1971-03-15

PRIVILEGE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question of privilege affecting all members of the House of Commons. Last Friday the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) questioned the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) concerning plans to assure that there would be no discrimination against public servants in the government's implementation of the program for bilingualism in the Public Service. This question arose from the recent statement by the President of the Treasury Board when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates and the case of Mr. Demicher who was arbitrarily released from his position with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In reply, the President of the Treasury Board invited the right hon. member to appear before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates for an answer.
I raise this question, Mr. Speaker, because last Thursday I attended the meeting of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates to discuss the implications of the government's statement with reference to promotion opportunities as they affect long service public servants, senior public servants and public servants living in unilingual areas of the country such as western Canada. The question was raised in committee of my right to pursue this line of questioning at length inasmuch as I was not a member of that committee. Furthermore, when the committee abruptly adjourned at 11 a.m. I was in the midst of my questioning and was informed that because of his many other responsibilities the minister would not be returning to the committee.
My question of privilege is the following, Mr. Speaker: Parliamentary committees are an extension of the committee on ways and means of the whole House. Prior to the downgrading of the rights and privileges of private members under the rule changes, when the examination of estimates was removed from the House, it was the responsibility of the minister to appear before Parliament to defend his estimates. Only ministers of the Crown can deal with policy matters, and it is a fundamental denial of the principle of responsibility when Members of Parliament are confronted in committee more and more by officials rather than by the responsible minister.
I therefore move:
That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to ensure that the traditional rights of members of the House of Commons in connection with the granting of supply be restored.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member appreciates that the motion can be put only if there is a ruling from the Chair when there is established a prima facie case of privilege. He also knows that when there is a prima facie case of privilege the traditional practice is that the matters which have been raised by way of a question of privilege are referred not to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, as suggested by the hon. member, but rather to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, the committee that normally looks at matters of that kind.
The hon. member has raised by way of a question of privilege the fact that a minister was not in attendance in a committee of the House to answer questions which the hon. member wanted to submit to him. The hon. member suggested that the difficulty he has encountered is the result of the changes in the rules of the House of Commons. I respectfully suggest to him that this is hardly a matter which can be raised by way of a question of privilege.
The hon. member may feel aggrieved in the sense that he did not have an opportunity to obtain the information he was seeking, but I would then think that the matter becomes a question of substance, and the only way in which a debate may be initiated in the House is by way of a substantive motion. In fact, the motion suggested by the hon. member is essentially a substantive motion and in the circumstances it should not be raised as a question of privilege. I must rule that there being no prima facie case of privilege the motion cannot be put at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41 (2) I wish to table a statement in both official languages on the Prairie grain receipts stabilization plan.

March 15, 1971
Questions DIVORCE ACT



AMENDMENT TO REDUCE PERIOD OF SEPARATION OF SPOUSES AS GROUND FOR PETITION

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my hon. friend from Greenwood and at his request, may I ask leave to introduce this bill and move its first reading?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to introduce the bill on behalf of the hon. member for Greenwood?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) for Mr. Brewin, moved for leave to introduce Bill C-230, to amend the Divorce Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, at present the Divorce Act accepts as a ground for petitioning for divorce a submission that there has been a permanent breakdown of the marriage by reason of the fact that the spouses have lived apart for not less than three years. The purpose of this bill in the name of my hon. friend from Greenwood is to reduce that period from three years to one year as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

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

Mr. McCleave: 1.	Has the Public Service Alliance proposed to the government that amendments be made to the Public Service Staff Relations Act which would permit collective bargaining in the Armed Forces and, if so, with what response?
2.	Has any other group appearing to speak for organized labour made such a proposal and, if so, who and with what result?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. No.
2.	No.


NEW TORONTO AIRPORT
Mr. Haidasz: Will the new airport for the Toronto and neighbouring areas contain facilities for handling (a) jumbo aircraft (b) supersonic aircraft?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: A decision has not been made as yet

with regard to the site or potential role of a new airport to serve the Toronto-centred region. At this point in time, a system of airports is envisaged within which Malton would have an important on-going role. Facilities will be available within this airport system to accommodate jumbo type aircraft. These facilities would also be capable of handling supersonic aircraft if these aircraft should come into airline service.


CLASSIFICATION OF UNIFORMED CUSTOMS OFFICERS AT INTERNATIONAL PORTS OF ENTRY
Mr. Mather: Are uniformed Customs Officers at International ports of entry classified as clerical by Treasury Board and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Yes, because the duties they perform have been identified as falling within the definition and inclusions of the clerical and regulatory group of the administrative support category. The particular inclusion in this instance covers positions in which the following is of primary importance:
"The application of regulations derived from statutes in accordance with established instructions and guidelines in order to determine eligibility for benefit or privileges, or liability for the payment of taxes or duties."


CNR-REPAINTING BOX CARS TO ILLUSTRATE CONTENTS
Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, was the cost in 1970 of repainting CNR box cars in line with the "new idea" to illustrate their contents?


Gérard Duquet: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Only four freight cars were involved in this promotional experiment and the cars selected were those requiring repainting. The work was carried out in the company's Point St. Charles Shop during the regular shopping program. The cost per car was approximately $500.


AIRCRAFT LANDING CHARGES
Mr. Reid: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question Number 728, in Hansard at page 2800, January 26, 1970, has the Department of Transport increased its charges for aircraft landing at DOT airports in Canada within the past three years and, if so, on what date and by how much, each time, in the form of terminal charges based on the number of seats in an aircraft?
2.	On aircraft of the following type, DC-9, DC-8 and Boeing 737, what has been the effective increase in landing fees as a result of this new terminal charge in both percentages and in revenue for each type?
3.	Does this new landing fee apply (a) to the number of passengers carried (b) to the number of seats in the aircraft (c) to the weight of the aircraft?
4.	What has been the increase in revenue from this increased landing fee at Ottawa Airport, Winnipeg Airport and Vancouver Airport?


Gérard Duquet: 1 and 3. The general terminal charge

March 15, 1971

Questions
is applicable at six airports, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver International Airports. The general terminal charge formula was revised on July 1, 1968. Prior to July 1, 1968 the formula comprised a scale of fixed fees. The fixed fees represented only one-half of the rate which had been indicated in an economic study made in 1960 when the general terminal charge was first implemented. With the advent of new types of aircraft and aircraft models the fixed fee formula became
impracticable. Therefore on July 1, 1968 the formula was revised based on units of five seats assessed on the seating capacity of the aircraft, and thereby the full rate indicated by the economic study, referred to previously became applicable. The revised general terminal charge is $1 per unit of five seats on a domestic flight and $2 per unit of five seats on a non domestic flight.
2. The effective increase for the aircraft specified is as follows:
(a) Domestic Flights	Charge Prior to	Charge Effective	Increase	Type of Aircraft	July 1,1968	July 1,1968	$	%(I) DC9-Standard	8.50	13.00	4.50	53(II) DC9-Stretched	8.50	18.00	9.50	112(III) DC8-Standard	12.50	28.00	15.50	124(IV) DC8-Stretched	12.50	40.00	27.50	220(V) Boeing 737	8.50	18.00	9.50	112(b) Non Domestic Flights	Charge Prior to	Charge Effective	Increase	Type of Aircraft	July 1,1968	July 1,1968	$	%(I) DC9-Standard	17.50	26.00	8.50	48(II) DC 9-Stretched	17.50	36.00	18.50	105(III) DC8-Standard	25.00	56.00	31.00	124(IV) DC8-Stretched	25.00	80.00	55.00	220(V) Boeing 737	17.50	36.00	18.50	106
4. The statistical details are not available to calculate the additional revenue due to increased rates separately from the additional revenue due to increased traffic. The over-all increases in general terminal charge revenue are shown for the three year period April 1, 1967 to March 31, 1970 for two of the three specified airports. The general terminal charge does not apply at the Ottawa International Airport, (a) Vancouver International Airport: The general terminal charge was introduced following the completion of the new terminal building on September 10, 1968. 1968/69, $308,206; 1969/70, $768,892. (b) Winnipeg International Airport: 1967/68, $131,656; 1968/ 69, $272,732; 1969/70, $377,958.


CENSORSHIP OF BOOKS IMPORTED INTO CANADA
[Stage Direction]
are not permitted entry (under authority of Section 12 of the Customs Tariff). The examining officer then advises the importer of the decision, including his right of appeal to the Deputy Minister (under Subsection 4 of Section 43) for a reclassification of the goods. Should the appeal be denied, the importer can take a further appeal to the judge of the country or district court as provided by Section 46A of the Customs Act.
3.	The first classification is made by the port officer and at headquarters the review is made by persons classified as senior executive officers. In the event of an appeal, see reply to Question 2.
4.	A primary consideration is the wording of the Tariff Item itself. This is supplemented by internal guidelines which are based on the sense of community standards
Mr. Hales: 1 Who is responsible lor censorship of books imported to Canada?
2.	What procedures are employed in deciding whether or not a book or publication should be prohibited entry into Canada?
3.	Who is involved in this decision-making?
as reflected in court decisions made under the Customs Tariff Act and related sections of the Criminal Code.
5. The ordinary filing system is maintained for all items forwarded and reviewed at headquarters. No separate list of material prohibited under the Tariff Item is maintained.
4.	What guidelines are used?
5.	Is a list of unacceptable material maintained by the government, based on past rulings?
6.	What is the approximate amount of money spent annually on this censorship activity?
6. This information is not available in departmental records as costs relating to the examination of specific goods are not isolated in field operations.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
The Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, has the responsibility for classification of books falling within the provisions of Tariff Item 99201-1.


INFORMATION ON APPLICATIONS FOR EXPORT PERMITS
Mr. Saltsman: 1. What persons are entitled to receive information on applications for exports permits?
2. The examining officer at the port of entry may permit entry or, if he is of the view the goods might reasonably be considered treasonable, seditious, immoral or indecent, they are forwarded to headquarters where they are examined. Should this view be confirmed and if they are deemed to fall within the Tariff Item, they
2. Is access to such information restricted and, if so, for what reason?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Only those persons in the Public Service whose responsibility it is to assist in rendering a decision on applications for ex-

March 15, 1971
Questions
port permits are entitled to receive information on such applications for export permits.
2. Yes. The information required from an applicant for an export permit reveals the nature of the exporter's private business transactions. The Government has an obligation to maintain the confidentiality of this information so as to avoid injury to the commercial interest of the exporter.


QUEBEC-EMPLOYMENT OF ENGLISH SPEAKING PROVINCIAL AND CIVIC EMPLOYEES
Mr. Mather: In the expenditure of federal funds to promote bilingual communication in Canada, has the federal government sought and is it receiving co-operation from the Province of Quebec in providing an increased number of English speaking public service employees at the provincial and civic levels of government?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: There is no program designed specifically to help provinces in their recruitment of employees of either language. However, as part of a comprehensive approach to the development of bilingualism in Canada, the Federal Government proposes to help provinces which wish to expand their bilingualism programs. In answer to requests from provincial governments, financial and technical assistance would be available for language training programs for civil servants, as well as for the training of the required language teachers; a program would also be set up for the training of provincial translators.


AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AT SITE OF STE. SCHOLASTIQUE AIRPORT
Mr. Valade: Has the government obtained the services of companies specialized in aerial photography with respect to the site of the Ste-Scholastique Airport during the preliminary planning and since the final decision taken on this project and, if so (a) were public tenders called (b) what firms were invited to submit tenders (c) to what firm was the contract awarded (d) at what amount (e) is the work now underway or is it planned (f) what standards will be required of the firm in carrying out such operations?


Gérard Duquet: (a) No. (b) Aero Photo (1961) Inc.; Air Photo Laurentides; Canadian Aero Service; Terra Surveys Ltd.; Topographic Surveys Inc. (c) Air Photo Laurentides. (d) $81,761.40. (e) Work is completed, (f) The services were performed in accordance with specifications prepared by the Department.


TREASURY BOARD-DESIGNATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Mr. Robinson: What percentage of the supplementary estimates of the Treasury Board is designated for (a) winter works (b) to reduce unemployment (c) underestimating expenditures (d) combatting inflationary costs (e) new programmes (f) hiring of additional employees?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: (a) Nil. (b) About 70 percent of the $25,000,000 item, Treasury Board Vote 5(a), Government Contingencies in Supplementary Estimates (A) was to cover the costs of student summer employment in many departments during the summer of 1970. (c) Nil. (d) Nil. (e) All the $30,700 item for vote 11(a), was to meet the costs of the Advisory Committee on Parliamentary Salaries and Expenses. (f) Nil.


CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGE OVER MACKENZIE RIVER
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	What consideration, if any, is being given to the construction in the foreseeable future, of a bridge over the Mackenzie River at/or near Fort Providence, N.W.T.?
2.	Have any feasibility studies for such a project been made by engineers of the Department of Public Works or by any consultants on behalf of the Department of Public Works and, if so, what are the recommendations of such studies?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. The
Economic feasibility of building a bridge over the Mackenzie River near Fort Providence, N.W.T. is presently under review. Further information and analysis is required.
2. An engineering consulting firm was retained in 1958 by the Department of Public Works on behalf of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to do a feasibility study of building a bridge across the Mackenzie River near Fort Providence. The study concluded that a bridge was feasible from an engineering point of view at that time.
1972 UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT


Mrs. Maclnnis: What Canadian scientists, other than those working in government departments, are actively engaged in preparing material for Canada's participation in the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Environment to be held in Stockholm?


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Parliameniary Secreiary io Secreiary of State for External Affairs):: Countries participating in the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, 1972) which is at the intergovernmental level, will submit material to the Conference in the form of National Reports outlining their principal environmental problems and the action being taken to deal with them. Scientists have not been asked individually for contributions to the National Report. Instead these have been sought through a group of nongovernmental organizations chosen as offering a cross section of Canadian public opinion on this subject.


CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 985
Mr. Orlikow:: Of the people who have taken, or are taking, Manpower Training Courses in each of the past three years, what percentage were unemployed at the time they began their training courses?
March 15, 1971


Otto Emil Lang: 1967-68, Information not available; 1968-69, 53.9 per cent; 1969-70, 51.4 per cent. Information about the 1970-71 fiscal year will not be available until approximately two months after the end of the fiscal year.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-CONDITIONS OF PROMOTION
Mr. Forresiall: Is every enlisted man promoted to corporal at the end of his first five year enlistment?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: A man in the Canadian Forces who has completed his initial five year period of service would be promoted to corporal provided he: (a) meets the minimum medical classification for his trade; (b) has successfully completed Pay Level 5 qualifications; (c) is recommended for promotion by his Commanding Officer; (d) is available for posting action respecting normal employment in his trade; and (e) has been re-engaged for an indefinite period or re-engaged or re-enrolled for a fixed period that will extend total service beyond six years.


TRAVEL ALLOWANCES FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL
Mr. Forrestall: What are the travel allowances for military personnel (a) officers (b) enlisted men?
Hon.	Donald	S.	Macdonald	(Minister	of	National
Defence): Details of travel allowances for officers and men in the Canadian Forces are contained in Chapter 209, Queen's Regulations and Orders, and Canadian Forces Administrative Orders.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-PAY STRUCTURE
Mr. Forrestall: What is the complete	new pay structure in CAF field by field?
Hon.	Donald	S.	Macdonald	(Minister	of	National
Defence): Details of the pay for officers and men of the Canadian Forces are contained in Chapter 204, of Queen's Regulations and Orders.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-MOVING ALLOWANCES
Mr. Forrestall: What is the scale of moving allowances for the Armed Forces (a) officers (b) enlisted men?
Hon.	Donald	S.	Macdonald	(Minister	of	National
Defence): Details of the moving allowances for Canadian Forces' personnel are contained in Chapter 209, of Queen's Regulations and Orders, and Canadian Forces Administrative Orders.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-RELEASE OF SERVICEMEN AT EXPIRATION OF TERM OF SERVICE
Mr. Forrestall: Can a serviceman opt-out after a five year enlistment period?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes. The National Defence Act Article 31 (1)
Questions
states "Except during an emergency or when he is on active service, an officer or man is entitled to be released at the expiration of the term of service for which he is enrolled or re-engaged".


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-AFTER SERVICE TRAINING
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Does CAF offer any after service-training to help servicemen who have been performing strictly military professions for many years?
2.	Is there any education credits or training planned?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1 and 2. Yes, the Civilian Employment Assistance Program which has been in operation in its present form since 1 January, 1968, was developed for this purpose. It is a joint program between the Department of National Defence and the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Entry to the program is voluntary during the last five years before retirement. Under the provisions of "The Adult Occupational Training Act" servicemen whose military skills and experience do not qualify them for satisfactory entry into the civilian labour force are provided with suitable occupational training. It is possible for the retiring serviceman to complete all arrangements during his final year of service so that his date of release coincides with the starting date of the chosen course. The responsibility for entering this type of training rests with the individual but the encouragement of the Civilian Employment Assistance Program is always available.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-UNIONS, CONDITIONS OF SERVICE
Mr. Forrestall: Are military tradesmen allowed to join outside craft unions?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A member of the Canadian Forces may, subject to the basic conditions that the employment must not be detrimental to the interests of the Canadian Forces, engage in any civil employment of his choice. It may be that such civil employment is conditional upon the joining of a particular craft union. In this case, the member is not precluded from joining such union.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-AVERAGE AGE
Mr. Forrestall: What is the average age and what is the number of (a) officers (i) captain (non naval) (ii) major (iii) lieutenant-colonel (b) enlisted men (i) corporal (ii) sergeant (iii) warrant officer?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: (a)	(i)	Average (Mean) Age in years 33.15	Number 7099(ii)	40.08	2904(hi)	44.07	890(b)	(i)	31.69	35742(ii)	38.26	10647(iii)	40.18	4799
March 15, 1971
Order for Return


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
Mr. Forresiall: Are there any channels whereby a member of the Armed Forces can present or submit a grievance against his superior without going through his superior first?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, the regulations provide that a member of the Canadian Forces may present a grievance to his Commanding Officer without first presenting it to his superior. If the superior against whom the complaint is made is the Commanding Officer, the complaint must first be made to him but if the latter does not forward the complaint to higher authority when requested to do so, it may be forwarded direct.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Nowlan: 1.	What positive and concrete steps have been taken by CBC in each of the past five years to develop the program production capabilities of each of the regions other than Toronto and Montreal?
2.	What percentage of Canadian produced programs shown on CBC English language television were produced in Toronto and Montreal, in each of the past five years?
3.	What percentage of Canadian produced programs shown on CBC French language television were produced in Montreal. Toronto and in Quebec City, in each of the past five years?
Return tabled.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Speaker, I have had a question on the order paper since early January. I have asked about it before. It does not take very much research to get the answer. I am wondering when answers to some of the questions of urgent importance to members of the opposition can be given.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, we are doing everything we can. During the month of February and most of March questions have been coming in at the rate of more than ten a day. Last Friday one hon. member put 32 questions on the order paper. It takes quite a number of people and a lot of work to keep up with the volume of questions coming in but, as I say, we are doing our best and we will follow up this question as well.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I have one question only on the order paper this year and I cannot understand why I should be condemned because another member has put 30 questions on the order paper. Most of my question has been answered to the press. There is only one part of the question with regard to which the press did not have the information the day after. I do not see that it takes any research to give a yes or no answer.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Speaker, I have a request I should like to lay before the House. My question No. 1020 has not been on the order paper for any length of time but the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has indicated that he plans to introduce legislation in regard to the subject matter of my question. As a matter of fact, the minister tabled in the House today a document pertaining to my question. Would the minister take note of the question and at least answer it at the time he introduces the legislation?


