their own. The CSA trade mark is accepted without question by countries with which Canada trades in consumer goods.
Even in the face of this evidence, Mr. Speaker, I would not suggest that the present CSA methods of operation should not be examined. It is possible that an independent study of the entire CSA operation should be undertaken to determine whether the CSA is, in fact, adequate to present needs. It may well be that the CSA is not competent in some areas to manage the changeover to the new international system of units known as the metric system.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
All these probabilities I will concede. If the reorganization of existing standards were proposed I would not hesitate to support such a move. But I cannot assent to the complete reorganization of the present arrangements or to the assumption that once a government agency is created a much better job will be done. Look at the operation of other government undertakings, the Post Office, for example. I learned the other day that 140 years ago mail sent by the California Express from Missouri to the west coast arrived in eight days. The other day a man told me it had taken ten days for a letter sent from Ottawa to reach Vancouver. How can the minister expect us to have much faith in the type of reorganization he is proposing? Consider the operations of the Wheat Board. It turns out, we learned yesterday, that the board was paying four cents a ton commission on the shipment of Canadian grain in certain circumstances, and someone pointed out that a salesman can make almost as much selling a dozen cases of dog-food as he can by shipping large quantities of Canadian wheat. How can any faith be placed in any new organization which the govem-
ment may set up when this is the kind of performance we have learned to expect from those which already exist?
The government is proposing to set up a new federal body to operate alongside the CSA. There is no indication whatever that it will receive the co-operation from all concerned which is now available on a voluntary basis. The preamble to the present bill states that a government agency to be known as the standards council of Canada will foster and promote the voluntary acceptance of standards in Canada and also serve as the Canadian representative at meetings of standards groups of foreign countries. All this, the CSA has been doing for 15 years. In paragraph 4 (b) of clause 2 the bill gives the Council power to accredit other organizations which are concerned about the establishment of standards. This is the thin end of the wedge, the first indication that Bill C-163 is not as innocuous as the minister pretends it is. Paragraph (g) of the same clause gives the minister's council the power to establish its own trademark as the new Canadian standards trade mark. Already the government is saying that the old Canadian standards mark is not good enough-that the new council will have its own mark. Yet the minister went to great lengths yesterday to tell us that everything would be done voluntarily.
Further, the bill authorizes the new agency to accept and spend moneys appropriated by Parliament, to acquire and hold real property, to alienate that property at pleasure, and to do such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects and exercise of the powers of the council. The bill also prescribes the number of people who shall be members of the board. The council is to consist of an executive council made up of a president and some 57 members. Clause 14 gives the council authority to appoint such other officers and employees as may be necessary for the proper conduct of its work. In other words, this is yet another case of an empire being built.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Cliff Downey: We have already seen what has happened in the case of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I am not arguing that some of these things ought not to be done, but there seems to be no end to the new empires which are being built with the approval of this government. I maintain that when we read this bill the picture we get is not that of a harmless body of conscientious


citizens looking over the shoulders of the Canadian Standards Association. This proposal has all the earmarks of a complete takeover, and the instruments to accomplish it are well spelled out in this legislation.
The minister was at great pains to explain that this could all be done through co-operation. Yet the bill spells out all that is necessary for a complete take-over and the eradication of the facilities which now exist. If this is the intention of the government-and having studied this measure I cannot believe that any hon. member could take a different view-why does the minister not tell us in clear terms that the administration is getting into the standards business and that everyone else is getting out? However he may have tried to disguise the intention, it is clear to anyone who has taken the trouble to read this document clause by clause. We are confronted,. here, not only with machinery for a takeover, but with an example of duplicity.
Aside from the fact that the services which the Canadian Standards Association have been providing for so long will, from now on, be hampered by bureaucracy, there is the question of cost, something which should always be considered. The only reason put forward by the government for contemplating the establishment of a standards council in the first place was that the CSA had asked for funds from the government to defray part of its costs.
The fact is, the CSA has been self-supporting since its inception. I know the minister can answer by saying that the charges have in fact been paid by industry and passed on. But nothing will convince me that less money will be needed, or that these services can be provided at lower cost to the public if the government takes over the standards council. The request to which I referred a few moments ago was a request for a grant to cover membership dues in the international organization for standardization, of which the Canadian association is a member. The fee amounts to $50,000 a year, I believe compared with the CSA operating budget of some $4,500,000 a year.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Another reason advanced by the government, after the fact, is that other western nations have government-operated standards organizations. If we examine other examples of government-operated standards agencies, the only one similar to the one proposed is in South Africa. France has been put forward
Standards Council of Canada as an example, but I believe in their case the government only elected one of their members to the board, the president; the actual work of the board was carried on within a voluntary structure, as is the case with the CSA. Britain, Germany and Sweden have organizations similar to what the minister would establish here, and are something akin to the present functions of the CSA.
This is a time when the government is telling the Canadian people to follow its example and spend wisely. I suggest that the measure before us today does not comply with that theory. It is not calculated to accomplish any goal except that of adding to the load of the taxpayers, with questionable benefits to consumers. I suggest the government could work through our present organizations with some direction from the department.
I have found a clause on the last page of the bill, almost the last clause. I suggest it should really have been one of the first clauses and that the bill should have been built around it. Clause 18 provides:
The Council shall be deemed to be a charitable organization in Canada as described in paragraph (e) of subsection 35(1) of section 62 of the Income Tax Act-
That is a rather exciting observation to find buried in the bill. This council is going to be called a charitable organization-one other charity, I suppose, that is to be supported by the taxpayers of Canada. It is also of interest to note that the bill has still to pass the House, and I would think there were sufficient members in the House of good judgment not to hasten its passage unduly. The government has already appropriated money for the council in the estimates. Probably it thought that the bill might slide through before the estimates were published, I do not ktjow. I think we should all consider the bill most carefully. I and a lot of my colleagues share the view that we should not be duplicating a service that can be better performed by an existing organization, one that is self-sustaining.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask your permission to call it one o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: There is still five minutes remaining.


Mr. Speaker:: There must be unanimous consent, of course, and the minister seems to be resisting the suggestion. It appears his


Standards Council of Canada resistance has been shattered. We will call it one o'clock and the House will resume at two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I guess I am the man for whom the bell tolls. Anyway, I am delighted with the opportunity of saying a few words this afternoon on Bill C-163 to establish a standards council of Canada. I am delighted also to see the genial minister in his seat, smiling as usual through storm and stress. I have a first question which I think might be indicative of what I am going to say later. My question is, why voluntary standards? We propose voluntary standards in this particular field, yet we do not have voluntary standards when we judge criminal behaviour. However, of the things that have gone on as a result of our lack of standards in this country verge on that kind of behaviour.
The slogan, "let the buyer beware", in my view is a sordid phrase, I think it is much more appropriate to an age much earlier than our own and out of place in this complex society. Perhaps it was reasonable in a more simple society in which the products were simple. You went to someone you knew to make your purchases and there was craftsmanship rather than factoryship at work. Certainly, in the earlier days there were not the vast number of synthetic products in terms of plastics, synthetic textiles and that sort of thing. The various chemical additives have by their very nature, placed these products in a position where the average member of the public is unable to make a decision based on his own particular knowledge or the feel of a particular piece of cloth. He has no idea really what he is buying, nor does he know very much about the sizing of it, its shrinking, lasting qualities or methods of cleaning.
I think it is self-evident that we need standards. I believe, too, that the consumers not only in this country but in the United States as well have been rooked for years because of the phrase, let the buyer beware. I think this is an aspect of our society that has had tacit approval for far too long. It is time for the government to take a much more active role to see that reasonable standards, not only of safety as the Minister of Consum-

er and Corporate Affairs mentioned this morning but also of quality, be available in a readily accessible and meaningful form to the people who are the purchasers of our country.
I think perhaps the fact that the Consumer Reports, a United States magazine, has such a wide sale in Canada is an indication of distrust of the standards we now have; the kind of packaging and labelling standards for North America products. I do not believe that particular magazine, which is supported by subscribers, would enjoy such wide support from the general public if people felt confident that they could depend upon the quality or the labelling of the products they purchased.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
This organization which publishes Consumer Reports, as I mentioned earlier, is an independent organization not financed by manufacturers or by consumers, except in the sense that they buy the magazine. It consults and conducts tests, and I have used its information many times while contemplating the purchase of some item that was going to be fairly costly. I think perhaps many members of this House realize that this particular group not only tests various products but also rates them and puts them in a rank order so that people have an opportunity to make an intelligent decision on their purchases rather than depending upon the often spurious advertising for them. I think the standards council of Canada might consider, after it develops somewhat its activities, the same type of practices as those engaged in by the Consumer Report magazine and the group that sponsors it. We need to set up independent testing laboratories and not be influenced by the conflict of interest of the various manufacturers. They are more interested in pushing their products than they are in ensuring that the products are always of like quality or always safe.
The other thing the Council might do, and this is where the word "voluntary" comes under question, is to rate these various products. If there are, for example, 15 manufacturers of electric ranges-there are probably only three-the Council should do independent testing and rate them so that people will know they are getting value for their money, or at least will be able to buy what they desire with information available to them. So, those two points, testing and rating, should be considered by the new council. What happens when you do not have this? What happens is what has been happening, not only in manu-
March 13, 1970	COMMONS
facturing industries but also in service industries that is that people who do not have the expertise are constantly being defrauded. The well known case is the one of the automobile service garages in Montreal. This business has come in for a great deal of criticism by a group of people who know the field and make their investigations of repair charges available to the general public.
So the question, then, is not really about the need for standards but whether this bill will really accomplish the provision of standards useful to the Canadian public. I note that under section 116, subsection 33D of the Criminal Code amendments of last year, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) has broad powers to control advertising. He mentioned just before lunch, the matter of protecting the consumer, but he has broad powers now under this section which reads as follows:
Everyone who publishes or causes to be published an advertisement containing a statement that purports to be a statement of fact but that is untrue, deceptive or misleading or is intentionally so worded or arranged that it is deceptive or misleading, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years, if the advertisement is published.
I do not know whether or not there have been any charges laid under this section, but I wonder if it would apply to any of the campaign literature of the Liberal party. This might be an interesting question. But people demand standards on which they can depend, there is no doubt about it.
Last weekend, which I spent in my constituency, I was visited by a number of people including an old gentleman who came to see me about the problem of standards. He was complaining about, of all things, dress sizes for older women. Presumably he was considering purchasing one for his wife, but he did not tell me that.


Mr. Winch:: You should say "over 21".


Mark Willson Rose: This was an elderly gentleman and he was concerned because he felt the dress sizes were not only not available in enough variety and quantity, but even the sizing was something on which he and his wife could not depend.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What does age have to do with size?


Harold Edward Winch: There is no such person as an elderly woman.


Mark Willson Rose: Perhaps age does not have anything to do with size but it certainly has to do
DEBATES	5005
Standards Council of Canada with style and style sometimes has to do with size. But the minister is engaging in some kind of by-play here. Since he is a good humoured man, I will humour him. If he would like to carry this debate further, I would be delighted.
Another thing about which the old gentleman complained was the fact that he could not depend on decent labelling of canned and frozen products. He said that often when he opened a can he got a shock because the contents were watery and of poor quality. But I hasten to add that I think the record of the Canadian canning industry shows that the standards we have in Canada for canned goods are superior to those in other countries. For some 30 years now the labelling of fancy, choice and standard quality has given the Canadian consumers some guidance in their purchases that they would not have if they were making similar purchases while on a trip in the United States. So, I think we have had pretty good standards established in certain areas of our economy. But that does not mean that with the multiplicity of products on the market today we do not need more expertise in dealing with standards of quality and safety.
Some of the members here, and also probably the minister, want us to put on this bill our unreserved "Good Housekeeping" seal of approval. I know that some others would like us to throw this bill out entirely and leave things as they are. These are the two particular positions.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There is also the good, middle of the road position.


