1974-10-28

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to report to the House on my trip last week to western Europe. In doing so, I am very pleased to be able to say that in both Paris and Brussels I found evidence of considerable warmth towards Canada, considerable interest in Canadian attitudes, and considerable desire to seek a convergence of interests. I can assure this House, Mr. Speaker, that in those places and within the international organizations sited there, the reputation of Canada is high. I can assure the House equally that there exists within the governments of France, Belgium and Luxembourg a genuine and wholesome appreciation of the Canadian fact.
It goes without saying that the discussions in Paris with President Giscard d'Estaing and with Prime Minister Chirac and other ministers took place against a background of deep historical bonds and a shared culture of considerable richness. Of equal importance, however, they took place in an environment which acknowledged the distinctiveness of the Canadian entity and the modernity of Canadian accomplishments. There was evident in those meetings, a will to deal practically with issues; a desire to cooperate rather than compete, to participate rather than withdraw, to consult rather than assume.
We agreed while in Paris to launch two bilateral working groups each with an objective of identifying areas of fruitful cooperation in order to increase and diversify our volume of trade. Each is to conclude its work in time to report to the Canada-France Joint Economic Committee at its next meeting to be held in Ottawa in the first half of next year. One working group will concentrate on examining, without advance commitment, technological and trade investment possibilities with respect to petroleum, gas, coal and nuclear fuels, taking into account matters of interest to both sides. The other group will examine the rather broader area of trade potential in industrial sectors and in the first instance would concentrate on the transportation industry, dealing with French interests in railways and in helicopters and with Canadian interests in STOL aircraft and in all-terrain vehicles.
An indication of the importance attached to these decisions was the agreement that the next Joint Economic
Committee meeting take place-for the first time-at the ministerial level.
Finally, it was recognized that the ultimate success of the work to be undertaken rested largely with private enterprise and that special efforts should be made to bring together French and Canadian businessmen in the coming months. In this connection, I have asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) to lead an official trade mission of Canadian businessmen to France in 1975.
In Brussels, where I profited from formal discussions with Prime Minister Tindemans and his cabinet colleagues, as well as with Prime Minister Thorn of Luxembourg, the same intensity of purpose was manifest: to build on the warm relations now existing with Canada, to intensify the contacts and exchanges now pursued, to support Canadian initiatives with the European community, to co-operate in multilateral sectors.
In Brussels too, as in Paris earlier in the week, there was broad agreement not simply on the identification of the major issues of global proportions but also on the postures which must be adopted with respect to them. We discussed, and agreed, that the dangers of nuclear proliferation demanded the design and implementation of more thorough and effective safeguards. We also agreed that the critical elements of the present state of the world economy-inflation, slow growth, balance of payments deficits, recycling, trade negotiations-demanded liberal and statesmanlike attitudes as distinct from cautious and protectionist ones. In this latter respect, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and I have now sought and received the views and understanding of no less than eight prime ministers and presidents in the last six weeks. We shall continue our efforts in weeks to come.
Western Europe is, of course, much more than the geographical location of several nation states. It is, as well, the site of a number of international organizations: in Paris, UNESCO and OECD; in Brussels, NATO, and others elsewhere. It is still something else; it is an evolving concept, a process, an idea to which dedicated men, in spite of formidable obstacles, are bending their efforts through the growing and ever maturing European community. This Europe is not the sum of the national parts; it exists of them and for them, yet it exists in addition to them. It is not enough, Jean Monnet was fond of saying, to add together the several sovereignties; men had to create the new Europe. They are now engaged slowly, sometimes painfully, in that creative process. This Europe, this entity of the future, is organic in nature. As yet, its potential size and strength and attitudes can only be conjectured. But

October 28, 1974
European Economic Community
one fails at one's peril to recognize the sense of destiny which fuels this evolution.
Our government recognizes that emerging fact, Mr. Speaker, and we applaud it. We applauded last week in Brussels, just as we applauded two years ago on the occasion of the entry into the community of Britain, Ireland and Denmark. And these expressions of understanding have coloured the way in which our current approach to the European community has been received. That initiative, Mr. Speaker, is no less and no more than to seek ways of engaging the community in a dynamic, co-operative enterprise.
We wish to add a new, yet parallel dimension to the expanding links we are already building with our partners among the nine member states; a relationship which will grow as the community itself moves from infancy through adolescence to full maturity; a relationship in which Canada's interests and its singular identity are recognized and reflected in decisions taken; a relationship in which consultation and reciprocal advice are accepted; a relationship, Mr. Speaker, of mutual respect, of give and take.
There is a degree of novelty to this exercise. The community, understandably, is as yet far from certain of the shape it will assume, the jurisdiction it will occupy, or the powers it will possess in years to come. Nor is it for Canada to say. This is a European exercise. Yet one thing is certain. It is that this new Europe-which already accounts for 20 per cent of world trade-will be an increasingly formidable actor on the world stage: in commerce, in science, in economic and financial activity, in technology and more. That being the case, it would be irresponsible for a Canadian government not to seek a distinctive relationship with it. Without question, such an exercise could be conducted along more familiar channels were we to wait a few years, as most other countries have apparently chosen to do. But that would ignore the advantages to be gained from engaging the community at an early stage; that would ignore the spirit of creativity which now permeates the community and to which we seek to contribute. Comfort and familiarity are not our criteria; benefit to Canada is.
This desire, this technique, this goal, is shared by the European commission, Mr. Speaker. Our discussions with President Ortoli, with Vice-President Soames and with other commissioners, left no doubt about this. There was a significant meeting of minds both on the concept of this new relationship and on the initial steps to set the process in motion. It is bound to be a lengthy process, but we must begin. As a result of my talks in Brussels, it was agreed that a new process would be initiated involving concrete steps to strengthen the links between Canada and the European community. The parties agreed to begin exploratory talks in the near future on the nature and scope of negotiations intended to define the form and content of the relationship between them.
For this purpose, Canadian and community officials have been instructed to schedule meetings without delay. In addition, the president of the commission has agreed to visit Ottawa at an early date. I am also pleased that a full delegation office will be opened in Ottawa in 1975, of the same nature as those already operating in Washington and Tokyo.


I invite all hon. members to share in this process. Happily, an increased opportunity to do so will soon exist as a result of a further agreement reached last week. While in Paris, I was able to announce, with the approval of the French Government, that the Canadian Government would open a Consulate General in Strasbourg. This office will permit a Canadian presence to be extended into an important region of France for the benefit of our commercial, cultural, information and immigration programs and for the extension of services to Canadian tourists and businessmen. It will also support an enhancement of present links between the Parliament of Canada and the Parliament of Europe, and with the Council of Europe. As Honourable Members are aware, the European Parliament is situated in Strasbourg, and is expected to perform an increasingly important role in the new European Community. I place great importance on such links and on the constructive contribution offered by Canadian parliamentarians. Again and again in Europe I was told of the respect and the high reputation which delegations from this Parliament have earned through their hard work when abroad. It was my good fortune to be in Paris while one such delegation was present and to note the great distinction with which it did its work.
I have already mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the presence in Paris and Brussels of several international bodies of considerable importance. I engaged in discussions with the principal officers of two of them-Secretary General Van Lennep of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and Secretary General Luns of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-and gained from them assessments of the international situation as viewed from their special perspectives, as well as generous acknowledgements of the important contribution made by Canada to each. This opportunity extended, in the case of NATO, to a full working session with the North Atlantic Council in Brussels. I was able there to explore with the permanent representatives of the member countries the concepts enshrined in the Ottawa Declaration of Atlantic Principles and to provide assurance that Canadian commitment to those principles remained unimpaired. I was able as well to express Canada's distress that two NATO allies should be engaged in a dispute with respect to Cyprus, and Canada's interest in seeing an early and peaceful resolution of the conflict on that island, a conflict which has taken two Canadian lives and endangered many others.
A few years ago, Mr. Speaker, an experienced European commentator described Canada as "La derniere chance de l'Europe". It is not my place to comment on that observation. I do say, however, that Europe is une bonne chance, une grande chance, une chance tres importante for Canada. That is why we have so studiously strengthened there our ties and our level of representation in recent years. In each of the cities I visited there are three Canadian embassies devoted to separate tasks, and three Canadian ambassadors of outstanding capabilities. I know, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members will share with me my pride in the accomplishments of all of them and particularly, I
October 28, 1974

am sure, of Canada's Ambassador to Belgium, our ex-colleague and your distinguished predecessor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should be less than gracious if I resumed my seat before paying tribute to the skill and dedication of those who accompanied me and who offered such valuable support in my discussions and negotiations. This group, comprised of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) and senior officials, functioned superbly. Representing, as they did, both of Canada's official linguistic communities and many regions of our country, these individuals demonstrated to me and to our hosts the advantages and the attainments of a bilingual government. I am proud of them and thank them in your presence.
I have not the slightest doubt that they and their colleagues will function equally as well during the several negotiations about to commence, and in the preparations for my return to Europe early in the new year. On that occasion, too, I trust I shall enjoy once again the pleasure of the company of the person who, without question, is Canada's fairest and foremost representative-my wife.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin my comments on a gracious note by saying how pleased we all are to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and Mrs. Trudeau back in Canada after their strenuous journey to Europe. I congratulate the Prime Minister on achieving the impression that this was a working trip. There were no bannisters, bobsleds or bugaloos getting attention on this foray. This in itself is progress. I understand there were attempts to whip up glitter and glamour as to what the trip was intended to accomplish.


An hon. Member:: Weak.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My remarks are bound to be weak, coming after the lofty sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister a few moments ago. As I say, there was an attempt to whip up glamour as to what the trip was intended to accomplish. However, I understand the Prime Minister was pretty cool toward that approach to the extent of shooting down some of the most exuberant members of his entourage. For that I also congratulate him.
I say in all seriousness that it was unfortunate our general presentation, particularly that concerning the European common market, was not as thoroughly prepared as it might have been. It strikes me as strange that weaknesses in our presentation were not spotted, criticized and changed before we were on the firing line with them. The Prime Minister has to be subject to criticism in that regard. This was a highly personalized mission and the homework should have been better done before the fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
European Economic Community

Franco-Canadian relations are of particular significance to our country, both culturally and economically.
Beyond the warm welcome the French government extended to the Prime Minister, the setting up of two study groups in the fields of energy and industrial cooperation constitute tangible proof that our two countries are on the road to reconciliation, making up a seven year old breach.
Still, I deplore the fact that so few efforts were made in the past, and with such deliberation, with a view to taking much greater advantage of the European possibilities as a means of reducing Canada's dependence on foreign countries. I have now for a long time advocated the speedier development of our trade as a means of diversifying our economic relations.

After all, we in Canada have had a lot of time to look at Europe; a lot of time to formulate ideas and approaches. For far too long we neglected the European Economic Community, going along without diplomatic representation assigned specifically to the community. For most of the year 1970 we did not have an ambassador to Brussels or to the community. We created the impression in a good many circles that we were not really interested in the affairs of the European Economic Community. The government has recently made some efforts to correct that impression. The Prime Minister's visit was to be the culmination of those efforts. Therefore, there was a strong challenge to face in this aspect of the Prime Minister's European trip. There was more than ample time properly to prepare to meet the challenge.
I do not for a moment think that the Prime Minister should have been expected to come back with the Holy Grail, or anything like that. I am saying that our preparedness, in terms of presentation, was not up to scratch. With the time we had to prepare a solid case, there is no excuse for having presented something less than that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister spoke of a return visit to Europe early in the new year. I trust by that time our homework will be better done. There is some very real confusion about just what we were after and just what we were prepared to give in exchange. The Prime Minister's statement today does not clarify the matter to any degree of satisfaction. I hope he will be more frank and forthcoming in answering some questions on these points.
It seems the trip had three main areas of concern. First, to renew warm relations with the government of France. I certainly think this purpose was fully accomplished. Second, to touch base with regard to our commitment to collective security, NATO for example. Because of the Prime Minister's warm support for NATO over the years, there is no need for me to comment on that. Third, to explore possibilities of a contractual arrangement with the European Economic Community.

October 28, 1974
European Economic Community
It is in relation to this third point that most of the confusion exists, and the Prime Minister does not really help to clear the air when he says things like this:
There was a significant meeting of minds on the concept of this new relationship and on the additional steps to set the process in motion.
If there was a significant meeting of minds on the concept, I wish the Prime Minister would tell us what the concept was.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Here is what the Prime Minister says they agreed on. Hon. members should listen to this with great care:
The parties agreed to begin exploratory talks in the near future on the nature and scope of negotiations intended to define the form and content of the relationship between them.
On page four of the Prime Minister's statement the word "posture" is used. It is not a word I would have chosen but perhaps it conveys more than it was intended to convey. I say this because the noun when it is verbalized indicates posturing. I have to say it looks to me like posturing as far as the EEC is concerned. Perhaps the Prime Minister would table the aide memoire sent to the EEC earlier in the year so that we can judge for ourselves.
I am disappointed that the Prime Minister did not take the House into his confidence today. I had hoped for an open review of the intentions of the government toward the EEC-a guide to the kind of association the government of Canada is seeking. We did not get that at all. If the Prime Minister would take this as coming from a native Nova Scotian, all we got today was a bag of fog.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party wish to join with other members in this chamber in extending a welcome to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on his return from his eventful journey. The trip the Prime Minister made did not produce any spectacular announcements. Nevertheless, the fact that the discussions took place was in itself worthwhile.
At this period in world history when we are faced with inflation on a global scale, when there is growing concern about the diminution of many of our basic natural resources, there is a great danger that many nations will resort to protectionism, a course which can only lead to trade wars. For a country such as Canada which is so dependent upon international trade, such a situation would be abhorrent. For this reason, any discussions in which the Prime Minister takes part with heads of other governments, whether in Europe or elsewhere, must be welcomed. The Prime Minister referred to his discussions with the high officials of the French government. I am somewhat concerned that he would say, on page two of his statement:
One working group will concentrate on examining, without advance commitment, technological and trade investment possibilities with respect to petroleum, gas, coal and nuclear fuels, taking into account matters of interest to both sides.
When one combines this statement with the statement which was attributed to the Prime Minister by the press

while he was in Brussels to the effect that Canada is in the process of reviewing its resource policies, and that those who were interested in the development of resources had better get on the band wagon, it becomes apparent that there is at least some reason for our concern. This, to me, looks like an open invitation-an indication that we are prepared to allow our resources to be used as a bait to attract investment and enlarge our trading opportunities by trading them off in a process of quid pro quo. I want to suggest that this is a dangerous path. We have trodden it particularly in our relations with the United States and it will be no less abhorrent in our relations with Europe. The resources at our disposal in Canada are limited in quantity. Some of them are disappearing rapidly. It is likely we shall face difficult problems in future years, particularly with respect to energy supplies, and for us to suggest we are in a position to invite other countries to come in and share in the development of our petroleum, gas, coal and nuclear fuels will, it seems to me, start a trend for which future generations of Canadians will pay dearly.
On page four of the statement the Prime Minister refers to his discussions with the EEC in Brussels. He says:
We agreed that the dangers of nuclear proliferation demanded the design and implementation of more thorough and effective safeguards.
As to the record, I think all of us would agree. What is needed, however, is some statement from the government, particularly from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) as to any specific safeguards which are being implemented. The safeguards provided in the past have not proved to be effective. In any case, the situation has changed very radically because the by-products of nuclear plants generating electricity can now be used to make nuclear bombs. Consequently, the problem of safeguarding the use of our uranium is more complex than it was a few years ago. I believe the rhetoric of our Prime Minister, the meeting of minds in Brussels in respect of adequate safeguards, is something which ought now to reveal itself in terms of effective regulations so that we can be assured that Canadian uranium, or uranium from any other country if it comes to that, will not be used to enable irresponsible nations to produce atomic weapons which could very well destroy the world.
The Prime Minister is quite right when he says, on page seven of the statement, that it would be irresponsible for a Canadian government not to seek a definitive relationship with the EEC. The fact is that for at least the last ten years members of this party have repeatedly asked successive Liberal ministers of trade and commerce what they were doing with regard to seeking some type of associate membership in the EEC or some trading relationship with that organisation. It is true we were told that some discussions were going on between officials of our Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the governments of Europe and the EEC, but there had been no attempt until now by the head of a Canadian government, after more than 10 years of having Liberal governments occupy the treasury benches, to reach some agreement with the European Economic Council. If as the Prime Minister says it is irresponsible for a Canadian government not to have sought some distinctive relationship, then the blame for following an irresponsible policy must lie with the gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches.
October 28, 1974