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 MANPOWER PROVISION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR STUDENTS
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, subject to your decision, I propose to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. The matter concerns the recognized unemployment crisis facing the students who will be coming out of our universities, colleges and high schools during the months of April, May and June. It is urgent that this matter be debated at once by the House in order to assist the government in establishing appropriate emergency measures to meet the problem.
If you agree, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is proper to be discussed, I shall ask leave of the House to move that this House do adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oxford has given the Chair due notice of his intention to request leave of the House to propose a motion under the terms of Standing Order 26 in order to discuss the question of unemployment facing students who will be coming out of our high schools, colleges and universities in the months of April, May and June. As the Chair stated on March 3 last when the hon. member for Oxford put forward a proposal somewhat similar to the one he now advances, the question of employment for students coming into the labour market has been before the House in various forms on several occasions in the current session. It may be said that unemployment in its many forms has been debated at length and voted upon in the present session.
On March 3 the Chair referred particularly to a supply motion proposed by the hon. member for Lotbiniere and the amendments proposed thereto by the hon. member for Vegreville and the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville which in substance dealt with the proposal put forward on March 3 and again today in the motion by the hon. member for Oxford. On that occasion the Chair also referred to the proceedings during the recent budget debate. It seems to me that the only additional element
March 15, 1971

raised in the proposal by the hon. member for Oxford lies in his suggestion of the inadequacy of the present situation. I am not too sure that this is a sufficient basis for the Chair to grant the motion.
I indicated to the hon. member and to the House when the motion was made on March 3 that the circumstances might be such later that the Chair would be inclined to grant the motion of the hon. member if it dealt specifically with student employment during the summer months. It seems to me that the proposition of the hon. member is somewhat larger in its terms in that it is concerned with the employment of all students coming into the labour market in the months of April, May and June. I am not suggesting that if the motion had been in more limited terms it would automatically or necessarily have been granted, but I do recognize that this is a matter of considerable urgency and the day may come when this kind of a motion should be granted.
I think hon. members would want me to take into account the undertaking by a minister on behalf of the government that a statement would be made at an early date. The hon. member may feel that the statement is not forthcoming soon enough, and perhaps the Chair might reach a point where it will agree with the hon. member for Oxford.
I suggest that at least for the time being the motion is perhaps somewhat premature. I apologize for making this suggestion to the hon. member, but again I am dealing strictly with student employment during the summer months, but I would think that in the circumstances I should not put the motion at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister. Will he tell the House why it is that, after advising the president of Denison Mines that he would be prohibited from selling the control of his company to United States interests in order to keep that company from falling into United States hands, the government is now willing to discuss with Home Oil Company the possible purchase by the government of a controlling interest in that company to keep it from falling into United States hands? Can he explain the reason for the apparent inconsistency in these two approaches toward solving essentially the same problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has some reservation about the question of the hon. member. Obviously the hon. member is asking a question which essentially is the basis of a possible debate. At the same time, the
Inquiries of the Ministry
question is important and perhaps the Prime Minister or the minister responsible should be allowed to reply briefly, overlooking the argumentative aspect of the question.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, they were two ad hoc decisions. I do not see anything inconsistent in those two decisions. In the case of uranium the federal government had jurisdiction under the constitution to intervene directly. In the other case it did not have that authority, and the government adopted two different approaches to two different problems.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not agree that it would be highly advisable for the govern-met to work out a uniform approach to this problem instead of adopting ad hoc solutions which are often contradictory? If it is the opinion of the government that this is desirable, when may we expect such a policy to be announced and put into operation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course it would be desirable to have a general policy announced, and we have told the House we will bring it forward as soon as possible. But even under a general policy there will have to be specific decisions made in respect of different cases. I think the House will have to accept that we will not deal with all cases in the same way.


George Harris Hees: As it is of vital importance to all Canadians that they know where the dividing line is as between companies which it is essential to keep in Canadian hands and companies which it is perfectly satisfactory to allow to fall into foreign hands, will the government announce its policy in the very near future so that Canadian industry will know where it stands in this important regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the member is repeating the same question in another form. He is suggesting we have a general policy, and I have answered that. There are elements of a general policy which exist now. The country knows that in some areas such as banking and financial institutions and mass communications institutions there is a policy which applies there. It is our intention to announce in what other areas the policy will eventually apply.
* *Ss *



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that on January 11 a group of Saskatchewan citizens petitioned His Excellency the Governor in Council asking that a Saskatchewan law with respect to redistribution in that province be disallowed and in view of the fact that this petition was acknowl-

March 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
edged three days later, can the Prime Minister say whether the government has given consideration to this request and whether an announcement about it will be made soon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government has not given consideration to it. I imagine the matter has been referred to the relevant department, probably the Department of Justice, but there has been no recommendation made to the government yet. I would say as a matter of general policy that we do not like to proceed by way of disallowance of provincial laws. However, I have just said and I repeat that we have not considered this special case in cabinet yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, may I ask the Minister of Justice whether there is anything he can say on this matter? I addressed the original question to the Prime Minister because the acknowledgement was sent from the Clerk of the Privy Council.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will be recommending against any action by the federal government to disallow the legislation.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the decision has not yet been taken on this matter, would the Prime Minister and the government also take into consideration a petition which I shall forward to the Prime Minister signed by 221 residents of the Wynyard district in Saskatchewan asking for the same action on the part of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the member will forward the petition to me I will of course study it, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that the buoyancy of the Canadian dollar which is nearly at par with the U.S. currency will force Canadian pulp and paper producers to raise their prices by $8 per ton effective April 1, is the government considering a new fixed rate of exchange?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems the hon. member has put the same question repeatedly in the course of these last few days. If the minister thinks he can add anything today, he might reply to the hon. member for Abitibi.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I previously said.



POLLUTION


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to either the Minister of Transport or the parliamentary secretary. It concerns the recent discovery of oil globules on the north shore of Prince Edward Island, doubtless from the sunken Irving Whale. Considering the assurances given last fall that no oil had reached Prince Edward Island beaches, can the minister advise whether his department will look into this serious matter immediately and take whatever precautionary steps are necessary to protect Prince Edward Island beaches and marine life from this putrid and unwelcome pollution? Are there no ecologists over there, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: While the matter is being considered on the government side, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Malpeque.



SCIENCE SERVICES


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to set up a ministry of state or a department of government under some other name to direct and correlate the science activities of the government in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we did indicate in the Speech from the Throne that it would be our intention to set up such a ministry of state. Of course we are waiting on the pleasure of the House to pass the government organization bill before we will be in a position to do so.


John Angus MacLean: Is it correct to assume then that it is not the intention of the government to introduce special legislation to set up such a department, that it will be done under the government organization bill, if it is done?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is right, Mr. Speaker. At this time we see no need for special legislation if we can have the consent of the House to pass the government organization bill which has been before the House for some time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Labour. It has to do with suggestions in the press to the effect that consideration is being given to permitting the establishment of
March 15, 1971

unions in the armed forces. To do so would create a most anomalous situation. The men in the armed forces would be subject to direction as to when they should or should not act, depending whether satisfied with their salary levels. Can the minister give the House and the country the assurance that the formation of unions in the armed forces will not be condoned or permitted?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: I would imagine that if and when such an eventuality became reality it would be the responsibility of the President of the Treasury Board as well as to express the government's policy on this matter in the future since it would not under any circumstances come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the minister whether he or his departmental officials have been giving any study to this unusual suggestion?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I know it is unusual for armed forces to be unionized, with the exception of Sweden where they are organized, but I have not been giving any study to this possibility at all.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of the questions asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, and I direct it to the Prime Minister. Has he yet replied to Mr. C. A. Edwards, president of the Public Service Alliance, with respect to his request that the full rights of collective bargaining be extended to the Canadian Armed Forces? If so, could he indicate the nature of his reply? Was it negative or positive?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have had some correspondence with Mr. Edwards indicating in a general way that the whole law of collective bargaining as regards the Public Service is being reviewed by the government, and that we will be looking at various aspects which have already been brought to our attention by Mr. Edwards and his association.



BIRTH CONTROL-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PROGRAM TO PREVENT UNWANTED PREGNANCIES

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of information today that the number of schoolgirl pregnancies in Metropolitan Toronto far exceeds those for the entire country of Sweden, when will the minister make his promised statement on his program for birth control in Canada?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I would advise the hon. member that I have not studied the particular figures for Toronto-perhaps the hon. member might consult her deputy leader in that
Inquiries of the Ministry
regard-but I have already issued a statement concerning the department's program on family planning. We have indicated the areas where we are conducting research. We have also indicated that we are prepared to back those national organizations wishing to get under way a communications policy in this area. We have also indicated that there are cost-sharing possibilities under the Canada Assistance Plan. I do not know what further information the hon. member would like.


Winona Grace MacInnis: A few days ago the minister promised he would make a statement to the House. It is that statement I am inquiring about. When will he make it?


John Carr Munro: I will check my undertaking in that regard, if I did so undertake.



PRAIRIE GRAIN STABILIZATION PLAN-INCLUSION OF LIFT PROGRAM PAYMENTS IN FARM CASH RECEIPTS

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is also in charge of the Wheat Board with regard to his statement tabled today. Will he clarify an obvious question with regard to the eligibility of farm cash receipts? Would payments under Operation Lift be included as eligible cash receipts in determining the amount paid out to each producer?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, while I did indicate by tabling in the House today some further details about the government's position in regard to the proposed legislation, it will be most fruitful if technical details are examined at the time the legislation is before the House.



PRAIRIE GRAIN STABILIZATION PLAN-PURPOSE OF TRANSITIONAL PAYMENT-MAKING UP OF POOL DEFICITS

John George Diefenbaker: Without going into a lot of details which might reveal the weakness of the plan, may I ask the minister whether the provision for the special payment of $100 million to Canadian Wheat Board permitholders in 1970-71 as a transitional payment will follow a removal from liability of the federal government for storage of wheat on farms, which last year amounted to more than $50 million? Also, will it be conditional on removing the present practice at the end of each crop year whereby, if there is a loss in the wheat pool, the government makes it up, which last year amounted to more than $50 million. Is this simply a pre-election declaration?


Otto Emil Lang: I am glad that the right hon. gentleman recognizes that it is a good plan and therefore he thinks it may have something to do with us being favoured by the Prairie region. As the statement indicates, if the right hon. gentleman would read it in full, the total proposal is that the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is terminated and

March 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
the transitional payment lor the current crop year is proposed to be made in recognition ol that termination also for the current crop year. However, the statement also clearly indicates that contrary to the proposal originally made in October it is now proposed that any payments which may be necessary to make up a deficit in a pool lor one of the grains will not be recovered out of future pools.


John George Diefenbaker: Without going into detail, the fact remains that you will take $50 million or much more from the farmers in the manner as set out by the minister and at the same time say to them, "we will make you a gratuitous payment". Does this mean that the election is just around the corner?



PRAIRIE GRAIN STABILIZATION PLAN-PERCENTAGE OF SUPPORT-POSITION OF FARM ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has reduced the support aspect of the program from 100 per cent of the total cash receipts as originally proposed to 90 per cent of the total cash receipts, or about halfway between his original proposal and the task force suggestion of 80 per cent, has he received the support of the farm organizations for this move and his 2 per cent deduction?


Otto Emil Lang: We have had very full discussions with farm organizations, but the hon. member is misreading the plan. There will be 100 per cent stabilization on 90 per cent of the grain, excluding only a certain portion of grain in the hands of the largest farmers. Farm organizations have tended to support this approach to the use of federal money.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have to admit that our position is rather difficult since the minister did not choose to rise to his feet and explain this plan to the House. However, I would still like to elicit some information from him. Can he tell us when the $100 million payment to which he has referred will be made? He has said something about its basis. Can he tell us when this payment will be made during the current crop year?


Otto Emil Lang: It is anticipated that it will be made as soon as administratively possibly after passage of the legislation, which I hope will come fairly quickly.



PRAIRIE GRAIN STABILIZATION PLAN-EXPENDITURES COMPARED WITH SAVINGS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Cenfre):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the government's proposal to withdraw the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and to cease picking up losses in pools, can the minister advise the House if he has added up the savings to the government and contrasted that figure with what the proposed expenditures will be? Can he tell the House whether there will be a net expenditure by the government on this program or a net saving?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this year's expenditures without a doubt will be very remarkably increased over what it would have been without these proposals. In addition, if the total program as announced in October, with the variations indicated today, had been in effect for the period of years that the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act has been in operation, the total assistance to farmers would have been greater than it was under existing programs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of hon. members rising to ask supplementaries. I will recognize the hon. member for Mackenzie, then the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, and after that the very patient hon. member for Bellechasse.


Stanley James Korchinski: Can the minister say whether or not the $100 million he suggests here is related to anything in particular or is it just an arbitrary figure?


Otto Emil Lang: The amount originally was related to some estimates and calculations in regard to the payments which would have been made if the stabilization program had been in effect for this year. However, there might have emerged some difficulties in arriving at exact calculations for this year if that basis had been retained, so instead we propose to put an exact figure into the legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Mr. Nyslrom:: My question is not supplementary, Mr. Speaker.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs a question of which I have given him notice. Canadian assistance to underdeveloped countries, through the United Nations, reached $35 million last year. This assistance was made up of a certain quantity of agricultural products. Would it be possible to know whether dairy products were included, since there is a very large quantity of such products in Canada and, if so, would it be possible for next year to increase this proportion of dairy products?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. I am thus able to tell him that, from the very implementation of the United Nations' world food program, Canada has committed itself to contribute $50 million. Dairy products, and particularly cheese and powdered skimmed milk, have cost $13.5 million, which stands for a little more than 28 per cent of the entire

March 15, 1971

Canadian contribution. Over the next years, Canada will certainly keep on providing with dairy products countries which will ask for them.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Considering the largesse which marks every utterance of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will the Prime Minister give consideration to sending that hon. gentleman on an extended speaking tour of Atlantic Canada?



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and in view of the importance of this question I direct it to the Prime Minister. Has Canada received a protest, official or otherwise, from the government of France in regard to our declaration of a 12-mile limit off the south and west coasts of Newfoundland and, if so, can the Prime Minister assure the House that French fishing trawlers will not be given rights that are denied to Canadian trawlers in these waters?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed, I would like to say in reply to the question of the hon. member that Canada has received no official protest.
However, I would like to remind the hon. member that there has existed for a very long time a treaty with France concerning the right of French fishermen in a section of the territory concerned and that a three-month notice had to be served to French authorities. When the three-month period has expired, French trawlers will have to abide by the same rules as other trawlers.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the answer by the parliamentary secretary, may I ask what protest the Minister of Fisheries was referring to in reply to my question on Friday, as recorded at page 4210 of Hansard, when he said the government had received a protest from the government of France and he did not have time to finish the answer because of the Chair?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the minister will soon be in the House and he could probably answer the hon. member's question himself.
Inquiries of the Ministry



SUGGESTED OFFER TO FRANCE TO BUY ISLANDS OF ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON TO REMOVE PROBLEMS

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the government considering making an offer to purchase the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon from France to help clear up our fisheries problems? At the same time, would the government offer to set off the $10 million owing for Canada's NATO infrastructure which was lost because of our withdrawal from Marville and Metz?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge that the islands may be for sale, but I will inquire and if they are we will make an offer.



PROGRAM TO COMBAT ABUSE-REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS OUTLINE DETAILS TO COMMITTEE

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would he take the course, before it may be urged on him, to arrange to have officials of his department make a thorough, detailed presentation to the committee studying his estimates with respect to the program, including pamphlets and the like, which his department is conducting about drug abuse?


John Carr Munro: I will be pleased to take that matter into consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Howard: Would the minister also consider the possibility of arranging for an analysis of this program by those who have gone through the drug world and know what it is all about?



NATIONAL MUSEUMS


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State as the minister responsible to Parliament for the National Museums of Canada. On December 7, 1970, in reply to a question of mine, the minister stated that an inquiry was being conducted into the administration of the museums branch. Would the minister say whether that inquiry has been completed, and has he received a report of the findings of that inquiry?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member's question is already a few months old, I would have to look it up in order to know with what specific point he was dealing.

March 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN GRAIN COMMISSION


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Is Mr. Delmer Pound, recently appointed Chief Commission-ner of the Canadian Grain Commission, a past president of the Medicine Hat Liberal Association, and is this the main criterion which determined the change in chairmanship?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have serious doubts about the way the question is put. I am sure the hon. member appreciates that.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, because the Canadian Grain Commission is a very important agency in respect of the well-being of the grain trade in western Canada, perhaps I can put the question in such a way that the minister can assure hon. members that the best qualified man has received the appointment. In his search for a replacement for Mr. Hamilton, who was fired by the minister, did the minister consider the wider experience of Manitoba's representative on the Canadian Grain Commission, Mr. Lyn Shuttleworth, both as a farmer and as a Liberal politician?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was just going to suggest that might be a new question rather than a supplementary. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the main purpose of the Canadian Grain Commission is to police the grain trade and in view of the vital importance of the commission to the producers as well as to the industry as a whole, will the Minister of Agriculture, as he promised the other day, table the correspondence between himself and Mr. Hamilton, the ex-chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners, so that members of the House of Commons can determine whether or not this action was in the interests of the minister politically or those of the industry as a whole?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I advised the right hon. member for Prince Albert that I would table the reply to a letter from Mr. Hamilton if Mr. Hamilton agreed that it ought to be tabled in the House. In so far as the other part of the question is concerned, I invite hon. members opposite to examine the qualifications of all the members of the Canadian Grain Commission. They will find that they are eminently qualified to do that job.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not think that it would be simpler to admit that this was a straight case of Liberal patronage?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Make it simple. We all know what it is.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Rod Thomson (Batfleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of a statement by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool that a $3 million expansion in rapeseed crushing facilities will depend on a federal incentive grant, will the minister extend the regional incentives program to the community of North Battleford so that this city may bid for this plant?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard anything about this request, but I shall inquire and inform the House of my findings.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I will address my question to the Prime Minister.
In view of a telegram addressed last week to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce by the President of Yamaska Shirt, announcing possible closing down of their Saint-Hyacinthe plant, is any immediate action being considered to prevent discharge of 200 employees as a result of such closing down?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have received no communication from the minister in this regard, Mr. Speaker. However, I am sure this matter will receive the same consideration he gives all others brought to his attention.



THE ROYAL FAMILY


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the forthcoming vacancy in the office of Queen's representative in Canada, will the government give serious consideration to naming a member of the Royal Family, preferably the Prince of Wales who is an inspiration to young people everywhere?
March 15, 1971



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour related to the work stoppage at Flin Flon, Manitoba, which is approaching two months. I understand that a mediator has been appointed to visit the area and discuss the matter with both parties. Can the minister say whether either or both parties have indicated that they will accept the mediator and co-operate in this regard?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The suggestion that a federal mediator be sent to the area was accepted readily by both sides, and I believe the mediator will hold his initial meeting on March 22.



EMPLOYMENT OF STUDENTS IN ANTI-POLLUTION CAMPAIGN

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. In view of the statement by the Acting Prime Minister on March 3 that the government plans to mobilize students for a pollution clean-up campaign, can the minister now say whether the details of this plan have been worked out?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I believe there will be a statement tomorrow about the whole program, including this aspect.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the over-all high level of unemployment in Canada, can the minister indicate whether the government is now planning for student-oriented jobs so that students will not be in direct competition with regular workers for these positions?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have taken that aspect into consideration when developing a program of summer employment for students.



SUGGESTED CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE FROM WESTERN TO EASTERN CANADA

Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the tax just imposed by Venezuela on crude oil, and of the fact that Canadian imports of crude oil from this country amount to more than 60 per cent of our imports, especially in the eastern part of Quebec and of Canada, is the Canadian government considering listening more closely to those who call for the construction of
Inquiries of the Ministry
a pipeline to move oil from the Canadian West to eastern Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister already had the chance to comment on this matter, but the hon. member is aware that oil from western Canada sells at a much higher price than oil from Venezuela, and it is not sure that the people of Quebec would benefit.



PRESENCE OF CANCER CAUSING SUBSTANCE, DEMETHYL-NITROSAMINE, IN FOOD

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last Thursday, in his absence from the House, I asked the Acting Prime Minister to bring my question to his attention so that he might make a statement on motions in the House. I asked whether, in view of the recent revelation that the cancer causing substance, demethyl-nitrosamine, has been found in food products, the Acting Prime Minister would convey to the Minister of National Health and Welfare the great concern of the public over this matter. I also suggested to him that the minister might make a statement on Monday. This is a matter of great concern. A tremendous number of people are anxious about this problem. They do not know what is happening. I think the government owes it to the House to say what the present situation is with regard to this material.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to make a statement on this matter this week. I have it ready and I will endeavour to make it.



EXTENT OF PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS ON CIGARETTE ADVERTISING

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will restrictions on the advertising of tobacco apply only to the electronic media such as radio and television?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the government's position in this whole area will be made known very shortly, including this aspect of it.



AGRICULTURE


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Recently changes were made in the proposed new Unemployment Insurance Act to meet the requests of the province of Quebec. Is the Prime Minister now prepared to allow the agricultural bill, C-176, to be changed so as to meet the requests of western Canada.

March 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what requests the hon. member has in mind. If they are reasonable requests and not only those of the hon. member, I am sure we will consider them in detail.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In his campaign speech on June 2, 1968, the Prime Minister enunciated agricultural policy in Winnipeg. Since that time all western Canada has sincerely requested that hogs and cattle be deleted from the bill. I would hope that the Prime Minister, having initiated this program, would take into consideration the very strong regional requests in this regard.



PUBLIC SERVICE


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the department's fair employment practices section inquiring into the dismissal of Mr. Demicher from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce? If so, is the fact that government employees are not covered by the provisions of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act hindering the fullest inquiry, conciliation and settlement of the claim of unfair treatment by Mr. Demicher?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, a complaint has been lodged under the fair employment practices provisions by an individual. It is not the practice to name that person because we are interested primarily in seeing that justice is done and I do not think it would be consistent with that policy to name everybody who complains. There definitely is co-operation on the part of the Public Service and all my colleagues, as has been obvious for almost ten months. Even though the fair employment practices provisions do not normally apply to the Public Service, when and if complaints are lodged the criteria included in the fair employment practices Act are accepted voluntarily by the Public Service. In this instance a meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday to discuss ways and means of handling this delicate situation with a representative of the allegedly aggrieved person and a representative of the Public Service Commission.



OUTLOOK FOR SALES IN CURRENT CROP YEAR

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. In view of the report put out by the Department of Agriculture regarding the outlook for grain sales in which it is indicated that only about 400 million bushels of wheat will be sold in the current crop year, is the minister as confident as he was six months ago that some
700 million bushels of grain will be sold in the current crop year, of which 500 million will be wheat?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will research the basis of the earlier statement he will see that it was indicated the range of wheat sales might be in the order of 400 million to 550 million bushels. That still seems to be a reasonable assumption. At this moment, total grain exports are running well enough ahead of last year's level that the 700 million bushel target can still be attained. It is still a distinct possibility.