Mark Willson Rose: The suggestion is that the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. I hate to quote this man but his name is Jimmy Hofla. He once said: "The truth ain't halfway between nothing, the truth is the truth".


Mr. Murphy:: Ask Cardinal Leger.


Mark Willson Rose: Please, sir, do not take your backbench frustrations out on me. I have similar frustrations.


An hon. Member:: Obviously.


Mark Willson Rose: I think there is a giant lobby at work for the Canadian Standards Association because they feel that the government is going to stamp all over their turf or, in other words, move in on their private preserve. I have no concern about that group of people other than to thank them for what good things they have done in the past. I think it
5006	COMMONS
Standards Council of Canada would be ridiculous to suggest that the government has no role in this field. I believe strongly that it has. I think the cynical might well ask: "Why is the CSA so concerned about this?" I think this is a worthwhile question. Are they concerned for standards, as they say they are? If they are, and if there is going to be an improvement in standards, they should be all for it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They are suspicious of the government.


Mark Willson Rose: They may be, that is a suspicion shared by many people, but it does not make them unique.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You should not say "the CSA"; you should say "some officers of the CSA".


Mark Willson Rose: Presumably one member wrote the letter, not some members. Anyway, I do not really know what the CSA represents unless they represent the same kind of thing that the standards council of Canada profess to represent but without government control or responsibility. But I would be interested to know whether or not they are acting as a front for certain manufacturers. If they are doing that, then I have no sympathy for then-aims or objectives. I think we have a right to ask these questions and the CSA has a responsibility, if they are going to continue to exist, to answer them.
Our government has been noticeably reticent about introducing legislation with teeth in it. We do not really have any adequate truth in advertising or truth in packaging legislation. I am not certain that it has ever been really in force. I believe that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs prefers to work in the dark. They like to conduct their little tests and they like to have their results kept out of the public glare. Their reports seem to be secret. We have a great deal of difficulty getting any information about them, and their decisions are seldom made public.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
It is great to have beautiful legislation, if Bill C-163 may be described as beautiful legislation, but what is the point of having this legislation on the statute books? Thanks to the efforts of people like Senator Hart there is a great deal of legislation with respect to this subject on the statute books in the United States, but Ralph Nader, the sleuth for the consumers, has pointed out forcefully that it is not being enforced. The

DEBATES	March 13, 1970
U.S. agency responsible for the enforcement of the legislation is grossly, under-staffed and perhaps also, too influenced by certain manufacturers. Anyway, it has not been able to deal effectively with the industrial lobbies of those who feel their standards are the right standards, even though their standards are not necessarily in the interests of the public. It is not enough to have this sort of thing as window dressing or tokenism. If we are not going to use the legislation, then debate becomes an exercise in futility. It is important that we use this kind of legislation, and that we work to make it more effective. I have suggested some areas in which we could do that.
The standards council of Canada trademark will bear official sanction, and if it does not do it explicitly at least it will imply that the government is responsible for the standards represented by the stamp. This is a much better situation than that in which the CSA stamp prevailed, whereby its seal of approval represented semi-governmental sanction-at least, its seal was often passed off as representing this.
When this new council is established it should concern itself not only with standards of quality and safety, but it should also concern itself with the encouragement of new techniques, new products, and new industrial processes. The housing task force headed by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) indicated that the Canadian building code was full of archaic standards and did not take into account new techniques in that industry, which is probably the highest cost industry in the country. If better standards can be achieved through the use of new materials and new techniques, the old standards should not be perpetuated. This new council should encourage all possible innovation. One can envisage a situation in which a group of manufacturers have invested in certain plant and equipment, and the granting of the council's seal of approval to new techniques and new materials could make their equipment old-fashioned. They would have a vested interest in seeing that the old standards were maintained. I hope the new council will take matters such as this into consideration.
I would like to re-assure Conservative members of the House about the action of governments when moving into areas that once were in the private sector. Charity, once a private matter, has now become social welfare. Medical insurance has become medicare and hospitalization. Savings have become the Canada Pension Plan. When a job is not
March 13, 1970	COMMONS
being done well privately, when people are not being protected by private interests, then the government has to move in, and should move in.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: More Big Brother.


Mark Willson Rose: Hardly anyone on my right, including the hon. member from Manitoba in the front row-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Brandon-Souris.


Mark Willson Rose: Excuse me; hardly anyone on my right, including the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, would stand up and suggest that we abandon the Canada Pension Plan.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We are talking about the CSA.


Mark Willson Rose: This is a similar thing. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I support the concept of this bill. I hope it is not tokenism or window dressing. There are some suspicions to that effect, but I hope they are inaccurate.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has given us during this debate a clear and concise technical report. Later on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) told us how the Canadian people would like to see these standards established.
If I may, I should like to go back a little in order to give the background of the subject, which will be useful since some members have said that we were trying to establish standards in a brand new field and that therefore, we did not know where we were going.
In order to do that, at the international and domestic level, we have to go back to the year 1700 B.C. At that time, the king of Babylon had been immortalized as a statue holding in his hand a measure 10i inches long. Therefore, we are not really breaking ground in this field and all researchers agree that it is the oldest existing specimen of a linear measure.
Therefore, measuring would have existed long before writing. The Roman people, in compliance with the wishes of Alexander the Great, established and used a measuring system which spread all over Europe. However, it is only at the beginning of the industrial revolution, namely at the start of this 21774-39i
DEBATES	5007
Standards Council of Canada century, that countries started to establish national standards in co-operation with manufacturers.
Essentially, standards are a means available to the consumer to indicate precisely his needs to the manufacturer, which requires of course the co-operation of several and various interested groups.
In that field, Great Britain established a national agency in 1901; Canada, Germany and the Netherlands in 1917; the United States in 1918 and Sweden, in 1920. Since then, several other countries also established standards councils.
There are now 55 countries with different agencies at the national level, almost all of them belonging to international organizations, namely the I.S.O. and the Electro-Technical Commission (IEC). In most of those countries, those agencies are totally or partially subsidized by the government.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we must establish at the international level, standards acceptable not only to member countries, but also other countries that have no national commissions or agencies but nevertheless take part in international trade.
Since the last war, the countries using the standards established by both above-mentioned associations have doubled. Therefore we should not be surprised at the spectacular increase in regulations these last few years.
The IEC was created in St. Louis, in the United States, in 1904 and now has its headquarters in Geneva. Canada has been a member of that organization since 1908.
The ISO was established in 1946 in London. Canada has been a member since then. It has succeeded the National Standards Federation, established in 1926, that had to discontinue its activities on account of the 1939-45 war.
Technical committees, especially from the ISO, combine national standards and establish international standards concerning a great variety of products such as paper, copper, pipes, boilers, agricultural machinery, etc. On account of Canada's importance in the export field, Canadian standards in the technical field are accepted with great respect in foreign countries.
The participation to ISO and to IEC is of great benefit. Therefore, our country must be ready to participate still more actively in the technological development of developing countries.
In Canada, standardization has developed considerably at the industrial and governmen-


Standards Council of Canada tal levels because, as I said before, we are on exporting and we understand the need for international standards.
There are two parallel agencies in Canada. In fact, the Canadian Standards Association deals with the private sector. I would like to emphasize this point. Moreover, as I said before, there is a government agency which deals with the public sector and with industry. These two structures operate in the same manner thanks to committees that were created according to needs and where government and industry are represented.
However, it is difficult to eliminate the duplication of research and consequently the task becomes very difficult. Once it is established, the Standards Council of Canada will become responsible since it will represent Canada within the ISO and the IEC for the preparation of international and national standards.
The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has received, I think, many publications concerning the establishment of standards for the sizing of garments. Indeed, the government was asked to establish in this field a Canadian standard and to give other instructions concerning consumer products. Therefore, this question becomes an urgent priority.
The control of standards in the private sector has been in force since 1917 as was mentioned. In the public sector, it has been in existence since 1934.
Therefore, it was decided to establish the Standards Council of Canada after studying the situation that prevailed in the United States, in Great Britain and in France as we have closed links with these countries.
In the United States, the ASTM, The American Society for Testing Materials, and the SAE, the Society of Automotive Engineers, control about 65 per cent of American standards.
There are, however, in that country several hundred other associations that are active in various sectors. That is the source of many problems at the present time. They would appear to be interested in watching closely the debate on the bill now before the House, Bill C-163.
Mr. Simpson, assistant secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, in February 1970, and I quote:
[Mr. Trudel.1
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)

The lack of a strong (US) standards institute is the reason European officials have thus far refused to allow this country to Join an agreement certifying that electronic components can be traded across national boundaries.

This is one of the reasons why they follow our activities very closely.
Various countries have been mentioned. In this regard, I should like to point out that in England, the B.S.I., that is the British Standards Institution, a national organization, is responsible for standardization. The English government finances that project in a proportion of 50 per cent.
The department responsible for this in England is the Department of Technology. The adoption of the metric system, which has been discussed by two or three members, will depend on the decision of the Standards Council of Canada.
In France, the Association frangaise de normalisation-AFNOR-through committees, controls most standards, with already number in excess of 5,000.
In his remarks, the member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) wondered why we should not do as other major countries and leave to a private organization the responsibility for standards.
I should like to refer again to the few countries I have mentioned, particularly Great Britain.

Like the proposed standards council of Canada, BSI is an independent body government by an executive board on which government departments are officially represented; is incorporated under royal charter, which authorizes it to establish its own by-laws; receives substantial financial assistance from the British government-about 50 per cent of its income-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Just like the CSA.


Mr. Trudel:: It represents Great Britain in international voluntary standardization activities; administers the national certification mark, BSI's "Kite" mark, and is responsible for directing the technical aspects of Great Britain's conversion to the metric system.
Another country that I would like to look at, Mr. Speaker, where you will find such similarities is France, to which I have previously referred. Like the proposed standards


council of Canada, AFNOR is an independent non-profit organization in Which producers, users and government are represented. It coordinates the work of standardization bureaus, of which there are 34, represents France in international voluntary standardization activities; administers the national certification mark; and submits an annual report, including financial statements to the French government.
In the United States, and I have referred to the United States before, like the proposed standards council of Canada, ANSI is an independent non-profit federation of technical, professional and trade organizations. It acts as a national co-ordinating institution for voluntary standardization in the United States; serves as a national clearing house for information of United States and foreign standards; does not engage in the preparation of standards; does not operate testing or inspection laboratories; represents the United States in international voluntary standardization activities, for example, ISO and IEC, and approves national or USA standards.