The Prime Minister made some proposals to the EEC when he was in Brussels and press reports have said that the EEC representatives thought the proposals were banal. I should like to know what those proposals were or what type of proposals the government put before the EEC. What are we to envisage? Are we seeking some type of associate membership or are we seeking some type of trade agreement? What are the proposals the government put before them? They are 10 years late in making any kind of proposal, but surely now any proposal ought not to be so meaningless that it is described by the EEC as being banal.
If these proposals are not merely a public relations exercise, surely we ought to know what they are and the reason the members of the EEC were not prepared to accept them. Even though we have been late in recognizing the trade potential of the EEC that is no reason we should not press on now. I hope the government will be much more zealous in pursuing this matter now than it has been in recent years.
As far as this party is concerned I want to say that in pursuing agreements for increased trade it should be made abundantly clear that the natural resources of Canada which we so deeply need and which ought to be processed, and if possible turned into manufactured goods in this country, should not be put up for auction to the multinational corporations of Europe, the United States or anyplace else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must apologize for not having had the time to glance at the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who came back from France in perfect health. Still, I want to congratulate him and join my colleagues in welcoming him back.
The Prime Minister probably came back from France in six or seven hours. As for me, it took me 16 hours and a half to come back from the Lac-Saint-Jean.
Today, the matter of time is very relative over certain distances, since everything depends on the means of transportation. This is the reason why I did not have time to get prepared to answer the Prime Minister's statement.
I simply want to make a few comments on what he has just said as far as the proposed establishment of study groups on economic, trade and technical matters is concerned. I want to express all the happiness we, French Canadians, felt when we read in the newspapers that the Prime Minister of Canada would go to Paris. After waiting for several years, the French speaking people of Canada were glad to read that the Prime Minister would at last meet representatives of the second mother country, in order to renew old friendships. I think that meeting was logical and normal.
Following the Prime Minister's journey through the press, radio and television, I realized that this visit of the Prime Minister of Canada to France was of current interest. It was even eagerly awaited by the French government. Judging by the way the talks developed, I think
House of Commons
everything went well. I hope the proposed working groups will take shape shortly, and that we will be able to say that Canada gets as much from its dealings with France as with Great Britain or any other country.
Today, in its international relations, it is imperative that Canada step up contacts with other countries, increase international agreements in order to lay the old myth to rest, namely that we must always deal first with a North American country. I believe that will be beneficial to Canada. That visit to France has enabled the Prime Minister to open a door to the European Common Market. European trade is developing more and more and I believe that Canada has to be part of it.
The Prime Minister also talked about his visit to NATO. He stated that Canada's contribution to NATO would continue. As for me, I hope that it will get larger, and I believe that all those who have had the opportunity to sit in at NATO conferences will agree with that. I already had the opportunity on three occasions to attend such meetings in Paris and in Brussels, and I realized then the need for such international associations for a country that wishes to play a part in this world and to keep pace with other countries.
I believe that all those agreements are necessary to Canada and 1 hope that this government and the Prime Minister will pursue such conversations with other industrialized countries so as to enable Canada to play a still greater part, so that we may feel more free, more independent and be able to live alongside great industrialized countries without any embarrasment whatsoever.
We are happy to welcome the Prime Minister back and I hope that the talks he has and the contacts he made in Europe will soon bear fruit.


NEWSPAPER COLUMN BY PRIME MINISTER-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek leave of the House to propose a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the venture into the field of journalism which appeared in the October 23 issue of the Lanark Era and other weeklies in Canada headed "Priorities for the Thirtieth Parliament, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Prime Minister". Seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) I seek leave to move:
That in the opinion of the House newspaper columns dealing with government policy, which are represented as written by the Prime Minister or by any member of cabinet, but which have actually been written by Liberal Party of Canada employees, constitute misleading the Canadian people, possible manipulation of the press for political purposes and they should cease forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the proposed motion. With all due respect to the hon. member I should re-read the provisions of Standing Order 43 which are as follows:

October 28, 1974
Public Service
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the House without notice having been given under Standing Order 42.
Although I do not propose to frequently intervene in respect of the interpretation of urgent and pressing necessity, in this case I must say that the terms of the motion do not qualify in this regard.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is basically this. I submit that under the rules it is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity when a form of fraud is committed on the Canadian people in an article purported to be written by the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.


TRUST COMPANIES ACT
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) moved: the first reading of Bill S-7 (from the Senate), to authorize federal trust companies and loan companies to increase the monetary limit of their borrowing power and to issue subordinated notes.


[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. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I am prompted by the recent attempts by the Public Service of Canada to obtain, through newspaper advertisements and householder mailings, thousands of inexperienced temporary employees for the Taxation Data Centre in Ottawa, who will become eligible for unemployment insurance benefits at the end of the peak season. This situation exists, Mr. Speaker, because the Taxation Data Centre is a major employer of keypunch operators in Ottawa and the government has made inadequate attempts to spread the workload over the year or to use experienced people already on unemployment insurance or to disentitle part-time or seasonal workers from unemployment insurance benefits. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry-Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling)
That this House instruct the departments of National Revenue, Manpower and Immigration, and Finance, to co-operate in devising a method of filling the government's needs for temporary workers without imposing an unemployment insurance burden on the Canadian taxpayers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion being proposed under Standing Order 43 which requires the unanimous consent of the House before debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent the motion cannot be put.



UIC BENEFITS PAID IN 1970-73

Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What was the total number of people who received unemployment insurance payments in the year 1970 and what was the total amount for 1970 of these payments?
2.	What was the total number of people who received unemployment insurance in the years 1971, 1972, 1973 and what was the total amount of these payments for each year?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Initial
Renewal
Year	Claims	Claims	Total1970	1,678,969	581,877	2,260,8461971 Old Act	971,688	467,917	1,439,605N ew Act	890,533	41,980	932,513Total	1,862,221	509,897	2,372,1181972 Old Act	241	71,400	71,641New Act	2,051,387	346,890	2,398,277Total	2,051,628	418,290	2,469,9181973	1,957,783	279,746	2,237,529
Year
1971	Old Act New Act
Total
1972	Old Act New Act
Total
Gross Benefit Payments 698,840,100.68
705.340.548.73
190,132,315.00
895.472.863.73
63,870,668.00
1.814.845.947.00
1.878.716.615.00
2.025.625.067.00
October 28, 1974



REPRINTING OF POLITICAL ADDRESS BY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AT NORFOLK-HALDIMAND AND SWIFT CURRENT-MAPLE CREEK

Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answers to Questions Nos. 126 and 127 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament to the effect that political addresses made by the Minister of Agriculture to the annual meeting of the Norfolk-Haldimand Liberal Party on Friday, February 22, 1974 and the Swift Current-Maple Creek Federal Liberal Association on Monday, February 18, 1974 were not reprinted at public expense (a) who specifically paid the cost for the copies of these speeches that were printed on Agriculture Canada paper and on what date was payment made (b) what was the exact date that the Minister stopped printing and circulating at public expense copies of his political speeches to Liberal Party meetings (c) for what reason did the Minister make this change from his previous custom of printing and circulating of such speeches at public expense and, specifically, was one of the reasons that objections were received to such use of public funds?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: There has been no change in the handling of the Hon. E. F. Whelan's public speeches.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT NATIONALIZATION OPERATIONS

Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has the Cape Breton Development Corporation completed its nationalization operations and, if not, on what date will it complete them?
2.	Have the shares or properties of nationalized companies been purchased?
3.	What was the book value of each such company at the time of purchase?
4.	What were the criteria used to evaluate such properties?
5.	Were the former owners paid in cash or interest bearing bonds?
6.	What was the price paid by CBDC for the purchase of each company?
7.	Did CBDC use Section 10(a) of its Act and, if so, how far advanced are the proceedings?
8.	When was the evaluation of the properties of the companies completed after March 30, 1968 (date of expropriation)?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer for the Cape Breton Development Corp. is as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	No. The acquisition was effected by expropriation as provided in the Cape Breton Development Corp. Act, Sections 9(e) and 10.
3.	Not determined because the assets were acquired by expropriation.
4.	The criteria set forth in Section 12 of the Cape Breton Development Corp. Act.
5.	In cash from the Consolidated Revenue Fund as provided in Section 19(1) of the Cape Breton Development Corp. Act.
6.	In accordance with the Cape Breton Development Corp. Act, the companies were not acquired. Compensation for the expropriated assets was settled for the overall sum of $11,775,000.00 not including interest or costs but,
Order Paper Questions
including $7,651,726.60 for coal stocks valued at the cost thereof to the companies as provided in Section 12 (2) of the Cape Breton Development Corp. Act.
7.	Yes. the Proceedings were completed when the settlement was judicially approved in December, 1972.
8.	As at December 18, 1972.



TRANSPORT-TRANSOCEANIC LANDING FEES

Mr. Marshall: What schedule of landing fees has been established for overseas stops at Newfoundland airports (a) Stephenville (b) Gander (c) St. John's (d) Goose Bay (e) Deer Lake?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The following schedule of transoceanic landing fees is applicable at all airports operated by the Ministry with the exception of technical landings while on transoceanic flights at the Gander and Ottawa International Airports and the Goose Bay Airport: per 1,000 pounds or fraction thereof of the aircraft's weight: $1.33 for aircraft weighing not more than 90,000 pounds; $1.40 for aircraft weighing more than 90,000 pounds but not more than 125,000 pounds; $1.46 for aircraft weighing more than 125,000 pounds but not more than 150,000 pounds; $1.51 for aircraft weighing more than 150,000 pounds.
The landing fee for technical landings while on transoceanic flights at the three airports is 50 cents per 1000 pounds or fraction of the aircraft's weight, with a further reduction at the Gander International Airport as follows: Where arrangements are made in advance with the officer in charge of Gander International Airport by any person, the landing fee for technical landings during a twelve month period of all aircraft operated by that person and landed at that Airport is calculated on the accumulated weight of the aircraft landings as follows: 50 cents per 1000 lbs. on the first 65,000,000 pounds; 45 cents per 1000 lbs. on the next 16,250,000 pounds; 40 cents per 1000 lbs. on the next 16,250,000 pounds; 35 cents per 1000 lbs. on the next
16.250.000	pounds; and 30 cents per 1000 lbs. on excess of
113.750.000	pounds. A technical landing is for the purpose of obtaining ground service for aircraft on transoceanic flights. The special rate was introduced to develop revenue by attracting aircraft to those airports in Canada which are in a competitive position relative to airports in the United States situated within the flight path of aircraft on transoceanic flights.



FEDERAL SUBSIDIZATION OF CANADIAN STANDARDS COUNCIL

Mr. Allard: Does the government subsidize the Canadian Standards Council and, if so (a) for how many years (b) through what department (c) what amounts were granted in 1971, 1972 and 1973 (d) did the government make a grant as capital for the Council at the time it was created or at some later stage of its development?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Standards Council of Canada is funded by a parliamentary appropriation in the form of a grant, (a) The Standards Council of Canada first received parliamentary appropriation in the 1971-72 fiscal year, (b) The Department of

October 28, 1974
Order Paper Questions
Industry, Trade and Commerce (c) Fiscal year 1971-72, $481,500; Fiscal year 1972-73, $495,700; Fiscal year 1973-74, $1,010,000; (d) No.



CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many times was corporal punishment used in the year 1972 in federal institutions?
2.	How many prisoners had such corporal punishment more than once?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. None. On September 27, 1972, Penitentiary Service Regulation 2.28(4) was amended so that corporal punishment could no longer be imposed for a disciplinary offence.
2. Not applicable.



INCOMES OF FAMILY UNITS BY QUINTILES

Mr. Orlikow: Of all family units in the years 1968 and 1973, what percentage of the total money income was received by (a) the lowest one-fifth (b) the second lowest fifth (c) the third lowest fifth (d) the fourth lowest fifth (e) the highest fifth?


Gaston Clermont: Statistics Canada reports that: No survey was done of 1968 incomes and data on 1973 incomes are not yet available. However, the following figures have been published on 1967 and 1972 incomes of all family units:
Percentage of Total Money Received by Each Quintile
Quintiles	1967	1972Lowest	4.2	3.8Second	11.4	10.6Third	17.8	17.8Fourth	24.6	25.0Highest	42.0	42.9



NUMBER OF PROFESSIONAL CANADIANS WORKING IN THE UNITED STATES

Mr. Orlikow: How many Canadian scientists, research workers, engineers, university professors and medical doctors left Canada to work in the United States in the last year?


Gaston Clermont: Statistics Canada reports that: Canada does not collect any statistics on persons leaving Canada. However, the United States Department of Justice, Immigration Service, supplies data on the occupations of immigrants admitted to the United States whose country of last residence was Canada. The following data are for the year ending June 30, 1973. Although there is not a separate category for "scientists and research workers" in the occupations listed by the U.S. Department of Justice, the following occupations could be included in that category. Scientists and Research Workers: Agricultural scientists, 9; Biological

scientists, 21; Geologists and Geophysicists, 18; Physicists, 15; Miscellaneous natural scientists, 1; Miscellaneous social scientists, 25. Engineers 228; University professors, 83; Medical doctors (listed as Physicians and Surgeons), 274.



GAME MANAGEMENT POLICY IN NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Mr. Firth: 1.	Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development contemplate carrying out a full-scale public inquiry into alleged misconduct of the former Superintendent of Game Management?
2.	Depending on the outcome of such a public inquiry, would the Department consider a thorough review of the hierarchy of the Territorial Government, its powers and responsibilities?
3.	Will the Department recommend to the Commissioner that an Advisory Committee be established immediately to approve the issuance of all scientific and complimentary licences, thus hoping to avoid a similar situation in the future?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
3.	Commissioner Hodgson announced September 25 that he would set up a council which would include representatives of native associations and other organizations concerned with game management, conservation and hunting and trapping. The council would advise the Commissioner on matters relating to game management policy and programs in the Northwest Territories, including the issuing of complimentary licences.



DATE OF TENDER CALL FOR PAVING AIRPORT AT LINCOLN, NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. Howie: On what date will tenders be called for paving the DOT airport at Lincoln, New Brunswick, serving Federicton and central New Brunswick?


Jean Marchand: A date for calling tenders for this project cannot be predicted at this time.



ALLOCATION OF LIP PROGRAMS

Mr. Laprise: How much of the $79,442,000 allocated to the LIP Programs for the 1974-75 fiscal year will be allocated to (a) British Columbia (b) Alberta (c) Saskatchewan (d) Manitoba (e) Ontario (f) Quebec (g) New Brunswick (h) Prince Edward Island (i) Nova Scotia (j) Newfoundland (k) Northwest Territories (1) Yukon?


Robert Knight Andras: (a) British Columbia, $7,940,000; (b) Alberta $1,811,000; (c) Saskatchewan, $1,636,000; (d) Manitoba, $1,797,000; (e) Ontario, $13,806,000; (f) Quebec, $34,601,000; (g) New Brunswick, $4,724,000; (h) Prince Edward Island, $998,000; (i) Nova Scotia, $3,924,000; (j) Newfoundland, $7,409,000; (k) North West Territories, $511,000; (1) Yukon, $285,000.



REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON MATTERS PERTAINING TO THOUSAND ISLAND BRIDGE AUTHORITY

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. K. W. MacLellan, until recently Director of the USA Division of the Department of External Affairs and Chairman of the Interdepartmental Committee on International Bridges, receive a letter dated April 8, 1974 from the Member of Parliament for Leeds requesting information on matters pertaining to the Thousand Island Bridge Authority at Lansdowne, Ontario and, if so (a) on what date was the letter received (b) was the letter answered and (i) if so, on what date (ii) if not, for what reason?
2.	Did Mr. MacLellan's successor receive follow up letters on the matter from the Member of Parliament for Leeds dated September 10, 1974 and September 23, 1974 and, if so (a) on what date were such letters received (b) were the letters answered and (i) if so, on what date (ii) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Yes. (a) April 10, 1974; (b) No. (ii) It was thought proper for the minister rather than an official to correspond with a member of parliament on this subject, which is both complex and substantive. Ministerial approval for actions taken this summer with respect to the Thousand Islands Bridge Authority was also required. Other more urgent demands have not permitted early consideration of this matter but a reply to all correspondence received is now en route.
2. Yes. (a) The letter dated September 10, 1974 was received on September 13, 1974. No date of receipt is indicated on the letter dated September 23, 1974. (b) No. (ii) See answer to 1 (ii).