Stanley James Korchinski: Is the agreement between Canada and the Soviet Union still in existence or is this a lost cause? Is Russia likely to pick up the grain it is supposed to pick up?


Otto Emil Lang: The agreement, of course, is still in existence. Not very long ago Russia placed an order for flour under that agreement which continues the rate of flour exports at a very high level.



BARLEY-EFFECT OF INCREASED PRICE ON DELIVERIES

John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have a supplementary question with regard to grain sales for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Can the minister inform the House whether the additional 10 cents per bushel for barley is bringing in the required amount of barley or are we still turning down sales requests?


Otto Emil Lang: The flow of barley is stepping up. We hope it will continue to increase. There is space available in some provinces where there are also significant barley quotas available. We are therefore urging the farmers to deliver the grain because the Wheat Board would like to see the flow of barley established before it makes additional sales.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: In view of the apparent urgency to move barley to the west coast to have it in export position, and in view of the fact there are a large number of producers with large amounts of barley on hand and no delivery dates, can the minister state whether consideration is being given to providing a special delivery quota for that barley?


Otto Emil Lang: Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, the assigned acre base will remain the basis for delivery eligibility. There are cases where the producer has a legitimate explanation for not having included any barley in his assignment of acres. The Wheat Board takes those cases under consideration in a special way.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period has already expired. Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock who has been attempting to ask a question for 40 minutes.
(Mr. Homer.]
March 15, 1971



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Malher (Surrey-White Rock):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Having in mind the major earthquake shock in the Pacific waters north of Vancouver Island this past weekend and also the major earthquake a few weeks ago in Los Angeles, will the government make clear to the United States Canada's concern over the pending underground nuclear test in the north Pacific, an earthquake prone zone?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is much concerned about this matter and protested last February 22 to the American authorities.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Edgar John Benson: that Bill C-225, to amend the Income Tax Act and to amend an act to amend that act, be read the third time and do pass.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the government's refusal to remove the 3 per cent surtax on incomes which, as we all know, was originally proposed for one year and extended with no justification whatsoever, is further evidence of the government's determination to continue to try to combat unemployment by the public works method, which will not work, instead of by the only practical and effective method. I refer to a reduction of income taxes, thereby putting more money in the pockets of the Canadian people which will enable them to spend more on the things they need. This, in turn, will stimulate sales and result in increased production and increased jobs.
The government's plan to fight unemployment by the public works method will not work for two reasons. First, the capital outlay required to create a single job is too costly for the Canadian taxpayer to bear if a sufficient number of jobs is to be created. Second, when the public works in question have been completed, the people employed on them will again be unemployed. We will be right back where we started.
I rise at this time to plead with the government to reconsider their policies and to realize that the only effective way to fight unemployment, the number one problem facing the country today, is to create conditions within the economy which will stimulate sales, increase production and jobs. The way to do that is to lower income taxes.
Income Tax Act
Even at this late date the government should cancel the three per cent surtax on incomes which, as I said previously, was originally proposed for one year and extended without justification. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) introduces his budget later this spring, he could follow that constructive suggestion by introducing a six per cent reduction in personal income tax. In this way, sales would be generated through people having more money to spend. This would result in increased production and increased jobs. The government has a great opportunity to solve this number one problem facing the country today in a constructive, simple and straight-forward manner. I strongly urge the government, even at this late date, to take this opportunity to show its intention to fight unemployment in the only effective way, by reducing income taxes.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-225 received extensive consideration at the second reading stage as well as in committee of the whole. I think the performance of the government has been very disappointing. We have not received the explanations and comments to which the House is entitled when considering a bill as important as this one. This bill provides for two changes in income tax legislation. The first is the provision of more generous tax allowances for business and industry.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) presented his budget on December 3 last, he proposed part of his plan to stimulate economic growth and create more jobs. We have not seen one iota of evidence from the government that this proposal, when enacted, will produce that result. In spite of questions asked and cogent observations made from a number of quarters, the government has not yet come forward with any evidence to suggest that their dream will become a reality.
On two occasions I drew to the attention of the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary an article which appeared in the December 12 edition of the Financial Post. The article pointed out that the response of industry and business to this proposal was very cool and that it really was not going to affect their plans. The articles also suggested that this provision would not stimulate more economic growth or greater economic activity. In fact, it pointed out that the only beneficiaries of this proposal would be those industries and businesses which, prior to December 3 last, had already decided to undertake an expansion program during the lifetime of this proposal namely from December 3, 1970 to March 31, 1972. By the time most industries are able to take advantage of the provisions of this section, the time will have run out. In fact, most industries which might wish to take advantage of this clause would not be able to do so on the basis of information as it has been made known to us. I asked the government whether it had any further information to suggest that this was not the case. No answer was forthcoming from the Treasury benches. On this basis, I think the bill is a fanning in the dark, an attempt to find solutions to problems with which the government has been unable to cope.
4254

March 15, 1971
Income Tax Act
Similarly, in the case of the 3 per cent surtax, there has been a very chameleon-like approach on the part of the government. Two years ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) made it clear that the surtax was being extended not because the government needed the revenue but for the purpose of economic stabilization, to restrain the economy. When the proposal was first introduced in the House in 1968, the prime minister of the day also made it clear that the measure was being put forward for the purpose of economic restraint. Now, the Minister of Finance tells us in his budget statement that he has put forward this proposal to extend the surtax in 1971 because the government needs the cash. He seems able to find a reason to suit every occasion, and the people who suffer are the Canadian people.
In my view this proposal will not produce one new job for the 668,000 who were out of work in January or for the 750,000 who, as statistics will probably show, are out of employment this month. It will not contribute one iota to the alleviation of the serious economic difficulties which face the country at the present time. The government has such a record of abject failure in its economic policies that I feel it will be found wanting by the Canadian people when the time comes. I wish to make it clear that we certainly oppose this bill on third reading, as we did at the other stages when it was under consideration.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am really amazed to find that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) persists in wanting the House to pass Bill C-225 in spite of the sound remarks made by members of the opposition and although this tax that had been levied temporarily should have been definitely removed. Yet, the government is still getting the taxpayers' money and still calling it a temporary tax, but it will become permanent automatically if it is renewed every year.
Members of the Opposition are not the only ones to oppose this 3 per cent tax; some well informed businessmen and politicians across the country have also made representations to the government and stated that this tax which will bring in $245 million will be a direct cause of increased unemployment. Notwithstanding the budget speech made by the Minister of Finance last December 3, one can note that his forecasts did not prove true. This is what he said on that occasion:
Of prime importance is the fact that employment is rising in Canada and unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis appears to be falling. This underlying improvement is suggested in the statistics for September and October after allowing for normal seasonal patterns. There may yet be month-to-montb fluctuations from the trend.
From month to month, the unemployment rate has been increasing and the number of jobs has been falling. Later, the minister said, and I quote:
There is no question, however, that the rate of growth of employment must improve and that unemployment must be reduced if the economy is best to serve our overriding objective of the highest sustainable improvement in the standard of living of all Canadians.
Last year, the same government, asked us to pass an act to extend that 3 per cent tax pretexting the fight against inflation. The Minister of Finance said, on December 3, and I quote:
Both inflation of prices and high unemployment are our enemies-
I agree with what he said, but not with the means used to fight against those two enemies.
At the end of 1970, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that the fight against inflation was over, that the monster had been brought to heel and that now we must come to grips with the problems of poverty and unemployment.
These are the direct consequences of too heavy taxes. They contribute to discourage businessmen, to increase the rate of unemployment, because of the direct effect on the consumer who cannot enjoy an adequate purchasing power to ensure the subsistence of his wife and children, to provide for his needs. When millions are misappropriated, the turnover of industries decreases, because they sell smaller quantities of products, and automatically, repeat orders become rarer, culminating in the lay-off of employees.
That situation is getting worse all the time. That is why during the fall of 1970, the premier of Alberta accused the federal government of hindering the development of the economy of his province. The relevant report follows:
Mr. Strom points out that unemployment which has reached its highest level in 25 years, keeps on increasing in an alarming way.
The federal government's haphazard and undiscriminated flight against inflation did not place the retired people or others in better circumstances. The only thing it did was to drive hundreds of thousands of Canadians on the verge of catastrophe.
Considering the statistics on bankruptcies, which increase more and more, I believe the premier of Alberta was perfectly right when he said the direct consequences of that policy was catastrophe for a great number of Canadian businessmen.
I come back to the quotation:
He said that Ottawa should create new employment opportunities, encourage businessmen and establish a general climate which would stimulate expansion.
For the government, to look after economic development is to designate poor areas, developed areas and rich areas, and then inject money into the first, forget the second and penalize the rich areas.
The penalty against the rich areas consist in postponing allowances granted for capital expenses.
After examining the results of such a policy as regards the individual, Mr. Strom is reported as having said:
Mr. Strom declares that his government does not approve the federal policy on regional assistance, since it is based on statistics and not on real individual poverty.
Individuals suffer from poverty or unemployment, not areas.
Certainly the individuals are the more deeply and bitterly affected. It is enough to get in touch with the people in charge of all the welfare centres in the country

March 15, 1971

to find out how numerous are those who apply to those centres.
This weekend, as I was meeting in my office some of my constituents, nine individuals out of ten came to ask their representative to help them solve difficulties created by the new welfare legislation in Quebec under which inquiries and visits are being multiplied. Indeed, after having compared figures, it is obvious that the purchasing power of families in need is in no way increased. Instead, after one or two months, they get a letter informing them that their benefits henceforth will be reduced by 10, 15 or 20 per cent.
If you go and visit these families and take the trouble to check the situation, you can see that the time has not come for the government to ask the taxpayers for more money through taxes such as the 3 per cent tax. It should instead let the people keep this 3 per cent and use it as purchasing power, which would increase employment opportunities.
I believe that we are working against the grain and it is high time that the necessary measures be taken to correct a situation lending itself to correction for, otherwise, complete anarchy might prevail. We sometimes hear peace-loving people utter things that would never have been heard 10 years ago and make our hair stand on end.
We, the members of the Canadian Parliament, ought to take such hardship seriously. I am quite displeased when I see usually responsible people paying so little attention to those problems and considering the needy as somewhat limited people who have to put up with their fate.
Mr. Speaker, the Fifth Review of the Economic Council of Canada in 1968 outlined that the number of needy people was increasing and I am sure that a new report to the government on the subject in 1971 would stress that the situation has deteriorated. Still, Canada has not been so poorly endowed. I have here a statement that appeared in the newspaper Le Soleil on January 16, 1971 and according to which:
Canada ranks third in per capita gross national product.
This means that despite the work performed by men and machines in greater numbers, our gross national product places Canada third in the world for national output.
Now, what is the purpose of national production? Is it only a matter of displaying goods in store windows, of advertising them in newspapers as it is regularly done in the Wednesday issue of La Presse which has something like 40 pages of all sorts of advertisements paid by the larger Montreal stores which are asking their customers to avail themselves of whatever special sales or discounts they are offering?
Countless efforts are made to attract consumers. The time has come to give our country whatever facilities others are enjoying in the way of providing the taxpayers with public services without fleecing them.
During the weekend, I was talking to the mayor of a large municipality in the vicinity of Quebec City. He expressed dejection in the face of the requirement to
Income Tax Act
increase property taxes to meet outstanding or future liabilities while they extend to foreign countries advantages that are not available in Canada.
We learned this morning that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) had just signed an agreement with three African nations to grant a $14 million interest free loan repayable over 50 years and earmarked to acquire locomotives.
I am not asking for a miracle but simply that the government-if they deem it useful to make 50 year interest free loans to foreign countries-should consider the adequacy of extending such loans to municipal governments in Canada and particularly in the province of Quebec. I suggest the government makes an experiment. They could do it in my constituency, I would not mind it at all. If the Minister of Finance were to extend a $15 million loan to the town of Montmagny and to the municipalities of Saint-Damien and Sainte-Germaine- these are all developing municipalites-I am quite certain that the whole region would experience some progress. Why? Because public bodies will be in a position to undertake works without having to strangle the taxpayers. This is why I object to Bill C-225; I did so on second reading and I do it again on third reading, because I feel that it is my duty to say to the government that it is liable to aggravate conditions instead of improving them.
If we really wanted to act for the common good and in the interests of all Canadians, we would take other steps to obtain the necessary funds for the administration of public business.
I think that it is time to pay more attention to what is going on throughout the world, in our country and more especially in our province. I was present yesterday afternoon at the establishment of a local section of the Quebec Junior Board of Trade and was pleasantly surprised to see young people of 20 to 35 years of age who work with, sustained interest, absolute confidence in Canada, in the province of Quebec, deplore the fact they are unable to find the instruments required for the development of natural resources which would allow them to do business and succeed through their work.
I encouraged them to do their utmost to convince the authorities to do something while there is still time. I explained to them how to protest, not through revolutionary means with sticks or dynamite, but in a sensible manner by getting seriously interested and informing their members of Parliament and their governments of their findings.
That is how I understand the function of intermediary bodies, as well as that of the people's representatives in this House towards such bodies, because without the co-operation of the intermediary bodies and the public, the government will not be able to make it, as no government can work miracles.
It is for this reason that, whenever possible, the people must be informed and the people must be made to believe in the goodwill of Parliament. The people must

March 15, 1971
Income Tax Act
be listened to and their suggestions must be taken into account so that they will know that, if something must be done, it will be done with their help, and in this way everyone will benefit.
In conclusion, if the rules allow it, I shall move an amendment to the bill on third reading, as a logical conclusion to my argument. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin), the following amendment:
That the main motion be amended by striking out the word "now" and replacing it with the words "in six months from this day" at the end of the question.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, the measure before us provides for the continuance of the surtax which I think all of us must agree adds only to the repressive burden of taxation in Canada. This is the thing that is throttling business in Canada today. I do not think there is much doubt in the mind of anyone in this House that this country has gone too far down the road of socialism. Let me read from a publication which came to my office today containing the text of an address by J. Allyn Taylor, Chairman and President of Canada Trust-Huron and Erie, to the annual general meeting of shareholders. He referred to some figures to compare the percentage of the gross national product of various countries which goes towards the upkeep of government. He states:
They show where we stand in comparison with the other major countries bordering on the Pacific, with whom we must compete for more than 50 per cent of the world's trade. Thirty-five per cent of our gross national product now goes to the upkeep of government in Canada. In New Zealand, a country that we have long considered as being highly socialistic, the figure is 31 per cent. In the United States, it is 28 per cent including the costs of Vietnam. It is 21 per cent in Australia and 16 per cent in Japan. This is concrete evidence, I suggest, that we are well along the road to becoming a socialistic state.
Socialism is based on the premise that the government takes all and distributes to each according to his need. Mr. Taylor goes on later in his address to say:
There is abundant evidence of the increasing dominance of the federal public sector over all our lives. With it has come corresponding reduction in the influence of junior levels of government and the private sector. Witness the fact that the Federal Government has grown in the last decade at over twice the annual rate of the economy as a whole. It has become so massive, so unwieldy and so all-embracing that its inefficiencies and its extravagances become harder and harder to combat, no matter how well intended government officials may be.
One of Parkinson's laws says "From size comes complexity, and from complexity, decay". This characteristic of size threatens every institution known to man and government is surely no exception.
We must recognize that it is almost impossible to reverse this trend and, with the technological advances we have today, it will be impossible to attain anything approaching, full employment in the future. In this context I refer to meaningful employment, because it is a fact of life that probably one third of the people in Canada whom we consider to be employed today are not really meaningfully employed. We know there is a great deal of feather-bedding in industry, and that there are many people in industry whose jobs could easily be
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse) .1
performed by machines. We must recognize that full employment would only be possible if we were to revert to the situation which existed 100 years ago. We would have to set aside the technological advances we have made and revert to a manual labour. It is time all parties that believe the free enterprise system is a way of life considered the plans initiated by Kelso and some of his colleagues. I have in mind second income plans.
It is very evident to any thinking person that two factors in production are paramount, one being manpower and the other being capital. We should recognize that an individual has the right to pursue his own goal. It is up to all of us to work toward devising plans which would put capital for production back into the hands of the workers. I suggest this is not impossible. It is the only alternative we, as Canadians, have if we are going to combat complete state control in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion by Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The question is now on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will all those in favour of the said motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will all those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members. Is it agreed that the vote on the main motion be taken without ringing the bells?
Barnett
Bell
Benjamin
Burton
Code
Diefenbaker
Dionne
Downey
Fairweather
Flemming
Forrestall
Gleave
Godin
Hales
Harding
Hees
Homer
Howard (Skeena) Howe
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Korchinski Lambert
(Bellechasse)
Lewis
++NAYS
Messrs:
Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond) Maclnnis (Mrs.)
MacLean
Macquarrie
McCleave
McCutcheon
McGrath
McIntosh
McKinley
Mather
Moore
Muir
Nesbitt
Nowlan
Nystrom
Orlikow
Paproski
Peddle
Ricard
Rodrigue
Rondeau
Rose
Ryan
Rynard

March 15, 1971
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act Messrs:
Saltsman	Thomas (Moncton)
Simpson	Thomson
Skoberg	(Battleford-Kindersley)
Southam	Winch
Stanfield	Yewchuk-57.
Stewart (Marquette)


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


CONSUMER PACKAGING AND LABELLING ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-180, respecting the packaging, labelling, sale, importation and advertising of prepackaged and certain other products, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Grey-Dufferin-Waierloo):: I move:
That Bill C-180, an act respecting the packaging, sale, importation and advertising of prepackaged and certain other products, be amended by deleting clause 3 at page 2 thereof and substituting therefor:
"Application of Act
3. (1) The provisions of this act that by the terms of this act or the regulations are applicable to any product apply as long and as far only as they are not repugnant to or inconsistent with or do not impinge upon the provisions of any other act of the Parliament of Canada.
(2) This act does not apply where a product is neither the subject or importation into Canada nor of trade or commerce from one province into another."
I wish to say a few words about this particular amendment, Mr. Speaker and, since this is the report stage, I wish to make a few general remarks about the bill. This bill relates to the packaging, labelling, sale, importation and advertising of prepackaged and certain other products and was introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). An examination of this measure would lead one to assume that it would warm the cockles of the consumers' hearts, thus making it possible for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to indicate he had done a great deal from them.
However, if we look at the history of this bill, we see that first reading was on November 2. It was introduced into the House for second reading on December 16 and now, on March 15, we are at the report stage. In the intervening time, hon. members saw the famous letter from the chairman of the committee which denied all interested people any opportunity to present their petitions. This caused a real uproar. I do not know whether the chairman of the committee had been told to do that or did it inadvertently. After a few days of reconsideration, the minister changed his mind and all the consumers' organizations, business people and trade organizations were allowed to present their petitions to the committee. The committee had some very good hearings.
This particular piece of legislation follows the same pattern as other legislation presented in this House. It was introduced with a great deal of fanfare. However, what do we find? We find that the bill has been greatly amended in committee. We also remember a news story a few days ago in which it was reported that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had petulantly indicated to a group of young people that the opposition were holding up legislation. We find that 90 per cent of the time when a bill reaches the report stage and third reading it bears little similarity to the original bill presented to this House. If it were not for the opposition discussing, questioning and in a great many cases advising this government, this country would have a great deal of very poor legislation. I am afraid this situation will continue until the government gets better draftsmen. It is extremely important for the opposition to thoroughly scan every piece of legislation introduced into this House.
We remember the great fanfare with which the minister introduced this bill. He quoted from the Bible, quoted poetic stanzas and referred to historical events to substantiate the necessity for this bill. I was reminded of the passage in the Bible which relates how our Master went into the temple with a whip and drove out the moneychangers and gamblers. There has been a lot of discussion about an election being held one of these days. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will use this election as a whip. He will go to the supermarkets and business establishments saying "Look what I did for the consumers of this country." This is not so. This bill will not do all that for the consumers.
I sometimes wonder about the effectiveness of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The other day in Committee the minister was asked why he was not able to take action under the Combines Investigation Act against the banks of Canada which raised their service charges almost 300 per cent. When the minister was asked whether the fact that all banks acted at the same time indicated there was a combine he replied that the Combines Investigation Act does not have anything to do with services. If there is any place the Combines Investigation Act should apply, it is with regard to public services of this kind. It is not just the cost of packaged products that is increasing the cost of living. The cost of the services that people require is adding greatly to the cost of living, yet we have not seen any legislation in this regard.
If the Combines Investigation Act is inadequate, it should be amended so that banks cannot get together to do this kind of thing. The fact that one of the heads of the Bank of Canada had something to do with a big dinner in Toronto a few days ago may have something to do with this lack of action against the banks. We do not know. The Combines Investigation Act should have some effect on this kind of practice. We wonder about the importance of this legislation. In introducing this measure in committee, the minister said:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. In his opening remarks, the hon. member indicated he wanted to make some general com-
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.)
March 15, 1971

ments at the report stage. I have been hoping that the hon. member would relate his remarks to the amendment which he proposed to the House. While I may not be correct, I think the Standing Order requires that at the report stage hon. members confine their remarks to the amendment before the House and not range quite as wide as the hon. member is doing.