Despite the anxiety felt by the member for Gander-Twillingate and the member for Battle River (Mr. Downey), I believe that the situation in those three big countries is similar to the one described by the minister and that there would not be any conflict of interests.
In England, France, Japan and even Sweden, the controlling structures are therefore much more closely related to government. Those countries do not experience the duality in private and public sectors as it exists in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore wholly support the creation of the Standards Council of Canada, which will be responsible for co-ordinating the policy of Canadian standards and ensuring the participation of Canada to the establishment of international standards.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill relating to a field that is quite narrow but exceedingly complex, I think, for the average Canadian and even for us members, I must say we are being asked to give our consent to changes in the long standing methods by which Canada has instituted standards in various fields that are so necessary to modern living. To name only a few products for which standards are necessary, there are building products such as

Standards Council of Canada cement, tiles, gypsum products, washers and threads, oil and gas furnaces, transformers, the automobile, safety ferrous metals, nonferrous metals, timber products, wood preservation, welding, etc. Indeed, there are a whole host of materials that are used in daily work for which standards are necessary.
Up until now, this work has been carried on by the Canadian Standards Association which is a non-profit, non-governmental association to provide a national standardization body for Canada. This organization receives requests for standardization, investigates their desirability and arranges for the formation of committees with both the makers and users, scientific and technical societies, inspection authorities and government departments, to determine standards that will be acceptable to all concerned. These must meet with the approval of many provincial bodies who state what standards shall be used.
The Canadian Standards Association has provided leadership to benefit the consumer and also the manufacturer. In general, CSA seems to have been very successful in doing its part in promoting good, reasonable standards for Canada. CSA has at the present time over 650 standards committees with over 4,000 representatives of consumer technical organizations, federal and provincial governments and industry. Now, as well as these services, the CSA provides certification or approval services through its laboratories and agents in Canada and abroad. All in all, the CSA seems to have made itself a most useful means of effecting Canadian standardization that has been adequate for our needs.
Now, what is the government proposing in bill C-163 which will provide for the establishment of a standards council of Canada. Although the minister in his introduction of the bill continuously referred to the furtherance of voluntary standardization, the bill seems to go much further than would appear necessary to effect this. Either the government has decided at this time to move in on the Canadian Standards Association and assume their duties or it has deliberately made the powers of the bill so broad that it will at some time in the future be able to assume all the voluntary functions of the Canadian Standards Association without the necessity of bothering to ask Parliament for the necessary authority.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Perhaps this would be a good time to look at countries faced with similar problems. In
5010	COMMONS
Standards Council of Canada the United States, which has an economy much more complex than our own, there was introduced into the House of Representatives a bill for a "co-ordinating and clearing house agency" which dealt with the subject of standardization. The bill was not proceeded with and the United States counterpart of CSA, known as the American National Standards Institute, or ANSI, was devised to deal with problems of standardization. It seems particularly significant that CSA was used as a model for the United States body. Now, the minister is introducing legislation which in effect says that the existing CSA is not adequate or cannot be improved and that, therefore, we must have a government controlling body over the whole of the voluntary standards field.
In a report last year which confirmed that ANSI, which was modelled after the CSA, was working reasonably well, the president of ANSI stated that five years previously there had been a need for a more effective organization to use improved procedures for the voluntary co-ordination and promulgation of standards that would be recognized as United States standards, both nationally and in international standardization activities. Five years later ANSI is reasonably satisfied with its progress. Continuing his report, the president of ANSI said:
Of at least equal importance to the primary findings was the Panel's conclusion that 'the development of standards should be left to the several private organizations already active in the field.' It also stated that: 'the voluntary nature of the development, promulgation, and use of 'USA Standards' is emphasized by the Panel in rejecting any suggestions of compulsion that would be in conflict with the principles of free enterprise.
By and large these recommendations have been accepted and implemented through recognition that the technical competence required for the development of standards resides in the 160 technical societies, trade associations, labor and consumer organizations confederated in the American National Standards Institute.
The president of ANSI further stated:
These facts also illustrate rather dramatically the problem that government agencies would face in recruiting the numbers, variety, and levels of specialized competence required to staff necessary standardization activities of the United States, if prime responsibility for this work should ever become a function of government. The extent and nature of cooperation between the government and private sector is the correct topic of debate. The question is not where the source of authority should reside-in government or the private sector-but rather how best can competence be organized and made most effective.
The minister raised a number of points illustrating the need for this legislation. He

DEBATES	March 13, 1970
mentioned the need for representation for all concerned, meaning that some sectors of the community may not be adequately represented. I would be the first to admit that, especially in such an immense, widely varied and technical field, it might be difficult to find people conversant with all aspects of a problem. But I doubt if the government will be able to do better than the CSA has done. This organization, through its procedure for establishing committees of producers, consumers, government authorities and scientific and technical people, has ensured that a reasonably broad representation of interest is assembled in its standards-writing and review comments. The CSA is also planning to establish a consumer advisory council to the CSA's board of directors. There does not seem to be all that need for the setting up of a separate group to provide these services; indeed, it would seem that if the government did this it would end up with the same people.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is a contradiction, surely. Why did they have to wait for the government to intervene? Why were such bodies, such programs, not established before?


William Gordon Ritchie: The minister also stated that the confidence of the public was necessary and seemed to imply this was lacking at the present time. So far as I can make out, there is no evidence that such public distrust exists. There does not seem to be any march on Ottawa with regard to these matters. The CSA employs over 300 technical and administrative personnel at its various laboratories across Canada and financial support comes mainly from the many services provided in the fields of product certification. So far, the federal government participation has been very limited in this field and I would think that the government should support these programs rather than taking them over completely. The CSA also has access to technical experts and facilities in Canada and, through its large membership of scientists and practising and consulting engineers, to the facilities of large companies throughout the world and government departments with technical staffs.
The minister mentioned the matter of impartiality. I am sure that Mr. Speaker is aware of the problem of impartiality, which is a matter that he has to face almost every minute of the day. It is largely a matter of judgment, or whose ox is being gored. All boards and committees are open to the charge of partiality, and a government appointed board is no exception. Indeed, food and drug
March 13, 1970	COMMONS
administration officials, of whose problems I have some knowledge, are usually accused of not doing anything. I am inclined at times to agree that it is better for them to do nothing than run the risk of getting into trouble. So, they are accused of partiality, especially on the licensing of new drugs.
The minister said that the standards council will cover a much wider area in the country and in the international field than is covered at present. I doubt whether the country-wide coverage is not at present adequate; I will certainly want him to substantiate this matter in committee when the time comes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Of course.


William Gordon Ritchie: In the international field,
Canadian industry participates in ISA work and CSA is at present very active in ISD projects. I will, therefore, follow with interest what the minister will propose in committee.
The Canada standards council we are told will make us aware of international trade strategy. Well, government does not always seem to have all the answers in this field. The grading of western grain is under the rigid control of the Board of Grain Commissioners, and for the first time in 20 years this matter is to be revised extensively. For many years wheat should have been considered and sold on a protein basis. It is generally considered we are five years or so behind our competitors in the grading of our wheat. Similar long standing deficiencies occur in connection with other grains. There have been repeated calls by all segments of agriculture and business, ranging from farm organizations to grain companies, for changes in grading regulations. Where were the alert watchdogs of the government who should have signalled long ago that changes were needed in our grain standards. They must have been asleep.
These are only a few of the matters that the minister and his officials will be required to answer in committee. The minister has protested at length that his interest is wholly in voluntary control and the furtherance of standardization. Indeed, the minister doth in many ways protest too much, making him suspect. It was stated in a briefing by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology, that, "It is not proposed that the Council engage directly in standards formulation, testing or certification activities which will continue to be carried out by existing standards organizations". Yet the powers of the council, under the provisions of sub-
DEBATES	5011
Standards Council of Canada clauses 4(2)(c), (d), (e) and (g) will be formidable. Clause 4(2) provides in part as follows:
(c)	establish and circulate criteria and procedures relating to the voluntary preparation, approval, acceptance and designation of standards in Canada in those fields;
(d) accredit, in accordance with criteria and procedures established by the Council, organizations engaged in standards formulation, testing and certification in those fields, and maintain a register of such organizations and of their standards marks;
(e) review new standards and revisions of existing standards in those fields formulated by organizations accredited by the Council and approve those standards as national standards where appropriate, and maintain an index of approved standards;-
(g) establish and register under the Trade Marks Act its own standards marks in those fields and, subject to that Act, authorize and regulate their use;-
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
These four subparagraphs suggest a series of steps that lead of necessity to a new standards review and writing agency. Having established criteria, organizations, in the first instance, are accredited and registered. However, the standards of these accredited organizations are reviewed and approved as national standards. These steps require a technical staff, a technical staff which will inevitably become the secretariat for standards-writing committees. This is the way standards are written. For the government to include such powers shows the intention to use them, otherwise why include them? It must imply an entry into a field previously handled by an independent body.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the powers the bill grants the council that will be formed go far beyond what the minister has suggested would be its functions.
I cannot get over the impression that this government likes change merely for the sake of change. In this bill it seems to pay lip service to the voluntary standardization, but leaves the way open for complete government control. The best assurance of a good product is that the maker wishes to sell and market an adequate and safe product. Even in the field of drug safety, with elaborate rules and laws and penalties, the Food and Drug Directorate admit they would have an impossible task if the vast majority of drug manufacturers did not strive assiduously and conscientiously to turn out a good product.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I always listen with interest to the arguments advanced by the opposition. I am


Standards Council of Canada sympathetic to many of them. Yesterday I listened with particular interest to my good friend, the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Lundrigan). He comes from a good province. Yesterday, he demonstrated beyond all possible doubt that there is no herring shortage in that province-at least red herring! I have never seen in this House more tattered regiments of arguments paraded than were presented yesterday afternoon. What it amounts to is that we are going to be dragged, kicking and struggling, into any kind of reform in this field which has been crying for reform for many years.
The hon. member spoke of the tried and true. He said there is something about experience and longevity which should be respected, indeed enshrined. Sin is old and sickness is old. No one would advance the criterion of age alone in order to advance arguments in favour of these evils. What we must do, without being partisan about it, is place this proposal under the microscope of this House and attempt to make some dispassionate judgments. Some of the arguments advanced by the hon. members for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), Battle River (Mr. Downey) and Gander-Twil-lingate are representative of a tunnel vision.
At the outset, I want to deal this afternoon with some of the international aspects of the measure before us. I also want to touch on some of the concern expressed by members of the opposition. Many of us appreciate the assurances given by the minister when he ably presented this measure yesterday afternoon. Members are aware that at least some members of the Canadian Standards Association, and I use the designation "some members" advisedly, are fearful of the measure we have before us. This is a long respected and established body. I would be unfair if I did not acknowledge the tremendous value which the CSA has been to the lumber industry in the province of British Columbia. This association has done a grand job. It has enabled the lumber products of my province to become competitive in the markets of North America and the markets of the world. What we really want to see in Canada is the same kind of excellence demonstrated by the CSA in, for example, the area of lumber, extended throughout British Columbia, the other provinces in Canada and, indeed, the entire Dominion in as many industrial and economic fields as possible.
It has been suggested if the bill is enacted that a federal government corporation will be given the power to supersede the Canadian