LOANS UNDER FARM CREDIT ACT-SASKATOON-BIGGAR CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Hnatyshyn: How many applications were received from the constituency of Saskatoon-Biggar for loans under the Farm Credit Act for each year 1970 to 1973 (a) how many were approved (b) what amount of money was involved (c) what percentage of loans were or are in default?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that statistics are not maintained on a constituency basis. However, for Rural Municipalities 315, 316, 344, 345, 347, 373, 376, 403, 404, 405, 406, 434, 436 and 466, which closely approximate the constituency of Saskatoon-Biggar, the answer is as follows:
				(c)
				Percentage
(a)	(b)	of loansApplications	Approvals	Amount	in Default-No.	$	1970-71	76	74	2,188,500	15.31971-72	87	76	2,150,600	13.21972-73	128	102	3,455,700	9.61973-74	212	166	7,422,200	6.7



UIC-NUMBER OF INITIAL APPLICATIONS 1970-73

Mr. Laprise: How many initial applications were made to the Unemployment Insurance Commission in the years 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973?
Order Paper Questions


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Initial Claims Intake 1970, 1,877,396; 1971, 1,862,200; 1972, 2,051,600; 1973, 1,957,800.



UIC-BENEFIT ENTITLEMENT FOR PERSONS OVER 70 YEARS OF AGE

Mr. Herbert: Does a man who continues working after his 70th birthday, who has contributed to the Unemployment Insurance Plan up to that date, become ineligible for benefits on the same date and, if so, is it the intention of the government to change such a policy?


Bill Rompkey: An insured person ceases to be eligible for regular unemployment insurance benefits from the beginning of the month following the date on which he attains the age of 70 years. Similarly, the employment of such a person is specifically excepted from coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Notwithstanding this, a claimant 70 years of age who has 20 weeks of insurable employment in the 52 weeks preceding his claim, or since his last claim, is entitled to a three week lump sum retirement benefit. There is no intention at present of changing this policy.



SUBSIDY TO BEEF PRODUCERS

Mr. Whittaker: What was the total amount of money paid to beef producers in the way of subsidy in 1974 (a) what was the total given out in the constituency of Okanagan Boundary in 1974 (b) what is the estimated total of the beef herds located in the constituency of Okanagan Boundary (c) is the estimated basic herd increasing or declining?


Eugene Whelan: The total of money paid to beef producers in the 1974-75 fiscal year to Cotober 4, 1974 was $45,923,859.69. Statistics by constituency are not maintained and are not available to answer parts (a), (b) and (c) of the above question.



NURSING STAFF-STE. ANNE DE BELLEVUE HOSPITAL

Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has the interdepartmental study in the Department of Veterans Affairs into the nursing situation been completed?
2.	Is there a serious shortage of qualified nurses in the Montreal area and what action is contemplated to encourage nurses to work at the Ste. Anne de Bellevue Military Hospital?
3.	Has recent discontent been expressed by the nursing staff at Ste. Anne's Hospital and are changes envisaged to redress some of the complaints of the nurses?
Hort. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs): 1. Yes.
2.	No. The average vacancy rate of ten nurses out of some 188 at Ste. Anne's Hospital is not considered serious.
3.	It is proposed to form a departmental implementation committee to deal with the specific suggestions made in the study report mentioned in question 1 above, and which report takes account of the views expressed by nurses both at Ste. Anne's and at other locations.

October 28, 1974
Oral Questions



RECIPIENTS UNDER NORTHERN MINERAL EXPLORATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Firth: What were the names of recipients benefitting from the Northern Mineral Exploration Assistance Program (NMEAP) in the fiscal year 1973-74, and what were the amounts of money involved in each case?


Iona Campagnolo: Five Star Petroleum, $27,727; Savanna Creek Gas & Oil, $48,371; Trans Columbia Exploration, $1,151; B.C. Yukon Exploration, $3,367; Ice Station Resources, $33,198; Dynasty Explorations Ltd., $50,000; Silver City Mines Ltd., $8,468; J.M. Wheelton, $2,290; Duke Mining Ltd., $15,169; Total, $189,741.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can or will give us a little clearer idea concerning the sort of relationship the government is seeking with the European Economic Community as this does not seem to be very clear from the statement he made today which indicated simply that there would be a study group established to study what kind of relationship Canada wanted with the European Economic Community.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in an aide memoire of several months ago we proposed to the committee a general approach, declaration and eventually trade agreement between the community and Canada. At a later stage we talked about contractual relationships. Both these were discussed and envisaged during my discussions with the community. They put forward other types of formulae which they were trying out on us. We said we would be very glad to discuss any other approach they wanted to discuss bilaterally. Of course, it is not for me to say what the commission is thinking and doing. We can only speak for the Government of Canada. But I did indicate interest in looking at any other approach which would create this distinctive relationship between the community and Canada which we would be very glad to discuss.


EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF AIDE MEMOIRE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that negotiations must to some extent be confidential while going on but nevertheless in view of the importance of any

such relationship to the people of this country and in view of the common practice of any country considering entering into an arrangement with the common market telling its own people what kind of arrangement generally it is seeking, would the Prime Minister table the aide memoire indicating to the Common Market the kind of relationship Canada was seeking and also would the Prime Minister table any document indicating the kind of contractual relationship Canada is seeking in addition to or as an alternative to the trade proposals.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course the Leader of the Opposition is quite right. The people of Canada and members of the House of Commons are very closely concerned with what went on in these discussions. The Leader of the Opposition will remember that in this House two weeks ago in answer to a question, I believe by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, I indicated there would be nothing concluded at this stage, that we were discussing various approaches and that before anything was finalized certainly there would be discussion in this House.
As to the suggestion about tabling the aide memoire and that trade agreement, I think it is a reasonable request. I have already discussed it with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We see no objection, but before giving a firm undertaking I want to make sure that the view I get from the department is that it can in no way harm the future round of discussions. I do not think they will say no. I think in a sense this is une etape, a stage, which has been overtaken. We put these propositions to the Community to put our foot in the door so to speak and so that we could have discussions with them. Now that the discussions are open and they have agreed to continuing them, I see no difficulty in tabling these documents. But, I repeat, I would like to assure myself that there is not some hidden reason which I do not know.


EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY-POSITION ON ACCESS OF COMMUNITY TO CANADIAN RESOURCES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: assume from the Prime Minister's reply that it has been agreed that discussions be continued but that nothing specific is being discussed at present, or rather that a number of alternatives are being discussed at present.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the report, the indication or the hint of the Prime Minister, or even, to state it more strongly than that, his statement was correct that if the European countries were to have access to our raw materials they would have to be prepared to enter into some appropriate arrangement with Canada; they could not just continue to take for granted reasonable access to these raw materials in Canada without entering into some bigger deal.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question I must say that the assumption is ill founded. It is not true to say that nothing precise was discussed. I repeat: several months ago the aide memoire, and then the trade agreement were put before the Community, and in my discussion with Mr. Ortoli, Mr. Soames and other commissioners,
October 28, 1974

it was obvious to me that our ambassador and officials have done a great deal of work because when I went to discuss the documents with them, they were obviously well known to them and they had thought about them and thought beyond that. So, concrete work has been done by our ambassador and officials.
On the second and unrelated part of the question, the view I took with regard to our raw materials is that we sell them to other countries but we have various policies as conditions to such sales. I mentioned, of course, our policy on upgrading, on control of export of energy, and on seeking greater benefit for Canada from all forms of foreign investment through our Foreign Investment Review Act. These are all explanations I put to the commission on the one hand and bilaterally to France, Belgium and Luxembourg on the other. Nothing was said there which is not already well known as being part of the policy of the government of Canada.


EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF SPECIFIC AGREEMENT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the Prime Minister's quest on behalf of Canada to obtain special trading arrangements with the European Economic Community, does he believe that during the past week in his conversations with the officials of the EEC he received anything more than a very polite brush off from these gentlemen, and if he did, could he indicate one specific agreement which he received which would lead to increased trade between Canada and the EEC in the future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member refers to the questions he asked me a couple of weeks ago, he will find I went to great pains and at great length to explain to him that we were not seeking any preferential arrangements. However, the hon. member chooses to ask questions and not to listen to answers, thus demonstrating each time that his ignorance of the whole thing is abysmal.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as it has been known for many months in the government and outside that what Canada had in mind, and what the Prime Minister originally had in mind, was to obtain such a special arrangement with the EEC and that he only came off that pitch within the last couple of weeks before his trip was made when it became evident that we could not get such an arrangement, I still ask him: did he obtain any specific agreement that would lead to greater Canada-EEC trade in the future? Just answer the question, if you please.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have ruled before and I will, if need be, again, that a question asked a second time cannot be regarded as a supplementary.
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


HAITIANS-REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION AS REFUGEES
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the minister's reiteration of Canada's policy of concern for the persecuted and displaced, and of consideration for victims of oppression, will the minister look into the facts surrounding a group of Haitians who have been refused re-entry into their country, according to the Haitian secretary of state speaking for the president of their country, and will the minister invite the Immigration Appeal Board to exercise its humanitarian jurisdiction in favour of this group if he finds that they are indeed refugees and face reprisals if they return to their own country?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we are applying the principles of compassion and humanitarian consideration to these applications. If my memory serves me right, we had about 28 specific applications from Haitians, who otherwise would be asked to leave the country, on the basis of being refugees. Such applications will continue to be dealt with on their merits. There is not a declaration of a mass refugee situation but each individual application is placed before either an interdepartmental committee on refugees or the Immigration Appeal Board.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The minister, as the respondent for the cases before the board, has a right to make representations. If he finds these are proper cases and that they may be refugees, will he make representations that they be allowed to stay in this country?


Robert Knight Andras: We are giving these applications full consideration within the department, and we will take such appropriate measures as appear wise and justified.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I will direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
During the week-end we unfortunately witnessed incidents of some violence in the province of Quebec. Farm producers showed their discontent because of a lack of income.
Since a federal-provincial meeting requested by the Prime Minister of Canada is scheduled for this week, I would like to ask him whether the matter of food supply in particular will be discussed at that important meeting to ensure that Canada has adequate foodstocks and that food production in Canada is a viable operation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of the meeting to be held Wednesday at my request will be to discuss the problem of

October 28, 1974
Oral Questions
inflation in Canada. As the hon. member knows, the policy of the government is to ensure an adequate food supply. It is quite likely that the question referred to by the hon. member will somehow come up at that meeting.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs following upon a question I asked the other day. Is the minister now prepared to make a full report as to all the circumstances concerning the relation to the government of Canada of Mr. Rene Mantha who has been called back to testify before the Cliche Commission, has applied for federal pardon, and is now or has been recently working in Africa under the auspices of CIDA?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I undertook to report to the hon. gentleman when I receive information that I require in order to make an answer. I have not yet received satisfactory information. When I do, I will be happy to oblige.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, can I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister and ask if he personally was consulted regarding any relation to the federal government of any of the individuals who have appeared or are being called before the Cliche Commission and if so, can he advise by whom he was consulted and in regard to which individuals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not consulted as to any individuals who might appear. Of course, the question is very vague. I do not know what individuals the hon. member is referring to but I have no memory of having been consulted on any appearance before the Cliche Commission.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the indulgence of the House to revert to a question put by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain who has just left. I want to put on the record that I took his words literally; I have not been consulted. If he wanted to know if I had been advised of any people being involved in the hearings before the Cliche Commission, the answer would have been yes.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the absence of the Minister of National Defence and ask whether the government has any intention of using the HMCS Preserver when it goes to Egypt to resupply, in a sense, the Canadian forces there for the purpose of removing the Canadian contingent in Cyprus?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have no information on that.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce but in his absence I shall direct it to the right hon. the Prime Minister. With the decline in housing starts approaching something like 50 per cent in Canada, which is bringing about a disastrous situation in our production of lumber especially in Nova Scotia where Bowaters Mersey has announced the closing of its Bridgewater mill in December since they say they have no lumber sales for 1975, what steps is the Prime Minister taking to improve our lumber markets which appear to have gone to pieces all at once throughout the length and breadth of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to take notice of the question on behalf of the minister who is leading a trade mission to Brazil and who will be back very shortly.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I will put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence and perhaps he will take it as notice. Has the minister yet received a report on the plane crash which resulted in the deaths of several Canadian members of the armed forces serving in UNEF in the Middle East? If there is such a report could it be made public? Was there evidence the crash occurred because the plane was fired upon?


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have no definite information on this yet but I shall look into the matter and give the information to the hon. member.
October 28, 1974


NEWSPAPER COLUMNS BY CABINET MINISTERS-INQUIRY AS TO SOURCE OF MATERIAL AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR COST
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and refers to a statement in the Lanark Era which says members of the federal government intend to write a series of articles for weekly newspapers during this session of parliament for the purpose of keeping Canadians informed on government affairs. I should like to ask the Prime Minister who is producing these columns and if the production costs are coming from public funds?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on what the Lanark Era said, but on the substance of the articles sent to various weeklies with which we feel it very important for the federal government to remain in contact, I would say it will probably depend on which minister. In my case, I am submitted a draft which I look through and sometimes modify. I would think in other cases the ministers themselves will write the articles or submit pieces based on excerpts from their speeches. I forgot the latter part of the question about whether public funds would be involved. The answer is, of course not.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that all government policies during the election campaign had to be cleared through Liberal campaign chairman, Senator Davey, and given the tendency of those opposite to confuse government statements with Liberal Party propaganda, will the Prime Minister take steps to correct the understanding that these columns are authorized government publications?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the misunderstanding is probably only in the mind of the hon. member.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No,
indeed.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of a report by the Food Prices Review Board that powdered skim milk prices in stores in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Nickel Belt-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: -I am glad hon. members recognize the fine distinction-are not reflecting the full benefit of the 24 cents per pound government subsidy, and in view of the advice of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to consumers that they should switch to skim milk powder because it is much more economical now that the subsidy on liquid milk has been withdrawn, will the minister
Oral Questions
inform the House what measures he intends to take to ensure that processors and retailers comply with the subsidy program?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the long involved preamble to the question, but will say that our officials are aware of the situation and have been discussing it with the Dairy Council and the Retail Council of Canada. Some non-conforming outlets are being informed that unless prices are brought into line immediately the subsidy will be withdrawn from them.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to that darling of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of what appears to be fraudulent business practice by powdered skim milk processors and retailers in not passing on to consumers the benefit of the federal government's 24 cents per pound subsidy, will the minister inform the House what steps will be taken by his department to recover the money which has been stolen from the public treasury?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly refer the remarks of the hon. member to the Director of Investigation and Research who will take action in accordance with the provisions of the act.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. To what extent is the minister showing an interest in reports that Patty Hearst is in Canada?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am, of course, interested in this matter like everyone else but I have not had any indication from the RCMP that these reports are true.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise whether an ongoing watch is being kept in this regard?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I cannot advise the hon. member that there is any ongoing watch but there have been inquiries from time to time and I shall check on it again.
Oral Questions URBAN AFFAIRS

October 28, 1974


METROCENTRE PLAN, TORONTO-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL SUPPORT
Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. The mayor of Toronto made a statement today in connection with the council of Toronto supporting the MetroCentre plan subject to certain conditions being honoured and certain co-operation being derived from the federal government. Can the minister advise that the government will be co-operating closely with the city of Toronto to ensure that this project goes forward?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the precise nature of the mayor's announcement but I have had discussions with him on several occasions relating to different programs. A very fruitful area for discussing the plan would seem to be the Railway Crossing Relocation Act, if the province of Ontario would agree that this is a program in which they wish to participate as other provinces have.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs with regard to the Deer Lodge Military Hospital in Winnipeg. On October 16, at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs the minister stated that no negotiations were being held with regard to transferring the responsibility of Deer Lodge Hospital to the province of Manitoba because of the objections from the Canadian Legion. On October 22, the Deputy Minister, Dr. John Hodgson, stated he was not aware that negotiations had ended but, in fact, they were going very well. As there appears to be a lack of communication between the minister and his deputy on this subject, will he now clarify the transfer situation?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost there is no lack of communication in my department. Negotiations concerning Deer Lodge are the subject of discussion at any time. The statement I made to the hon. member in the Veterans Affairs committee was that the provincial command of the legion had passed a resolution expressing its desire that no transfer be made. That resolution still stands and my statement was to the effect that this resolution stands. That is still the situation, sir.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of Manitoba Health Services is as confused as everybody else. He has had negotiations with the deputy and has had correspondence with regard to the transfer. So, the minister has not clarified anything.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. What steps has the minister's department taken to end the ongoing boycott of the postal code by post office employees, or is he agreeing with the employees and considering some alterations to the postal code system?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no evidence that any such boycott or proposed boycott has any detrimental effect on the movement of mail.


Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Boycott buttons are available. I will send the minister one after the question period. As most members of this House see daily examples of poor mail delivery from all parts of Canada and as some cases involving business mail delays in postal service bring financial setbacks-for example, in Toronto an important business document was mailed in that city on September 25 and received a few blocks away on October 8-can the minister tell the House what positive steps, if any, are being taken by his department to improve the totally unacceptable postal service Canadians are being asked to take for granted.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the first thing we are not doing is casting aspersions on the 53,000 postal workers who are doing their very best to provide service under existing conditions. Second, we are keeping an eye on the efficiency of the post office, which has been rising weekly for the last three months. Third, I suggest to the hon. member that he visit a branch with me as other hon. members have and he will be satisfied that the morale of the post office is quite high and that service is up to normal.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of growing public concern over the forthcoming publication of portions of the green paper on immigration, those dealing especially with the new special position of francophones and the apparent changes from nominated procedures to those involving job availability, will the minister be advancing the date of publication of the green paper?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we are as keen as anybody else to get this process completed and place the green paper in the hands of the public for examination.
October 28, 1974


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who is responsible for national parks.
Could the minister tell the House if information officers in national parks throughout Canada, whose mission is to offer guidance to people, have a sufficient knowledge of both official languages and, if not whether he intends to take any action to remedy the situation?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that efforts are made to provide brochures as far as possible in both official languages and personnel are on hand to deal with visitors in both official languages.


Eudore Allard: I do not think the hon. Minister understood my question. It was as follows: do the tourist information officers in Canada's national parks have a knowledge of both official languages sufficient enough to be able to provide adequate information to tourists, whether they are Canadians or foreigners? If not, does he have the intention to take the necessary steps to correct the situation?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I understand that personnel are available at every national park who can communicate with visitors in both official languages. For instance, yesterday I was at Point Pelee with a person from France. There were people at the interpretation centre who explained things in French and in English. The same is true of the guided tour. I think that is the policy in all our national parks.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. On Friday last the Montreal Gazette carried a streamer which read: "Good decade seen for all but the Maritimes." The story then went on to refer to a study undertaken by the federal Public Works Department-


An hon. Member:: Come to the question.


Andrew Hogan: I am coming to the question-which came to the above gloomy conclusion concerning the development of the Atlantic provinces in the next decade. Will the minister tell us if he intends to table the study done by officials of his department.
Oral Questions


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen this particular study but will inquire and provide the hon. gentleman with the answer.


Andrew Hogan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House if the officials who did the study had the cooperation of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in doing it? I ask this because it seems to me to indicate that the Atlantic region cannot expect in the next decade to improve its economic position under DREE policies.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of that question, too.


OIL SANDS-SUGGESTION SHELL OIL OF UNITED STATES DESIRES TO SELL ITS INTEREST-POSSIBLE CANADIAN BUYER
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, may I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As Shell Oil of the United States wants to dispose of its half interest in its oil sands property, is the minister aware of any other Canadian group, such as Canada Development Corporation, which is willing to pick up this valuable property.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any at the moment. The position of Shell Oil of the United States basically stemmed from the fact that there could be no assurance that the firm would obtain export permits for this oil or a tax write-off arising from the property. I am sure that, in addition to the CDC, the Ontario Energy Corporation or even the Alberta Energy Corporation might be interested in this particular development.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Solicitor General concerns the continuing mystery surrounding the escape of five extremely dangerous inmates from Laval maximum security institution. Is the minister now in a position to advise the House how an accomplice was able to smuggle a bag with two guns and a rifle into that institution, why the special instructions of the minister to the commissioner concerning these inmates were not followed and why the minister was not advised of the warning given by the Quebec Provincial Police three weeks before that the escape would be attempted.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked several questions. I will try to deal with them all. First, it seems that the guns were
798

October 28, 1974
Oral Questions
smuggled into the visiting room of that penitentiary because the regular cheeks were not made. Why they were not made on that occasion I still do not know. I still have not obtained the answer. As to the second question asked by the hon. member, who asked why I was not advised about the letter from the Quebec Provincial Police saying that there might be an escape from the institution, I can only say that many letters are received of this nature from time to time, most of them turning out to be negative, not positive. It is not the custom of the penitentiary authorities to let the minister know about every letter which warns of an escape. I do not know if I dealt with all the hon. member's questions. There were three or four; I am not sure if I can remember the others.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Why did the minister take such a special interest in these inmates that he issued special instructions that they be guarded with extra care. Why did he issue special instructions if he did not think they were going to escape and if he was not warned that they would attempt to escape. Further, why were not these instructions carried out?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I issued special instructions with respect to some of the inmates because they had escaped last June, in the middle of the election campaign.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Did they vote Liberal?


William Warren Allmand: Several of them had escaped previously. I felt this was a serious matter. I asked that these particular inmates be given additional surveillance because they were dangerous and known to be very adept at escaping from penitentiaries. It was for that reason I did this.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, is the minister advising there is a special policy for escapes that take place during election campaigns?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker. There is a special policy for people who escape, are dangerous and have a record of escapes.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It adverts to a question asked him October 10. It is prompted by his remarks over the weekend regarding the World Food Conference in Rome. Has the government now decided what our contribution will be to this very, very important issue and when will the minister tell the House what Canada will be doing?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, very soon the final decisions will be taken. I did say I would consider making a

statement in general terms about the attitude the government will take, although I did mention on Friday, I believe in response to a question from the hon. member for Greenwood, that it would be inappropriate at this point to disclose the details of specific responses or undertakings that might be made by the government. In my view, these undertakings ought to be made at the conference where they may have some impact on the attitude of other member states.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is working on a position or a posture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Solicitor General.
Does he intend to accept the challenge from the hon. Jerome Choquette, Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec, who asked that a televised debate be held on the matter of cost sharing as far as police forces are concerned?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I received a long letter from the attorney general of Quebec replying to my earlier letter to him regarding police costs in Quebec. At the end of his letter he challenged me to a debate on television with respect to this matter. I spoke to him by telephone soon after receiving the letter. He clarified some points in the letter. I told him I would reply to the points raised in his letter and the challenge some time this week. I have not yet made a final decision on these matters.


SARNIA-MONTREAL PIPELINE-ASSURAN CE INTERPROVINCIAL PIPELINES WILL PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION-DATE OF COMPLETION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: provincial, can he now give some date when he expects the pipeline will be completed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, late last week my officials met with officials of the company who set out for government officials some of the financial circumstances causing them concern and some possible methods of overcoming these. A meeting which would have taken place has been adjourned until later this week so that my officials will have a chance to examine these proposals. I will then have an opportunity of considering them prior to meeting with the officials of the company. It is our wish to resolve as soon as possible this one remaining question with regard to the pipeline so that it can go ahead at the earliest possible date.


SARNIA-MONTREAL PIPELINE-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON CONSTRUCTION OF ALTERNATIVE NORTHERN ROUTE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Sarnia to Montreal route was accepted in preference to an all-Canadian northern route merely because the former would be completed in 1975, and it appears that this will now be 1976, is the government considering reverting to the northern route in order that we might have oil supplied through that route which would give us security of supply?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That might ultimately come, Mr. Speaker. With the greater security I agree. The time frame, of course, would still be extended beyond the time for completion of a Sarnia to Montreal connection. Of course, the financial exposure of all involved, whether the government of Canada or the company, would be very much greater. It would appear to be a thousand mile longer route than that which is proposed.


SARNIA-MONTREAL PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTION BY GOVERNMENT
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary. If there continues to be delay by Interprovincial, is the government willing to itself build a pipeline and put it under the jurisdiction of the proposed Canadian petroleum corporation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have taken very careful note of the cooling ardor of Interprovincial Pipelines in this regard. The possibility suggested by the hon. member is one we have indeed been considering.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the
Oral Questions
minister's statement on Friday that he would be saving taxpayers' money in 1975 as a result of indexing of taxation, will he state if in fact an average taxpayer who simply preserves his buying power in 1975 through a wage increase or otherwise will pay less federal tax in 1975 than in 1974 or is it not correct the person who runs hard to stand still in buying power will have to pay more federal tax in 1975 than this year?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of indexing is to attempt to restore to the taxpayer what inflation would have done to his income tax bracket by putting him into a higher bracket. It is true that indexing does not wholly compensate certain brackets for the total effects of inflation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in the same press release the minister indicated he would remove 225,000 taxpayers from the tax roll. Can he indicate whether any of those
225,000	were included in the one million he dropped from the rolls in his May 8, 1972 budget speech or the three quarter million which he dropped February 19, 1973 and the many hundreds of thousands he dropped in his last budget speech, bearing in mind Department of National Revenue returns show that the number of Canadian taxpayers increase year by year or is the minister in fact recycling taxpayers for his own press blurbs?


John Napier Turner: As the hon. member understands full well, Mr. Speaker, were it not for indexing, there would have been 225,000 more taxpayers on the roll than there would have been in 1975 without indexing. As a result of the indexing, 225,000 people will not be on the roll.
[DOT] * *


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. A number of days ago I asked him about the employment of key punch and other temporary workers at the Taxation Data Centre in Ottawa. His response was he would make an inquiry into the situation. Has the minister determined today that these temporary workers are in fact entitled to unemployment insurance benefits and is he going to have his department set to work to find a method of dealing with this problem which will remove this unnecessary burden from the taxpayers of Canada?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, our first consideration is whether these people qualify. They must qualify under the requirements of the Unemployment Insurance Commission Act like all other Canadians. Second, the answer to this question should really come from the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission takes every possible step to hire as many people for the Data Centre as possible, including those presently on unemployment insurance, those presently unemployed,
28305-5 IVa

October 28, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
and those who traditionally come in and assist the Data Centre on a part-time basis year by year.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister aware of the situation that exists in this and other government departments as this will affect his budget for the unemployment insurance scheme?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am, of course, aware that other departments hire temporary help and we are in consultation with the Public Service Commission and other departments which require additional staff from time to time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet that Bill C-2, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal an act to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this bill, one which is of vital concern to almost all Canadians whether they recognize it or not. The measure will certainly have a direct effect on a great many small businesses in this country and, though some people may not realize it, it will thus have a great bearing on the interests of consumers. By destroying competition, the legislation which has been brought before us is likely to have a harmful effect upon the future well-being and financial consideration of consumers, despite any short-term benefits which some may think it appears to offer.
This bill has been treated like a dirty shirt by the government. It has grey areas. It might even be referred to as a grey bill. It is moth-eaten, it is worm-infested, and it is an ill-conceived piece of hypocrisy. While the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) may think he has a problem trying to deal with bugs in hamburger, I suggest the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) will have a great deal more to deal with in the future if this bill passes in its present form. In order to describe this measure adequately, small businessmen might have to go to a former president of the United States and ask whether he has any unused expletives to spare.
I think Mr. Speaker should have the authority and the responsibility to order a minister to withdraw a piece of legislation which does not measure up to a certain stand-

ard. The piece of legislation before us today certainly does not measure up. I think it is arrogant of any minister to ask the House to receive legislation which, he says, will be amended during the committee stage. There is no reason why this bill should not be withdrawn. The amendments should be made, and only then should it be returned to the House for second reading. These proposals are not fair to businessmen, they are not fair to the consumers, and they are not fair to the House of Commons. The amendments are of great importance and we should have unlimited time in which to discuss them. Such is not the case during the committee stage, for everyone recognizes that committee members do not have unlimited time in which to enter into debate with the minister or to ask him questions. A question was asked on Friday by my hon. friend from Capilano (Mr. Huntington), as follows:
I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Further to the request of members from this side of the House on Tuesday of this week that the minister's proposed amendments to Bill C-2 be tabled, would the minister tell us if he now intends to table his amendments, and, if so, when?
The minister replied by saying the amendments would be introduced when the bill was considered in committee. This is not good enough: it is not fair and it is not just. In proposing this legislation, the government is being unfair to Canadians by creating bureaucratic regulations, purporting to be for the benefit of the people, which in the long run will cause more hardship and will ultimately hurt the vast majority of our people including, of course, consumers. I believe the bill to be a farce. No doubt to those who are adherents of socialism, "profit" is a dirty word. In a socialistic country a person does not need to worry about profit because there isn't any for anybody.
I must remind hon. members that, although there are two airlines operating within our borders, they both charge approximately the same rates. Air Canada, the government-owned airline, was the one which first requested permission to increase its rates-and there is no doubt in the mind of any person familiar with these airlines that Canadian Pacific is much more efficient than its competitor and that its service is better.
I believe, and I am confident that most hon. members and all Canadians will agree, that no segment of our society while holding a monopoly should have the right to deliberately gouge our people. There should be some guidelines. But the question is: should the profit margin be determined according to unspecified, arbitrary, government-established councils responsible to no one? When we are faced with a situation of this type, we have to ask ourselves: are we to surmise that all knowledge of industry and business is to be found within the cabinet or government departments? While some individuals in both sectors would perhaps like to give the impression that they have a monopoly on resource knowledge, I for one feel there is a greater supply of ability and know-how within business and industry. In view of this circumstance, why should a profit margin base be created by inexperienced technocrats and bureaucrats?
Mr. Speaker, what is the matter with proper competition? I want to make it abundantly clear, however, that I do not wish to protect the suppliers of the necessities of life at the expense of being unfair to consumers. This will definitely happen if we destroy competition within the
October 28, 1974

business sector. Nothing can take the place of competition, and competition should come from competitive operations and not government restrictions.
I am wondering whether or not the minister has consulted his colleagues in cabinet about the operations of Information Canada. I have here an article which states that a government publication is a best-seller. It suggests that the federal government has a runaway 65-cent best-seller in its latest set of proposals for new business competition law. It goes on to state that this is one set of proposals that may soon be headed for critical review in parliament and in the business community. The reason it is a best-seller is that people in small business are very interested in the bill now before us. I should like to see whether the sales policy of Information Canada can stand up against the regulations in this bill.
Within this government there seems to be a tendency for each minister to set up his own private empire: each one appears to want to operate entirely unto himself. This situation is probably encouraged by bureaucrats who are well entrenched in their departments and have been dictating policy for so long that they are of the opinion it is their right to forge ahead without considering the consequences to this country and its citizens.
Are there to be provisions in this legislation to control government departments? All departments of government must realize their dependence one upon another-and this has to start with the minister. The Prime Minister, as head of the government, should be responsible for co-ordinating uniting programs and policies within all government departments and agencies. The government is not the place within which to construct personal ivory towers, to build egos or to enter a race to surpass another department or its minister.
The government is a body of people who are all public servants whether elected, appointed or placed in office by merit, and unless these employees of the people co-operate and consider the people-who, after all, pay the bills-no single department can efficiently reach its goal or render a useful service. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction among Canadians over the arbitrary action of governments and government departments. As I tried to point out earlier, this is why the book available from Information Canada is being so widely purchased by businessmen.
As was said by the minister, this bill is only windowdressing. When answering questions in this House about the action the government was going to take to allow reasonable profits without deliberately gouging the Canadian people in the area of manufacturing, the Prime Minister's pat answer has always been the same, namely, that the bill now before the House should be passed. How naive can the Prime Minister become, and how misleading is this statement? Does he honestly believe he can tell Canadians in general and members of this House that Bill C-2 will have any positive consequence? Instead of the bill being referred to as the competition bill, it should be referred to as the "get the government off the hook" bill. The only difficulty is that it will not get this government off the hook but will, instead, prove how inadequate government policy is and can be.
Combines Investigation Act
We must realize that at the speed governments function, it will take an extended period-maybe even years-for any action, and in the meantime legitimate business will suffer. I take particularly strong exception to the provision in this bill which allows the commission to make ultimate decisions in respect of prosecution. I have a terrible fear about putting unlimited power into the hands of any individual, no matter who he may be-and I would even include the minister in that statement. I refer to clause 5 of the bill wherein it is provided:
One of the members may be appointed by the governor in council to be vice-chairman of the commission and any member so appointed shall, whenever the chairman is absent or unable to act or whenever there is a vacancy in the office of chairman, exercise the powers and perform the duties of the chairman.
The governor in council may designate a member to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the chairman of the commission whenever the chairman and any vice-chairman are absent or unable to act or whenever the offices of chairman and vice-chairman are vacant.
The clause provides, further, that certain subsections of the act are to be repealed and the following substituted:
Two members constitute a quorum. The commission may make rules for the regulation of its proceedings and the performance of its duties and functions under this act.
This is not the way in which a business should operate. Surely some responsibility should be placed on the government and on the House of Commons to establish a set of regulations that will be acceptable to the Canadian people and will get the required job done. I have faith in the justice of the courts in Canada, but I have doubts about the justice or judgment of some members on the opposite side of this House. Let us consider two government debts, the operations of the CBC and the Canada Council. I suggest neither one of these would establish faith in the minds of Canadians. Many honourable members on the other side of this House were saying, during an election campaign, that the land was strong. I should like to quote some figures about government increased debt including the year 1972.
The national debt of this country has increased rapidly in the last few years. It is my understanding that the increase from 1969 to 1972 was some $12 billion. How can anyone suggest that the land is strong with that kind of increase in our national debt? As was pointed out by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was originally expected to operate on a budget much less than the present cost of that department. The hon. member pointed out that there has been a cost to that department of $450 per phone inquiry and $1,250 per written complaint. I suggest this increase is paid by the consumer, the very person this bill purports to protect. Let us for a moment consider the statements made by members on the other side during the last election campaign. There was a promise in respect of $500 for each new home owner. There was a promise in respect of there being an Air Canada improvement in Winnipeg. Neither of these promises has been kept, and we have heard little or nothing more of them.
This bill is supposed to protect the consumer against false advertising. I am wondering if this government could be charged because of the false promises it has made in order to get elected. What has been done in respect of the