William Marvin Howe: If Your Honour looks at the amendment, you will see that it mentions various acts, thus opening a great many areas of discussion. I wish to refer to the minister's opening remarks in committee in which he mentioned the necessity for this bill. He said:
The great bulk of those engaged in packaging and labelling are endeavouring to provide accurate and full information, but unfortunately the record of our inspectors, the records of Box 999, the records of prosecutions, will indicate of course that there is that small minority of people who do engage in misleading and deceptive packaging and we need more effective laws to deal with it.
Does this statement mean that the bill only applies to the small packager and small handler? What about the big fellow? Will he be given the same treatment as the others? This possibility becomes a bit disturbing, Mr. Speaker. As I say, this is the important thing about this legislation.
Many of the people who appeared before the committee questioned the necessity for this piece of legislation. They said there is already a lot of legislation that looks into their affairs and is supposed to guide and direct them. According to the Committee report, the representative of the Fisheries Council of Canada, when speaking about this bill, said:
It will result in additional government expense, divided ministerial authority and additional costs to the consumer.
The feed producers and cosmetic people did not want to have any part of this bill; so many people suggested amendments to the bill that it would have borne little similarity to the original bill.
Getting to my amendment, the annual report of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has this to say about the activities of the food division of the department:
Through continuous contacts with field officers, a uniform policy concerning the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and regulations was maintained. Thirty-two food programs were developed on behalf of the operations branch. These concerned the legislative requirements of the Food and Drugs, Canada Agriculture Products, Canada Dairy Products and Fisheries Acts and regulations. A food program involves explicit instructions for surveillance, purchase, test, permitted content, seizure, and possible prosecution.
This bears out what I have been saying, Mr. Speaker. Why this extra legislation when all these measures are already in operation? This is what the report has to say about labelling:
During the year, 4,475 food labels were reviewed, 1,896 of which required changes for conformity: 260 trade marks were considered for possible use on food labels; 2,131 advertisements were studied, and 29 found unacceptable; 15,056 radio and television commercials were approved, nine per cent of which required changes.
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act
This supports my contention that there is already abundant legislation concerning the activities of the firms engaged in the processing of food and of agricultural products generally. The minister could indeed achieve something in this bill if he were able to tell us he had devised a package into which hazardous products could safely be packed for sale. On this point, the departmental report merely states that investigations will continue in the new year. I find myself asking why action was not taken earlier, why something was not done a year and a half ago. Fifty thousand children were poisoned last year as a result of gaining access to hazardous drugs and substances of various kinds, yet so far we have failed to discover a container of the type which a child is unable to open. It is time we did something about it. I was happy to read an announcement in the paper this morning to the effect that the provincial government of Ontario is taking action to discourage packaging in throw away bottles. We feel this legislation will merely bring about a further proliferation of laws and regulations to an extent which will prove confusing to industry and costly to the consumer by reason of increased taxation to pay for inspection as well as the extra cost of labelling and packaging.
The first purpose of my amendment is achieved by the new subclause (1). The present subclause (1) would give the bill a jurisdiction or applicability concurrent with all the other acts of this Parliament that regulate products, with two exceptions. The first exception is the statutory exemption in subclause (2), that is, a product that is a device or drug under the Food and Drugs Act. The second exemption is a discretionary exemption by regulation. In the result, a product could be regulated both under this act and another act. Evidence in committee was that there are about 20 of these acts on the statute books at the present time. In the minister's discretion, he could recommend regulations to the Governor in Council which would minimize conflict. In a matter so important as the trade and commerce of Canada-a matter which is of the utmost importance to the person who is engaged in trade and commerce and to the person who, as consumer and taxpayer, must eventually pay in one way or another for the costs involved in over regulation-the avoidance of confusion and conflict should not be left to the discretion of a minister.
This subclause fails to cut out a clearly defined area within which the bill would give exclusive jurisdiction without trespassing into other regulation-making jurisdictions. This faulty drafting is due to either of two reasons: the reluctance of the legal draftsmen to search the statutes so they might exclude products controlled under other laws as they have done with the Food and Drugs Act, or the intransigence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and his colleagues, who control products under other statutes, when confronted with the need to reach agreement on sharing or surrendering authority.
The proposed subclause (1) would amend this defective drafting and the resultant potentiality for confusing and inconsistent regulations, by adapting a section of the

March 15, 1971
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act
BNA Act. Section 95 of the BNA Act gives a concurrent jurisdiction to federal and provincial governments over the fields of agriculture and immigration. However, where both federal and province make laws in either field, the provincial law has effect only to the extent it is not repugnant to the federal law. That principle is applied here in the amendment. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has full jurisdiction but where another branch of government has a particular power under another act of this Parliament and exercises that power, then any conflicting regulation under this act is void for repugnancy.
The proposed amendment to subclause (1) does away with the necessity for subclause (2). Instead, a new subclause (2) is proposed. The amendment does not alter the applicability of Bill C-180. It is merely declaratory of the law, that is, that the bill does not apply to a product which is solely and exclusively the subject of trade and commerce within a province. It makes clear that the bill does not apply to a product which is neither the subject of importation into Canada nor of trade and commerce between provinces. The definition of "product" in clause 2 (j) defines product as follows:
(j) "product" means any article that is or may be the subject of trade or commerce, but does not include land or any interest therein;
This definition can be read to mean that the federal government unilaterally proposes to extend the meaning of its constitutional power under section 91(2) of the BNA Act, "The regulation of trade and commerce" into the provincial fields of "Property and civil rights in the province" and "Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province" under section 92(13) and (16) of the BNA Act. Alternatively, the definition can be read to mean that the federal government proposes to apply a subjective test to a product, that is, the determination by the federal government that a product "may be the subject of trade and commerce" regardless of the objective fact that the product is not the subject of trade and commerce interprovincially or extra-provineially.
The constitution of Canada as it applies to the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces should not be rewritten, or appear to be rewritten, in a federal statute. This Parliament should not agree to write any statute so as to deceive the citizen whom it purports to bind as to its legal limits and to mislead him as to his rights under the constitution of Canada. This bill would make the Canadian citizen subject his person and submit his goods to government inspectors in a variety of ways. He should not be tricked into doing so by stealth and subterfuge where no right in the federal government exists. He should not be deluded that he has no right to refuse where the bill does not and cannot constitutionally apply, and that he has no right to resist through the courts.
This bill may be compared to the Fish Inspection Act, Chapter 118 of the revised statutes. Section 3 of that act provides:
3. The Governor in Council may for the purpose of regulating the export or import of fish and containers make regulations-
[Mr. Howe.)
Section 16 of the act provides:
16. This act applies to the shipment of fish or marine plants from one province to another as though the shipment from a province were an export and the shipment into a province were an import.
These two provisions limit the scope of the act to extra-provincial and interprovincial trade and commerce. By clear implication they exclude the application of the act from operation of trade and commerce that is solely within a province. There is no express statement to this effect but the implication is clear enough to the courts and to the citizen. Although the Fish Inspection Act was enacted in 1949, it was not proclaimed in force until November 1, 1967. It is a fair conclusion, therefore, that only three years ago the government was satisfied and careful to express in a statute the government's constitutional inability to intrude into the field of inspecting packages and containers, among other things, of a product that is the subject of trade and commerce solely within a province.
The purpose of the proposed amendment to subclause (2) of clause 3 is to express that constitutional inability in the present bill. Let us apply the principle of the bill to the bill. Let there be truth in the packaging of a commercial product, but let there also be truth in the packaging of the law. Parliament should not sell this bill to the consumer as jumbo size when it is slack filled.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few moments to state the position of the members of our group on this Bill. I realize that some hon. members want to support this amendment because they are worried about what they feel is an unnecessary proliferation of legislation. They believe the less government intervenes in the market place, the better. I know there are dangers in proliferating legislation and regulations, and do not close my eyes to those dangers. On the other hand, this group has certain reasons for rejecting this amendment.
To begin with, those of us who were members of the joint Senate-House of Commons prices committee several years ago realized at that time that the consumer did not have a particular voice in this chamber, so great efforts were made to set up a department that would protect the interests of consumers as a group.


James Aloysius McGrath: You are all alone on that.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Well, we managed to get a department set up, though we only got, as it were, half a department. Perhaps we got only half a minister, too.
As far as this legislation is concerned I am prepared to go along with the minister to quite an extent, though I shall have some reservations to make later on. What the legislation is seeking to do is not to proliferate a lot of new regulations, leaving things exactly as they are in the meantime; I do not think you could do this. The hon. member's amendment seeks to make the legislation applicable only as long as it does not impinge upon any other
March 15, 1971

legislation, which I do not think is a sensible position to take. If this legislation is to do its job, obviously some of the legislative arrangements already made will have to be upset. What the legislation is doing in a positive sense, I believe, is placing under the aegis of this act a great deal of other legislation that affects consumers, legislation that is now administered by other departments. In other words, this legislation is going to place an umbrella over consumers in respect of packaging and labelling.
When officials from the Fisheries Council and the Meat Packers' Council were before the committee, I was broadly sympathetic to their view that they had been able to operate satisfactorily for years under existing legislation, and that perhaps we should leave things as they are. But the more I thought about it, the more I came to realize that the present situation was very confusing and upsetting to the consumers, and consequently it was much more sensible to have one piece of umbrella legislation covering all the different aspects of packaging and labelling. I believe that what the consumer wants is simplicity and easily understood legislation, rather than having regulations administered by a multiplicity of departments.
I listened to the explanation given by the minister, and according to what he told us it is not his intention to remove the inspectors presently operating under the legislation and to replace them with others. The minister gave us the assurance that the inspection services of the fisheries department, the meat inspection branch of the Department of Agriculture, and the third department, which for the moment escapes me-


Mr. Basford:: Health and welfare.
Mrs Maclnnis: Yes, health and welfare-will continue to operate, though he intends to mesh them in with his own inspectors and to adopt the inspection procedures that are satisfactory to the public, supplementing them where necessary. If that is the case-and the minister assured us that it was-I think it is a very sensible way of proceeding, rather than uprooting the whole system and passing fresh regulations and rules of procedure. Although certain changes will have to be made to mesh the two together, I am prepared to take a chance on the minister's proposals in this regard.
I also think it is not a good idea to worry too much about some of the existing legislation and regulations. The consumers want protection above everything else. They want to know that there is legislation that will protect them. They have not had this protection to date under existing legislation. It is obvious from all the letters and representations received by Box 99 and by members of Parliament that the consumer is not satisfied he has sufficient protection in the market place to prevent him from being deceived. The consumer has made it abundantly clear that new packaging and labelling legislation is required, and it is here that we must begin.
The minister is not taking this step on the spur of the moment; he was told to do it years ago by the prices committee. That committee gave an indication that what
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act was needed, first of all, was a department of consumer affairs; and secondly, legislation dealing with the various aspects of consumer affairs. One of those aspects was protection of the consumer in the area of packaging and labelling.
This amendment seeks to remove from the application of the legislation certain consumer products that are not the subject of interprovincial trade. Let me point out that today our consumers are continually on the move, and they want safeguards regardless of where they happen to be living. Since Canadians are travelling more and more, this protection must be universally afforded them; and in this legislation I think the minister has recognized this fact. Therefore, I do not think it would be a good idea to remove certain products from the application of this legislation.
No piece of legislation is better than its regulations, and we have yet to see these regulations. No piece of legislation is better than its enforcement, and we do not know how this bill, when it does become law, will be enforced. But there are certain cases where one just has to take a chance. I am prepared to take a chance on this aspect of the bill because, as I say, I think the consumer wants protection. Prior to this bill coming into force consumers have not had the protection in respect of labelling and packaging they need. I feel that this bill, by its umbrella-like character, will bring together the various products in relation to which consumers need protection. These products will be subjected to the same type of inspection and handling. For this reason I cannot go along with this amendment, much as I sympathize with some of the fears of the hon. member who introduced it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the last speaker and I welcome her support in opposition to the amendment. I listened to the mover of the amendment with some puzzlement. I really do not understand my friends opposite who criticize me and the department for bringing in consumer practices and legislation which they say are not effective, and then as soon as we bring in effective legislation they move amendments that would completely destroy the effect of that legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Stanley Ronald Basford: This, of course, would be the effect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Welling-ton-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Howe). The effect of his amendment would be to destroy this packaging and labelling bill. The opposition must prefer legislation which is really window dressing. In this government we do not like that kind of legislation. We write legislation that has some teeth in it, such as this bill, and then opposition members get up and move amendments which would remove all those teeth. I listened to them and watched them with a great deal of puzzlement.
4262

March 15, 1971
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act
Let me say why I cannot accept this amendment. As I say, it would destroy the very purpose of this bill which is intended to provide and assure some uniformity of packaging and labelling requirements by replacing a very great range and variety of regulations and provisions now scattered throughout some 12 or 15 different federal labelling acts, let alone all we may have in the provincial field. In addition, it would restrict the impact of this bill to certain importations to Canada and goods of inter-provincial trade.
The bill, as now designed, proposes to bring about an improvement in the field of packaging and labelling of all kinds of consumer goods, regardless of whether they are imports or enter interprovincial trade. We are suggesting here that the consumer is entitled to full information in respect of the packaging and labelling of all goods he buys. It does not matter whether they are imported or of domestic manufacturer, and it does not matter whether they enter interprovincial trade. Surely, the Canadian consumer is entitled to basic consumer rights under this kind of legislation. This measure is designed under the authority of criminal law and the federal power to prevent deception, confusion and manipulation. Surely, the consumer is entitled to protection against deception, manipulation and trickery, whether it be at the level of a domestic product, an imported product, or a product that enters the field of inter-provincial trade.
Surely, that is something basic to which the Canadian consumer is entitled, regardless of where he lives or what he is buying. Surely, he is entitled to protection against deceptive and misleading statements, trickery and manipulation. This is why we cannot accept this amendment. This is why I do not understand my friends opposite who get up and make great speeches to the effect that the consumer must be protected, then move amendments such as the amendment moved by the hon. member which would completely destroy this legislation. As I have said time after time, this legislation is designed as an omnibus packaging bill to encompass the various products and goods under federal departments of government. This can be done by the adoption of sovereign legislation over-riding other laws, and legislation. To do otherwise might have the effect of destroying the usefulness of this measure.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the hon. minister permit a question?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Later, Mr. Speaker. There was some scuffling among witnesses who appeared before the committee, some of whom suggested we should not have clause 3 of the bill and that it should be amended as suggested by the hon. member. In this regard, I should like to quote from a brief presented to the committee by Dr. Ziegel. Hon. members know that Dr. Ziegel is one of the leading consumer lawyers in Canada. I should like to quote this sentence from the brief he submitted to the committee:
Where several Acts apply to a given subject matter, It is standard drafting technique to provide that, in the case of conflict, the later Act, which is the Act before the Committee, shall prevail over the earlier ones. That being so it is equally logical to provide that the later regulations passed under this packaging,
labelling Act shall have precedence over the earlier ones. The alternative would be to require a time-consuming amendment of all the previous regulations.
Dr. Ziegel went on to state:
X foresee none of the dreadful consequences which the critics allege or any threat to the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty in Section 3.
The allegation was that clause 3 made this consumer packaging and labelling bill the primary measure overriding all other provisions and regulations. It was suggested that this was a terrible thing to do. I have quoted Dr. Ziegel who said that this is a very proper thing to do.
Let me quote what I suggested to the committee which, I might add, supported me in this:
One Act and one set of regulations has to have priority and precedence over the other, and what is before the Committee is, shall this Act, the later Act, the more modem Act, the most recent Act, have the precedence or shall some old Act have the precedence and the priority?


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister permit a question now?


Stanley Ronald Basford: We determined that this measure should have priority in order that we might establish Canadian uniformity in co-ordinating standards of packaging and labelling in respect of all products of a consumer nature. I attempted to make this clear to the committee. This is going to require extensive co-ordination with other government departments and with provinces as well as those in the private sector.
I want to reiterate the assurance I gave the committee regarding the understanding that this co-ordination will be forthcoming. We will be consulting with those in the private sector to ensure that various packaging regulations are as consistent as possible. The hon. member for St. John's East wanted to ask a question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East has indicated he wants to ask a question. He can do so if there is unanimous consent of the House. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: If we accept the submission of Dr. Ziegel, why not bring in an omnibus bill, for which this government is becoming famous? This would have the effect of repealing the 15 statutes which already relate to these various things covered by the bill, thereby disposing of what is becoming a proliferation of legislation with the effect of confusing the consumer and the manufacturer?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I thought I had got that point across to the member at the committee hearings when dealing with precisely what he suggests. This bill is designed to establish a common uniform standard with respect to a number of things which are important to the consumer in terms of packaging and labelling practice, such as the declaration of net quantity. There is no reason why you should have 10 different regulations as to how net quantity is determined, whether it be in respect of a can of

March 15, 1971

tomato soup, a box of soap or a pair of socks. Surely, it is possible to establish one uniform system for that kind of a declaration. Surely there is one procedure which could be applicable to misleading labelling and untrue or misleading statements. In special acts there must be special regulations which relate to specialty products. I have in mind, for example, pesticides. We must have special provision which relate to pesticides. I can think of fishing regulations. Obviously, fish is a particular kind of product and we must have special regulations which apply above and beyond the common and uniform manufacturing provisions. That is why we have not repealed all the other Acts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Chair put the question before calling it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment moved by Mr. Howe, seconded by Mr. Hales, in respect of Bill C-180.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment? Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Howe) negatived.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacEachen:: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order for the purpose of confirming the understanding of last week that tomorrow will be an allotted day.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie)-Finance-Bankruptcy-Measures to Forestall Further Business Failures; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)-Grain-Alleged Showdown in Movement to Vancouver Because of Labour Problems- Advance Notice of Grades Required; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Health-Cyclamates- Compensation to Food Processors for Losses Caused by Ban.
Drug Costs to Welfare Recipients



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Philip Bernard Rynard: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give immediate consideration to the provision of free drugs for all persons in receipt of social services and for graded payments for those on limited incomes who are now covered by Medicare.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I present this motion to the House today because of the disparity which exists in respect of illness in relation to the older age groups which is so apparent today. This is due to the increasing age of our population which has resulted from the control and limitation of disease. I might illustrate my point by placing some figures on the record. In the year 1 A.D. the population world wide was 250 millon people. By the time the first count was taken in the middle of the 17th century the population had doubled. The population had doubled again by 1800. According to "World Population" by Carr-Saunders, in 1650 the world population was 465 million, by 1750 was 660 million, by 1800 was 836 million, by 1850 was 1,098 million, by 1900 was 1,551 million, by 1933 was 2,057 million, by 1960 was 3 billion and at the end of this century will be between six billion and seven billion.
This will mean that continually there will be a great many more people in the older age groups than at present. Since there are many, many more people in the age group of 65 years, and since these people suffer many illnesses and require more operations than the younger group, the hospitalization figures for this age group are approximately four times what they are for the age group of 35 years. These people require many more drugs in their pursuit of life. I am pleading the case of these people, as well as those who are on low-income, who for one reason or another are unable to purchase the drugs they need.


Mr. McCleave:: A great humanitarian.