Standards Association as the national agency for voluntary standardization in Canada. I do not believe that. Hopefully, this bill will reach the committee stage. I do not think hon. members will support this spurious proposal for a six months hoist advanced by the fearful member from Newfoundland. When the bill is before the committee, further assurances can be obtained from the minister and examined in greater detail.
I want to see the CSA carry on its useful and beneficial activities in this and other areas. The assurances given by the minister indicate that some of the fears which have been expressed are unfounded. The Council is designed to foster, promote and co-ordinate voluntary standardization activities in Canada. It is not intended that the Council should engage in standards formulation, and this has to be emphasized because the point has not even registered with the opposition, testing or certification activities, which would continue to be carried out by standards organizations such as the CSA. I, for one, want to see the CSA carry on its good activities inspired and assisted by government. Nor will the council duplicate other activities of such organizations. This is brought out very clearly in several sections of the bill. For example, Clause 4(1) reads:
The objects of the Council are to foster and promote in Canada the voluntary standardization-
Section 4(2) states that the Council, in carrying out its objects, may:
(a)	promote co-operation among organizations concerned with voluntary standardization in Canada in those fields to co-ordinate standardization activities and develop common standards and codes;
(b)	promote co-operation between organizations concerned with voluntary standardization in Canada in those fields and departments and agencies of government;
Yet it is suggested there is something sinister about this provision. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate said, "I smell a rat". I suggest he was smelling a red herring in his own back yard.
In addition, reference is made to organizations engaged in standards formulation, testing and certification and to the Council's relationships with such organizations in several other paragraphs of section 4(2), namely paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (i) and (j). I am not going to go into all the details. Members have this bill in front of them. From this it is quite clear that the council is not intended to supersede and replace existing standards organizations, but rather to assist such organ-
March 13, 1970	COMMONS
izations to play a larger and more effective role in formulating and promoting the use of standards in Canada.
The CSA can play an integral and expanding role in standards formulation in this country. I speak with enthusiasm about the contributions this organization has made. Some people say this council will be controlled by the civil service. It is intended that the council should provide a national focus for voluntary standardization embracing all Canadian interests. Members of the council will be drawn from all regions of the country and all sectors of the economy. It would not be appropriate to limit the groups from which membership would be drawn as, for example, has been done in the case of the Science Council of Canada Act, which sets up a specialized organization.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Section 12(1) of the bill provides for an executive committee consisting of the president, the vice-president and seven other members, of whom six shall be selected by the council and one shall be designated by the Governor-in-Council. The standards council will be responsible for selecting six of the nine members of the executive committee. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the CSA will be invited to join and be given a role in this executive. I am sure the majority of hon. members in this House would support such an idea. This is not an attempt to end the existence of the CSA.
The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate put forward the other day the radical reform proposal of the Conservative Party. The most imaginative proposal he had to make was that we should hoist this bill for six months which would, of course, constitute its death sentence. Beyond that, they want to maintain the status quo. It was suggested there should be more time for discussion. Mr. Speaker, there have been four years of discussion with no limit imposed on the nature of the representation made by the organizations involved, including the CSA. No item was declared non-negotiable. The question might well be asked: What could be done in six months which was not accomplished in four years? The legislation is the product of consultation and detailed discussion. If it is imperfect, let it go to the committee as soon as possible, where improvements may be made. The proposal of the official opposition as enunciated by three of its representatives is an arid, sterile, and unproductive answer to a longterm need.
DEBATES	5013
Standards Council of Canada


John Howard Lundrigan: Why are you so worried about our position?


Raymond J. Perrault: I hope the hon. member will extend to me the same courtesy as I extended to him the other day, and hear me out. Some officers of the CSA say the CSA is doing the job now. This assertion was advanced as a valid argument by the hon. member who has just walked out of the chamber. The bill, he told us, was an example of needless duplication. Yet despite the fact that it was granted letters patent in 1914, the CSA has not taken any real interest in at least 35 major areas during the 50 years of its operation. I will read some of them from the list I have here: petroleum products, aircraft materials and components, automotive vehicles and products, chemicals, hospital equipment, shipbuilding, mining equipment, building codes and practices, electronics, nuclear energy and agricultural food products. For one reason or another, perhaps for lack of resources, the CSA has not moved into these areas.
The standards council will be established to encourage the CSA to do so, and to take action in these and other areas. It will make use of existing organizations which are concerned with standardization. There is no intention that the council would, or should duplicate the functions of others.


John Howard Lundrigan: I am back. I had to answer an urgent telephone call outside the chamber.


Raymond J. Perrault: I hope it was from an irate constituent protesting the speech you made yesterday in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond J. Perrault: Then we are told that the CSA is the definitive organization operating in Canada. But is it, in fact, the only organization concerned with this work? The Canadian Government Specifications Board is also setting standards in this country. The CSA has produced roughly 900 standards since its inception. The CGSB has produced some 1,500. So it is not totally correct to say that the CSA speaks on behalf of all standards-writing organizations in this country. The standards council will exercise an overseeing role, one of promotion and co-ordination. The CSA would remain as an active standards-writing organization and would be called upon frequently to work in co-operation with it. This has been greeted with disbelief by members of the opposition but the position is, nevertheless, as the minister has stated.


Standards Council of Canada
The assertion has been made that under the terms of the bill before us the new organization would replace the CSA as the Canadian representative to international standards-set-ting bodies such as the International Standards Organization. This is also asserted by officers of the CSA. But as lately as 1968 the CSA recognized that the establishment of a standards council would necessitate its withdrawal from the field of international representation, and the association acquiesced in the move. These facts were not brought out in the speeches made by opposition members. Then some officers of the CSA claim that the CSA represents a broad range of interests already and that the SCC is not needed. In fact, Canada has never had a standards-writ-ing body with a fully representative policymaking board. A number of areas are not covered by the CSA, the CGSB or industry standards-writing associations.
One of the most astounding arguments advanced, particularly by hon. members on the opposition side who come from Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, concerns the representation on the board of the CSA. It appears they want the status quo to continue.


An hon. Member:: We do not.


Raymond J. Perrault: Under this bill the SCC would include one member from each of the provinces, six federal public servants and up to 41 representatives of trade associations and consumer groups. What about the composition of the CSA? One significant fact emerges. The three speakers from the opposition side who took part come from provinces which are not represented at all on the present board of directors of the CSA. There is not one board member from Manitoba, Newfoundland or Saskatchewan. However, there are 12 from Ontario establishing standards which are supposedly to be subscribed to by industries in the three provinces I have mentioned; there are five from Quebec and one from Alberta. How does Alberta like that? Twelve members from Ontario, and one from Alberta. There is one from British Columbia and one from New Brunswick.
There are no major industrial sectors represented on the present board. There are two federal civil servants on the board. I suppose this will alarm the hon. member from Newfoundland; it will lead him to think that the board is under federal control in some way.


John Howard Lundrigan: Nothing alarms me, coming from Newfoundland.


Raymond J. Perrault: Here are Members of Parliament, supposedly speaking with the interest of their provinces at heart, fighting to maintain a situation which does not give them any kind of representation at all upon a board whose decisions affect them. They may say otherwise, but I believe western Canada and the Maritimes deserve better representation on the standards-making body than they are getting on the present CSA board.
While the CSA has done excellent work in some areas, the board of directors has lacked balanced representation. Surely, it should be representative of all groups having a major interest in standards, including consumer, producer, trade and government groups; it should be impartial, with no group predominating; it should possess the confidence of the public at large; it should have a wide scope of activity and be concerned with all sectors in all parts of the country, and it should be aware of the country's international strategy.
What is this international strategy? We are in the midst of a tough trade war. We know that Canada lives by trade. In a world which is decreasing, as it were, in size, not only in the sphere of communication but also in the sphere of economics, there must be the strongest possible Canadian government representation within the international standards organizations. Two organizations are responsible for most international standards, apart from those which regulate food and drugs and which are usually covered by domestic legislation. They are the Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission.
The IEC is the older of the two bodies, having been established in St. Louis, U.S.A., in 1904. Its headquarters are now located in Geneva. It has carried out most useful work throughout the years since then, but only in the field of electrical standards. Canada has been a participating member country for many years. The ISO was established in 1946, but it then represented a reconstruction of a body first established in 1926 and known as the International Federation of National Standardizing Associations which disappeared during the strife of the Second World War. Canada was represented at the founding meeting in London, England of ISO. The field of activity of ISO covers all technical standards, with the exception of those handled by IEC.
March 13, 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
These examples illustrate how ISO work affects major Canadian export industries. First, in the fall of 1955 it was discovered, almost by accident, that a draft ISO recommendation for unalloyed aluminum ingots was to be considered at a meeting scheduled to be held in Paris little more than one week later. This particular draft contained a detailed provision for major and trace elements that, by failing to recognize some important characteristics, would have effectively obscured the high quality available in Canadian aluminum and reduced its competitive position; and as we all know, aluminum is one of Canada's most important exports.
Arrangements were quickly made for two senior technical representatives to attend the meeting in France as fully accredited Canadian representatives. The Canadian viewpoint was presented, the draft was amended and the resulting recommendation is now in use throughout the world with no detriment to Canadian aluminum.
Second, at a meeting in 1961 the ISO committee on hewn, sawn and planed timber developed draft recommendations using metric units only, despite the fact that 58 per cent of the world's timber is sawn to inch dimensions. Fortunately, Canada joined the ISO committee in 1962 and was represented at the 1963 meeting held in Moscow. Thanks to the excellent spirit of informed compromise prevailing at the meeting, and the cooperation of the chairman, both systems of measurement are now included in the ISO recommendations. This is of great importance to the lumber-producing areas of Canada. I am citing these examples to indicate the importance of international standards to Canada as a trading nation.
One of the principal challenges lies in the field to international trade. The progressive reduction of tariffs in recent years, culminating in the Kennedy round which liberalized trade on some $40 billion worth of products, underscores the need for increased attention to international standards. While there are, of course, many barriers to the free flow of goods, few are more formidable than imcom-patible national standards.
When international standards exclude Canadian-made products, the loss of sales by Canadian manufacturers is a problem for the entire economy. For example, the standards for television sets in Europe are different from those in North America; they call for a different principle of scanning lines on 21774-40}
DEBATES	sols
Standards Council of Canada screens. Television sets described by these standards are not inherently better or worse than Canadian-made sets-they are just different. But the barrier to the sale of our television sets is as real as if the sets themselves had been excluded.
The way that we will promote more manufacturing industry in Canada is to achieve economy of scale by producing more goods that can be sold in greater quantities. Lack of international standards is an impairment of our ability to sell abroad and jeopardizes opportunities for Canadians to secure employment.
Standards and the benefits derived from them are so often taken for granted that their importance is frequently not appreciated until problems stemming from lack of standardization are encountered. The traveller abroad finds that an electrical appliance designed to operate on 100 volts at 60 cycles does not operate on 220 volts at 50 cycles. Members of parliamentary delegations know what a problem this presents. The purchaser of an imported article discovers that the metric sizes do not mesh with feet and inches.
Canada, whose position in the export market will depend increasingly upon its ability to market manufactured goods, cannot afford to ignore international collaboration in the setting of standards that can limit or enhance its trade prospects. In such participation there are fundamental guidelines, and the first basic is that international standards should not be formulated which for any reason through oversight or lack of initiative fail to take account of Canadian practices and thus limit sales potential where Canada has, or may have, a significant production or export capacity.
Second, the aim should be, where we are leading suppliers or where North American technology is pre-eminent, to have Canadian standards become the basis of the international standards, or to have them accepted as equal or superior to such standards. Third, where conflicts exist between North American and other standards, Canada should work for the establishment of a compromise international standard which can be incorporated into Canadian practices with a minimum of adjustment.
Finally, Canada should engage in international standards co-operation in certain areas of activity which may not be identifiable with the immediate Canadian interest. In particular, Canada should be prepared to assist in standards work of interest to developing