October 28, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
present subsidy on beef? The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) stated that the subsidy on beef would benefit the Canadian people. To the present time there has not been one dollar in the way of subsidy chargeable to the Canadian treasury, and at the present rate there never will be anything paid out under this policy. Catastrophe will have to strike the industry if anything is ever paid out. On top of this, the Minister of Agriculture has egg all over his face as a result of the destruction of some 28 million eggs. The whole situation does not smell too good. But it is useless for him to travel around the country telling the people he is protecting the beef industry, when actually that is not the case.
We find that most of the government's vote-getting promises are not being kept. Could this not be taken as false advertising or misrepresentation? This bill does not allow anyone to use false or misleading advertising. If a private individual or enterprise follows the same pattern, there could be prosecution. But can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, a governor in council appointee as provided for in clause 5 laying a charge against those who appointed him? Let us consider subclause 9 of clause 5: it provides as follows:
The commission may make rules for the regulation of its proceedings and the performance of its duties and functions under this act.
As I said earlier, this House of Commons should ensure that these regulations are spelled out by the highest court in Canada, the House of Commons. This subclause spells out, to me, just one thing. The commission will not be required to take any action if it does not wish to do so; yet it is given devastating power that could be very detrimental to business. What kind of thinking is this? It certainly does not signify a good omen for those who are not in favour of this legislation. Palsy-walsyism is something which Canadians can ill-afford: it is not fair; it is not just; it is not necessary.
I would ask the minister what effect this bill will have on the franchise system that now protects small business and industry. Take, for example, a small Pepsi-Cola plant which employees 10, 12 or 15 people. Such a plant does not mind the competition it receives from another Coca-Cola or any other soft drink plant. But I assure you, Mr. Speaker that if this bill does allow a competitor to move in on it with a like franchise, taking over some of the business, such a company will inevitably go bankrupt; perhaps both, and, as one representative told me, welfare is the next step. So I wonder what the government and this minister are trying to bring about by placing before this House a bill that will have such an effect and does nothing to ensure supply of the product required by the consumer at a low price.
For instance, while one company might have its bottles out on a five-cent deposit, there is nothing to stop a competitor moving in and offering ten cents for the same bottles, because the value of the bottle might be anything between 12 cents and 15 cents. There is nothing in the bill to protect the industry in this way. If the system is destroyed, the result will be higher prices.
The present bill does little to help independent retailers who are being forced out of business by large chains and

department stores. While the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission would be given jurisdiction over supply and sales practices, it would have no power to halt mergers, prevent underselling or any of the means by which large companies and chain stores eliminate their competitors. The minister has indicated that the legislation will be used to regulate the larger corporation and will not interfere with small business. If this is so, the minister should specify what size of corporation or business will be subject to the regulations under the legislation.
An amendment could be introduced to the effect that a business with assets and sales of less than a certain amount could not be said to be engaging in a restrictive trade practice. The question is important, because these people are spending a great deal of money in an effort to protect their interests. They do not know what they are actually up against. They are more or less shadow-boxing and are spending money they can ill afford. This money eventually will have to come from Canadian consumers.
Mr. Speaker, I have asked what is to be done about a political party which does not live up to its promises. Is the individual who made a specific promise to be held responsible, or will the officers of the political party be held responsible? Under the jail sentence provision, upon conviction, in respect of Bill C-2, the present Liberal government, by not fulfilling its election promises, would be faced with deciding whether its leader should be sentenced to jail, or whether the penalty should be paid by a section of the Liberal representatives in the other place who formed a large part of their party's organization in the recent election.
For a moment, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to your attention the proposal of the federal take-over of Polymer last year by the CDC. If this corporation should be guilty of an infraction, would an arm of government be prosecuted? These are questions which should be answered in this House rather than in the committee. I have emphasized many times that communication between government departments is almost impossible to detect. I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) if he is prepared to live with this legislation of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is he willing to sell government bonds, under current advertisements, with proclamations of stability and a solid return on investment? The advertising might be fair if inflation were under control, but let us consider what actually happens to those who purchase government savings bonds in good faith. I think I should tell members opposite a fact of which everyone in Canada should be aware, although apparently they are not.
If an individual buys a government bond this year, at the present rate of inflation, in two years' time he will probably suffer a loss of 6 per cent in respect of the value of the bond. He will lose that much in actual net worth, yet the Minister of Finance says government savings bonds represent a stable operation, a stable commitment and a stable investment. We have this legislation which specifies that business must "do as I say, but don't do as I do". This bill is for those who produce, manufacture and develop. It does not apply to those who have the fun of spending-in this case the federal government. I am sure that the people of Canada during the recent election were
October 28, 1974

not aware of the double standard this government was about to foist upon them.
What about large union organizations which rip off their members? Do they give a fair return for dues collected? What about the promises made to non-union employees to entice them to become union members, and what happens to large amounts of membership dues which are siphoned off for the benefit of the hierarchy of union administrations without any thought of return to benefit of their individual memberships? Clause 2 exempts authorized collective bargaining units from the restrictions of this bill. While it may be neither politically, socially nor economically desirable to regulate collective bargaining, unions clearly have an impact on competition and discussion should be initiated on the competitive legitimacy of some of their practices. Large unions are fighting for power and domination over the people.
I have serious doubts about other areas of the bill. There is nothing in this bill to give the consumer, the Canadian people, the protection which is necessary in the most vital area of our economy. While the commission has tremendous power, it is not obliged to consult an accused before prosecution. It should have to advise the respondent of the complaints made, and what are the alternatives. Such, however, is not the case.
It is often the case, when governments introduce complex legislation which has taken ministers and senior public servants months to prepare, that the average person sits back and thinks that these are matters which cannot affect him. But such is not so. This legislation will affect every Canadian. We in the opposition stress as strongly as possible that it is important Canadians know what is incorporated in this bill, and what the consequences might be. Many Canadians adopt the attitude that it does not matter. Although it must be conceded that this is a long and confusing bill, even big businessmen have difficulty in interpreting some of its provisions. It must be taken very seriously, because it involves sweeping changes in business and commercial activity across this country.
This is why I say-and I say it very sincerely-that the minister should have been honest and presented his amendments with the bill; otherwise he should have withdrawn the bill and presented it when it had been amended because, at present, although it has been said that the legislation does not conflict with marketing boards, by the same token the bill provides that an individual cannot withhold anything from the market. This is what marketing is all about, and there is a great deal to be explained to the Canadian people regarding this proposed legislation.
What about the Canadian Wheat Board? Will their selling procedures be considered legitimate? This is not explained in the bill. That is why the minister should rise in this House and state unequivocally what the amendments will be. One such amendment could incorporate legislation which would wipe out all the freedom that has been given to marketing boards, thereby destroying a surety of continuing production of basic products for the benefit of Canadians. The minister may say, "No, we do not intend to do that," but what guarantee do we have that once the legislation is passed and the toe is in the door, the
Combines Investigation Act
Canadian people, the Canadian producer and the Canadian consumer will be protected?
I impress upon the House that we need increased production. While we may have a favourable trade balance, I should like to stress the fact that in 1972, 1973 and 1974 this favourable balance was brought about in respect of exporting our raw materials and basic agricultural products, but in every other area we were down. In no quarter did we export more manufactured products that we imported-and this is where we must build our economy; this is where the jobs are. What is the use of having a product in Canada to sell if we have no purchaser for it? If people do not have the income with which to pay for the product, it is useless to produce it.
The minister has been less than fair in presenting the bill in this form. He would do well to withdraw it and to bring it back in a form acceptable to the House, with the proposed amendments so that we know what we are debating.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time legislation of this type has come before the House, and it will not be the last time I will be critical of it. In my view, no single piece of mythology has been more persistent and more harmful to this country than the continuation of the idea that somehow or other we can solve the defects in our present economy and our market system by legislation dealing with combines or restrictive trade practices. In my view, aside from a few regulating suggestions which appear in the bill-which could be handled by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs without any difficulty- we should abandon such an approach to solving consumer and marketing problems in this country. I would like to give some reasons for saying that.
First, I would have some positive feeling for the legislation if I thought there was any chance that it might work. The evidence is that it has never worked in the past, and there is no real reason to believe it will work in the future. If you look at the number of convictions under the Combines Investigation Act, you will find almost none. There is good reason for this. It is almost impossible to obtain evidence of the kind that is necessary to get a conviction. Usually, when a conviction has been laid it should have been for stupidity, not for collusion, because you have to be very stupid to be convicted under the Combines Investigation Act.
One of the cases that I recall concerned cement, in Windsor. Some people were working in collusion in fixing the price of cement in the area. They kept minutes of the meetings and called in their lawyers because they did not trust each other. That is one way of fighting it. Another case was, I think, in Hull dealing with the construction industry. One firm had a brother-in-law there who made notes of the bids everyone was going to make, and in the course of opening the bids the brother-in-law's little memos fell on the floor. That is about the only kind of case in which you get convictions under the combines legislation. Often, even where it appears to work it does enormous harm to the extent that combines legislation is sometimes a restraint in the wrong way.

October 28, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
I think that the effective harm of the combines legislation is that it prevents our coming to grips with the real problem. It is a kind of camouflage, a pretence, a way of fooling the public and saying, "Oh, yes, we have the situation under control," when in fact nothing is being done, or nothing in fact can be done, with this kind of approach. The real problems continue. The government can say, "We brought in amended combines legislation, so you should be happy." It seems to me that combines legislation is the businessman's best friend. Despite all the crying that the businessman does about combines legislation, in fact he depends upon having legislation of this kind in order to take the heat off him to the extent that nobody will investigate him because, after all, one is protected against shennanigans.
If you ask a minister, in the House, what he is going to do about an instance that arises, such as when today my colleague the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) a question about the pricing of dry milk, the minister says he is sure his officials will consider the matter, and so will people in the combines branch. When? In five, six or a hundred years from now- which is to say never. The point was that an important question was asked in the House and the minister was able to duck it completely because he had the combines legislation to hide behind.
There is nothing in the present bill that will make the situation any better. Without that combines legislation, the minister would have been forced to give a decent answer-at least an answer that he would look at the situation and take some action. If he did not respond effectively within two or three days, there would have been another question until we did receive some kind of answer. At the moment it is shunted off. I am sure he will not get away with it, because the hon. member for Nickel Belt will not let him; but he will certainly make every attempt to pretend that some action will be taken under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. I am not saying that the minister is doing it deliberately or that he wants to be less than a good minister; I am simply saying that this arrangement enables him, or perhaps forces him, to deal with questions of this type in the way he did.
Years ago we were talking about having a minister of consumer and corporate affairs. It did not look as though we were going to get one, because the government was dreadfully opposed to the idea. But when we finally got one, we said, "We will finally have a minister who will be responsible to the consumer and who will react to problems brought to his or her attention." Instead, all the minister does is shunt these matters on to the restrictive trade practices branch for investigation, which turns out to be no investigation at all.
In many ways, what the businessman does not want is a real inquiry into areas where he has an effective monopoly. Most businessmen do not have an effective monopoly, but there are some who do, and the way they prevent the heat being applied to them is by permitting some small competitors to stay alive so they can turn around and say they have competitors. They may have 95 per cent of the business in that field, but because they have one or two small competitors who live by the good will and acquies-

cence of the giant, they are not subject to investigation. If there were no combines legislation, and if the question of how many businesses are left was not involved, these matters might be investigated.
In 1966, in the food prices committee, we were looking into the price of glass jars for baby food and why baby food had risen in price. It turned out it was because glass jars cost two cents more than the other containers. Nevertheless, they were popular enough that the public was willing to pay. Only two firms, Gerber's and Heinz, were in the baby food industry at that time and both were charging exactly the same for their tinned goods. I found that difficult to understand because Gerber's, which was only in the central market, had 20 per cent of the total market while Heinz had 80 per cent. With 80 per cent of the market, why was it not possible for Heinz to reduce its price? They claimed their costs were not different from Gerber's. That just was not true. When we looked at the financial statements of both companies, it was apparent that Gerber's had been losing money for three years and was in danger of going broke.
Heinz had been using glass jars in the United States for years. When we asked why they were not using them in Canada, they said they did not know what the effect of glass jars would be. When we asked if they did not know about their American operations, they replied that they did not talk to them. But they did know that the consumers wanted glass jars and they knew that Gerber's were going broke. They did not want Gerber's to go broke, so they stayed out of the field for three years until Gerber's could break even. Then they went over to glass jars. That is the kind of competition we have in our society, Mr. Speaker. What we have is price leadership. Who competes with General Motors other than the imports?


An hon. Member:: Ford.


Max Saltsman: Just consider the pricing policies. I remember one occasion when General Motors proposed a price increase and every car manufacturer followed with an equivalent increase. A few days later General Motors said it was a mistake and the increase was $30 too much. Everybody came down by $30. General Motors could drive Ford and Dodge out of business if they wanted to, but they probably would not do it because then somebody would look at their operation. It is more advantageous for a large corporation to keep its competitors alive and to have a little less volume, with more profit. Competition just does not exist in these large markets. General Motors does not have to sit down with Chrysler or the other corporations and suggest making a deal. They just step out and the others follow, because they know if they do not they are in serious trouble. It is "live and let live" in big business. It is not the competitor who is the enemy, but the customer- and combines legislation enables this kind of farce to continue.
In the steel industry, too, one company issues a price list and the other companies follow. There is no proof of collusion because their principals might just have spoxen to each other at the golf club. They would not be stupid enough to sit down with their accountants and keep
October 28, 1974

minutes. Perhaps they do not even talk to each other, but they have ways of signalling.
A society that has modern technology requires large corporations. I am not saying that you could break up General Motors and benefit from it; perhaps the technology of our times requires large firms. Large firms cannot afford to cut each other's throats. They will not fight each other on price; their fight will be on advertising, model changes or gimmicks. The small businessman has no choice but to fight in a kind of suicidal way, but the large corporations have to stick together because the public is their enemy, not their competitors.
I shall make some proposals later about what we could do if we did not have combines legislation, and how we could be protected. Another point about combines legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that it is as American as apple pie. It is not a Canadian idea. It may be pointed out that our combines legislation was introduced a year before the Sherman act in the United States, which is its equivalent. It was introduced with the Sherman act in mind, however. Combines legislation makes a lot of sense in a totally capitalistic society which does not have any ethic of public involvement or public regulation. In that case, you can inject this kind of approach to justify continuance of the sort of tooth and claw attitude that rampant capitalism has as its ethic. If that is why the Sherman act was brought in in the United States, in order to take some rough edges off as somebody on television said about somebody else why do we have to embark on it in an economy where it does not make any sense? The United States is ten or eleven times the size of Canada. This means that in order to attain the same level of efficiency, they can afford ten or 11 times the competition, given the same level of technology.
We should be asking our industries to co-operate, not to collude against the public; to co-operate for purposes of improving efficiency, wages and exports, without having them supervised and regulated by the public. That is the direction in which we should be going. Because we do not want to regulate, we do not want to supervise, and we do not even want to see what they are doing, we bring in something like this combines legislation in the faint hope that it will keep them honest, instead of having public involvement. The only thing that will do any good is public involvement and scrutiny of their activities.
The problem of foreign ownership arises from a number of sources, but one of the chief problems has been the presence of combines legislation which has encouraged the proliferation of branch plants in this country and prevented the normal rationalization of those plants into a Canadian package. I want to talk about famous villains on the Canadian scene. There are two men who have drawn their fair share of attention, and not because they are interested in the public welfare. Perhaps we should not expect big business tycoons to be concerned about that because, after all, that is the responsibility of parliament.
For their own reasons, they put together two industries in Canada which have remained Canadian. They pay high wages, charge low prices to the consumer, and are models in every way. I am sure that these industries were assem-
Combines Investigation Act
bled in direct contravention of the combines legislation. Who are these two fellows? One is Lord Beaverbrook, the other E. P. Taylor. E. P. Taylor amalgamated some isolated beer companies into one of the finest beer producing companies in the world. So efficient is Canadian beer production that the Americans have threatened to pass legislation. This is because they are afraid Canadians will take over their beer industry. I think the government has treated that industry too generously with regard to taxation; but it has remained Canadian, and that is important.
The other industry is steel manufacturing. Ours is one of the most efficient steel industries of the world. Why, Mr. Speaker? I suggest the reason is this; a large number of steelmakers were brought together, probably in direct contravention of combines legislation, because they were threatened by Bethlehem steel and other American steel which was coming to Canada. Lord Beaverbrook, over the heads of Canadian bankers, put together the Steel Company of Canada and established in this country an industry which excels. We can outproduce the Americans in many ways and make steel as fine as theirs, often at lower prices. That industry enjoys little tariff protection. Its workers enjoy parity with similar workers in the United States. Both the industries I have mentioned have remained Canadian; both have been strong enough to withstand foreign ownership.
I do not say Lord Beaverbrook and E. P. Taylor, neither of whom I know, put together these industries from the kindness of their hearts. They are business buccaneers and I am sure their activities should have been regulated. The point is that what they did worked for the benefit of Canada.