Philip Bernard Rynard: It is for those people I plead today. There has been a great leap ahead in my profession, and in the field of science, which has contributed to the fact that there are now many more people who reach age 65. In the year 1900, the average age at time of death was 40 years; that was the actual lifespan. Today, the average age at death is around 70. This change has resulted from the introduction of vaccines, serums and new drugs. I could go over the picture from the time of the discovery of the diphtheria anti-toxin, the discovery of the cause and treatment of typhoid fever, as well as the discovery of the treatment of diabetes and pernicious anaemia. We had the sulphas, the penicillins and the golden drugs of the antibiotic age. Many of these were discovered in the past 20 or 30 years. It is a fact that in 1900, in the age group from 1 to 35 years, the common cause of death was
4264

March 15, 1971
Drug Costs to Welfare Recipients infections and infectious diseases. That included, as I say, anything from diphtheria to scarlet fever, pneumonia and other infectious diseases which cut down these people before they reached 35 years of age.
With the discovery of insulin, as we all know in Toronto, diabetics were able to lead somewhat more normal lives. They were able to re-enter the work force. The same thing applies to the treatment of pneumonia. Where the illness once required many weeks or months of treatment, now is it a matter of days before a patient is back to work. Economically this has meant a saving of millions and millions of dollars. I wish to emphasize this point. By adopting the measure I am suggesting, we would not be giving these people anything. The money has been saved many times over by the use of these drugs. In many cases the breadwinner of a family is able to continue his work and rejoin his family. It is truly a wonderful picture. Today most of the deaths occurring in the age group between 1 and 35 are the result of accidents.
Then, we have the geriatric diseases which commence at age 35-gradual degeneration, hardening of the arteries, diseases of the cardio-vascular system, diseases of the chest such as emphysema, bronchitis and other respiratory diseases which are affected of course by pollution, one of the great problems we have today. Many of our older people have these diseases and there is a mistaken idea abroad that the Canada Assistance Plan is supposed to help take care of the situation. It does help in some cases, but many are left untouched. The answer I have been given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) is that the Canada Assistance Plan will do the job. In practice, however, it does not do what it should, unless one has sufficient time to wait for it to become operational and to cut through all the red tape. It is an inadequate program because it is cost-shared with the municipalities and provinces. Great gaps are created in the funding of this program, particularly in those provinces which have inadequate financial resources. In the municipalities, the situation can be even worse. They have limited tax resources and with the crisis in respect of welfare this past year, the municipalities have been taxed beyond their limits.
We must remember there are two levels of assistance, particularly in my province of Ontario. The first involves the basic requirements for food, shelter and clothing. The second is listed as "other items". Health care, including drugs, falls in this category. So that is the reason, Mr. Speaker, I say that the Canada Assistance Plan does not, in many cases, cover those people at all. It is discretionary and it allows for a wide diversity of approach by the provinces to this problem. In other words, it is a hodgepodge of services, varying in the same provinces and from province to province. It follows that it is most difficult for people in short term need to obtain the necessary drugs because they are needed right away. Some people might say that if the patient cannot obtain the health care he needs, he can always appeal. Somebody on the government side told me this the other day. The patient can always appeal under the Canada Assistance Plan. But some provinces have no appeal provisions dealing with health care services and drugs, and that
applies to my province of Ontario. In Ontario, drugs and dressings are provided on a discretionary basis by the municipalities. They do not have to do it if their budget is tight.
Long term recipients of welfare benefits must apply to the municipality for aid. Supplementary aid is normally paid in cash to those who have long, recurring needs. Indeed, the whole health care field has many areas for which there is no coverage for those in need, except for two public hospitals and 32 other private hospitals which accept Ontario hospital cards. Let us take, for instance, the case of patients who have been in an active treatment hospital. They have been covered by national hospitalization but their active treatment days are over. They must leave the hospital and go to a chronic care home since they are unable to look after themselves, but there is no hospitalization card for this. In effect, we only have active treatment hospital coverage except, as stated previously, in the province of Ontario. Other provinces have varying degrees of coverage. I have seen many of those people forced to leave an active treatment centre, many of them in the sunset of their lives. Many of them have lost their friends through death and have to face a heartrending future with little or no funds.
Inflation and erosion have destroyed what to many of them seemed adequate savings at the time. They lived in a quieter world than we do, and to some death would be welcome. Many of them, with the stark tragedy of their helplessness facing them, become disoriented mentally, and this is a real tragedy. These are the victims of the cruelty of both national hospitalization and national medicare. But the federal government brought both of them into being, and it is their responsibility to see that those programs are made effective so that the provinces can participate on a fifty-fifty basis. It is the responsibility of the federal government to cost-share these programs and to ensure that the standard of health care is universal across Canada, that it is the same in the Mari-times, in British Columbia, and in Ontario. It is neither fair nor honest to treat the senior citizens of this land with such cruelty when they are unable to help themselves, and yet it is they who gave us this land in a better moral and spiritual state than we could return it to them today.
I would like to dwell for a minute on the number of old people and on their situation. There are approximately 665,000 people between the ages of 65 and 69, of whom only a third have a taxable income. There are nearly 1,100,000 of those over 70, of whom one fourth have a taxable income. Of the single old age pensioners, 70 per cent have $1,300 or less income, and two thirds of the married old age pensioners have incomes of less than $4,000. Old people are in a peculiar position, particularly when the amended old age security measure redistributed poverty among the aged. I think it was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who coined that phrase. Improved benefits for some retired persons will be paid at the expense of other retired people.

March 15, 1971

People who are on a low wage scale have been hurt by present day inflation, and last December we told a group of old age pensioners that in the future they will no longer be able to enjoy the 2 per cent escalation for the cost of living to which they had been entitled. These are the cruel facts of life. For nearly 20 years they have been led to believe that this pension was their basic right. They were paying taxes each year for this pension, as we do under the Canada Pension Plan, but no one ever thought that the government would be capable of committing what amounts to theft. This is one of the reasons old age pensioners, those on social security and those on low incomes, have great difficulty in paying their drug accounts.
Many of those older people develop more than one disease. They often have coronary disease, diabetes, respiratory diseases, and these require the judicious use of many drugs which are costly. In other words, when a person reaches the age of 65 or over his organs begin to wear out. He may And that his cardiovascular system, his cerebral vessels, his chest and his lungs start to deteriorate. These people may have three or four of these diseases which require treatment. The cost of drugs may well amount to $30 a month per person. I could cite many such cases to the House if I had more time. If both husband and wife have chronic diseases, the drug cost surpasses $30 a month. Many thousands of people are kept out of hospital by the judicious use of drugs, thus saving the taxpayers millions of dollars.
This also applies to the treatment of mental disease. Many people are working today who would be confined to mental institutions if it were not for the judicious use of tranquilizers. The cost of all those drugs has largely been borne by the patients to the benefit of the taxpayer of Canada. Without the drugs the patient would be in hospital a great deal of the time and thus would require nursing care or home care. We all know what a problem that is today with hospital costs about 100 per cent higher than they were eight or nine years ago. We are greatly concerned about this now, and this is why I say that the judicious use of drugs will cut down the need for hospital care.
It does not seem fair to ask the old age pensioners and those on low incomes to pay for the drugs they need and which, in some cases, they do without because of lack of funds. That is the sad part. Once they do without those drugs they are potential hospital cases and then they cost us thousands of dollars. This is the crux of the matter and this is what I want you to remember. Even if we are motivated selfishly, we will buy those drugs because they will keep these people out of hospitals and that will reduce our taxes.
Let us not be penny wise and pound foolish. There are thousands of people across Canada who often pay high rents. I know of two people, whose cases were described in the press, who were paying $80 a month for one room. This was more than one third of their combined pension. I have known of doctors who have scrounged around their offices to see if they could get samples of antibiotics for one of those elderly patients who needed them.
Drug Costs to Welfare Recipients I know of druggists who have done the same thing to try to help those people. What do these people do when they need the next batch of drugs?
The crux of the problem goes deep. The federal government brought in a national medicare plan which was supposed to provide full medical, surgical and pharmaceutical treatment. If anybody doubts that let him get up and say so. That legislation was based on the Hall Commission Report. Here is what that report had to say on the question of drugs, at page 240, of volume 1:
Effective and judicious use of drugs has made it possible not only to improve the health of the nation but also to raise the economic benefits resulting from the provision of health services. The use of many of the newer drugs by physicians facilitates their patients' recovery-
Let me tell you that this cuts down on the number of visits the doctor makes. The cost of the physician under OHSIP today is becoming increasingly important.
-and in some instances avoids or minimizes the effect of serious diseases. Improvement in the state of health of the nation meant increases in the productivity of the working force.
This is one of the main points I am making. Some of these people keep on working, even with chronic diseases.
Persons released from hospital care sooner because of new or improved drug therapy meant saving costly hospital bed days, a welcome economy in the light of rapidly increasing costs of hospital care.
This is what I have pointed out previously.
Even more important than the economic advantages are the numerous benefits to Canadians in reducing or preventing human suffering. Furthermore, drugs have proven to be an invaluable weapon in the arsenal of the medical profession in its fight against disease and emotional disorder. Advances in drug in the last two decades have been particularly spectacular. Most of the progress made has taken place in such industrial advanced countries as the United States and the United Kingdom. Canadians have shared in this progress. The dynamics of progress in the drug field are illustrated by estimates which indicate that 90 per cent of the drugs prescribed in 1960 were introduced in the previous two decades; 40 per cent could not have been prescribed in 1954.
We live in a very fortunate age.
Expenditures on drugs place almost as heavy a burden on the average Canadian family as paying medical bills. In 1961, for example, expenditure on physicians' services amounted to $383 million-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it the wish of the House that the hon. member shall continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for their courtesy. I continue to quote from the Hall Commission Report:
In 1961, for example, expenditures on physicians' services amounted to $383 million as against $364 million spent on prescribed and non-prescribed drugs. In effect then, drug expendi-

March 15, 1971
Drug Costs to Welfare Recipients
tures are equivalent to 95 per cent of expenditures on physician services. Outlay on prescribed drugs is estimated at approximately $164 million in 1961, equivalent to about 43 per cent of medical services... Comparing again the period 1953 to 1961, the increases were 115 per cent for physicians' services and 81 per cent for pharmaceutical purchases.
The Hall Commission Report further pointed out that:
One extra day in hospital would cost more than the equivalent of four weeks supply of drugs and dressings.
Hall further concluded that:
Prescribed drugs must be included as a benefit of a comprehensive health care program for Canada.
1 think that clinches the argument that we have been very tardy in not covering these people. I always feel that maybe half a loaf is better than none. Hall says this service must cover everybody. I would be happy if it covered those who need it, those who seek help, those in respect of whom it would be economic sense to pay for their drugs. We cannot afford, as a nation, to furnish a doctor and not furnish the rest of the treatment. A doctor sees a patient; he prescribes a life-saving antibiotic, but the patient may not have the money to pay for that drug. Just recently I saw a man who had been told to get certain drugs but could not afford them. Three weeks later he was admitted to hospital, where he is now fighting for his life. The turning point of his illness could come on Tuesday, and I will be phoning then to see what the situation is. It is a very interesting case of a person who could not afford the drugs that were prescribed for him. As a nation, we cannot afford that kind of thing.
Today we have people in white collar jobs still able to work at full capacity because of certain drugs. We have people in labouring jobs who are able to keep on working because of antibiotics, because of the heart medicines and the cardiovascular treatments we have developed. I cite the case of one man working in a factory in the city of Orillia. After he returns from work he has dinner, goes to bed and stays there until the following morning. For the past ten years he has been able to work because he take the medication that was prescribed for him, and rests as much as possible. He stays in bed all day Saturday and Sunday, and on Monday is ready for work again. By gosh, that fellow deserves a break and a pat on the back.
I ask for a display of the quality of mercy. I ask that the recommendations in the Hall Commission Report be implemented. I ask that we complete the treatment. We already pay the doctor, so let us now pay the drug costs of those unable to meet them. If hon. members agree to this it will be a soul-satisfying experience for them, knowing they are doing their duty by supporting a proposal that makes economic sense for the nation.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I listened compassionately to the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) on the motion he introduced in the House.
He outlined an interesting picture of the present situation of medicine in Canada, and he also dealt with all the problems involved in the technical and scientific development of medicine in 1971.
I am sure that he introduced that motion in the best intentions in the world, which illustrates his concern for the welfare of the less fortunate members of society. However, I must point out that, contrary to what the motion might lead people to believe, the federal government has not yet made any commitment in connection with the payment of drugs used by the poor. And I would have hoped that the hon. member would have taken the trouble to look more closely than he did perhaps at the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan passed by the House in 1964. As he has often pointed out in his remarks some provinces may not have done their duty as far as the Plan is concerned, or used wisely the subsidies made available to them precisely for the type of services the member for Simcoe North has mentioned.
Once again the constitutional aspect of the health matters must be brought to mind. Must health services in Canada look like an incomprehensible mosaic? The central government must ensure the coordination of all health organizations.
To go back to the motion, it could have been divided into two parts. The first could urge the government to take steps to ensure free drugs to social welfare recipients. The proposal is simply inconceivable, considering that under the Canada Assistance Plan the federal government, as I said earlier, has already made appropriate provisions that do not interfere with the prerogatives of the provinces of which I shall try to give a detailed description.
If the hon. member for Simcoe North had made more thorough research, he would not have included the proposal in his motion. Instead he would have submitted his grievances to provincial governments that did not see fit to take advantage of the generous assistance they can obtain under the Canada Assistance Plan. I insist on this-because it is a vital point-the matter should come under the Canada Assistance Plan. Perhaps the provinces still believe today that it is unadvisable to draw from the apparently inexhaustible federal funds in the health field and in another important one, that is the Canada Assistance Plan, thanks to which those who suffer from poor health and who cannot be covered by another system can receive all kinds of treatments.
In the second part of the motion, it is urgently requested that progressive assistance be granted to persons with limited means who are covered by medicare.
Incidently, I am pleased to see that the hon. member appreciates medicare enough to be willing to extend it to cover the paramedical needs of small wage-earners, and all the more so since the hon. member is a physician. This is auspicious for the medical assistance plan.
I might add, as a member of Parliament and as a doctor, since we have several things in common, that I regret to see him sitting on the other side. Nevertheless, if the hon. member had thought a little more before

March 15, 1971

drafting his motion, if he had taken care to consider the way through which provincial governments have exercised their right of option under the Medicare plan, including what relates to methods of financing provincial plans, he would have found immediately to what extent this part of his motion is unnecessary since certain provincial plans do not require contributions from the insured. Partial or total assistance is required to pay for these contributions in the case of those insured whose income is low, only in provinces where the payment of contributions is required.
Quebec and the Maritime Provinces, for instance, do not finance their health insurance plans through premiums. I therefore take it that the hon. member was referring only to the situation which prevails in Ontario and was not taking into account the funding system of the other provinces when he drafted his motion. In fact, Ontario does not participate in Medicare: hers is more of a prepaid medical insurance plan and I hope that some day it will be possible to put things in order with regard to the famous OHSIP.
When the government passed the Canada Assistance Act in 1966, it was meant to be an important step in the organization of a complete social assistance scheme designed to complement other income security measures. As everyone knows, the Canada Assistance Plan provides for agreements with the provinces, under which the federal government pays 50 per cent of the costs of assistance granted by the provinces to persons in need.
Under this plan, the federal government agrees to share the costs incurred by the provinces for the care given to needy Canadians, when such expenses are not already covered by other cost-sharing programs, such as the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Plan established in 1958 and the Medical Care Plan adopted in 1968.
Services which the federal government will recognize under the Canada Assistance Plan are varied and may include nursing, optical, dental, pharmaceutical, orthopedic care and others. The federal government reimburses the provinces and municipalities for 50 per cent of such services. The sharing, if it occurs, of the other 50 per cent of the costs of such services is provided for under a provincial act applicable to a province and to a municipality in this matter.
The only condition imposed on provinces for providing such services under the Canada Assistance Plan is this: those services must be provided according to the needs of the individuals after their financial obligations, their income and their resources have been assessed.
However I must stress the fact that it is entirely up to a province to decide whether the reimbursement of drugs will be included or not in a provincial assistance plan under the Canada Assistance Plan.
I might say also that in a province like Ontario, where municipalities play an important part in providing welfare services, it is up to them to decide whether they will help the interested people to buy drugs.
Drug Costs to Welfare Recipients
I think that this is the key to the problem. Provinces and municipalities have forgotten the high cost of drugs, while they were aware of the existence of a fund from which they could draw money in order to pay for half the cost of drugs which were most needed.
As for the problems mentioned by the hon. member, it is certain that if an individual falls ill, he needs medicine because what can a doctor do if it is impossible for him not only to nurse his patient but also to prescribe the necessary drugs to cure him? There again, the provinces, which are very jealous of their juridictions, be able to draw upon funds made available to them.
The Canada Assistance Plan, as someone said a moment ago, recognizes the primacy of the provinces' constitutional responsibility in respect of welfare, by giving them the margin of decision mentioned above as far as the extent of care that provincial assistance plans can guarantee. It does not disregard the daily difficulties which low income families have to face when they must, for instance, pay a high price for drugs. If a provincial government wishes it, it may decree that some families need help in a special field, as that of large purchases of drugs, and if the assistance provided for is based on the assessment of needs, pursuant to the agreement signed by the federal and the interested provincial governments, and as is required by this program, the federal government will reimburse the provincial government 50 per cent of the cost of drugs supplied.
In other words, a provincial government is entitled to include in its financial assistance program the cost of drugs according to an assessment of needs without beneficiaries receiving any other type of social assistance. However, by and large, the provinces usually only supply drugs, under their own social assistance plans, to needy persons already receiving some other form of social assistance.
All the provinces have signed agreements with the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan. For instance, the Quebec Public Assistance Plan has been recognized by the law on cost-sharing arrangements and temporary agreements. However, I must emphasize that responsibility for the establishment of provincial plans rests with each province. It is assumed that provincial governments are sufficiently aware of the needs of their citizens in this field.
I therefore consider that the federal government is making an ample contribution by undertaking, under the Canada Assistance Plan, to reimburse up to 50 per cent of the cost of drugs that certain individuals may require, based on an assessment of treatment. I would add that it can go no further than this and that it is up to the provinces to make their own decision as to whether they want to avail themselves of the opportunities offered through this federal financial assistance.
Because of the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan, I have pointed out how they applied to the subject matter which we are now discussing. I believe that the first part of the hon. member's motion to the effect that in the opinion of this House the government should

March 15, 1971
Drug Costs to Welfare Recipients
immediately consider taking action with respect to providing drugs free of charge to those in receipt of social assistance, is entirely justifiable.
Indeed, this is the type of "pharmaceutical" assistance in a general sense which, as I have already mentioned, is made available under the provinces' social assistance plans to whoever receives other forms of assistance. However, the provinces do not avail themselves fully of the opportunity which is theirs under the Canada Assistance Plan, to provide assistance to the less needy which are not eligible to the full assistance allowances and who may need just a little help, as well as to those individuals who generally are self-sufficient but unable to afford significant purchases of drugs.
This is the responsibility that the government was to discharge and has discharged, specifically as regards the motion put forward by the hon. member. There is no doubt that, with respect to the second part of the motion, namely the increase in welfare recipients benefits and payment terms for those covered by Medicare and with limited earnings, we should enact a legislation respecting the establishment of a plan we might call "Pharmacare". In this area, the provinces are on the ball and should pass legislation shortly so that there may be better medical care since, as I said a few moments ago, taking care of patients is fine indeed but without drugs, little can be achieved.
It is regretable that a modern doctor cannot provide his patients with drugs so that their health is not affected.
The hon. member for Simcoe North mentioned the fact that this injustice gives rise to quite a number of problems and I am sure that the provinces will eventually wake up and assist those people who, even though they are not in need, can be considered as "marginal". They have been of service to their country but in the twilight of their life they do not enjoy adequate means of subsistance.
These people must be able to see a doctor, to afford health care and drugs. As pointed out by the hon. member for Simcoe North, senior citizens deserve much because they have been paying taxes and serving our people all their lives long. Some of them have been on the battlegrounds to help preserve our freedom. Indeed, all governments have endeavoured to maintain in this world the freedom we all expect.
We may have, in the long run, to adjust our policies so that, as far as health is concerned, elder people who cannot afford the cost of health care and drugs do not have to suffer from their situation.
We have partially corrected this situation with regard to Medicare and I hope that in the course of future federal-provincial conferences, provincial governments will come up with something constructive with regard to the Pharmacare plan so that every Canadian will be able to enjoy a better way of life and that those persons who have fought for their country will be able to spend the rest of their lives serenely in Canada.
I witnessed too much suffering, I saw too many people at the mercy of money and who could not get the medicine necessary to their survival. Some people died not because of lack of care, but maybe because of the lack of medicine they should have had at the start of their illness.
I am not in favour of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe North, for the simple reason, as 1 have said before, that part of the act would be entirely different, as we cannot, according to the Medical Care Act, change anything without consulting the provinces, after which it might be advisable to think about an agency named Pharmacare. As to the first part of the motion, the hon. member knows very well, with his great heart, that he should have stated it before the provincial representatives, who are a little remote from the whole thing at the moment.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this motion I wish to say how much we appreciated the remarks of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). His sincerity, common sense and humanity were never more evident than when he spoke of the very great need of providing free drugs for people on social assistance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: He spoke of cases of human beings in real need about which he knew. Hon. members know only too well what these days, weeks and months of unemployment, inflation and rising living costs have done to erode the incomes of people on old age security and families faced with unemployment trying to get along for an extended period of time.
The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) referred to the federal government as being a co-ordinating government. I do not think he can get out from under as easily as that. True, it is a co-ordinating government, but the federal government is a tax collecting government; it collects the big revenues. The hon. member should not be allowed to forget that the Hall report recommended, after careful study, that there should be a medicare system which included provision of prescription drugs. In addition, the Senate Committee on Aging recommended as follows:
That a nationwide universal health service program be instituted to provide a comprehensive range of services including medical care, dental care, home care, prescription drugs and prosthetic appliances and that if staging is required in the introduction of all or any part of this program, older people be given special consideration.
We are not talking about some mythical time when the provincial governments get together, lay down their arms and say war shall be no more. The need exists now, before these elderly people are taken off this earth by natural events. I do not believe the hon. member who spoke for the government should be complacent about this issue. I wish to quote some figures from my own