Standards Council of Canada countries. This is an area where we could really do great work, because we are in an unique position to work with these developing countries. They like us and we co-operate with them in so many other fields.
These countries, as they progressively establish national standards, are likely to accept those which have international acceptance. In the years ahead when development barriers have been overcome and new nations are able to finance much higher levels of imports, a selling country will be at a disadvantage if it has not participated in the standards established for the needs of those nations.
What we have here is a concern expressed by the government of Canada which is asking us to gird our loins against the international competitive battles that are to come, both internationally as well as on the domestic scene. To limit our standards setting to one organization with insufficient resources, commendable though that organization might be and despite the great work it has done in the past, I think would be limiting our vision with respect to the future of trade in the world.
Time does not permit me to discuss the importance of establishing standards in our own domestic industry; one of the speakers will, I am sure, be pleased to deal with this question. By way of concluding, Mr. Speaker, we have heard the argument advanced that in view of CSA's major reorganization and the expansion of its operation it is now capable of performing many functions assigned to the council. It is said, "We have been around for 50 years, but we suddenly had a great soulsearching and believe we can now do better". This is commendable, because within the framework of this organization this reappraisal of function can still continue and stand-ards-setting can proceed.
Yet it is a fair question to ask of those entering this claim: Why has this reorganization taken so long? Does it require the prospect of government action to inspire reorganization? What guarantee or assurance exists that the CSA or any other standards-setting organization in Canada, in two or three years time when a new set of executive members have come on the scene, will not alter its policy and gravitate once again to more limited goals? Surely it is impossible for the government to introduce a bill each time standards associations in Canada require a push, and then withdraw the proposal when the associations take some action. Surely what


Canada requires is a standards association that has a permanent base with firm, immediate and long-range objectives; a council which, in effect, will cast a wide umbrella over standards-writing in Canada. We need a representative council, an impartial council, a prestigious council.
The whole question of voluntary standards is of great importance to Canada. The extent to which we achieve a national posture in the field of standards will play a significant role in determining the level of economic activity in this country. Therefore, it is essential to have a national and impartial organization, not to write standards but to foster, promote and co-ordinate standardization activities and to bring together all interests with a view to providing an effective partnership between industry, consumer and government. This is the basic reason for establishing a standards council of Canada.
It is the view of many of us that the Canadian Standards Association has a major contribution to make to the work of the standards council-yes, and to other standards-writing organizations as well. This will enable the CSA and other organizations like it to play a larger and more effective role in formulating and promoting standards in Canada.
I urge the support of the members of the House for this bill. Let us get it to committee, produce as sound legislation as possible, and get on with the job.


John Howard Lundrigan: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) on a point of order.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I make a suggestion which might be acceptable to the House? In view of the fact that each member may speak for only 20 minutes, and that the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) obviously did not finish the notes that were prepared for him by the departmental official and quite obviously major points have not yet been made because his time was not extended, I wonder whether the House would consent to giving the hon. member maybe 45 or 50 minutes more, in the hope that during that time he could get his point across.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 13, 1970	COMMONS
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order, please.
Kon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris): Mr. Speaker, the subject that we are discussing this afternoon is one that has been of growing concern to Canadians over the past number of years. This concern has been demonstrated by the number of members who have so far taken part in the discussion, and particularly by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) who spoke so apologetically just a few minutes ago.
Perhaps before I launch into my own observations I might answer the question the hon. member has propounded. He wanted to know why it is that the Canadian Standards Association of Canada has become more active in recent years in reorganizing its own activities in accepting greater responsibility in this matter. I think this is the result of general and growing public concern in the area of standardization. The very fact that this Parliament has set up a Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs reflects the same area of interest-and that initiative was supported on all sides of the House. I am sure the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) who is piloting this bill through the House will agree with that observation.
When the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was established,, it was anticipated that any responsibility for establishing Canadian standard would come under the umbrella-I use that word advisedly-of that department. In fact, the organizational chart distributed in 1968 indicated that the standards branch would be the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). That minister demonstrated his interest in the subject by taking part in the debate earlier today. He observed that a good many of the complaints coming from consumers had to do with the question of standardization of Canadian products and, of course, the broader problem of standardization of products coming in from international markets. I suggest that this is not quite the situation which I as a Member of Parliament have experienced, and I am sure others on all sides of the House will support this contention.
The main complaint that I have received from concerned consumers has to do, not so much with the question of standardization as with the matter of the increasing cost of products in Canada; in other words, the problem of the accelerating cost of living that the
DEBATES	5017
Standards Council of Canada government has been wrestling with, with a notable lack of success, for the past two years or so. I suggest to my hon. friend the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is not in the House, that this is an area of responsibility in which he has failed disastrously.
The minister talks about the manufacturers and the industrialists of Canada engaging in a process of public relations and puffery in order to confuse the people of Canada in respect of standardization of quality. I should like to suggest that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has indulged in the same sort of puffery and public relations in respect of price controls. Indeed, when the department was established, the Canadian Business magazine featured a photo of the minister on the front page of its August, 1969 edition and the title of the article, as a result of this photographic presentation, was "Bas-ford's Bureaucracy for Consumers". Let me suggest to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that the great concern of Canadians is not primarily the matter of standards and quality; it is in respect of the rising cost of living which has experienced no beneficial effect from the operations of the new department since it came into operation some two years ago.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour spoke in very kindly terms about the operations of the Canadian Standards Association in respect of the lumber industry in the province of British Columbia. He was on both sides of the question, however, because at one point he was condemning the operations of the CSA and at another moment he was complimenting that organization with faint praise. On the subject of red herrings, he was trying to indicate that the position of the official opposition was to oppose unconditionally the legislation that is before the House this afternoon.
Let me point out that the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) merely moved a motion to the effect that this bill not be proceeded with at the moment but that further consideration be given to its subject matter. I noticed that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was rather in sympathy with that proposition in his opening remarks.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Oh, no.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As I recall his words-I have re-read them for confirmation because I would not want to misquote the hon. gentleman's words or his position-he indicated
5018	COMMONS
Standards Council of Canada that the information he was giving to the House was newly acquired and he would like to transmit that newly acquired information to other members of the House.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Perhaps I could explain why I made that remark, Mr. Speaker. I have always believed that showing humility yourself helps other people to do likewise.


John Howard Lundrigan: Why don't you talk to the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault)?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, one of the beatitudes is "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." I fail to see that there has been much meekness manifested by this government in the two years it has been in office. I think one of the reasons the CSA has expressed its anxiety in letters to each member of the House-no doubt it has also been in touch with the minister-is that the bill before us goes much further than was indicated in conversations with the government over the past four years. They are concerned about the growing tendency of the government to resort to excessive powers in order to achieve whatever results it is attempting to achieve in the body politic. It is the old, emergency powers complex that used to beset the Liberal Party when it had been in office ad infinitum and ad nauseam until the year 1957, which attitude finally resulted in the downfall of that administration.
In the question that the minister raised a moment ago he indicated the reason he had used the phrase "newly acquired information" was that he wanted to indicate an attitude of humility, hoping that the same mood and attitude would be transmitted to other members of the House. But there is another aspect of this question that goes far beyond the interpretation that the minister has placed on his reference in this regard. He made that statement before the debate had even begun. Actually, when he was professing to be adopting a posture of humility he was assuming a posture of arrogance because he said his information was newly acquired and he, from his superior position of knowledge on the matter, was going to enlighten we who were less well informed, the ignoramuses of the House of Commons.
It also indicated that he was not going to listen to any of the recommendations that might be forthcoming during the debate and which might add to the store of knowledge {Mr. Dinsdale.]
DEBATES	March 13, 1970
that he has newly acquired in connection with his responsibility for piloting this legislation through the House. I want to make it abundantly clear that members of the official opposition are not against the idea of a coordinating council.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In fact, we strongly support the idea of a co-ordinating council. Whether or not it should be under the auspices of the government or of a voluntary association such as the CSA is a matter to be determined. I understand from the minister's presentation and the comments of other members in this debate that the CSA has been carrying out negotiations and having conversations with the government over the past few years, as a result of which it was under the impression that the function of the council which will be set up under the terms of Bill C-163 would be limited to a co-ordinating function.
The reason they are expressing concern now is that under the terms of the bill as was pointed out so eloquently by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) as well as other spokesmen for the official opposition, the powers of the council go far beyond the co-ordinating function which was originally conceived as being its role and the government-supported and established agency will move gradually into the whole area of standardization.
In view of the enthusiastic support of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour for at least the function of the CSA in establishing standards for the lumber industry, I expected he would be profoundly concerned and anxious about the government's unwarranted and excessive intrusion into this area of responsibility, one that was not originally indicated in the discussions that were held with the CSA.
The minister made another interesting observation which I am sure is in line with his reference to newly acquired knowledge and which suggested that he was open to advice and to serious second, sober thoughts: he suggested in the concluding part of his speech, the third from the last paragraph, something which I think is very pertinent to our discussions. It is to be found on page 4720 of Hansard and reads as follows:
The government could have turned over Its funds to an existing institution and said, "You do the job". However, it was believed that no agency existed which was national enough in scope and representative of enough interested parties, not only at the standards writing level but also, and,
March 13. 1970	COMMONS
mainly, at the policy-making level. No such organization exists at the present time. This is why we are, hopefully-
If I may make an aside, hope springs eternal in the human breast.
-creating one now.
I think this is a very excellent observation on the part of the minister. It is one that might well be considered if he accepts the amendment that has been moved by the official opposition, because it comes at the end of his speech where it seems apparent that even during the course of his presentation to the House he was having serious second thoughts about the government's excessive initiative in this regard.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain what I meant. The word "hopefully" is in relation to the amendment that was moved by the opposition that there should be a six months' hoist. I was hopeful that the opposition would reconsider the amendment and accept to discuss the bill in committee, leading to the creating of the council. But my hopes do not seem about to be realized, if I understand the hon. member well.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I take it from the minister's observation that he has some more newly acquired information and is considering the notion that perhaps a more effective and efficient system of co-ordination and dealing with the growing complexities of standardization on a national basis would be for existing bodies such as the CSA to handle it. The CSA, as I understand it, has done a creditable job.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour said that those of us from Manitoba and from some of the western regions of Canada are not speaking in the best interests of the areas we represent. Surely he is aware that we have in the city of Winnipeg a testing laboratory sponsored by the CSA. I think this is a very important function in the whole process of standardization.
Beyond that, the CSA has been operating on a budget of $4.5 million, which is a considerable sum of money. We have heard the expression, "what's a million?" In light of the astronomical public expenditures being made, the sum I mentioned might not be as significant as it used to be; but $4.5 million is still a substantial sum of money. Only 1 per cent of the amount that has been expended by a voluntary association in improving the standard of Canadian products has been provided by the government of Canada. Here is per-
DEBATES	5019
Standards Council of Canada haps another answer to the question that was asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour, namely, why has not the CSA been more active in this field?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I would say it has been as active as the funds available to it have allowed. Had the government been more generous, it could have been more active, particularly in light of the aroused concern of the people of Canada.
I would hope the minister was quite serious and sincere when he posed, as a possible alternative, the public sector-the government-reinforcing existing institutions-