An hon. Member:: And for their own benefit.


Max Saltsman: Quite so. Over-all, their work brought advantage to Canada. I have been invited to meetings of chemical producers. Whenever they hold a convention or want to lobby here once a year, they invite people to address them. The chemical industry is well represented in my riding and I am interested in what goes on. I have talked to people in that industry. The conversation goes something like this. I say, "You guys are pretty inefficient. You have far too many plants trying to serve the market. You have almost as many branches in Canada as in the United States, and you are so inefficient that you need to be protected by tariffs; you go to the government for help." I think the Canadian market is big enough to support the production of many chemicals. That is why I say to these people, "Wouldn't it be better if you all got together?" After all, Mr. Speaker, the idea is not new. It has been tried in Germany. The British are amalgamating their industries. In some cases they come under private ownership, in some cases under public. Personally, I prefer public ownership.
The Swedes have not introduced combines legislation. They have rationalization boards which sit down with Swedish industries and try to make them more competitive in their own and world markets. Canada and the United States are probably the last countries in the world to support combines legislation. If the Americans want to be foolish, should we follow? Too often we have followed that pattern. I suggest it is time to break it.
806

October 28, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
Let me return to my conversations with chemical producers. When I say, "Why don't you people get together," they say, "We can't, because of the combines legislation." The truth is that if they want to get together, they will find a way to do it, combines legislation or not. The point is, they do not want to get together. They argue that if they do, they will be prosecuted in the United States under the Sherman act which has extraterritorial application. As these companies operate internationally, they will not do something in Canada which they are not prepared to do anywhere else in the world. They are integrated. If they co-operate with the government, they do it for their own reasons-not because such co-operation is beneficial for Canada. Such co-operation may disrupt their international actions. This situation is now changing. But for years combines legislation was used as an excuse for maintaining in this country one of the most inefficient industrial structures of the world.
We are worried about the high level of foreign ownership. Do people not realize that foreign ownership has a direct relationship to combines legislation? What can be done in the absence of combines legislation. First, we can adopt the recommendations of the MacQuarrie commission report. On page 16 of the bill, in proposed section 31.2, there is reference to tariffs, a matter covered by that commission. This proposal has been outstanding for almost 30 years. I am referring to the recommendation that those convicted of collusion or conspiring against the public interest should have their tariff protection removed. Mr. Speaker, this protection, so far as I know, has not been removed in a single instance-neither in the case of the glass industry nor the paper industry. These industries have continued in their own merry way. What is the biggest fine which has been handed down under our combines legislation?


An hon. Member:: Twenty-five dollars.


Max Saltsman: It is a little more than that.


An hon. Member:: I think it's about $50,000.


Max Saltsman: If it is $50,000, the fine represents a licence. In no instance has tariff protection been removed. Industry does not worry about a fine, because that can be recovered by increases in price. The government has the weapon but has not used it.
Neither has the government tried another approach. My remarks maybe pertinent to Petrocan; I do not know. Let me refer to what the Swedes have done under their co-ops. Swedish co-ops operate upon a different basis from Canadian co-ops. They go into the market with the specific purpose of driving down prices. If a manufacturer is taking too much from the market, instead of legislating the Swedes permit a co-op to compete with the manufacturer and drive down prices. That is what we should do. A lesson like that would not be lost on those who are raising prices unfairly. If prices are reduced under a system like that, the consumer cannot be asked to make up the difference. But the government is not prepared to do this; instead, it has brought in combines legislation which is meaningless. It is not interested in providing competition through the public sector. This is the area the government should enter.

There is the question of public ownership. If someone abuses this country in terms of ripping off the people, I see no reason why somebody should not step in and say, "Look, buddies; you are behaving very badly"-you always say "buddies" because you want to be nice about it-"and we think we will take you under public ownership. Here is your money; go home." Even if there were an indication the government would do something like that, it would be enough.
I would not want to see the government rush into public ownership at every point of contention. That is not what I am suggesting. However, if the manufacturers in this country, particularly those that are foreign-owned, had any indication that the government of Canada was prepared to take them over if they misbehaved, they would not misbehave. However, as long as there are pussycats there, the companies will go along doing what they are doing.
I want to deal with some of the provisions of this bill. Over the years my party has supported combines legislation because we have felt it is at least something. Perhaps we will do so again. Today I am voicing my own reservations. There comes a time when you have to stop being satisfied with these little tinkerings and do-nothings. Perhaps the time has come for us to call the legislation what it is. There is a clause in the bill on misleading advertising. The government is going to try to define misleading advertising. There will be penalties. A clause which provides it will be applied only to misleading advertising carries the same contradiction as talking about a virgin whore.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Max Saltsman: What is wrong with advertising? It is not that it is misleading. It is that in many cases it is wasteful and immoral. People do not have to be huckstered into everything. They do not have to be pushed into consumption, consumption, consumption and have such huckstering subsidized by the tax system. The reason there is so much advertising is that 50 per cent of it is paid by the government, so why not spend all kinds of money on it? What is accomplished by having a clause on misleading advertising? It is not that the stuff in the spray can will not take the odour away from your armpit. I am sure it will. What is lewd is that they picture a world full of people judging each other by the smell of their armpits. The idea is how you smell.


An hon. Member:: That is racist.


Max Saltsman: I would love to raise a discussion about what one sees on television. You see a picture of a charming girl, with marvellous teeth and a lovely personality. You see a boy look at her and then turn away in disgust: she has not used her underarm deodorant. A thousand years from now people will wonder what kind of a civilization we had, and whether this type of advertising represented our system of values. I do not think this misleading advertising clause will lead to very much. The advertising will become a little more sophisticated. It will be necessary to use real glass instead of artificial glass. A man will have to use his own razor blade instead of someone elses.
October 28, 1974

It will not accomplish anything. Misleading advertising is not the problem in our society.
There is also a clause on double-ticketing. The chief consequence of legislation saying you cannot double-ticket will be that the product is taken into the back room. Double-ticketing can now be done right on the shelf. In future the storekeeper will be put to extra trouble; it will be necessary to take the product into the back room. It will be done a little more neatly, similar to the way in which cattle brands are changed with branding-irons out west. The storekeeper may have to charge three or four cents more because the "3" will not turn into a "5". He must change it to an "8" to make it look better. That is not why food is so high in cost. When this happens, it is an abuse but it does not solve any basic problem in the way we distribute food. It does not solve the problem of overbuilding supermarkets and adding charges on to charges with the kind of merchandising methods we use. That is what we should really be looking at. I quote clause 38(1), found on page 38;
No person who is engaged in the business of producing or supplying a product or who has the exclusive rights and privileges conferred by a patent, trade mark, copyright or registered industrial design shall, directly or indirectly,
(a) by agreement, threat, promise or any like means, attempt to
influence upward, or to discourage the reduction of, the price-
How can you prove that? We have tried before to include something about price maintenance. We have never succeeded. There is no way in which you can succeed. There is no need for that clause, because in many cases it is now being done. Someone discounts a job lot of a brand name product. By cutting the price, he creates all kinds of commotion. The same situation prevails. I presume this is supposed to be for the benefit of small businessmen. We do not have to worry about them. They have so much competition now that they do not know what to do with it. In fact, it is only the small businessman who has to compete; the large corporations do not have to do so.
I sometimes wonder why people stay in small business, considering the hours they have to put in and the knowledge they require in order to run a business. No one is going to tell them you have freed up the market for them. Unfortunately, the market is much too free for them. We can see the consequences of that situation. If you want to see good working conditions and good wages, look at big industry, not small business. Small business cannot afford such luxuries because of the situation in which they find themselves.
This bill attempts to do something about suggested retail prices. It does not say you cannot put on a suggested retail price. If someone wants to sell below that, he can. If he does that now, he can probably get away with it. No piece of legislation will really protect him. Let us take the example of someone who wants to sell below the suggested retail price. The law says the supplier must continue supplying him. Anyone with any practical experience knows what will happen. The supplier will suddenly decide he cannot produce enough to satisfy everyone. Either this person will receive a very low priority, his shipment will end up halfway across the country when he needs it for Christmas, or he will receive blue shirts when he orders grey. There are a dozen different ways to get the
Combines Investigation Act
message across quickly that if you cut the price, you will be in trouble.
If you want effective competition, you must do it in some other way. If a manufacturer has built up his brand and is able to impose the kind of coercion that he does, it is because we have enabled him, through the tax system, to build up a brand name which has a monopoly. It is the monopoly, not the suggested retail price, that creates the problem. The man who has access to the monopoly is usually prepared to do what he is told. Indeed, that is probably what he wants to do; he is happy to see the manufacturer put on a standard price because it also protects him from his competitors.
These are some of the reservations which occur to me. I understand that the co-ops are looking forward to the legislation because proposed section 31.2 has something to do with refusal to deal. I do not believe this section will really force a manufacturer to sell to everyone, because there is a little word in here which could make a great deal of difference. It says a supplier has to sell if a buyer is willing to meet the usual trade terms of the supplier in respect of payment, units of purchase and "otherwise". What is covered by those words "and otherwise"? There are so many loopholes. And this one in particular is like a barn door. Suppose a supplier sells to only one store in a town. Is it suggested that he should be forced by legislation to sell to two, or more? I should be surprised if that were the case, since the effect of the section would then be to tell the manufacturers how to run their businesses.
Is it intended that the act should force manufacturers to sell to a particular store whether they want to or not? Are the Liberals ready to curtail economic freedom to that extent? I do not see how these provisions will work. Suppose a manufacturer says his policy is to sell only to "classy" stores and is withholding supplies simply because a prospective purchaser is running a "hole in the wall"? Will the manufacturer be forced to sell to such a store whether he wants to or not? There is also the suggestion that if one supplier refuses to deliver, a purchaser can go to someone else who will be obliged to deliver. I do not know who wrote this legislation. Perhaps the draftsmen are very good in the academic field or in the public service, but I do not believe they have had much experience in business. I doubt whether the legislation will be of much practical value either to the consumer or to small business.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman). I am not sure whether he speaks entirely for the group he represents. He put forward some interesting propositions today, though I found it hard to follow him in one or two places. He talked about baby food and said Gerber's was kept in business for three years by its competitors because the competitors wanted only 80 per cent of the market; they did not want responsibility for 100 per cent.


Max Saltsman: The object was to make three times as much profit.
28305-52!/i

October 28, 1974
Combines Investigation Act


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I could not quite follow the argument. Did he feel it would have been better for Gerber's to have been driven out of the market, and have only one manufacturer in Canada? The hon. member is nodding, but I do not think that is a line of argument which would be supported by all members of his party. It is certainly not one I am prepared to acknowledge.
Mr. Speaker, there is one particular matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the House. First let me say I believe, contrary to what the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge has said, that the principle of this bill is a good one.


An hon. Member:: Surprise, surprise.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am glad the minister has put it forward. More and more Canadian consumers are becoming aware that they need to be protected by legislation against unethical business practices, and it is our duty to listen to the complaints which are coming forward and to act to protect consumers, by legislation if necessary.
I should like to draw attention to the clause which relates to misleading advertising. Clause 36 recommends certain changes thought necessary to protect consumers. I should like to point out that there is an area involving deceitful practices which is not covered by this clause. By way of example, I refer to an advertisement which was used last year to promote the sale of a children's toy. The advertisement in question was aired on CFCF-TV in Montreal in November and December of 1973, having been cleared for use by the Canadian Advertising Advisory Board, a self-regulatory body of the advertising industry and Canadian broadcasting.
The advertisement embodied a technique which was intended to influence consumers, in this case children, to purchase a product without their being aware they were being influenced. The exhortive phrase "Get it" had been inserted four times in a 60-second commercial, in varied lengths of up to one-quarter of a second. The message was too short to be perceived by the rational, conscious mind.
This technique is, I understand, similar to that reputed to be used for brainwashing. I suggest this type of technique is not acceptable to hon. members who sit in this chamber, and it should be banned by parliament. It is generally called subliminal, because the appeal to purchase is made to the potential consumer below his threshold of awareness. I intend to propose an amendment to Bill C-2, proposed section 36(1), when it is studied by the standing committee, should I have the opportunity. Subclause (1) of proposed section 36 presently reads:
No person shall, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of a product or for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, by any means whatever-
I propose inserting paragraph (e), which would read:
-make a representation in an advertisement which contains any technical device which, by using images of very brief duration or by any other similar means, exploits the possibility of conveying a message to, or otherwise influencing the minds of consumers without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has been done.


An hon. Member:: Will the minister support it?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I believe so. I believe this amendment will receive general support. I have discovered that this tech-

nique is reported to be used widely in the production of television and other advertising. I hope the committee will entertain the suggestion to call professional and technical witnesses who can give evidence to this effect. The advertisement to which I have referred was "discovered"-I put that word in quotation marks-by the Canadian Advertising Advisory Board and this discovery was made public on August 21, 1974, through a press release issued by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.
No mention was made in the news release of the fact that the advertisement had actually been used. I found that it had been used, and also that it was banned only after the relevant contract had expired and the advertisement was no longer being televised. It was judged as containing subliminal content by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, the Canadian Advertising Advisory Council in Canada, by the National Association of Broadcasters, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission in the United States.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member in the midst of his speech, but it is five o'clock and further proceedings must now go forward.
I wonder whether the Chair might take a moment to refer to a matter which has arisen in the debate this afternoon. The Chair has noticed the practice of some speakers at this stage of the bill to refer to certain clauses within the measure. I do not wish to press the point at this time, but for the guidance of hon. members and their future reference I would refer to Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, citation 381, which reads as follows:
The second reading of a bill is that stage when it is proper to enter into a discussion and propose a motion relative to the principle of the measure.
I would draw attention particularly to this part of the citation:
On the motion for the second reading, it is out of order to discuss the clauses of the bill.
I thank hon. members for their indulgence in allowing the Chair to draw this matter to their attention.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It being five o'clock, 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 Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Air Transport-Request for service between eastern Saskatchewan and western Manitoba-Application of Transair for jet service; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-
October 28, 1974