March 15, 1971

province to show how widespread is this problem. British Columbia is not the worst off of the provinces, either; there are provinces whose spokesmen could make an even more desperate case.
In British Columbia today the total number of old age security recipients is 200,368. In British Columbia the only way in which to become eligible for a medical card allowing free prescription drugs is to be in receipt of a provincial supplement. Of the 200,368 people who receive old age security payments in the province, only 14,000 are in possession of a medical card entitling them to free prescription drugs. What about all the other people who are on a frozen $80 basis? They saw the purchasing power of their incomes decline even before the changes of last December.
I have received letters from elderly people who simply cannot afford to buy the drugs they need. I have seen elderly people walk up to counters at which drugs are dispensed in our large stores, inquire about the cost of the drugs they need and then turn sadly away because they could not afford to pay for them.
Answering a question on February 11, the minister of welfare in British Columbia said there are 48,535 people in receipt of social assistance benefits who are classed as unemployed employables. These do not qualify to receive a medical card, and therefore they cannot get prescription drugs free. This is a large figure and behind it stands families who need drugs and who are unable to get them. I do not think Ottawa should be allowed to get from under when the Hall Commission, the Senate Committee on Aging and a great many other inquiries of both a public and private character have made recommendations on lines which would meet this problem.
I have no intention of talking out this resolution. I quarrel with it on only one aspect-the sliding scale. I think the time has come to include these prescriptions under medicare, and in the meantime to give special consideration to the needs of those in receipt of social assistance.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambion):: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me the hon. lady has been preaching to the converted. Her speech might better have been made in the province of British Columbia, which seems to have been failing its people in the implementation of the Canada Assistance Plan.
We were all impressed by the amount of research which the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) put into the making of his presentation. A lawyer who follows a couple of doctors is somewhat at a disadvantage. All lawyers hold doctors in awe. I was bound to note that both those hon. members seemed to agree that the need existed; the question was only how one could best set about meeting it. I do not think the federal government can be faulted. Notwithstanding the limitations placed upon it, it has been endeavouring to find ways and means of assisting the provinces to do the things they should be doing. I am sorry the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) made her stand as
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act she did. Her representations might have been better made in Vancouver so that the ears of Premier Bennett would have heard it.
In the course of my research I have found that most social assistance recipients are eligible for medical benefits under programs of the provincial or local governments, and these programs are supported by the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan operating within the purview of the Constitution. Since 1966 the Canada Assistance Plan has provided for the sharing of health costs with the provinces.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair. The debate just completed shows once again that hon. members do care.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-180, respecting the packaging, labelling, sale, importation and advertising of prepackaged and certain other products, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Winona Grace MacInnis: motion No. 2:
That Bill C-180, an act respecting the packaging, labelling, sale, importation and advertising of prepackaged and certain other products, be amended by adding immediately after clause 3 the following:
"4. Where the Governor in Council is of the opinion that practices or manner of marking price and quantity of a product on a container are likely to lead to deception of the consumer on the value of the product, on the recommendation of the minister, the Governor in Council may prohibit the sale of such products as may be prescribed unless such products are marked with the unit price in accordance with the regulations." and by renumbering the clauses following accordingly.
She said: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I spoke on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Howe) and pointed out there were certain phases of this legislation we would definitely support. Even though we might be worried about certain aspects, we felt the legislation was good and should be supported. However, there are other phases in regard to which we do not feel the legislation goes far enough to protect the consumer.
It should be borne in mind that the general purpose of this bill is to protect the consumer from deception in

March 15, 1971
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act regard to packaging and labelling of products. As a matter of fact, the minister with great enthusiasm this afternoon said that surely the Canadian consumer was entitled to be protected against such deception. I very firmly believe that the Canadian consumer is entitled to be protected against deception in regard to packaging and labelling, and this the bill will provide in a number of ways. First of all, it gives the minister power to take various steps that will eliminate the undue proliferation of various shapes and sizes of packages, as well as prohibit such gimmicks as "cents off" and the use of peculiar terms like "giant size", "jumbo size", and other deceptive terms leading to false labelling in a number of ways.
We thoroughly agree with such provisions and hope they will be enforced. However, to our mind the bill will not prevent deception in one very important area; that is to say, it will not enable the consumer to avoid being deceived in regard to which package is the best value for the money. In committee we made reference to experiments conducted in the United States with experienced women shoppers who were invited to see whether they could pick from a number of items what in their judgment was the best value for money. These experiments decisively proved over the course of a number of years that the women were deceived in more than half of the choices they made, able and experienced though they were.
In our committee the members of this group conducted an experiment one day which proved precisely the same thing, though on a much smaller scale. We had three products with us, three sizes of the same brand of bottled ketchup, three sizes of Rice Crispies and three packages of Arctic Power. We told the head of the grocery manufacturers association the price of each bottle of ketchup which was printed on the label, the size of each bottle, that is the number of fluid ounces it contained. We then invited him to say which bottle he thought gave the shopper best value for money. He was unable to pass that tests, and said so.
Then we did the same thing with the Rice Crispies. We told him the price on the package and the weight of the contents, but he was unable to say which gave best value for money. Although he did guess the third product correctly, we proved in committee that an experienced and able shopper was unable consistently to determine the best value for money. Without the aid of pencil and paper, computer or slide-rule she was quite unable to determine which product gave best value for money. In other words, she was deceived by a combination of quantity and price. This deception remains in the marketplace, and will still remain after this legislation is passed unless the minister is disposed to change his mind at this eleventh hour and confer a benefit on the consumer by so doing.
There is only one way to prevent this kind of deception, and that is by unit pricing. We should include in the bill the provision that every package must display the price of the package, the total amount of the product in the package and the price per unit, whether it be per pound, per quart, or whatever the relevant unit may be.
This does not have to be done, as the minister knows very well, in respect of anything like all the packages on the shelves, but there are certain types of packages where unit pricing is absolutely essential if the consumer is not to be deceived.
We ran into some resistance from people, particularly those in the retail trade, to the idea of unit pricing. Manufacturers were really not opposed in principle to it, but retailers did express opposition. Quite frankly, I felt that their opposition to unit pricing did not contribute to assisting consumers to find the best value in the marketplace. Unit pricing was recommended in the Batten report after a study of grocery prices on the Prairies, as reported in 1968. It was recommended as a very good method to help the consumer. It was also recommended by consumer reports in the United States and it is being tried out in the supermarkets of that country to the south. It is being tried out in at least one grocery chain in Ontario. It is also being used widely across Canada in respect of certain items in supermarkets.
For example, when we buy packages of cheese or meat we find on them the exact weight, the total price and the price per pound. It makes little difference what the shape of the piece of meat under the cellophane is, what the shape of the piece of cheese is or the contents of either, because the unit price is marked there. The consumer is therefore well informed and cannot be deceived as to the value she is receiving for her money.
Why will the minister not accept the principle of unit prices? This afternoon he quoted with great enthusiasm the words of Dr. Jacob Ziegel in respect of another matter. In a moment I intend to quote that same authority to him in another context. I should like to say, first, that the minister's objections to unit pricing seem to boil down to only two. First of all, he was uncertain about the cost of putting unit pricing into effect.
This was the main objection of the retailers when they voiced their opinion; they said it would raise the price of items to the consumer. Let me point out in that regard that no matter what price the consumer is paying for the package. I would be very doubtful whether the additional cost of putting a unit price on the package would come anywhere near the price the consumer pays today as a result of being bamboozled, deceived and completely bewildered by the juggling of prices and quantities. This is the trap she must face when trying to decide the best value.
The minister can determine those products in respect of which it would be beneficial to have unit pricing. This decision would be within the discretion of the minister and would involve only certain lines of products. I believe the consumer would be well advised to pay any additional costs caused by unit pricing, knowing exactly when she is getting the best value instead of going into this blindfolded because she does not have a slide-rule, computer or something else with her. I think this is an objection which can be very readily and sufficiently answered. I am sure it can be thrown out of court easily.

March 15, 1971

The other objection which I think should be dealt with is that the minister appears to draw a very neat line between manufacturing and retail levels when it comes to unit pricing. When dealing with this matter in committee he suggested that we could not apply unit pricing at the manufacturing level because that would contravene legislation in respect of resale price maintenance. He is quite correct in this statement, but we suggest that unit pricing should be instituted at the retail level. The minister at once says that we cannot do anything at the retail level because that falls within provincial jurisdiction and we cannot interfere through federal legislation.
If this is the fact, the minister is on very shaky and slippery ground in respect of the legislation we are now in the process of passing. Under this legislation his inspectors can go into a retail establishment and hold up the sale of goods which they suspect are not being labelled correctly. They can keep these goods out of circulation until such time as their labels are brought into conformity with the legislation. If the minister claims to be unable under this legislation to deal with the retail trade yet he can deal with the retail trade to the extent of keeping goods from being sold until their labels conform with this legislation, then I maintain the minister could very well take a chance on asking the retail trade to put unit pricing labels on packages where he considers it necessary in order to avoid deceiving the consumer. I think a very good case can be made in this regard.
If the minister is correct in saying he cannot do anything at the retail level because this falls within provincial jurisdiction, what does he mean by introducing the term "dealer" in this legislation and under it defining a manufacturer and a retailer? If a retailer is brought under this legislation, as he is in various contexts, then I maintain that the minister, having this power to interfere with the retailer, also has the power to do so in respect of unit prices.
I now come to my reference to Professor Ziegel whom the minister quoted so enthusiastically this afternoon. In a letter which was addressed to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, dated February 12, 1971, Dr. Ziegel of York University, Osgoode Law School, said this under the heading "Constitutional Aspects of Unit Pricing":
In giving evidence before your committee on January 14th last, the Honourable Ron Basford left the impression that the federal government lacks the constitutional power to impose unit pricing at the retail level. I do not know the source of the minister's opinion but it seems to me to be open to serious question. I incline to the view that if the present provisions of Bill C-180 are intra vires then a provision empowering the Governor in Council to impose unit price requirements for all or some commodities offered for retail sale to prevent the deception of consumers would also be constitutional.
He goes on to say:
The criminal law power has been held to justify the federal Food and Drugs Act and, presumably, it is also the basis upon which the federal government would seek to justify much of the other recent federal consumer protection legislation such as the Textile Labelling Act, the Hazardous Products Act and, to a lesser extent, the Motor Vehicles Safety Act.
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act
I would point out to the minister that the foundation of Bill C-180 is the criminal law of Canada. I would also point out that the whole-constitutionality of this bill rests on the criminal law of Canada. The criminal law which the minister is invoking has jurisdiction over deception in all its forms. Deception in all its forms is a criminal offence and therefore is a federal responsibility. If without unit pricing certain types of packages cannot be displayed on the shelves without the deception of the consumer being inherent in their display, then I maintain the minister not only has the authority but also the responsibility to adopt unit pricing as a means of preventing the deception of the consumer.
I think it is just as much the minister's function to protect the consumer in respect of unit pricing as it is to protect the consumer in respect of deceptive sizes, weights, deceptive labelling, and so on. Furthermore, I have a suspicion that if the minister wished to do so he could find ways and means to do this, because he has already found ways and means to do things which Professor Ziegel considers to be on an equal footing. He found ways and means to justify the Hazardous Products Act, the Textile Labelling Act and the Motor Vehicles Safety Act.
Even if the minister should consider it a serious gamble to bring in such legislation, he has taken a similar gamble before. I have not heard that the other legislation in respect of which he has taken the gamble has been questioned. I have no doubt that if its constitutionality should be brought into question, the minister would be the first to gather together a strong battery of legal talent and go after it with all the force of the Department of Justice behind him. I say to the minister that I for one do not share his opinion, and I might add that my opinion is shared by persons other than Professor Ziegel.
I do not think there is any more gamble in bringing in unit prices than there was in respect of many other pieces of legislation. This is in direct line with the other provisions in the bill. If unit pricing is not within the minister's power, then neither is Bill C-180. I wish the minister would get off the fence and let us know whether he is on the side of the consumer or against the consumer in respect of this legislation.
Furthermore, I urge the minister to bring in unit pricing now, and if a case should be brought against it he should be willing to defend it just as he would any other provision in the bill. If, on the other hand, the minister feels he cannot take this gamble-and he has already proven he is a good gambler-I would ask him to be willing to test this legislation before the Supreme Court to see whether or not he could bring in an amendment to the legislation to this effect-because I am convinced such legislation is needed for the protection of the Canadian consumer.
In many ways this legislation is very good. We in this group do not begrudge the minister the wide discretionary powers in this bill, because we have seen legislation the minister has passed which is genuinely useful to the consumer. I should like to see him go further in certain

March 15, 1971
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act
directions which we will bring in later. But in the meantime I urge him to consider this amendment. In conclusion, I should like to again read the amendment. We are proposing a new clause 4 in Bill C-180, which would read as follows:
Where the Governor in Council is of the opinion that practices or manner of marking price and quantity of a product on a container are likely to lead to deception of the consumer on the value of the product, on the recommendation of the Minister, the Governor in Council may prohibit the sale of such products as may be prescribed unless such products are marked with the unit price in accordance with the regulations.
This wording is wide open. If the minister should want to try out unit pricing with regard to only a few items which are deceptive beyond any shadow of doubt, let him try it. But I urge him to give himself these discretionary powers so that he will not find it necessary to come back to the House to have them incorporated in this legislation in a relatively short space of time. I urge him to do this so that the bill will provide genuine protection to the consumer in the matter of packaging and labelling.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words concerning the amendment brought before the House by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). I believe she is sincere in respect of what she wants to do, but I suggest that what she has in mind is impractical and would be very costly if made operative. She has in mind that if a ten-ounce package of soap, for example, is priced at 50 cents, it should have "5 cents per ounce" written on the container. The best argument I can think of against this is that if this idea were a good one, those who use the marketplace to sell their products would adopt it smartly. If it would sell more goods more quickly and if bigger profits could be captured, those in the marketplace would adopt this suggestion very quickly. So I do not think we need consider putting it in the form of legislation.
I believe, also, we should consider the great cost to the consumer of accepting such an amendment. I can think of the situation where a retailer or dealer might have 50 or 100 cases of an item which he intends to put on the shelf at a reduced price because it is not moving. Then perhaps he would be told that according to this amendment he would have to mark the unit price on each item, and because of this he might decide that it is not worth the trouble. If this legislation were in force, the government inspector could come in and say that the labels were not properly marked and the dealer might decide that rather than going to the trouble of making all the changes, he would not put the item on as a special but would leave it at the regular price. I believe the hon. member has overlooked this practical aspect of her amendment. I would simply say again that if it should be a good thing to do, the people in the marketplace would adopt unit pricing.


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). The purpose of the amendment is an attempt to establish the basic principle of the unit price.
While we recognize there are circumstances under which this might not be possible, we believe it is important that it be established as a principle by the federal government in a number of different ways, depending on which might be the most practical. Our concern is that the minister accept this principle as being worth while in protecting the consumer.
Questions have been raised about the legality of doing this. It has been suggested that the combines legislation might not permit such pricing. There might be circumstances in which this would be true. I think one of the ways of getting around that problem is to make provision that there be a space set aside on the package for the total price and the price per unit. This would enable the retailer himself to put on the price per unit and would take care of situations wherein the price is different in one establishment as against another. One might argue that the retailer is perfectly capable of doing that now, and this is true.
The importance of what I am suggesting, and the reason I feel it should be done under this legislation, is that it in fact would be an indication from the federal government to everyone at the retail level that we consider this practice to be of major importance and a good move in terms of assisting the consumer. I think such a provision in the legislation, such a position taken by the federal government, would move the retailer more rapidly in the direction of unit pricing than might otherwise be the case.
Surely, if the minister feels that there are circumstances under which he cannot get the legislation through on the basis of insisting on unit pricing at the factory level, I cannot see that he would have any reason to argue against making provision for leaving space on the label of the package for this purpose. The retailer has to stamp the price on the package; this is common practice. He could easily design a stamp-I am sure that if such a stamp has not been designed, it could be done

so that the price of the package would be set on one line and the price per ounce or gram on a lower line. With one stamp he would accomplish both purposes; he would give the total price of the product as well as the unit price. This would go a great distance toward helping the consumer.
I think all of us at one time or another have been confronted by consumers who have explained the difficulty they have in trying to assess what is the best buy and the best value. I am afraid I am not quite as sanguine as the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) about believing that if the marketplace thought it were good, it would do it. One of the reasons most of us are here is that the marketplace needs some assistance in moving in the right direction from time to time, otherwise we could abdicate all our responsibility to the marketplace.
I do not think the hon. member for Wellington is really saying that his suggestion would be a great help. The bill that we are discussing is obviously an attempt to correct many of the deficiencies that we think exist in the mar-

March 15, 1971

ketplace. Therefore, I hope that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), who can occasionally be a reasonable man, will recognize the validity of this amendment and what it is trying to do. It is trying to further consumer education and assist the harassed consumer in making a value judgment which the marketplace more often obscures than enlightens.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that unit pricing will one day come into effect in this country. We heard evidence during the exhaustive study of this bill in committee in support of unit pricing. We heard the questions and comments of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), who moved this amendment, and others. We also heard very substantial evidence against emit pricing at this time.
Nobody in his right mind would be against unit pricing per se. It is a very desirable goal, a very worth-while and indeed necessary objective to strive for. But I think from the evidence that we heard during our examination of this bill in committee, including that of the minister who will have responsibility for administering this legislation, I am led to the conclusion, as are the majority of the members of the committee, that unit pricing-as worthwhile and necessary an objective as it may be-is not practical at this time. I shall not go into the constitutional aspect of the question, although it was raised in the committee, but there is one important aspect which I think is worthy of mention.
The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) said that it would be a very simple matter to provide space on packages for unit pricing. Nobody would disagree with that. If this were the law, manufacturers could comply with it with very little effort and relatively modest additional cost. But the problem arises at the retail level, because the retailer has ultimate responsibility. Bearing in mind the many thousands of items that are handled by supermarkets and grocery retailers in Canada, one can readily grasp how thoroughly impractical it would be at present to force retailers to stamp on each individual item, each can, container or package the unit price of the product. It would be a nightmare for the retailer. One of the objects of the bill is to reduce the proliferation of sizes of packages on the market. If we succeed in doing that we will get much closer to the day when we can have unit pricing in Canada. But until we arrive at that stage, I submit that unit pricing is totally impractical, desirable though it may be.
Indeed, this amendment is very typical of the type that we are used to getting from our friends in the NDP. It is what I would call a "motherhood" amendment, where they place us in the position of speaking against motherhood-in this case motherhood being unit pricing. Everyone in Canada knows that unit pricing is desirable. All of us have had experience at one time or another of going to the supermarket and making the necessary purchases for the family. We have had the problem of wrestling with the price of an article when there is a proliferation of sizes and containers of that item on the supermarket
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act shelf. But to suggest that the average consumer enter a supermarket with a slide-rule and start computing the unit cost of a can of foodstuffs is to my mind not reasonable.
Evidence has been placed before the committee to support the case for unit pricing. I am sure that some of this evidence will be presented to the House, if not in a speech of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, then in one of the speeches made by her colleagues. Nobody can quarrel with the case put forward on the evidence that has been presented. What I suggest is unit pricing some time in the future, but unit pricing now is not practical. I subscribe to the arguments presented in the committee by the minister, arguments that I am sure he will very eloquently present to this House, showing why it is not practical at this particular time.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, desirable though it may be to have unit pricing in Canada, until we arrive at a stage where we can reduce the proliferation of sizes and until we can clear up the confusion that already exists in the minds of consumers with respect to this proliferation, I submit that unit pricing at this time is not practical, and desirable though it may be we cannot support the amendment.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the whole matter concerning this amendment and the question of unit pricing was gone into at very great length in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs which examined this bill. I think there were three or four meetings of the committee at which the question of unit pricing came up. I made it clear in the committee and in the House during debate on second reading, that of course in so far as unit pricing made comparability of products easier for the consumer, in so far as it provided the consumer with full and accurate information, both pricewise and otherwise as to the products that the consumer was buying, then unit pricing was a good thing.
It indicated that we in the department and I as the minister had certainly not been unaware of the developments that had been going on in Canada and the United States with regard to studies of unit pricing, their implications, the cost of unit pricing, whether or not in fact they were used by consumers, whether or not in fact consumers took into account the unit pricing of products and what products were suitable for pricing. All of these were experiments conducted in this country and in the United States, of which we were aware and on which we maintained a watching brief, if I may put it that way. We sent officials of the department to observe and participate in studies being conducted in New York by the department of consumer affairs there, and in Washington where one of the leading chains was conducting certain studies.
Our problem here is one we went into very fully in the committee, that in the view of the law officers of the Crown there are some difficulties constitutionally with

March 15, 1971
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act regard to the amendment now before the House. The constitutional aspects were discussed at quite some length in the committee. All 1 can say is that this is a bill put forward with the advice of the law officers of the Crown as a constitutional bill, fully within the valid and proper authority of the federal Parliament and federal government, and I would not want to jeopardize it by an amendment changing the bill which may impugne or bring into question its constitutionality. That would be a disastrous thing to do. I have to take, as does the government, constitutional advice from the law officers of the Crown and not from the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). I have all the respect in the world for her, but she is not the person from whom I have to take constitutional advice and legal advice.
May I say, however, that there are in the bill two provisions which I think deal with this question. One is clause 11, which deals with standardization of packaging. Surely to the extent that packages are standardized, to the extent that one becomes comparable with another there is no need for unit pricing. The example I would submit here is that of dairy products which are already sold in standardized packages. For example, butter is sold in quarter-pound, half-pound and one-pound packages. There is no need for unit pricing in the sale of butter. No one needs to see on a package of butter what the price per ounce is, because it is sold by way of standardized packages controlled by regulation.
Clause 11 of the bill also provides that where there is undue proliferation, where there are so many packages that it is confusing to the consumer, we may take action to standardize the number of packages and the size and shape of packages relating to any particular product line. To the extent that packages are standardized pursuant to clause 11, the need for unit pricing covering those products is removed.
The second matter is an amendment made in the committee at my suggestion and my urging. It is the new clause 12 which provides, if I might read it because it was not before the House on second reading:
The minister may conduct research and studies relating or incidental to the packaging and labelling of any prepackaged product including matters relating or incidental to unit price marking, date and storage marking and the shapes and sizes of containers.
(2) The minister may, in carrying out any research or studies pursuant to subsection (1), consult with or seek the advice of any department or agency of any government, any dealers or any organization of dealers or any organization in Canada of consumers.
So pursuant to that amendment we can carry on research directed toward this question of unit pricing. For example, we can provide the initiative, the impetus and the leadership that the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) spoke of and which I think is so essential. There are some problems in unit pricing, but there is no reason why leading chain stores in Canada, engaged in the sale of food products, could not themselves voluntarily undertake, both on an experimental basis and as a pilot project, the unit pricing of the products within their chain store outlets.
It seems to me that there are 30 to 40 commonly used food products that compose most of the food dollar of an average Canadian family which could very easily be shown by way of unit pricing by the leading chain stores. In fact this evening, as I did in the committee the other day, I call upon them to engage in a voluntary way in this practice to see the extent to which consumers use it, to see to what extent there are problems associated with it, if any. I say, let the chains engage in this. Certainly under this new clause we will be engaging in studies of unit pricing. We will be calling on the chains, pursuant to our studies, to mark their products by way of unit pricing in order to see how the system works. I say in conclusion on this point that to the extent standardization takes place under clause 11 and to the extent action is taken pursuant to clause 12, I think the amendment before us is unnecessary.
The last comment I want to make deals with one that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway made. I think she was possibly being a little rhetorical at that point in her remarks because she urged me as the minister to get off the fence on the question of consumer protection. I take some offence, some objection to that remark, but I think she was being more rhetorical than anything else. I think my record as minister and the record of the department are such that we have fully demonstrated over the past two years that we have decided which side of the fence we are on.
Here I refer to such things as the Hazardous Products Act, which is the finest consumer product safety legislation in the world, the amendment to the Bills of Exchange Act which came into effect last November 1, and the drugs bill which we put through the House against the strongest and best organized lobby that many in this Parliament had every seen organized. I refer also to the action we are taking against misleading advertising. Both small advertisers and some of the leading companies in Canada have been charged and convicted of misleading advertising for the first time in the history of this country.
I think this kind of record, on behalf of the consumers, by myself and by my department surely answer the question. We know which side of the fence we are on. We are acting, as this bill is designed to act, for the protection of the Canadian consumer. I can only assume that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was being quite rhetorical in her comment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: You went so fast we didn't have time to tune up the fiddle to go along with all that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to prevent, inhibit and stop any kind of advertising, packaging or labelling that misleads or deceives. There is no argument from any corner of the House about that objective; all parties are in agreement with it.