Jean-Luc Pepin: He never did that.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -rather than competing directly to the extent indicated by this legislation, with the inevitable result that the government will eventually supersede entirely the activities of the CSA in this field. This is what the CSA fears.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is not the CSA that fears that. Did you try to find out who it was in the CSA?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The bill provides for a staff. Obviously, the standards council of Canada would be raiding the employees of the CSA, because there is no private body in this country which can stand up against the economic and financial powers of the government when it moves into an area of responsibility with such excessive, almost emergency powers such as those proposed in the bill before us. This is the protest we are making. We are not against a co-ordinating council. What we are opposing in this connection, as we oppose in connection with so many activities and initiatives of the government of Canada, is that it is assuming powers that are more than necessary, even in this Parliament, in order to exert its will upon the people of Canada. This is the fundamental point we are making. This is the reason for the growing concern about and suspicion of the government of Canada. I repeat again that I trust the minister is sincere when he is considering alternatives to this bill.
There is not much more I need to say on the subject at the moment, Mr. Speaker. I merely wanted to clarify some of the misinterpretations that had been placed on the position of the official opposition. We recognize the necessity for standardization of products, both in the domestic market and in the international market, just as we recognize-if
5020	COMMONS DEBATES	March 13. 1970
Standards Council of Canada . may quote the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour-the outstanding job that the CSA has done in this regard with limited public support, on a voluntary basis. We further recognize, Mr. Speaker, that other countries that were listed by the hon. member for Bou-rassa (Mr. Trudel), France, Sweden, Britain and the United States, prefer the voluntary approach to their standardization programs.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He said almost exactly the opposite.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: How is the government going to proceed if it cannot get the voluntary cooperation of the manufacturers concerned? Take another example, Mr. Speaker. Through the proposals in the white paper, the government is moving into the private sector. I say to members of the government, you will put these people out of business and you will not leave any room for voluntary action and initiative by the people of Canada. This is why we ask the minister, in the amendment that we have moved, that he give further consideration to this matter so that he might add to his stock of newly acquired knowledge of the subject.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, a good many fears and misgivings have been expressed about this bill from the opposition side of the House. I believe that our fears in this party are not the same kind as those expressed by the two or three members who preceded me. I always enjoy hearing the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) speak, but when he does I am reminded of the late Jan Masaryk who said that excitement is no program; and I keep saying to myself, eloquence also is no program. But he is a very nice person and soon settles down in his speeches to being a very "non-partisan" Liberal, with a big "L", so that we do enjoy hearing him. My fears are not those of the members of the Progressive Conservative Party. We in the NDP are not alarmed about the public authority moving into a given situation. As a matter of fact, in many situations today the public authority should be moving in because private business or private enterprise is not doing the job.
In the present case we are entitled to ask why the government is moving in, and what it will do when it does move in. If the existing Standards Association had been doing something different from what the government proposes to do, we might not be so concerned; but for the life of me I cannot see

that the government is proposing anything very different from what the CSA is already doing. The CSA has been operating on a purely voluntary basis, and the government makes it very clear that this bill intends to do nothing except on a purely voluntary basis and that mandatory standards are out.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), who is in the chamber now, said as recorded at page 4715 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, there are two types of standards-
There are also mandatory standards

I underline that Bill C-163 is concerned exclusively with voluntary standards.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What is wrong with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce being interested in voluntary standards and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) being interested in mandatory standards?


Winona Grace MacInnis: That is an excellent question, but the trouble is that it is too convenient for the government to be schizophrenic like that. To the consumer half of the public they give the impression that they are going to put in standards that will protect the public, and to the corporate half they say, "This is just going to be purely voluntary."


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker-


Winona Grace MacInnis: No, please don't get up again; I have only ten minutes. A schizophrenic image is being presented. I knew of the danger of this image when the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was established. I knew that sometimes the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs himself would be schizophrenic. It is bad enough when we find the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce talking about a voluntary basis, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs talking about a mandatory basis. That is serious enough because it confuses people.
But when the same minister begins talking both ways, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs does at times, he has me worried, because people today are not able to stand the strain of seeing a cabinet minister himself show serious schizophrenic symptoms. They do not expect that type of thing, and it throws many of them for a loop. That is my objection and the objection of my party to this legislation. We are afraid that the government is moving in, not to provide standards for the Canadian people but so it will be

perfectly sure that equal and impartial standards are not provided for the Canadian people. The government intends to leave the question of standards up to so-called free enterprise, which is neither free nor enterprising. It proposes to leave this question mainly up to monopoly enterprise: if other people want to come along, O.K; and if they don't, that is O.K. too.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker-


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister is exasperated. I would be, if I were sitting where he is. One is found out sooner or later, and here we are finding a little sin, or to change the image, a little skeleton in the cupboard.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
When the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) was speaking today, the illustration that he used for the good of standards and how they are working beautifully in his department was not a voluntary one at all. He took the Hazardous Products Act, but under that act things are not left to voluntary restraint; it sets out clearly and plainly substances that are dangerous to people and prohibits them. People move against this mandatory legislation at their peril because penalties for endangering the public are set out in the act.
We find the schizophrenic minister with another piece of legislation, which is part way through now, making that legislation mandatory because there is enough public pressure to make it mandatory but refusing to put another piece of legislation in because he wants it to be voluntary and that does not fit.
I suggest we are at a stage of development as an industrial nation where we cannot leave important standards on a voluntary basis. Consumers are demanding to know what they are getting in the way of sizes in children's clothing, the quality of fibres and standards for the different things they use around the home. We had car safety up for discussion yesterday. Consumers are getting to the point where they do not like things left to the good will, or lack of it, of manufacturers individually or collectively. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that voluntary standards mean unprotected consumers. Until we make the umbrella of standards cover everyone, we will have no adequate protection for the consumer.
As I say, I am still going to try to effect a divorce for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and get him in two pieces
Standards Council of Canada so that his right hand will not need to try and conceal what his left is doing, or vice versa. I want to see him protecting the consumers. The corporations do not need protection; they are able to look after themselves only too well. I want to know a lot more about why this legislation is being introduced. If the organization already existing has been doing a good job-and the minister waxed very lyrical about what a good job it had been doing-it has been on a voluntary basis. Now they come along with a government agency on a voluntary basis to supplant it.
The only reason I can think of for this measure is to make sure that standards will be left on a voluntary basis. This theme is running through the rest of the government's legislation. I refer to the water act. Over and over again I am reminded that there will not be, if this government follows its present intention, any national standards for clean water. Why not? Because manufacturers in one area want to keep the water so that they can, for a fee, continue dumping effluent into it.
The answer for the government is to get voluntary standards because mandatory ones would make it impossible for sectional interests to continue carrying on the way they are. That kind of philosophy leads the government into a rather unenviable position. It puts them in the position of "big brotherism", always watching very carefully the scene: they are always considering, measuring, white papering and task forcing. But what they are really doing is making very sure that the status quo will be maintained, and that the strong will be able to keep their position of entrenched strength with just enough restraint of a voluntary nature urged upon them so that the consumers can continue to breathe, even if the air is polluted and the water filthy to the point where they do not even like to wash their dishes in it.
Speaking from the standpoint of the consumer, I say we should get rid of this nonsense of believing that any favoured section of the community needs special protection today. The consumers are all of us, and until we make standards safe and uniform to cover us all, they will not be standards at all.
My colleagues have already dealt adequately and thoroughly with this matter, but after listening to the minister this morning-not the minister who is here but the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is probably out dividing himself between consumers and corporations and not letting his

Canada Labour Code
right hand know what his left hand is doing- when he spoke about the Utopia that would be created under this bill, I was reminded of my childhood and a meeting of Labour Party supporters that took place in Winnipeg. One old fellow came to this meeting and painted pictures of Utopia and how everybody would be living in gingerbread houses, with water flowing from the mountains and 1,600 more kinds of birds than we have now twittering on all kinds of fruit trees, and the skies filled with signs and he would be rising up in his glory to contemplate the whole scene. I thought of that Utopia this morning when the minister was holding forth on the beauties of this legislation and its possibilities.
In this Garden of Eden that the minister portrayed there was one perfectly good serpent: that was the idea of voluntary standards, voluntary controls, voluntary restraints -all those voluntary things. Things are to be voluntary only for the big folk; the little ones are restrained by law. How much voluntary restraint have the little ones got in the matter of consumer credit, after last night's budget? Voluntary restraint is frozen injustice. This is what I am afraid of as a result of this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. As it is four o'clock, the House will now proceed with private members' business as listed in today's order paper, that is to say, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Stanley Howard Knowles: that Bill C-43 amending the Canada Labour (Standards) Code be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.

He said: Mr. Speaker, we may have come out of the Garden of Eden but there are still a few serpents around that we should do our best to slay. Indeed, we now have before us a bill that relates to another set of standards.
I should like to remind the House that during this session we have broken with tradition a bit in that three of four or maybe
[Mrs. Maclnnis.l
even five or six private members' bills and resolutions have received concurrence during the private members' hour. In some cases that has meant simply the referral of a bill to an appropriate committee so that it could be studied further. I hope that this new tradition might continue this afternoon. Accordingly, with that fervent hope I shall present this bill in the most reasonable way I can. That is easy to do because it seeks to enact into legislation a principle with which we all agree.
e (4:00 p.m.)
The proposal of Bill C-43 is that the Canada Labour (Standards) Code be amended. That code is the legislation which lays down standards regarding minimum wages, hours of work, general holidays, vacations with pay and so on. But there are a few gaps in that legislation and this bill seeks to fill one of those gaps.
This bill proposes that within the area of employment that comes under federal labour jurisdiction there be a requirement that any employer who wishes to discharge or lay off an employee, provided the employee has been with that employer for three months or more, Shall give two weeks' notice to the employee. The employee, of course, can be given two weeks' full pay in lieu of that notice, but the bill spells out that nothing less than that shall be given to such employee.
I point out immediately that the bill has in it a clause which shows how to work out full pay for two weeks. It also makes it clear that if the person who has received notice were to work overtime during that two weeks, he would be entitled to more than the two weeks normal pay. It also has in it a very important provision saying that nothing in this bill shall affect any greater rights set out in a collective agreement. One or two other points are covered in the bill, but in the main I have indicated what it seeks to do. It seeks to establish as a principle in federal labour legislation that provided an employee has been for three months with the same employer, that employee shall not be summarily discharged but shall be given at least two weeks' notice or two weeks' full pay in lieu of that notice.
When I stand here and present this bill to the House I do not feel like shouting from the house tops that it is the most wonderful bill I have ever drafted. As a matter of fact, I think it asks for far too little. I think for a person to be given only two weeks' notice or two