Social Security-Measures to protect pensioners in private plans-Discussions with chartered banks; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) - Transport-Report on plane crash near Frobisher Bay- Reason for delay.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Eudore Allard: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should study the advisability of establishing a Royal Commission on the notable shortcomings of Canadian railways and in particular CNR to increase the protection of the public in general and that of the employees in particular and to eliminate accidents and derailments of freight or passenger trains.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions during the last year and the previous one I asked under Standing Order 43 of the House of Commons that an investigation be made on the operations of Canadian railways and in particular of the CNR.
I would ask hon. members, and particularly those who have seen the big cars go by before, to lend an attentive ear in the few minutes available to me so that I may explain to them the reason for my request.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I noted the numerous railway accidents, mainly derailments, across Canada. As a member for a riding which was more particularly affected and on several occasions by those numerous derailments, it is my duty to ask the House that a royal commission inquire into the management of railway companies, especially the CNR, in order to find the means to cope with the disadvantages of the shocking deterioration of this indispensable service of national interest.
Madam Speaker, we must know the cause of those disadvantages so that we may use that information and every governmental facility to remedy the situation. Moreover, we must try and find new ideas in order to meet not only the requirements but also the wishes of the Canadian people.
I should now like to make a few general remarks with regard to railway safety which is most unsatisfactory in some regions.
In the constituency of Rimouski which I have the pleasure and honour to represent, thousands of people have witnessed numerous derailments in the last few years. Here are a few examples.
Last year, a freight car went off the tracks in the Mont-Joli station and wrecked part of the station.
Some 75 miles from Mont-Joli, in the Matapedia valley, 24 cars carrying oil and various freight also went off the tracks in Routhierville.
The same year, between Mont-Joli and Rimouski, another derailment took place, involving this time passen-
Railway Safety
ger cars. Several cars, including the locomotive, ran off the line between Mont-Joli and Luceville. Fortunately, no one was fatally injured, but those cars lying in the fields were nevertheless a sorry sight.
Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to inform the House that the traffic in Mont-Joli station is quite heavy owing to the operation about two miles away of a Price Brothers sawmill. All its lumber is shipped by railway, especially the Canadian National, as this is the only line in operation in the whole area.
The accidents which I referred to are quite important. They are very costly when we consider the number of CNR trains and derailments in Canada during 1972. The number of derailments and track breakage has tripled since 1959 and almost doubled since 1969.
It is obvious that one of the main reasons for those accidents and likely the worst, that is the railways do not maintain their trackage properly.
Madam Speaker, the government must make sure that the railways take their responsibilities and carry out their duties. In view of the fact that Canadians have given to them millions of dollars in subsidies, they should be made aware of the way the money made available to the railways is spent.
That is the reason why the CNR must be the subject of a thorough investigation and action must be taken so that the needs and aspirations of all Canadians can be met more adequately.
For a long time, Canadians, businessmen, officials and employees were proud of their railways. Today I note Madam Speaker that, instead of having a very futurist railway system, the CNR has a very deteriorated system and could not ensure the maintenance of neither their trackage nor their rolling stock.
Madam Speaker, I remember accidents used to be a rare occurrence, since maintenance was very good and the ballast rested on cinder. We now have the best ballast, that is crushed stone. But there is no sufficient inspection of broken rails or defective sleepers, and that is the reason for a good number of accidents.
As I said, four employees used to handle the inspection and maintenance of seven miles of trackage. Inspections were then made daily, and often after the passing of various passenger or freight trains. But now, it was deemed adequate to lengthen such sections to 20 miles approximately, while making sure to reduce track inspection and maintenance personnel.
There certainly exists mismanagement within CNR, considering that in order to replace say a window pane at the Rimouski station, one sends for an employee in Camp-bellton, approximately 150 miles away, in order to do the work.
This entails too much undue expense and blatant waste. So do indeed Canadian National executives. I was informed these people use automobiles belonging to Canadian National Railways, and also credit cards with unlimited credit. Such automobiles they use all year long, for the minimal cost to themselves of $50. Few members in this House are allowed such a bargain. As far as I am concerned, I would indeed sell my car in order to use one

October 28, 1974
Railway Safety
supplied by the government, if I had only $50 a year to pay to use it.
It is then easy to understand why Canadian National Railways' debt is around $1.8 billion, with notes bearing interest at 5 per cent. Nonetheless, Canadian National Railways, with assets of $4 billion, has an annual deficit around 25 millions.
Rather than engaging in subsidiary ventures as the building of towers, the developing of shopping centers and property such as luxury hotels, we should first and foremost secure assurance that railway facilities and services are satisfactory and that there are enough cars and locomotives in service.
A thorough inquiry by a royal commission would perhaps enable us to find out what are the failings of the present administration and to correct them.
Madam Speaker, it is important to be able to distinguish accidental and localized faults from fundamental, structural and characteristic defects which would necessitate a complete upheaval and reorganization.
This is a very important matter that requires our full attention and all our energy, if we want to keep in touch with present and future needs and, by the same token, to restore the international reputation and prestige our railways enjoyed in the past.
If the Transport Commission deemed it necessary to recommend to the Canadian National Railways they reduce the speed of their trains to 40 miles an hour, limit the loads and inspect the rails better, all year long, it was so there would be as few accidents as possible on those tracks. Those recommendations are in agreement with the purpose of my motion which is to find solutions to those many derailments.
The Transport Commission must bring pressure to bear, supervise and control, in order to see that the railways have an efficient and adequate rolling stock, take good care of their platforms and also take all necessary steps to provide a proper service for the people of Canada. Otherwise, the railways will keep on disregarding public safety. Transportation is an essential field in which we must develop better policies in the best interests of the national economy.
I feel that in some cases, this government has failed to use the powers granted to it under the act to bring in the necessary remedial measures. Under the actual system, I firmly believe that the CNR is not sufficiently responsible to Parliament. Therefore, I suggest, Madam Speaker, that steps should be taken in this regard.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, at the outset may I say I support the spirit and thrust of the motion presented by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) to the extent that it recognizes the necessity to bring about a greater degree of safety and protection for passengers and employees in connection with Canada's railway system. I am not sure, however, I agree with the hon. member's proposal to establish a royal commission or inquiry.

It seems to me there have been sufficient studies in this particular area and that another study would merely prolong the issue. There are been innumerable studies. One in particular is the report by the Railway Transport Committee on the Canadian Transport Commission. This adequately spells out the shortcomings of the railways in terms of maintaining adequate safety standards.
I believe it is firmly established in our minds, and in the minds of the members of the public, that Canada's railway system enjoys something less than a commendable safety record. This is obvious from the increasing frequency of accidents. In the Third Report of the Transport Committee released in December, 1973, it is indicated that the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways in 1972 had three times as many accidents as in 1959, and nearly double the number in 1969. The explanation by the railways is that they have been moving much more tonnage and that their freight capacity has increased tremendously.
We do not find the airlines using a similar argument. Their safety record has been very high, notwithstanding the fact that they have increased the movement of passengers and cargo by air transport. I do not think we should accept that particular argument of the railway companies. The annual report of the CTC also indicates that an innumerable number of accidents have occurred.
For example, at page 9, the 1973 report of the CTC states:
District officers investigated 296 derailments and 58 collisions between trains. Four persons were killed and 252 injured in such accidents.
It goes on to give the breakdown. I do not believe further studies are required. I do not think that there is need for a royal commission. What is needed is government leadership and action in this area. The general inquiry launched in 1970 dealt quite extensively with trackage roadbed, with the maintenance of trackage, and with signal systems and slide detector fences. Approximately
6,000	pages of evidence were compiled.
That report is available to members and to the public. It was prepared for the Railway Transport Committee and, in my opinion, constitutes a damning indictment of the safety record of the railways. Perhaps I might quote again from that report, at page one of appendix 3 where it states:
The number of derailments caused by track conditions on Canadian National and Canadian Pacific in 1972 is three times that in 1959 and nearly double that in 1969. Because of this continuing increase in derailments to date, it must be concluded that in the foreseeable future the number of derailments on account of track conditions will continue to increase with a continuing increase in the number of injuries and deaths as a result, unless immediate action is taken.
This is a pretty clear indication that the safety record is less than satisfactory. It is also evidence that something must be done immediately.
Furthermore, the report sets forth some positive recommendations and steps which could be followed during the interim period until such time as necessary, longer term, corrective measures are carried out. For example, we know from the report that current stress on trackage is beyond tolerable limits. In this regard we see a specific recommendation put forward by the Railway Transport Committee.
October 28, 1974

I quote again from appendix 3, page 1, as follows:
Until such time as improvements are completed to strengthen the total track structure, it is obvious that the only way in which an immediate reduction in these derailments can be accomplished is to eliminate the overstressing of the existing track structure; that is, reduction of axle loadings. Therefore, since it is the duty of the Canadian Transport Commission to ensure that derailments on account of track conditions causing injuries and deaths be prevented, it will be necessary to require the railways under its jurisdiction to reduce the maximum net weight of carloads to 70 or 80 tons per car and to require the railways to reduce the height of high loads which now result in excessive lateral stresses, and to require the railways to reduce the speed of trains wherever the existing speeds are contributing to excessive stresses beyond the limit for which the present track structure was designed and is being maintained, unless improved programs and standards of track maintenance are immediately undertaken to eliminate the causes of such derailments.
So here again the steps that must be taken to correct and improve safety standards are clearly outlined in this report. We know that in terms of inspections, our lines have not been inspected on a frequent and regular basis. In this regard we might refer to page 5 of appendix 3 of the Third Report of the Railway Transport Committee, which states:
More frequent inspection of track would very often result in the observance of conditions of this type developing which might cause derailments. If more staff, material and equipment were available, more prompt action could be taken to correct these conditions as they are developing and before they could result in derailments. In other words, more frequent inspections by qualified staff and more and better maintenance of track conditions would undoubtedly reduce the number of derailments in this category which so frequently result in personal injury and deaths.
More frequent inspection would also result in observation of the development of other conditions, such as defective switches, conditions leading up to washouts and sunkinks, which would permit prompt corrective action to be taken and thus avoid the possibility of derailments as a result.
The report goes on to make recommendations and suggestions dealing with broken rails, which suggest the necessity of railways acquiring more sophisticated track testing equipment. We know what the problem is, and we know that the condition of the trackage has deteriorated to a standard which is far below that which can accommodate safely the loads which our present day boxcars are carrying. This has an effect on the over-all efficiency of the railways as well as on their safety performance. We know that in order to overcome this, a great deal of money will have to be spent. So what we need now is not a royal commission but government action and government leadership to compel the railways to honour the recommendations and conclusions in the report of the Railway Transport Committee.
Above all, we need a commitment from the federal government to work out some sort of agreement with the railways to provide the necessary funding for this very expensive undertaking. It seems to me that the government has been conspicuously silent on this report, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has been questioned on it in the House on many occasions. The only answer we can elicit from him is that he is discussing this matter with the railways, discussions which to date have led to nothing more than simple meetings. The minister's evasive and flippant answers can
Railway Safety
only lead us to believe that very little progress will be made so long as he is minister.
The CNR has indicated that in order to improve trackage to meet current requirements and the current projections of freight and payloads, something in the order of $5 billion will have to be spent over the next six year period. Our railways should be considered as a national asset and, if that is so, it behooves the government to take responsible leadership in this area.
The obligation of the government is clearly outlined in the National Transportation Act and in the Railway Act. The government has the power to compel the railways to maintain a safe and efficient railroad system. If the railways are short of funds, and since they are a vital asset, meaningful discussions should take place in an active way now to bring about a realistic program to upgrade our trackage and our roadbeds to meet our current requirements.
Furthermore, in addition to the infusion of funds and the requirement for a responsible and responsive government leadership, we need full public disclosure of all reports in connection with railroad accidents. In my opinion, the efficiency and safety of the railways is certainly a matter of public interest and public concern. That being the case, it follows that the public has the right to know what is going on in this important and vital area.
So, while I share the thrust and spirit of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Rimouski, I must say that I do not believe that we need a royal commission. I believe that we have sufficient facts and details before us to act upon them, and indeed to correct the substandard levels of operation and maintenance of railroading in Canada. It is not necessary at present to give the government something further behind which to hide. It has a clear responsibility and I urge it to act now. For this government talk is cheap at election time, but I tell its members that actions speak louder than words.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I will only intervene in this debate for a few minutes, because almost everything that can be said on the motion has been said by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard), and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), and I agree with almost everything they have said on the matter.
I was hoping that the hon. member for Vegreville would go slightly farther than he has been prone to do in the past toward a solution of this problem, among many others, in our transportation industry. The hon. member was correct when he said that the CTC has reported fully in the area of safety, regarding track maintenance, rolling stock and other kinds of equipment and facilities, but the government has not acted to any great extent. The CTC required implementation of some of its recommendations, but action to date has been totally insufficient.
May I say here that while there is a great deal to be critical about with regard to railways operations, the railways are still one of the safest ways to move people or goods, but at the rate railway accidents have increased, they will not keep up this good reputation. Since there is so little excuse for the increase in accident rates, it is

October 28, 1974
Railway Safety
incumbent on the government to require the railways to do better.
I wonder why the hon. member for Rimouski picked on the CNR. If he looked deeply enough he would find the CPR to be just as bad. Neither of them has anything to be proud of in the area about which the hon. member is complaining. In the whole area of track maintenance the railroads have done an abysmally bad job since the early 1960's. One has only to observe the ground from an aeroplane or a helicopter to see literally thousands of miles of trackage which still uses 65 and 85 pound rails made in 1910 or 1911, ties that are replaced at a rate of one third less than had been the practice previously, tracks grown over with weeds, and rails replaced with pieces of other rails once they are broken.
It is not unusual for maintenance and way crews to look after 40 miles of track, and I suggest much of that inspection is done by railway trucks running up and down the highway, parallel to the track.
When I worked for the railway the condition of the tracks was a matter of pride with the section foreman. He went over his track at least once a day, certainly prior to and after a train moving over it. He knew it like the back of his hand. I am not suggesting that crews today should look after five or six miles of track, but I am sure even with 15 or 16 miles to a crew it could be maintained and inspected.
Every year we get complaints from railway employees about lay-offs on rip tracks where small repairs to cars are done, or about lay-offs in railway repair shops. I believe that both railway companies are trying to get by on the cheap, and have reduced their priorities in regard to equipment, repair and maintenance. There has been evidence of understaffing for many years in maintenance and inspection of tracks and equipment.
Because of the railways' involvement in other enterprises there has been no increase in the budget for updating and maintenance of equipment and track. The hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) mentioned the luxury hotels, the office buildings, apartment blocks and needles in which hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested while the railroads have deteriorated. The government has all the evidence it needs to deal with this problem. It has the authority, and if it needs any further authority it would be surprised at how quickly legislation would go through.
The government should look at transportation systems in the European countries on both sides of the iron curtain, and in Australia and Japan. All modes of transportation are treated as a public utility, owned, operated and regulated by a sort of public utilities board in these countries. Because of this they are operated as public utilities and they have to be maintained and kept up to date in the way that our municipalities control sewer and water systems, streets and sidewalks. Of course that may vary with the city. Some streets in the city of Ottawa look as if they are in the hands of private enterprise.
Publicly owned transportation systems get the priority they deserve. In our country, with its geography, climate and its widely scattered population, we should get rid of

nineteenth century concepts in transportation. Our transportation needs today would be best fulfilled by a publicly owned and operated system. A system that is in the hands of the public would be more responsive to the public and to the needs of the economy, would provide adequate rail and other transportation, and certainly would be adequately maintained and updated.
It should not be necessary year after year for us to be concerned with something so obvious as the necessity of maintaining and updating plant and equipment. It is even being suggested now that the government should take over the road beds. I am sure the CPR would be happy about that, because they have deteriorated to the point that it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to bring them up to standard. It would just be another way of bailing out the CPR. The government should tell the railroads to give a higher priority to capital expenditures on equipment, trackage, staff and inspection so that accidents and derailments can be reduced in number.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) who moved the motion has raised a matter that is of concern to all members of this House. I know it is of concern to western members because of the miles of track that go through that part of the country.
I was impressed with the argument put forward by the hon. member. In my part of Saskatchewan there have been several fairly major derailments in the last two or three years. I agree in principle with the point made by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). The way to improve the safety performance of the railroads is not to appoint a royal commission, as the hon. member for Rimouski suggests, although there have been some tremendous ones in the past. The MacPherson Royal Commission looked into the question of railroads, and the Glassco Commission into government operations. They took a long time to prepare their reports. Royal commission recommendations are seldom implemented, because governments tend to put those reports on the shelves to gather dust, perhaps not intentionally.
I suggest that few royal commission recommendations are ever included in legislation or regulations. If they are included, usually this happens some years after a report is brought down. For that reason, I do not think that appointing a royal commission would expedite what the hon. member suggests in his motion, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should study the advisability of establishing a Royal Commission on the notable shortcomings of Canadian railways and in particular CNR to increase the protection of the public in general and that of the employees in particular and to eliminate accidents and derailments of freight or passenger trains.
May I put on record figures relating to accidents over the past few years. The hon. member for Vegreville said that there has been a threefold increase in accidents and derailments but did not say what was his comparison base. According to figures provided to me, train derailments in 1970 totalled 276, in 1971, 265, in 1972, 323 and in 1973, 299. The increase has been slight, but not dramatic. Accidents
October 28, 1974