March 15, 1971

What the bill says implicitly and what the minister has said is that the consumer has the right to know. The amendment proposed by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) provides that not only must the consumer have the right to know, but that he or she must have the right to be able to know. That the consumer shall have access to information is implicit in this bill. We wish to rectify what we think is a shortcoming in an otherwise good piece of legislation. The Minister invited members of Parliament to comment, saying that we should not worry very much about those areas in which the bill might go too far.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and I, at least, accepted the minister's invitation to worry more about the bill and we are pointing out an area in which this legislation does not go far enough. We have tried to accommodate the minister and we are suggesting an area that we think ought to be included in this legislation, to make it go further than even he might have thought possible.
I think that two areas have been omitted from this bill, one being that the consumer has the right to be able to know. Unit pricing is one of the tools which the consumer can use in order to know the value of what he is buying, on the basis of per ounce, per pound, per package or any other measure by which the product is sold. I admit at the outset that I want to do all I can to calm the fears and fairly mild objections of my good friends and colleagues, the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) and the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).
We tried to make our point in committee. We are not suggesting for a moment that this amendment would apply to all products. Actually, it would be impossible to apply unit prices to every one of the tens of thousands of commodities found on the shelves of retail outlets in Canada. Nobody is suggesting that the minister shall do this, because the amendment specifically says "the minister may". I have enough confidence even in a member of the Liberal government to take my chances on the good judgment and good sense of a minister of the Crown and his officials in selecting those commodities and products to which unit pricing can easily and quickly be applied, because I think they will do it, if for no other reason, to see how well this provision works and of how much use it will be to Mrs. Jane Consumer.
Just prescribing the size of packages or reducing the number of package sizes by itself will not prevent the deception or the misleading of the consumer. Those, in part, are objectives that the minister says he wishes to achieve. For that reason we plead with the minister to accept a provision in the bill saying that unit prices may be applied by the minister on any one or more of a given number of products that he and his officials may select, once products have been standardized in terms of packages or the quantities in each package.
Prices in themselves can still mislead consumers, either deliberately or accidentally. For instance, say a uniform package size for 20 ounces of anything is brought in: if
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act the marked price is 97 cents, Mrs. Jane Consumer will immediately have to compute the price of the product per ounce. As I said, standardization of containers will not solve the problem, no matter if different manufacturers use the same size of containers, because consumers would still need to compare the prices of similar products put out by different manufacturers if the prices for products in similar sized containers varied. Without a unit price there is no basis for comparing prices for the same product in containers of different sizes. For instances, is the large size cheaper than the medium size, or is the medium size cheaper than the small size?
I wish to cite an example to illustrate my point. I should like the permission of the House to have appended to Hansard a table. I will not take the time of the House in reading it. I do not know what procedure I ought to follow, but I should like to have this table included with my remarks in Hansard. May I ask permission of the House to do that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I regret to advise the hon. member that it is not the practice of the House to do so. I ask for the assistance of hon. members. Perhaps if the table is identified, hon. members can give their unanimous consent to having it included; or the hon. member could read it as part of his speech. In any event, the hon. member will need the consent of the House to implement his suggestion.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I think your suggestion is very worth while. Perhaps the hon. member ought to identify the table which he wishes to read, so that we will not be setting a precedent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: There will also be difficulties for the translators, and so on. Unless the table is overly long, I suggest the hon. member might read it and identify it; otherwise his action will give rise to a precedent-although I hasten to add that this would not be the first time that I have departed from precedent.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to read the whole table to the House. I am quite prepared to identify it.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if it would expedite the business of the House-we are concerned about this bill because it has been outstanding a long time-perhaps the hon. member could read one line from the table and, having identified it, say that the rest of the table covers others sizes.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be highly advisable to follow the hon. member's suggestion. Perhaps we ought to have an indication of what the table includes. I understand it is not customary in the House to table material of this nature, and if we did so we might set a precedent which would not be in line with our previous practice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It would not be out
of order if the hon. member were to identify the table and read whatever he thinks is necessary from it.

March 15, 1971
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to
bring forward evidence to support the case that standardizing packages by itself will not be sufficient in providing the consumer with information to which he has a right. He must also have the right of being able to know. I have a table of prices taken at Shoppers City on Wednesday, February 24, 1971. The table illustrates sizes of cans of beans. The example refers to 4J-ounce, 8-ounce, 14-ounce, 19-ounce, 28-ounce and 48-ounce sizes and gives marked prices as well as unit prices for Clark's canned beans. Similarly, it illustrates marked prices and unit prices for Libby's canned baked beans.
Mr. Speaker, all per unit prices of Libby's beans are higher than Clark's, except the 28-ounce size which, significantly, is cheaper per unit than almost all other sizes. In addition, the 19-ounce size of Clark's beans, which was on special for 22 cents, or 1.16 cents per ounce, is dangerously close to the price of the 28-ounce can of Libby's beans, which is priced at 33 cents, or 1.18 cents per ounce. The combination of prices and sizes given in the example, which is part of the table that I hope will be included in Hansard, shows how difficult it is for the consumer to compare prices. The example includes only two of several different brands that are available. Surely this example is a prime candidate for unit prices.
As I said earlier, we do not ask nor suggest-neither does the amendment suggest that the minister would have to immediately go out and require by regulation that every retailer put the unit price on every product on his shelves. Of course he would not do that. In fact, if this provision were in the legislation it would be up to the minister to decide whether to use it. If he did decide to use it in the case of even one product, he would do this in consultation and with the consent of the manufacturer or producer of that product. This would be done for no other reason than to determine whether it would improve the sale of that product, whether it was of use to the consumer and, more important, whether it was constitutional.
I believed the minister, as did the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, when he stated to the committee that he was as much in favour and sympathy with unit prices as anyone else. I accepted and believed that. He may think the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was using rhetoric. He may think I am also doing that. I do not care. It is about time the minister started acting instead of just talking. If unit prices are unconstitutional, then this whole damn piece of legislation is unconstitutional. Under the definition of "dealer" retailers are included. They are totally under provincial jurisdiction. To suggest that the minister can order an inspection of retailers' labels and packages, have jurisdiction over them and not be able to inspect them for unit prices just does not wash.
In his remarks the minister quoted Professor Ziegel as an authority. Surely we can safely assume that Professor Ziegel is also an authority on prices, whether at the manufacturer, wholesaler or retail level. I wish to quote
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard).]
from Professor Ziegel's letter of February 12. The minis-er has a copy of it. I quote as follows:
In giving evidence before your committee on January 14th last, the Honourable Ron Basford left the impression that the federal government lacks the constitutional power to impose unit pricing at the retail level.
He continues:
While I can see the significance of the difference in the context of anti-combines legislation I have some difficulty in following the distinction from the constitutional point of view.
Later in his letter he says:
It might be relevant if the federal government sought to rest its jurisdiction on the trade and commerce power in section 91(2) of the B.N.A. Act but, to the best of my knowledge, the distinction has never been applied with respect to the exercise of the criminal law power under section 91(27) or the weights and measures power. In any event, the minister is mistaken in suggesting that Bill C-180 only applies to manufacturers and wholesalers since the bill applies to a "dealer and dealer is defined in section 2(d) as including a person who is a retailer.
We contend that the minister's worries about the constitutional aspects of this amendment are unjustified and unfounded. They have been refuted by constitutional and legal experts who have a reputation in this field. I do not pretend to have such a reputation. I quote the experts in support of my request to the minister to accept this amendment.
The hon. member for Wellington was worried about the manufacturers, processors, wholesalers and retailers who would have a lot of work and trouble marking packages. I accept the hon. member's genuine concern about the problems that a manufacturer, processor and, particularly, a retailer might have if it were necessary to mark every package. However, as I said at the outset, the amendment does not ask, nor do we suggest that every product be amenable to unit pricing, nor is it necessary to have unit pricing on every package. I wish the hon. member for Wellington would quit having such unfounded worries about the wholesaler and retailer and would worry more about the consumer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If it can be shown to be profitable to put unit prices on selected products, which the minister can insist on under the regulations of this bill, the wholesalers and retailers will do it. They will do it if it is profitable or if it makes the consumer feel more kindly toward them. Retailers have to mark every product that now goes on their shelves. All they would need is a little larger rubber stamp. They already spend many hours during the night marking every package and can that goes on the shelves. To suggest that it would be impossible to mark the unit price on each package or can on the shelves just does not wash.
Some products lend themselves to unit prices, some do not. In consultation with the manufacturers, the minister and his officials could select those products which are amenable to unit pricing. The constitutional argument is not credible. Those who want to act like Arab sheiks in their own little province or region say it is unconstitu-
March 15, 1971

tional or constitutes interference. Many other aspects of this bill could in fact fall into the same category.
One of the minister's colleagues said in committee that he would like to argue with the minister about the constitutionality of the bill. Under the provisions of the BNA Act the minister can accept this amendment. At his discretion, with the Governor in Council he could select products that were able to be unit priced in order to give the consumer the right to know the value per ounce or pound that he is getting for his money. Whether it be canned peas, ketchup or anything else, once containers are standardized, proliferation is prevented and there is uniformity of the number of ounces or other form of measurement for a container, prices can still be used to deceive. Commodities can be priced at two for 79 cents, four for 86 cents or any other screwball amount that a retailer or advertiser may choose in order to persuade people to buy a product, not because of value per ounce but because they give the impression that they represent greater value per ounce or pound.
There was a great deal of discussion in the committee and since about the validity of attempting this in this bill. I believe the minister would like to have this provision in this bill and use it on occasion. The minister seems to profess that what his department is doing leads all countries of the world. If he really means that, he will accept this amendment; he will try it with one or more products that he, his officials, the manufacturers-and processors have discussed and agreed upon as test cases.
If the minister continues to suggest that if he accepts the amendment and the courts throw it out, this would throw out all his legislation, he should have thought twice about bringing in this legislation in the first place. I do not believe this is the case. The minister should want to find out. If he does not want to find out, it is time he changed his mind, because I cannot follow the logic of his argument.
If this amendment is accepted by the government, and the courts after the test case throw it out, it seems to me the minister has lost no ground; he has the rest of the legislation to use for the benefit of consumers. If the courts throw out the whole bill on constitutional grounds, the minister cannot expect anyone in the House to believe that this one, little amendment would make the bill unconstitutional. Even an ignorant Prairie boy like me, who has spent most of his life jumping through the stubble is not going to believe that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but I must do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is just a poor, ignorant Prairie boy! Let him go on.


An hon. Member:: Jumping over the stubble.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? All those in favor will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those against will please say nay.
Some hon. Members : Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the motion No. 2 stands deferred.
The next motion for the House to consider is motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver -Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) as follows:
That Bill C-180, an act respecting the packaging, labelling, sale and importation and advertising of prepackaged and certain other products, be amended by adding immediately after clause (9) the following:
"10. No dealer shall sell, import or advertise any product that has not been stored or maintained in accordance with the labels required pursuant to subparagraph (iv) of section 11."


Winona Grace MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I draw to your attention the fact that I believe you read the wrong amendment? We have two amendments, the first one and then the second one which you read. I do not know whether the House would wish to take the two together or not.


James Aloysius McGrath: On the point of order, it seems to me that amendment No. 3 is automatically ruled out by the fact that amendment No. 2 was negatived upon division. It is a consequential amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But amendment No. 2 has not yet been voted upon.


James Aloysius McGrath: I apologize. We have not voted upon amendment No. 2.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The division on amendment No. 2 was deferred under the appropriate Standing Order. I apologize to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway; I did not follow her point of order.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I wanted to draw attention to the fact that Your Honour read the wrong amendment. The amendment which should now be discussed is as follows: That Bill C-180, an act respecting the packaging, labelling, sale and advertising of prepackaged and certain other products, be amended by adding immediately after subparagraph (ii) of subclause (b) of clause 10 the following-
That is amendment No. 4.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member suggesting that the amendment now before the House should be deferred for consideration later? My understanding is that the amendment the House now has under consideration would logically follow the amendment the vote on

March 15, 1971
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act which was just deferred and would come before the one mentioned by the hon. member.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Your Honour, it appears to me that these two amendments are closely related. Perhaps the House would agree to deal with both of them together.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Would it be in accordance with the wish of the House that we discuss the two amendments together? They stand or fall together. It would save a good deal of time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the House is agreeable, amendments Nos. 3 and 4 will be debated together, and if a vote is required the two amendments will be voted on in the one vote. Is that the understanding?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the first amendment is to empower the minister to require that the conditions of storage and maintenance of certain products be printed on the package along with the dates upon which they might not be sold for consumption or should not be used. The purpose of the second amendment is to prohibit dealers from not following the instructions the minister has required to be placed on the labels. The basic argument for doing this is obvious. Many stores do not enjoy good inventory management, so some products remain on the shelves beyond their useful or safe life. Perishable products come into this category, and I understand that certain photographic products have a limited useful life.
This provision is to make sure that the consumer has the right to receive certain goods in proper condition. We heard a lot of evidence on this aspect in committee. I was particularly impressed by the evidence given in connection with frozen foods. You can buy frozen foods in a store. We were told by some of the manufacturers that although there are regulations making them keep the temperature at a certain figure, there is nothing to compel retail establishments to ensure that safe temperatures are maintained.
Many housewives have not much notion of what temperatures they should maintain when they get frozen articles home; they do not know whether they should keep them in the freezer compartment of the refrigerator or whether it is sufficient to keep them in the ordinary compartments. We think it is important that when frozen or perishable foods reach the store the consumer knows that they have been kept at safe temperatures and that they have been stored in the proper manner.
Some time ago, the minister will remember, there was an incident in Vancouver involving frozen chickens. There was every evidence that these chickens had been allowed to thaw out in the store and had then been refrozen. This is a very dangerous practice, quite apart from the aesthetic value of the product when you buy it, and housewives are justified in their concern.
We feel that regulations should be passed providing that there be printed on the product the date beyond which the product should not be sold, as well as showing at what temperature the product should be stored in order to keep it in good condition. We were told by one consumers' association representative from the province of Quebec that certain seals that change colour when temperature is lowered beyond the safe point can be affixed to such products. -
I know the minister is of the view that the amendment he made in committee looks after this matter. The minister added the word "age" to clause 10 (b)(iii) in the belief that this looked after the problem. However, in our view it does no such thing. As the bill now stands, even though a product had been in a store longer than the date on the package, a dealer could still sell it in spite of the provision in clause 10 (bKiii). I suggest what we need is not tokenism of this kind but genuine protection.
I have no desire to make a long speech on this amendment. May I simply say that my colleague from Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) brought to the attention of the committee the fact that in Manitoba consumers are greatly concerned about this problem, as they are in British Columbia. In a day when so many foodstuffs are perishable we feel it is very important they should bear some sort of expiry date beyond which they should not be sold. Of course, if they were stamped with the date they were sent from the factory, everybody would rush to buy the freshest product, which would mean the other products in stock would not be sold. But so long as our consumers know that the product is within the expiry date on the package they will have no worries of this kind.
Some members of the official opposition said that they thought this sort of thing was overprotecting the consumer. I do not believe that is so. I believe the consumer has the right to know the exact state and condition of the goods she purchases from the store. She has the right to know that it has been stored in a proper manner, and she has the right to be told how to store it at home until the decides to serve the product to her family. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest we accept both of these amendments.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) has said what I wanted to say, but I disagree with her conclusions. I think the question of age labelling and date stamping of perishable foodstuffs is an important one, but in my view it is already covered by clause 10 of the bill as originally drawn. However, in order to put to rest any difficulty in interpretation that there may have been, as a result of representations from the province of Manitoba that age dating and date coding be covered in the bill we moved an amendment in the committee to clause 10. The pertinent part of the clause reads as follows:
Each label containing a declaration of net quantity of the prepackaged product to which it is applied shall. ..
(b) in such form and manner and in such circumstances as
may be prescribed show ...