weeks' pay before being turned out into the cold of unemployment is really not enough, and I would not be at all unhappy if hon. members of other parties or members of my own party were to say that the bill should be amended to provide for three or four weeks' pay in such cases. But I have learned around here that you have to ask for a minimum in order to get something started. I hope the House generally will see this bill as introducing a principle that ought to be written into our federal labour legislation.
Every time a bill dealing with either of the labour codes comes before us-and it might deal with the standards code or the safety code-we have to make it clear that the federal labour law does not affect all the working people of Canada; it affects only those who come under federal labour jurisdiction as set out in the British North America Act. The main groups, of course, are those who work on our railways, on steamships, in banking, communications and a few occupations like that. The list is rather long, but even when you take all those covered by the list you find that you are speaking about only 10 per cent of the working force of Canada. The other 90 per cent of our workers are covered under provincial labour laws.
Nevertheless, it has been a fact of history in Canada that the federal government is able to give a lead, and what we write into federal labour law not only protects those who come under it but sets the pattern which in due course one province after another finds it expedient to follow. In this way, over the years, we have managed to build up a labour law which is not too much at variance as among the various provinces or between the provinces and the federal government. I should say that it is not always the federal government that gives the lead. In some instances provinces may give the lead, and I suppose this is good in a federal state like ours. It is good that patterns are set both ways.
We have been made aware in recent days of a number of instances of plants closing down and of sections of the labour force losing their jobs immediately. I will not quarrel at this moment with the answer the government makes when it says that some of these matters we have complained about come under provincial jurisdiction. The point I am trying to make is that even though many of these instances fall under provincial jurisdiction, surely it is a good idea to provide that under federal labour law workers
Canada Labour Code
cannot be discharged with almost no notice and without any pay for any period of time.
It is also a fact that most of the employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction, particularly railway workers, airline workers and groups like that, are rather well organized. They have this kind of protection. But there are still many who are under federal labour jurisdiction who do not have this protection. Because we do not have the principle enunciated in this bill written into laws which govern at the federal level, I submit there is a significant gap in the labour laws of this country.
As I say, I cannot imagine any member of this House not agreeing with the principle of the bill. I can imagine some questions about its details. The most significant criticism would be one that people like me would levy-that it does not go far enough. But surely in principle it is good. It is good that we in Parliament should say that so far as we can enact by legislation, nobody shall lose his job without being given either two weeks notice or two weeks pay in lieu thereof. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope the House, after discussing the bill during this hour, will decide it is a good idea to give it second reading so that it can be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for further study.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what Garden of Eden the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was referring to in his opening remarks. However, I commend the hon. member for bringing to the attention of the House, through the medium of this bill, a situation which merits the attention of every hon. member. His proposal is in the form of an amendment to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and if adopted it would mean that employees would be compensated in cases of discharge or lay-off and employers would be forced to give employees due notice when their services were no longer required because of the closing of business, industry or for any other cause.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I do not hesitate to agree with the need for legislation to bring about a uniform policy governing every employer of labour in every part of Canada. I agree with the hon. member that the principle of this bill is good, the purpose of which, as I have already said, is to provide compensation for workers losing their jobs through no fault of their own. In this age


Canada Labour Code
of automation it oftens happens that a particular job is eliminated by machinery or by the closing of an industry, or it can cause loss of seniority or other rights and privileges due to employees by virtue of length of service.
A few years ago I supported in this House a similar measure for the benefit of railwaymen who had lost their jobs as a result of changes brought about by the abandonment of branch lines or automation. The purpose was to have the railways pay the railwaymen being rehabilitated with new skills, the expense of moving to a new job, pension compensation for early retirement-if that was considered the better plan-or such other compensation deemed best for the re-establishment of discharged employees.
Public benefits through unemployment insurance to qualified workers seeking employment were also intended to help the displaced worker through the period in which he might be unemployed. In recent years, through collective bargaining, the concept of severance pay and the availability of unemployment insurance have been merged in a variety of ways. Workers who are laid off with or without the expectation that the layoff will be permanent are also realizing, in cash or in vested rights and fringe benefits, what they stand to lose, together with compensation for wages lost. Traditional severance pay plans provide a money payment in a lump sum or instalments to workers whose employment has been terminated.
I recall that during the period when I was mayor of the city of Fort William our city-owned telephone service was changed over from manual to the present dial system. At that time we had approximately 70 telephone operators on the payroll, and with the installation of the dial system some 60 operators lost their jobs. The city council decided to give each of them severance remuneration, the amount of which was settled according to the months and years of employment of each individual. With a complete severance of the employment relationship, as in the case of the Fort William telephone girls, payments are such that only permanent separation is applicable. These awards are variously referred to as severance pay, termination pay, dismissal allowance, separation benefit, and lay-off allowance where lay-off implies permanent lay-off. Under such plans the payment of benefits is not contingent on the worker remaining unemployed.
The primary purpose of supplemental unemployment benefit plans is to provide

weekly allowances to workers on lay-offs to supplement unemployment compensation. Usually the lay-off is not considered permanent, that is, both employer and worker expect the worker to be recalled on the job. Unlike traditional severance pay plans, supplemental unemployment benefits are paid only if the worker is unemployed.
The publication "Labour Standards in Canada" of December, 1967, reports that four provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Quebec, have legislation requiring an employer to give notice of termination of employment. The legislation is contained in part 3 of the Employment Standards Act of Manitoba, in the Minimum Wage Acts of Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia and in the Civil Code of Quebec.
As the hon. member who introduced this bill knows, in Manitoba an employer or employee in any work or occupation except farming must give notice of termination of employment, and unless a person is paid less frequently than once a month the period of notice required is one regular paid period. If employees are paid less often than once a month, reasonable notice must be given. But notice of termination is not required if an employee is hired for a fixed period.
In Saskatchewan an employer is forbidden to discharge, unless for just cause other than shortage of work, or lay off an employee for three months or more without giving him at least one week's written notice. An employee who has been given written notice is entitled, in respect of the period of notice, to his actual earnings in a week.
In Nova Scotia, as in Saskatchewan, an employer is required to give an employee with three months' continuous service or more, at least one week's written notice of termination of employment or lay-off. The provisions in these two provinces are the same so far as the employer's obligation is concerned. The Nova Scotia act also requires an employee with three months' service or more to give his employer at least one week's notice of his intention to terminate his employment.
In Quebec the Civil Code requires a domestic servant, journeyman or labourer engaged by the week, month or year to give one week's notice of termination of employment if hired by the week, two weeks' notice if hired by the month, and a month's notice if hired by the year. The employer must give similar notice where an employee's services are no


longer required. In lieu of notice the employer may pay the employee the wages he would have earned during the notice period.
At the forty-seventh session of the International Labour Organization held at Geneva on June 26, 1963, certain recommendations were made concerning termination of employment. Some of these recommendations are as follows:
Termination of employment should not take place unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service.
A worker who feels that his employment has been unjustifiably terminated should be entitled unless the matter has been satisfactorily determined through such procedures within the undertaking, establishment or service, as may exist or be established consistent with this recommendation, to appeal, within a reasonable time, against that termination with the assistance, where the worker so requests, of a person representing him to a body established under a collective agreement or to a neutral body such as a court, an arbitrator, an arbitration committee or a similar body.
Subparagraph (1) should not be construed as implying that the neutral body should be empowered to intervene in the determination of the size of the work force of the undertaking, establishment or service.
A worker whose employment is to be terminated should be entitled to a reasonable period of notice or compensation in lieu thereof.
Some form of income protection should be provided for workers whose employment has been terminated; such protection may include unemployment insurance or other forms of social security, or severance allowance or other types of separation benefits paid for by the employer, or a combination of benefits depending upon national laws or regulations, collective agreements and the personnel policy of the employer.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
These recommendations concerning termination of employment are from the General Conference of the International Labour Organization in Geneva. As to the recommendation about methods of implementation, it was agreed it might be made through national laws, regulations, collective agreements, work rules arbitration awards, court decisions or in such other manner consistent with national practice as might be appropriate under national conditions.
Should the whole burden in these cases fall on the employer? That is a question which might well be taken up by a parliamentary committee for study and recommendation. Industries such as the Dunlop plant in Toronto, where it was recently reported that layoffs would occur, have certain obligations to
Canada Labour Code
their employees; such obligations are bound to arise whenever the position of employees is affected by the installation of labour-saving installations.
According to a news item in today's issue of the Globe and Mail, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company of Canada Limited, Toronto, is to shut down along with plants at Val-leyfield and Saint Hyacinthe in the province of Quebec. Announcements of this kind are bound to raise questions of considerable importance in this era of industrial change. Workers in the transportation industry, no less than workers in factories, are affected by them.
The threatened run-through by Canadian National at Nakeena in northwestern Ontario is an example. If carried out, it would impose real hardship on families living in this community. It would be a case of sacrificing the welfare of a small community on the cross of efficiency. I express the hope that it will not be necessary for the railways to take this drastic step.
Down through the years delegation after delegation has appeared before ministers and heads of departments to protest the curtailment of railway services, including express and telegraph service, and to discuss other matters of great concern to the men and women employed in our once great railway system. Sometimes their pleas have been directed to situations in other industries; I have in mind the occasion when the Canada Car plant in my constituency was about to close down due to lack of orders. Invariably these delegations were well received and a sympathetic hearing was given to their anguished pleas that consideration should be extended to workers on the verge of being displaced.
The bill before us today will not put an end to the displacement of workers because of shutdowns, automation or other causes, but at least it will offer some assistance at a time when help is most needed.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take part in the debate on the motion for second reading and referral to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration of Bill C-43 which would incorporate into the Canada Labour Code a regulation compelling the employer to pay two weeks' salary to a laid-off employee.
I should like to tell the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that I sup-


Canada Labour Code
port the principle of his bill. I am glad to see him taking part in the debate. In a democratic system, it is normal that a man who is laid off due to an improvement aimed at greater efficiency, to cost shaving or to automation receive a payment.
I have a few things to say about labour relations in our country. There are two aspects to the question which should not be mistaken.
Labour groups, formed to protect the rights of workers, sometimes negotiate agreements with employers in the name of employees. But there is another category of workers in Canada who do not belong to unions and who represent 55 or 60 per cent of the Canadian labour force, although those figures may not be exact.
The rights of unionized workers are protected to some extent. The law recognizes their right to strike. It establishes a certain procedure for the approval of collective agreements when the two parties are at odds. The worker who belongs to an union can also make sure that the latter has made some investigations concerning his type of work, in order that the industry where he is working will not simply become obsolete and go out of business.
I will now discuss a quite important aspect. It is perhaps the most important in most cases. It often happens that on account of the attitude of the employer or the union, we are led to believe that money or wages is the most important consideration.
All those who bargain with employees know very well that the financial aspects of a collective agreement, at a given time, have less importance. Labour conditions would come first. Among them are many small practical considerations. I mean hours of work and retraining.
I am also referring to the problems of human relations that can arise between the foreman and the men and the way to settle them. Collective agreements specify recognized means to settle grievances or other similar difficulties.
There are also the provisions concerning leisure. In Canada, apparently, we are not yet smart enough to realize that we need more spare time, and this at all levels of our society, including workers, members of Parliament, executives, etc.
Canadians do not seem to have yet recognized the importance of leisure time. In fact, it is most important not to work 60 or 70

hours per week and to devote one hour or-two per day to recreation. This time can be devoted to reading, or to any other physical activity. One can also devote his spare time to an intellectual activity.	.
In negotiating new collective agreements this particular aspect is beginning to be considered. Indeed, it is believed that the worker must stop work two hours a day in order to relax his mind or devote himself to physical exercise. Therefore, he is in top shape and works twice as fast and much more carefully. He feels more at ease. Furthermore, this is very good for his health. In Canada, some unions are concerned about that.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I am mainly concerned about those workers who do not benefit from the provisions of collective agreements. Some of those people are even to be found in the employ of large companies, in forestry for example, where employees are not members of any union. Sometimes, when three lumberjacks use the same power-saw, the foreman says: I can no longer keep more than one worker. So, the other two must leave. They must then give up their job, because they do not have the $200 that are necessary for the purchase of a power-saw.
What is more serious, is that the employer tells the Unemployment Insurance Commission that the worker has given up his job voluntarily. That is obviously an extreme case, but it may happen. In fact, in my district especially, if often happens that unfair advantage is taken of some people by large companies. The principle of the bill submitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre appears to be wise, because the object of the proposal is to prevent exploitation of the worker.
Also, a good many workers are not in the employ of large companies and it could be argued that they allow inefficient undertakings to carry on their activities. Such businesses should not exist since the employers do not do enough for their employees and do not make available to them a useful apprenticeship. In short, the employee is the loser because after 10 or 15 years, the business goes bankrupt. The owner always succeeds in coming off without too much harm but it is always the employee who pays the piper.
I agree with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just said, as what, he is proposing only amounts to an absolute minimum. As I said, I approve the principle


of the bill before us. Provincial governments should also adopt similar legislation and all employers should be completed to include such provisions in collective agreements. If an employee works for a company or an individual for five or six years, the employer should be concerned about his security and give him severance pay when he is laid off to enable him to support himself for three weeks or a month-


An hon. Member:: Two weeks.


Herb Breau: -the hon. member says he should be able to support himself for two weeks. I feel it would be justified to extend this period to three weeks or a month in some cases.
I am pleased that this bill is now under consideration. I support the motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It is not often that I can support him, although I always hold his opinions in high respect. However, we do not share the same political views. In any case, I am glad to back him up. I know he is striving to improve the workers' lot, to get them better protection by society. The challenge our society will be facing in the 70's and even in the 80's will be to enact legislation that will better serve the workers' interests. Besides, that problem should urgently be solved.
The hon. member knows that things will not necessarily change through legislation. Canadians, and more particularly the employers, must recognize the principle to the effect that employees are not machines to be be paid $40 or $100 per week. They must no longer be told to go when the work is done.
I think that in the years to come, the challenge for our society, in Canada as well as in the United States, will be to find, by means of legislation or otherwise, how to protect the interests of unorganized workers.
When we speak of collective agreements, a lot of people think that it is a threat to economy, but I do not agree. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) said recently that strikes were the price to pay for democracy. It may be an over-simple manner to visualize things but the philosophy under this approach is not for all that devoid of any sense. Many civil servants are against the right to strike, but under a democratic system, it must be recognized that the worker has to protect his interests, his rights and his privileges, which is getting more and more urgent.
Today, we are in an era of automation and I could quote as an example the case of a
Canada Labour Code
company that would settle in a small town that I know, but because its technology is not developed, could ruin the life of all those people not only financially but socially as well. This phenomenon exists in certain parts of Canada. In my riding there are some small towns that a single company could turn into ghost towns.
However, when employees become well organized and see to it that the company that hires them is going into research in order to progress through automation, that company will not be able to state one fine day that it can no longer operate.
I therefore say again to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that I agree with the principle of the bill. I trust that some time in the future the provinces will adopt a similar bill, that it might no longer be necessary to adopt laws such as this one, because what I have just dealt with will have become a working condition recognized throughout the country by all employers.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for introducing this bill. I know that in so doing he has drawn attention to a situation in Canada which must leave many of us very unhappy. Probably most of us thought that this matter was already taken care of by various regulations, or perhaps even just by custom throughout the country; but obviously it is not properly taken care of.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) has pointed out that only four provinces in Canada have regulations in the provincial jurisdiction covering this question. In other provinces of Canada and elsewhere it seems to be the custom that an employee is given notice according to the length of his normal pay period; that is to say, if he is employed by the week, it is assumed that he is entitled to a week's notice. If he is paid on the basis of every two weeks, twice a month, or monthly, he is entitled to notice for the length of his pay period.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We must all recognize that this indefinite situation leaves a great deal to be desired, and it leaves both the employer and the employee wondering what is the fact today. In many instances it must leave the employee the victim of an unscrupulous employer who takes advantage of a situation, which may not


Canada Labour Code
be written into law, to dismiss an employee without the kind of notice to which he is entitled. I think we have come a long way from the kind of situation in the past when employees were treated as chattels and could be dismissed on a moment's notice or at the whim of an employer. We now treat employees with some deference and respect for the responsibilities they have. I commend the bill the hon. member has introduced today.
I understand that the Department of Labor is now considering legislation, or a regulation of this kind. I think it is important, now that the bill has been introduced, that we look at the inferences in it and consider what is being done in other jurisdictions, in order that these thoughts may be of use to us in developing similar legislation and regulations in Canada. I believe there are some things in the bill that need improving. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre himself said, there are in the bill some things that could be improved. I notice the absence of enforcement regulations in the bill-enforcement on the part of the employer and the employee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does he not realize that this matter would be covered, because the bill would be an amendment to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and there are already enforcement provisions in the code?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I
appreciate that clarification. The hon. member has much more experience in these things and has been in this House many more years than I have. I appreciate his clarification on that point because I have experienced situations of this kind. Sometimes the fault is not that of the employer: quite often the fault is the employee's because he decides suddenly to leave the employer. The hon. member mentions this matter in section 34H. I am glad to see it is there, because the situation I have mentioned could work a hardship.
Lack of responsibility sometimes by employees could be a distinct detriment to a business that needs the services of a skilled employee and suddenly finds it does not have that service available. Responsibility has to be shown by the employee as well as the employer. I appreciate that this provision is in

the bill, and I hope that when this idea is propelled further, regulations will be put into effect which will make this measure enforceable.
I was very surprised to discover that there are only form provinces in Canada which have regulations of this kind. As the hon. member for Fort William pointed out, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Quebec have such regulations. The regulations for giving notice do not apply if a general custom or practice which is contrary to the terms of the act prevails in an industry. These are some of the provisions that exist when different conditions as to notice are established by collective agreement. If employment is terminated during an employee's first two weeks on a job, notice is not required unless the employer and the employee have agreed in writing that the requirements of the act shall apply. An employer is permitted to establish a practice whereby employment may be terminated with a shorter period of notice than that provided for in the act or in provincial acts, and the practice is considered to have been established one month after he has posted notice of these things.
It seems to me that regulations of this kind leave a great many loopholes that need to be filled. These matters have to be spelled out in a better way. It is true that complaints can be placed before provincial ministers, say within a 90-day period, and procedures are laid down under some provincial regulations for so doing. In Saskatchewan an employer is forbidden to discharge, unless for just cause other than a shortage of work, or lay off an employee who has been in his service continuously for three months or more, without giving him at least one week's written notice. A lay-off is defined as a temporary dispensation of an employee's service for a period of more than six consecutive days.
In Nova Scotia, as in Saskatchewan, an employer is required to give an employee with three months' continuous service or more at least one week's notice of termination of employment or lay-off. The provisions in these two provinces are similar so far as employee's obligations are concerned. The Nova Scotia act requires an employee with three months' service or more to give his employer at least one week's notice of his intention to terminate his employment. Those are some of the provincial regulations we must consider, together with international thinking on this subject. We gain much of our information about labour relations and much


of our direction,, initiative and inspiration from the International Labour Organization. They have studied this matter and have come up with recommendations, specifically as a result of a meeting that was held in 1963. I should like to discuss some of these points because I think they are valuable and can be of guidance to us in considering this matter.
It is suggested in the International Labour Organization agreement that the effect of their recommendations can be brought in through national laws, collective agreements, regulations, work rules, arbitration awards, court decisions or in such other manner consistent with national practice as may be appropriate under national conditions. I shall refer to some of the things they feel we in Canada and those in other parts of the world should be doing. Let me refer to the question of a reasonable period of notice. Section 7 of the agreement says:
A worker whose employment is to be terminated should be entitled to a reasonable period of notice or compensation in lieu thereof.
During the period of notice the worker should, as far as practicable, be entitled to a reasonable amount of time off without loss in pay in order to seek other employment.
Such a provision might well be included in a bill of this kind. If an employee knows he will have to find other employment, it seems fair that he should be allowed a reasonable period in which to seek a new position. He should have the opportunity to go for an interview or fill in an application for employment. The next paragraph of section 7 states:
The worker whose employment has been terminated should be entitled to receive, on request, at the time of the termination, a certificate from the employer specifying the dates of his engagement and the termination and the type or types of work on which he was employed.
This is another very useful provision. It suggests that nothing unfavourable to the worker should be inserted in the certificate. There is in the suggested regulations a point about an employee's misconduct. I think this point should be looked at because it does bear on the question.
In case of dismissal or serious misconduct, a period of notice or compensation in lieu thereof need not be required, and the severence allowance or other types of separation benefits paid for by the employer, where applicable, may be withheld.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It makes suggestions regarding misconduct because these are questions employers will ask, and I think they are entitled to ask them because the government must act on this
Canada Labour Code
matter for both labour and management. I think we stand between the two. The agreement reads in part:
Dismissal for serious misconduct should take place only in cases where the employer cannot in good faith be expected to take any other course.
An employer should be deemed to have waived his right to dismiss for serious misconduct if such action has not been taken within a reasonable time after he has become aware of serious misconduct.
A worker should be deemed to have waived his right to appeal against dismissal for serious misconduct if he has not appealed within a reasonable time after he has been notified of the dismissal.
Before a decision to dismiss a worker for serious misconduct becomes finally effective, the worker should be given an opportunity to state his case promptly, with the assistance where appropriate of a person representing him.
Those are all very valuable recommendations which should be included in a properly drafted bill when the time comes. Some exceptions are noted in the ILO recommendations. I think they are of interest to us today. They are:
workers engaged for a specified period of time or a specified task in cases in which, owing to the nature of the work to be effected, the employment relationship cannot be of indeterminate duration.
We could all readily cite examples where that might be the situation. Certainly, if a man is hired for snow removal-perhaps not in Ottawa but in some other parts of the country-his work is of a temporary nature and perhaps is not entitled to such consideration. I see that the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) takes exception to my comments about the weather in Ottawa. Another member from the Vancouver area suggests that in Vancouver the man would be completely unemployed. The following are the other exceptions:
workers serving a period of probation determined in advance and of reasonable duration;
You can hire a man for a specified period which might be more than three months but which would be a specific period of time. The next exception is as follows: workers engaged on a casual basis for a short period; and
public servants engaged in the administration of the State to the extent only that constitutional provisions preclude the application to them of one or more provisions of this recommendation.
Those are some of the very excellent recommendations put out by the International Labour Organization in 1963. I think they are


Canada Labour Code
worth a great deal of attention by the government when a bill of this kind is drawn up by the committee.


Harold Edward Winch: Will it get to committee?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I hope it will. As I mentioned earlier, I understand the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) is considering regulations of this kind, so whether or not this bill goes forward I am sure the matter will receive favourable consideration. We can all be glad this is the case, because I am sure there is agreement on all sides of the House that legislation of this kind should become part of the legal structure in Canada. It is a shock to us to find that only four provinces have similar provisions in their legislation and that the federal government does not have them in its federal labour code. This bill is long overdue, and I heartily support it. I hope it goes forward, and I commend the hon. member for having introduced it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, we are now studying Bill C-43 entitled "An act to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (Notice and payment to employees in case of discharge or lay-off)."
This is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, that such a bill comes before the House; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) introduced this bill in the House of Commons on another occasion, during another session of another parliament. Both sides of the house support the idea.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


An hon. Member:: In French!


Raymond J. Perrault: In
French only!


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
French? We are all bilingual now, aren't we?

In view of the fact that all the speakers today, and now the hon. member, have expressed themselves in favour of the principle of this bill, I wonder if we could have the bill sent to the committee so it could be considered further en Anglais et en Francais.


Grant Deachman: I hesitate for only one reason, that is, the government is now studying the matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). We know also that we are not dealing with a relatively simple subject which we can pass in the House of Commons in the form of a private member's bill. We need only look at the clauses involving such subjects as notice, payment to employees, computation of wages, savings, notice of intention to terminate, and so on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In both French and English it is now five o'clock. The House will adjourn until Monday at 2 p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 16, 1970