March 15, 1971

(iii) such information respecting the nature, quality, age, size, material content, composition, geographic origin, performance, use or method of manufacture or production of the prepackaged product as may be prescribed.
It is my view that whatever is properly required to be done in line with the suggestions that have been made about date stamping, age stamping, care labelling and storage labelling, if it is within the purview of this act, can be done in accordance with clause 10 (b)(iii) which refers to the nature of the goods, the quality of the goods, the age of the goods, the material content, performance, use or method of manufacture or production. In my view this covers completely and adequately all information that is required to be on the label and which would be useful to consumers in relation to age or care of the product.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It was agreed that motions Nos. 3 and 4 would be debated together. Perhaps for the record the Chair should put motion No. 4 which I neglected to do at the time of the agreement. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) moves motion No. 4: That Bill C-180, an act respecting the packaging, labelling, sale, importation and advertising of prepackaged and certain other products, be amended by adding immediately after sub-paragraph (iii) of sub-clause (b) of clause 10 the following:
"(iv) the date beyond which the prepackaged product should not be used or may not be sold for consumption and such information respecting the conditions required for storage and maintenance, including temperature, as may be prescribed."
It is the understanding of the Chair that it was agreed that motions Nos. 3 and 4 would be put together on the one vote and that motion No. 4 would follow motion No. 3 as to the result. If that is the understanding, I will put the question to the House. All those in favour of motion No. 3 will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75 (11), a recorded division on motions Nos. 3 and 4 stands deferred.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: March 15, 1971
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act
Surely there is no other reason for these screwball sizes, weights and measures of products in containers and packages than to deceive the consumer. When the minister indicates that he does not want authority in the legislation to prevent this happening, he negates some of the fine purposes and objectives he outlined in the committee and again today. This type of thing undoubtedly results in manufacturers smuggling price increases through by reducing the quantity by imperceptible amounts. In this way they make it impossible for the consumer to determine the value that he is getting for his money. Surely the minister, before anyone in this House, would want to put a stop to this practice. The committee dealt with this matter and we tried as hard as we could to persuade the minister. He sounded encouraging for a while.
For a few minutes let me review some of the things stated at the committee hearings. We made the point in our efforts to persuade the minister that provision should be made for unit pricing. We all recognized that even if we had unit pricing it could not be applied to all products. No one suggests that this could be done. Many products, packages and containers are not suitable for this kind of action. In order to take care of products and packages not suitable for unit pricing, we submitted then, as we submit now, that the minister should be given authority in the bill to regulate the amounts which go into containers and packages. I have in mind amounts that are comprehensible and easily divided into or by the price. The minister requires this kind of amendment in conjunction with unit pricing. There is nothing mandatory in the amendment; it leaves the minister with discretion to make such regulations.
I fully expect that the minister will meet with consumer and manufacturing associations as well as the producers and packagers of various products. In the majority of cases I suspect that they would agree upon the products which the minister should proclaim as being subject to regulation through the Governor in Council. With this kind of authority the minister does not need to use a big stick; he would receive that co-operation and help which is long overdue.
The president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, when testifying before the committee had the unmitigated gall to tell the minister to his face that his association had infinitely more knowledge of what the consumer wants than the minister, his government or Parliament. That suggestion, if nothing else, should have obtained some reaction from the minister. I was going to suggest it should have raised the hair on the back of his neck, but I will forget about that suggestion and forget about it as it applies to me. This is the kind of arrogant attitude taken by the manufacturers who place their products in packages and tubes in cornball amounts. For this reason it seems to me that the minister should almost be on his knees begging his colleagues to accept this amendment.
I have tried to be lighthearted in the way I have presented my argument, but I am not lighthearted in the seriousness with which I approach it. We
cannot see anything in the present legislation which would allow the minister to prevent the kind of things that happen in respect of tubes of toothpaste, breakfast cereals, detergents and other goods. It seems peculiar to us that when one is buying Kellogg's Kice Crispies the three sizes contain 9 ounces, 13 ounces or 17 ounces. It is very strange that each size is one ounce more than half a pound, three-quarters of a pound and one pound. Can this be for any other reason than to deceive the consumer? Is it for no other reason than to make it almost impossible for Mrs. Jane Consumer to divide the number of ounces into the price and arrive at the value per ounce? There can be no reason for these quantities being put into packages other than to deceive and mislead.
Surely the minister most of all, if he wants to put his action where his mouth is, will want to accept this amendment. I know he has reiterated the constitutional argument put up in the committee. Surely that argument has been shot down in flames long before this. I ask the minister to reconsider this question and accept the amendment, if for no other reason than to jar some of the bureaucrats, particularly in the Department of Justice or a better reason to try to co-operate and consult with the consumers and manufacturers in respect of putting on the shelves of stores packages containing quantities which are comprehensible to Mrs. Jane Consumer.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, this really is the same discussion we had a little while ago on motion No. 2 in respect to adding a new clause 4. The same considerations and arguments apply to motion No. 5 as apply to motion No. 2. In so far as the last part of this amendment deals with the quantity in a package, it would seem to me the question of functional and non-functional slack fill, as it is called in the trade, is completely dealt with in clause 9 of the bill which provides:
No dealer shall sell, import into Canada or advertise any prepackaged product that is packaged in a container that has been manufactured, constructed or filled, or that is displayed in such a manner that a consumer might reasonably be misled with respect to the quality or quantity of the product.
So in so far as it is a question of a huge package only partially filled with a product, and therefore deceptive because people would think that from its size they were getting a larger quantity than they are, surely that is dealt with by clause 9. In so far as the amendment deals with the unit price, it would seem to me we discussed that matter earlier tonight, and so far as it can be dealt with under this legislation it is dealt with in clause 11 which was in the bill to begin with, and in clause 12 which was introduced during the committee hearings. Therefore, it seems to me this amendment should be defeated.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, there is a case to be made for the amendment moved by my hon. friend the member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). I should add, however, that in our view, as

March 15, 1971

the minister has just said, this question is very clearly covered in clause 9 of the bill. We do not want to take up the time of the House in dealing with amendments which are superfluous and do nothing to improve the legislation. As the minister has said, this matter is covered very clearly in clause 9. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maelnnis) may say something to contradict that and contribute new argument.
However, there is no doubt there is a case to be made for the substance of the amendment moved by the hon. member. During the course of his remarks he referred to misleading and confusing sizes and mentioned toothpaste as a very graphic example. This was illustrated in the evidence presented to the committee. He also referred to the container sizes of cereals. The evidence to support the need for regulation in this area stems from the complete confusion which exists in the minds of consumers as a consequence of the terms used in advertising products in Canada. For example, in relation to toothpaste we now have regular size, giant size, family size, super size, and so on. The same thing applies to the packaging of cereals and the packaging of detergents, just to mention two others. I am sure other examples could be brought to mind.
However, Mr. Speaker, I believe the case is very clearly covered by clause 9 and I do not think it would improve the legislation in any way if the House were to accept this amendment. Consequently, even though we support the principle, we regret we are unable to support the substance of the amendment.


Mrs. Maelnnis:: Mr. Speaker, when I mentioned a few moments ago perishable products, I did not have in mind red herrings. When the minister spoke about slack fill in connection with the proposal of my colleague from Regma-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) this is exactly what he was producing, a red herring without regard to age, temperature, storage, condition or anything else, because what my colleague had to say did not have anything to do with slack fill. He was proposing a way in which to cut down on these weird sizes. It should be just as easy to make a package which would contain 16 ounces as one which would contain 17 ounces. There would still be a problem in respect of slack fill in either case.
What my colleague is proposing is that since we now have the ordinary Canadian units of measurement and are now getting ready for the metric system, we should either produce packages in multiples of inches or ounces or get ready to produce them in units of the metric system and not produce cans of 17 ounces or 19 ounces. I believe the case for the amendment has been made. I think the consumers' association is very much aware of the need for having standard packages without the use of fractional weights.
I should like to conclude tonight by referring to a letter from a correspondent in Vanier City. I believe my colleague from Regina-Lake Centre mentioned the need to consider the problems and ideas of Jane Canuck. I realize that Jane Canuck is not in this House tonight in the
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act numbers she should be. However, I have this letter from one Jane Canuck in Vanier City and I think it might help the minister understand what my colleague has in mind in respect of his amendment if I read it. She says:
One aspect that doesn't seem to have been touched on is the matter of convenience. When following a recipe that calls for one standard pound of a food, it's a bit unnerving to find that your container has only 12 or 14 ozs. To make up the difference you would have to buy a second one, or alter every other ingredient (for instance, 12/16-or 3/4 of an egg!). I'm sure you get the picture!
We have heard from some members of the official opposition about the convenience of manufacturers. We have heard about the marketplace and that these things would be done by the dealers in the marketplace if they found it profitable to do so. But I believe my friend from Vanier City is correct and that there has not been too much said about the convenience or even the sanity of the consumer in trying to decipher these odd sizes. This lady baked a cake and presumably found that when the recipe called for a standard pound of some ingredient she had a package that contained only 12 ounces or 14 ounces of the ingredient. So she did not know whether she should get a second full pound package or try to divide the egg or whatever else was called for.
I think it is time we began to consider our legislation from the standpoint of the convenience of the consumer who has to go out to the market, buy the products, bring them home, store them and prepare them for the family. The sooner we get a few more Jane Canucks in the House, the sooner we shall get a little more intelligence on the part of John Canucks who have not had to wrestle with these problems.
The amendment of my colleague arises directly from the situation that this woman in Vanier City is envisaging. We should stop our traditional thinking as to whether or not it will be handy for the manufacturers to make alterations. We should start thinking about the needs of consumers. The consumers of this country have just begun to find their voice. It is a little timid and squeaky as yet, but we can encourage the minister to speak up more strongly for their needs. He has made a pretty fair start, but he is timorous and he needs encouragement. Let him take another look at this amendment, which is really an excellent one and would do much to help the consumer recognize deceptive packaging when she sees it.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief comment on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). I think that perhaps the political environment in which he lives brings into suspicion everything that is done by manufacturers and makes him suspect that it is done with malice aforethought; that these odd numbers of ounces in cornflakes, for example, such as 9, 13 and 17, are there to confuse and confound the housewife so that unfair advantage can be taken of her in some mysterious way.

March 15, 1971
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act
I do not think it is anything as malicious as that. I think it is probably just a tradition. It may be that the original Mr. Kellogg who invented cornflakes was a baker, and to be generous he threw in an extra ounce with every half-pound, three-quarter pound and pound of cornflakes, the same as it had been their tradition to throw in an extra bun with a dozen to make it a baker's dozen. Nevertheless, I think it is reasonable that container sizes should be not only in round figures, eliminating fractions, but that amounts should be easily divisible by two, three and five. Therefore, I think that the amendment of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has some merit.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: I wonder if the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) would answer a question. I was interested in the hon. member's suggestion that the baker's dozen prevails in the case of Kellogg's cornflakes. I was in Prince Edward Island a year ago and I am wondering if the same thing would apply to Malpeque oysters which one buys in Charlottetown.


John Angus MacLean: Yes, I think it would, in the case of the hon. member.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, there are many commendable features in this amendment, but I think the minister summed it up very well when he said that clause 9 takes good care of this point. For that reason I would not support the amendment. But 1 would like to refute some things that have been said tonight. I think that my good friends to the left are overlooking one thing. I would like them to think about the fact that by stopping the abuses, a very small number of them, we may kill the free market. I think it would be a sad situation if the free market were killed by our introducing legislation just to take care of a few abuses. My friend, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), wants to standardize packages in his amendment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No quantities.


Alfred Dryden Hales: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, on February 3, which now seems a long time ago, I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) about the very depressing statistics released by Dun and Bradstreet a short time earlier. The Canadian Press, in the Journal Pioneer of January 30, set out in some detail the further chapter in what is becoming a familiar economic threnody in this country. It reads as follows:



MANY BUSINESSES FAIL

[Stage Direction]
More than 2,200 businesses failed in Canada during 1970 compared with 1,861 the year before, a recent survey shows.
Dun and Bradstreet of Canada Ltd., Toronto, said Quebec led with 1,155 failures compared with 944 a year earlier.
Liabilities totalled $264,894,000 compared with $145,701,000 in 1969.
In Ontario, there were 797 failures compared with 618 a year earlier.
On these dismal and dreary statistics there seems to be no device whereby seasonal adjustment can be integrated. It is sad to relate that so many visionary aspects of the once proudly hailed just society emerged as dreary, dark realities. With an unemployment rate growing to painful and disgraceful proportions we have a blighting of economic opportunities for our young people in and out of university. Further takeovers of Canadian businesses both at home and abroad, now that Guyana has closed in on one of our important business establishments without much more than a slight flickering eyebrow from the Canadian government, are situations which should cause us concern.
Slump, decline, pessimism are too often the hallmarks of our present economic state. Not surprising then, sir, that cold, hard statistics like those just quoted give the dimensions of the economic mess created by a government

March 15, 1971
[Stage Direction]
whose judgment on fiscal matters has been proven profoundly wrong and painfully inadequate. I invite the parliamentary secretary or whoever will be responding to me to reflect carefully, coldly and thoughtfully upon these statistics which I regard, and which most thoughtful economists and businessmen regard, as yet another indicator that all is not well in this land.
More than that, I ask him and the party now in power to use what influence he and they have upon the government to re-think, to readjust and sensibly and sensitively to react to the many warnings of greater ills yet to come, and may we not wait until we have upon us a depression rather than a recession before the government shows some awareness of the fact that all is not well in this land, in economic terms.
Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, business failures occur for many reasons. Markets sometimes do not grow in accordance with expectations. Costs sometimes rise at a time when prices cannot be raised sufficiently to cover the increased costs. Loss of sales due to industrial disputes can result in serious difficulties for the businessman; and 1970 was, of course, marked by a series of such disputes across the country. Also, at times of high interest rates and limited liquidity in the economy, the difficulty of financing liabilities and the high cost of carrying large inventories when sales slow down can result in business failure. All these considerations were important in 1970.
The government has neither been unaware of nor unsympathetic to these problems. The measures taken by the government since last March have been frequently catalogued in this House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). Particularly important factors in this regard were the growth of the money supply at a much increased rate in the second quarter, and the easing of interest rates. By midsummer the availability and cost of finance were improving for the businessman.
An analysis of the month by month trend in failures shows that the greater part of the increase over 1969 in business failures occurred between February and July. The picture changed sharply in the third quarter, and it is interesting to note that the number of failures began to fall in the third quarter at a time when they usually begin a seasonal increase.



GRAIN-ALLEGED SLOWDOWN IN MOVEMENT TO VANCOUVER BECAUSE OF LABOUR PROBLEMS-ADVANCE NOTICE OF GRADES REQUIRED

John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, on February 22 I directed the following question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey):
In view of the observation made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration yesterday on the program "Question Period" to the effect that there was some slowdown in the movement of grain to Vancouver during the period when a couple of sporadic labour problems led to difficulties, can the minister inform the House where the slowdowns occurred and for how long the flow of grain was slowed down?
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
At that time the Minister of Labour said he could not answer the question because he had not had notice of it. I then directed a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), who is in charge of the Wheat Board, as follows:
In view of the fact that grain movement to Vancouver was slowed down for only two days, can the minister inform the House how much advance notice is required to meet our commitments for specific grades of grain bound for export?
The minister said that he must have missed something at the beginning of the question and wanted me to repeat it, but Mr. Speaker said, "Order, please". Following that I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on February 25, 1971, following question as reported at page 51 of report No. 2:
It was suggested that there had been some type of slowdown and tie-up and that the railroads had contributed to this situation. Have you had any contact with the railroads, both the CN and the CP, as to any tie-up in the movement of cars- any appreciable tie-up for the movement of grain to the coast?
The Minister of Transport answered in part:
No. Indeed, in recent months the general reporting has been what I would describe as fairly satisfactory.
A little further on I asked:
Would it follow that possibly the Wheat Board themselves did not have the right type of grain out there?
I meant the coast.
If you are suggesting that there was no tie-up in the pipeline in the movement of grain to the coast, then there must be some reason behind it all if this grain was not available. I am pleased to hear at least that there is no tie-up so far as the rail operation is concerned.
The minister replied:
Nothing untoward of which I am aware other than the normal kind of problem which exists perenially-a shortage of cars at certain locations.
I am glad to see the minister in charge of the Wheat Board here this evening to answer our questions. The most important question to be answered is: How much advance notice is required if we are to meet our commitments for specific grades of grain bound for export? If ships were delayed one month, as the minister suggested in the House, the Wheat Board had an extra month at least in which to place grain in position at Vancouver for export to whatever countries need it.
Of course, we can ask the minister what caused these delays over and above what he suggested on the television program. Did they result from sporadic labour disputes, from a lack of boxcars spotted at country elevators, or from mishaps between origin and destination? Could there possibly be some lack of co-operation between the Wheat Board and railway companies concerned, as well as those people who are buying the grain? Could there be lack of co-operation in placing that grain in export locations?
I suggest that if the minister wants the co-operation of all parties involved he will give in this House answers which are credible. I hope he will answer some of the

March 15, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion questions that have been asked in this House in order that there may be that degree of co-operation which I am sure the minister wishes to receive.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that there was no chance to have the question repeated on the earlier occasion when it was asked, and I therefore could not discover what the hon. member had been talking about at that time. My problem at that time was that he had referred to a couple of days of delays. It turns out that he was referring to problems caused by landslides, and so on, which resulted in temporary difficulties.
That fact is that over the whole of the winter, from the fall onward, there were with respect to the CNR some sporadic slowdowns and labour problems which, as the Wheat Board reported to me, amounted in total to approximately one week's loss in cars arriving in Vancouver. We did not at that time make a great deal of this and I do not make much of it now, because that would involve our getting into the labour problem. That is why I talked quietly to my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). We do not, unless we feel that the crisis requires special intervention, involve my colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson).
These slowdowns occurred. The hon. member asks how long it takes for grain to be brought to Vancouver when the Wheat Board knows about a ship. The Wheat Board tells me that it takes about three weeks to undertake a program of grain movement from the country to Vancouver. Of course, this is normally done well in advance of the shipping arriving, as the hon. member suggests. When ships arrive in bunches, that is a sign of peak deliveries being made. There are delays in shipping, partly because of delays in ports abroad, and this leads to congestion from time to time.
The important thing is that the February loadings out of Vancouver were at approximately record levels. It looks as though in March we will again have approximately record levels of loadings of ships. The number of ships waiting at this moment is six, with eight vessels loading. The amount of grain in store in Vancouver has again been built up. There are again signs of labour problems which give me great concern. This time the CPR is showing some signs of difficulties. I am concerned about them. This could cause a slowdown at any time.


John Leroy Skoberg: Where?


Otto Emil Lang: This is at the yards in Vancouver. It has not yet impeded us but we are disturbed a great deal. So far it is working very well. The block system is working very well. The co-ordinators at Vancouver and Thunder Bay are also working very well. We are arriving at record levels. The ships are there in decreasing numbers every day. I should draw to the hon. member's attention the fact that our exports of grain are at levels which mean an increased flow of cash to the Prairie farmers.



HEALTH-CYCLAMATES-COMPENSATION TO POOD PROCESSORS FOR DOSSES CAUSED BY BAN

Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my
interest in this matter was initially motivated by the effect of the cyclamates ban in October, 1969, on a relatively small Canadian food packer in my constituency. This was my initial concern. I will return to this point later.
It seems that the cyclamates question and their precipitous banning brings into focus the whole question of food additives. It is not simply a question of dietary foods and the use of artificial sweeteners for diabetics and weight-watchers; it includes the use of food additives in general in our highly technological and contemporary food industry. Additives of various chemicals are being used with increasing intensity for a variety of reasons. They are used to maintain colour in meats, add flavour, preserve a fresh appearance, bleach, and a host of other reasons. All these reasons have encouraged competitive manufacturers. They have been given the green light for these additives by the Food and Drug Directorate to intensify the inclusion of additives because of the interest of the consumers for convenience foods and other kinds of foods.
The cyclamates case is typical and symbolic because in order to meet import competition from the United States processors began to employ cyclohexysulphamic salts in diet foods, canned goods, cookies, jams, jellies, etc. They have been doing this for the past 20 years. It should be pointed out that processors who used cyclamates until the announced ban in October, 1969, had fully and completely followed the government's regulations in the use of these additives. For one small industry in my constituency, the loss was in excess of $50,000 because of the ban by the minister. Multiply the cost to processors across Canada and we get an idea of the intensity of the problem, especially when the axe falls, as it did, without warning.
I wish to emphatically point out that I hold no brief for any compromise with public safety. However, the ban came about after these processors, operating under the food and drug regulations, had already completed their pack for the year. What happened to cyclamates can happen in the case of other additives. It is only a question of time as to when and where the ban will strike next.
The government was, and is, prepared to compensate swordfishermen if it is found that their catches contain dangerous amounts of mercury. What is it prepared to do for the law-abiding processors? From the indications of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), they are prepared to absolutely nothing; the processors must take the loss. We should be looking toward the day when there will be some form of compensation to soften such blows in the future. We have had cyclamates and other things banned, and undoubtedly there will be more additives condemned in the future. Hon. members may know that the United States, which started all this controversy, has now reversed its decision on the cyclamates ban. It is interesting to compare what

March 15, 1971

has happened in the United States with what has not happened here in Canada.
Incidentally, it has been reported to me that an enterprising promoter in this city cleaned up $60,000 this fall, after the August 31 deadline-which the producers wanted extended-buying cyclamates at distress prices from Ottawa supermarkets and reselling them to-would you believe it-the three Ottawa hospitals. Cyclamates are still on the market, inadequately labelled, not marked as dangerous and available without prescription for anyone to buy. I have some here to prove it.
In conclusion, there are some interesting questions which we should consider. First, how are we in future to be sure that tablets, liquids and powders available as non-prescription drugs to meet the special needs of people such as diabetics will be diluted to the proper strength so as not to be dangerous. Many of those who use these preparations are old people whose eyesight is no longer good. How can we be sure they will get these preparations in the proper strength and not run the risk of taking overdoses of cyclamate?
I am sure the minister's intentions were beyond question, but he goofed. I have no hesitancy in saying he will goof again if he fails to develop a proper mechanism and policy for dealing with additives.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to comment on the proposal that the government should compensate food manufacturers for losses sustained when the use of cyclamates in food was banned, but before doing so I would like to give a short summary of the action taken by the government in regard to this matter.
The few hon. members left in the House will recall that on October 21, 1969, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) announced that while no evidence existed to suggest that the use of cyclamates caused cancer in humans, the feeding of high levels of cyclamates to rats produced bladder tumours. After consultation with his scientific advisers, the minister decided
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to phase out the use of cyclamates as an artificial sweetener in foods. This was achieved over a period of approximately a year. Dietetic canned fruits containing cyclamates, the last class of foods to be removed from the market, were permitted to be sold until September 1, 1970. In making this decision the minister was faced with a potential hazard to the health of the Canadian people. It was therefore necessary to take this action for the protection of the public health. I think all hon. member will agree that health considerations must take precedence over economic factors.
I should like to point out that no food manufacturer is required to use a specific food additive in this product. That decision must be made by the food manufacturer taking all factors into consideration, including the possible risk that the food additive might be subsequently considered hazardous in view of additional scientific data. The government considers this to be a normal business risk faced by any manufacturer.
In summary, the following factors must be considered. Firstly, the decision to phase-out the use of cyclamates in foods was taken to protect the Canadian public from a potential health hazard. Under such circumstances, health considerations must take precedence over economic factors. Secondly, food manufacturers were not required to use cyclamates in their products. Under these circumstances, and after careful consideration, the government has decided that the food industry cannot be compensated for losses incurred owing to the withdrawal of cyclamates from food use.

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware whether my intervention has served any useful purpose tonight, but I am under the impression that we are witnessing a complete breakdown of our parliamentary system as a result of tonight's exercise in futility, a late show which is sheer madness. I hope a stop will soon be put to this.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.
4287

Tuesday, March 16, 1971