involving car collisions and derailments totalled 53 in 1970, 66 in 1971, 76 in 1972 and 72 in 1973. The total number of accidents involving railroads as reported to the CBTC for 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973 were 4,622, 4,721, 4,818 and 4,688 respectively. I know that such statistics do not mean much, but the mere fact they exist indicates we have a job to do with regard to safety.
I must point out that as our railways have been carrying more and more goods, the number of derailments has not increased to an alarming extent. As the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) said, if you look at what is happening in other modes of transport available for the movement of material you see that the record of the railways is very good. I suggest, therefore, that the route of the royal commission, which many governments have followed in the past, is not the route which the government ought to follow in this regard. It takes a long time before we see any benefit. I suggest it would be better to implement the recommendations which came out of the 1970 study.
We must make certain there is a good working relationship between the railway safety committee, which includes representations of unions, and the CTC and MOT officials. That route should be followed in order to ensure railway safety.
The government has chosen to go through a continuing process of improvement. Possibly in some areas the improvement is not as great as it might be. Many millions of dollars must be found to renew rail beds and ensure that goods carried by the railways are carried with greater safety. To this end the government provided money for the purchase of hopper cars used in the movement of grain. Unfortunately these cars cannot be loaded fully on all lines. That shows that we must upgrade the quality of our road beds so that we may use to the fullest extent these cars carrying grain and other commodities.
More money is to be available for CN capital acquisitions and for the upgrading of lines. Also, we need a railway monitoring system to identify specific problems as they arise, and to recommend solutions. The railways are meeting with shippers. Several studies are under way; they were initiated because of the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. The reports will be made available to the WEOC committee, some by the end of this year, and one early next year. They will deal with the condition of road beds across the west, primarily.
We are continuing our consultations with other provinces, as well as with the western provinces, on matters of this kind. As hon. members know, we are revising old policies and developing new policies in this area, as mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. Without doubt, the job ahead of us is very big. It is one we must do if we are to make progress and go forward.
The government intends to influence and improve general railroad operations. 1 think the allegation made by the hon. member for Rimouski that the CNR does not perform as well as other railways is not borne out by evidence. I suggest that the CNR performs as well or as poorly- whichever way you want it-as any other railway. I could not help noting that the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre included the CPR in his criticism. There is no
Railway Safety
reason why that company should not be included in this discussion.
Improvements have been and are being made in the CN system as a result of maintenance and other work carried out this year by CN. This will include the installation of 1,260 kilometres of new rail, which was more than was laid last year and the year before. In order to improve safety and capacity, CN is installing new signalling and communication facilities. Radio communications are being steadily improved. CN has been active in the search for and development of new techniques for several years, is seeking solutions for its own operating problems, and is involved in joint programs with the Department of Transport and CPR.
I assure the hon. member who moved the motion that the CNR reacts well to general government policies and is continuing to search for solutions to improve the safety of its operations.
In accordance with the duties imposed on the CTC by the Railway Act and the National Transportation Act, the commission is obliged to ensure that all railway operations in Canada are carried out in maximum safety. In order to isolate and identify factors involved in railway accidents and explore the effect on safety of the operation of longer and heavier trains, the commission undertook an inquiry into railway safety in 1970. Perhaps other hon. members are more familiar with it than I am. Some hon. members may have been involved in that inquiry. Public and general hearings were held, with the intention of designing measures which would promote and improve safety in this industry. I believe the hon. member for Vegreville said that about 6,000 pages of testimony were recorded at that time.
The initial report of the railway safety inquiry came out in April, 1972. This recorded the proceedings and hearings to do with causes and circumstances connected with specific accidents, and indicated that a dangerous commodities task force, an advisory committee on railway safety, and a new CTC accident investigation team would be established.
The third report came out in December, 1973, and contained the committee's findings and recommendations affecting specific areas such as signal systems, staff training, slide detector fences and other matters. This report indicated that the earlier formed railway safety advisory committee which consisted, as hon. members know, of representatives from CNR, CPR, commission experts and others, would work immediately on the conclusions and findings of the general inquiry, and provide a forum for discussions on matters affecting railway safety. The work of the advisory committee is on a continuing basis. As I say, if it is not doing the job I am the first to agree that pressure should be continually applied to ensure that indeed it does the job.
Between 20 and 25 per cent of all railway accidents occur at level crossings. I am sure that all hon. members can think back to not long ago when someone was killed at a level crossing. There again we are continually helping in the construction of signals and other protective devices for the safety and convenience of the public at level crossings.

October 28, 1974
Railway Safety
However, as long as there are human beings we will encounter a certain number of accidents.
I do not know how low you can cut these accidents, but I can assure hon.members that the government and MOT will continue to strive to reduce the level, and to improve the safety and standards of our railroads. It will take a good deal of money to renew, rebuild and expand the rail network to accommodate the larger, heavier type of equipment that will be required in the next 10 or 15 years, but it must be done with an eye to the safety of people, both those operating the railroads and the general public. As I said, human error will always be with us.
I support the intent and principle of the motion, except that I believe we now have the necessary procedures. We have only to ensure they are working. I do not feel a royal commission would in any way help to resolve the problems outlined so well by the hon. member for Rimouski.


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, as this is my first occasion to speak in this House, may I personally extend my congratulations to you on your appointment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Albert John (Jack) Pearsall: I, too, wish to applaud the comments of the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard). However, I cannot in honesty support his desire or claim for a royal commission.
The hon. member's motion suggests that a royal commission could eliminate accidents, including derailments of freight and passenger trains. Despite its value I do not think any royal commission could stop a train, at a given position at a given time, if some crazy fool driver, such as a number we have in this country today, crosses a right of way.
I grew up in the west. At the age of three I travelled with my father from Vancouver to Calgary and back. I can recall the old steamers going through the various canyons of the Rockies. In those days our safety features left much to be desired. In that period we had some terrible times. Perhaps senior members of the House will recall some of the accidents that occurred, particularly in the Fraser Canyon.
In the past few years we have seen some remarkable changes take place in the Fraser Canyon. Many of the hazards that existed on both railroads have been practically eliminated. I agree they cannot all be eliminated in one or two years. I am sure hon. members who have spoken will agree with that.
We have a railway safety advisory committee which has been operative for a number of years. Hon. members know the people who are on this committee. But I do not know whether hon. members are aware of what this committee has been doing for the past few years. There are many places in British Columbia where the in-depth study, begun in 1970, has now become a reality, particularly in some of the more remote areas.
I do not know whether hon. members are aware that this committee has already looked into the design, installation, inspection and maintenance of railway signal systems. Many years ago this was undertaken "by guess and by

golly" in some parts of the canyons and the Rockies. When the block system came in, it meant something.
We have now reached the electronic age. Because of the unit trains that have been brought in there is a desire for a more complete system of safety measures. This is what I am getting at in my comments.
The committee has studied the training of signal staff. Here we come to the human element. All too often this is the real cause of railroad accidents. We must not overlook this human factor, as it will always be with us.
I wish to deal with one area that was overlooked for many years, the hotbox and dragging equipment detectors. I do not know how many members watched trains go by at night with half a dozen hotboxes flaring like mad. No one seemed to bother. Today they have been eliminated. The railway safety committee has been doing its job.
The committee is also studying the identification and interpretation of signals by engine crews. There was a time when the crews had to work for hours and hours. The safety factor was not considered. The engineer and his fireman had to put in "X" number of hours before being relieved. I recall occasions in the early twenties when some of those men worked 23 or 24 hours without being relieved. Is it any wonder that accidents occurred?
Next I want to deal with the installation, operation and maintenance of slide detector fences. This is one of the finest jobs being done by our railroads. This work is being carried out in parts of my constituency by the B.C. railroad, CNR and CPR. It is being done to eliminate the dangers. We had one serious accident last winter. An inquiry was made into the matter, with the outcome that the situation has since been remedied. This came out of the railway safety committee.
I can understand the concern of the hon. member for Rimouski about these problems which exist in his part of the country, as they do also in mine. However, with the railway safety committee which we have, we do not need a royal commission. That would probably foul up everything. It would take over some of the work that is already in progress. In this case it is work which has been carried on for a number of years.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
October 28, 1974


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet that Bill C-2, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal an Act to amend an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, just before five o'clock Your Honour called attention to the procedure to be followed on second reading and pointed out that our rules do not allow for detailed discussion of a bill clause by clause. My own remarks related to a general amendment which I hope will be incorporated in the bill. I merely indicated the clause at which it might be inserted. I had no intention of going through the bill clause by clause, because I knew it would be out of order to do so.
Just before the break for private members' hour I was about to quote from a public notice issued this year by the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, as follows:
Whether effective or not, such broadcasts are clearly intended to be deceptive.
This House, Mr. Speaker, acting on behalf of the citizens of Canada, does not need to be convinced that these subliminal advertising techniques are effective. We have only to be convinced that they are intended to be deceptive in order to effect an amendment to Bill C-2. The Parliament of Britain took this decision ten years ago, in 1964, and I feel it is time for Canada to do the same in the interests of consumers.
Whether this is the appropriate bill in which to make this change in our law is open to question. However, I feel the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), as the minister responsible for the interests of all consumers in Canada, should be responsible for enforcing this regulation rather than the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier). As an alternative procedure I considered an amendment to a private member's bill sponsored by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) dealing specifically with children's advertising. The bill has been before the House already, on another occasion.
Criticism of my proposal has come from the advertising and broadcasting industries, suggesting that I propose to outlaw a myth. I respectfully suggest that the contention advanced by those who call the use of subliminal techniques "a myth" has been exploded. I have evidence that this technique has been used in Canada. I also have an assurance from the Canadian Advertising Advisory Board that it has no objection to parliament banning the use of this technique. In fact, it was the board which recommended to me that the easiest way in which to do this would be through an amendment to Bill C-2, now before us. I know the House has other pressing matters before it,
Combines Investigation Act
but I trust hon. members will take time in which to review this proposal.
Since my endeavour to ban subliminal advertising became public a few months ago I have received letters and phone calls from consumers across Canada endorsing my position. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Council of Women of Ottawa and Area are two groups I should like to mention in this regard.
As of August 21, 1974, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has banned the use of subliminal techniques in children's advertising. No similar ban on commercials directed to adults has yet been effected by CAB. I would point out that a ban on the use of such techniques in all advertising was imposed by the National Association of Broadcasters in the United States in 1958. However, in 1974 this self-regulatory code was still being abused. I quote from public notice No.08055 dated January 24, 1974, issued by the Federal Communications Commission in Washington regarding the offending advertisement I cited earlier:
Despite the Code Authority's action, some stations apparently continued to broadcast spots containing the "Get it" statement.
Surely the House should follow the much more effective example of the United Kingdom, rather than follow an approach by self-regulation which clearly does not work.
Parliament should put the responsibility for misleading and deceptive advertising where it truly belongs, that is to say, with the manufacturers of products who become clients of advertising agencies.
I have a letter from the advertising agency which produced the children's toy advertisement I cited earlier. The agency stated:
We seriously questioned the advisability of using the subliminal "Get it" and so informed the client. The client, however, insisted that it be put in. Under such circumstances ... we had no choice but to put it in.
This may not be an isolated situation. However, it is the only one which has been discovered. It was not discovered by the self-regulatory body, C.A.A.B.; it was discovered by Robert Choate in Washington who brought it to the attention of the FCC there. In Canada action was taken to amend the children's code of ethics nine months after the advertisement was used.
I respectfully submit that Bill C-2 is the legislative instrument which could be used to rid Canada of this dangerous and deceptive practice. I hope all members, especially those on the other side of the House who are apparently in agreement with what I have been saying, will support Bill C-2 on second reading so that it can be referred, at an early date, to the committee where these matters can be dealt with fully.


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, the fact that consumers need a more adequate voice has had the support of this parliament since 1967, and it has had the support of all balanced people I have met in the business community no matter in what scale of endeavour they are involved. The bill we are considering is "to overcome the bad effects of concentration and misleading advertising in

October 28, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
the market place". That is a very well thought out and worded concept, and I agree with its thrust.
The purpose of the Combines Investigation Act, and again I quote "is to assist in maintaining effective competition as a prime stimulus to the achievement of maximum production, distribution and employment in a mixed system of public and private enterprise". Again this wording is concise, and I must compliment the work of the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs who served the twenty-ninth parliament. However, I seriously question the ability of this measure in its present form, unfinished, I must suggest, to achieve these desired goals.
I would seriously question the sincerity of the government in its repeated attempts to serve the consumer. Since October, 1967, this country has had four ministers and seven years' work leading up to the legislation we are debating now. I would ask the indulgence of the House to allow me to go back to Hansard of October 13,1967, in order to put a few things in perspective. Let me quote from what was said by the minister then in charge of the Department of the Registrar General. He said at that time, as reported at page 3068 of Hansard:
I believe, sir, that a significant step was taken earlier, when the Department of the Registrar General was established in 1966, at which time we brought together for the first time a number of functions relating to corporations, combines, patents, trade marks and bankruptcies, in order to ensure the better coordination of policy in these fields.
I would ask hon. members to remember the word coordination, which was part of the concept and concern of the minister at that time. I go on to quote the minister from the same page:
The consumer's association of Canada appealed to the government as early as 1960 and on numerous later occasions to create a department which would be responsible for the interests of consumers.
It is now 14 years since that initial request was made as stated that day. Let me refer again to the same speech where the minister stated:
The opinion that consumers need a more adequate voice in government has received parliamentary support.
That was said on October 13, 1967, and I believe that idea has had parliamentary support since. Let me continue to quote from the debate of that day, at page 3107 as follows: The present Department of the Registrar General and the agencies now grouped within it will be continued under a department with a new name, the department of corporate and consumer affairs, to which will be added two further responsibilities; first, the responsibility to coordinate programs for consumer affairs at the federal level, initiate new programs, and so on; second, the responsibility for representing the federal government in the area of corporate securities.
Let me now quote an interesting sidelight to the debate of that date. This was the same minister speaking, and he was referring to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Neilsen) and the present hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). He said:
I should like to say to the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Bow River in particular, in answer to some of their suggestions, that this department will not be a bureaucratic monster. On one occasion I said that if you want to use the vocabulary of the octopus of government, this is not a new tentacle; it is a rearrangement of the existing tentacles, and no more.
Again during that debate, and for the second time in the same day, he referred to the responsibility for coordination of acts under this department by stating:

I should like to say also that this department will not involve more government spending. When I spoke on my estimates I said that this year the department would have an expenditure of $8 million, less $6 million by way of revenue in respect of patent applications, bankruptcies, incorporation applications, and so on; so, the cost to the Canadian taxpayer will be between $1.5 million and $2 million. There will be not additional cost of any significance because, as I said, aside from the hiring of certain specialists in the area of consumer affairs most of the staff is available in the various agencies of the federal government.
The minister at that time was extremely concerned as evidenced by those comments, but what has happened since 1967? We must look at the growth of this embryo reorganization or this rearrangement of the tentacles. The corporate and consumer affairs of 1967-68 involved a vote of $11,338,000. The consumer affairs' portion was $4 million. In the recent estimates for 1974-75 that $11 million has grown to more than $43,755,000, and the consumers' part involves over $17.5 million. I would ask you to remember the original estimate of the cost in 1967, namely $1.5 million to $2 million. I suggest the tentacle rearrangement has grown into an octopus.
The anti-business feeling in this country grows in almost direct proportion to the increase in government spending. If this rate of growth keeps up the bankruptcy branch of this department is going to be very busy.
This legislation has been debated for over seven years, and is now being presented to us in an unfinished state. We are now being asked by the minister to let a committee finish it. Why we are being asked to do that? As a backbencher my resources and time do not allow me to participate fully in this committee, yet my constituents and the people of that area of this country from which I come demand that I show an interest in this type of legislation.
The minister has a budget of $43,755,000. Has the government become tired and does it now admit it cannot do the job? Can it not give us a tidy presentation, properly researched, in order that we can vote on it in principle on second reading? Why are the amendments being kept in the wings? Why have they not been tabled for the consideration of members in caucus? I would ask why is there all this mystery?
We have seen rule by regulation, then rule by ministerial discretion, and now we are seeing rule by commission. This has all taken place since 1967, and I suggest it has left the business sector of Canada with a confused decision making base. I do not think that the problems we see today in Italy, Britain, Japan and in the United States will be easily solved, but one of our first steps must be an attack against this confusion of decision making based here in Canada.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) referred to our balance of payments. Let me remind the minister that 55 per cent of commercial activity in this country involves small business, and small businesses do not have the resources to handle the confusion and legislative load that are resulting from the change in the tax act.
Surely clean, tidy legislation under the control of parliament is the least the minister should offer the country and parliament at this time. Regulatory fever is rampant in this government. Business is starting to operate defensively. I mentioned the trouble other trading nations with
October 28, 1974

which we deal are facing. Trivia and regulations are snuffing out the light and fire of Canadian business. The standard of living of the Canadian people is very dependent on a vital, aggressive business community.
The previous speaker mentioned the scale of business, and the fact that if people in the Canadian work force wish to have a decent standard of living they would have to work for large companies. That may be so, but a large portion of the community is the small business segment. It is this segment which suffers as a result of such self-imposed legislation.
It is a sad fact of life that people who abuse their freedom in the performance of business functions, through overzealous acts of self-interest, are the cause of this type of legislation. If these people had compassion for those who work with them, under them, and around them, there would not be a need for this type of legislation.
I have not noted in respect of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs any expenditure of talent or effort directed toward the business community, the present managers and new managers, so that they would have an awareness of the importance of their function and the importance of serving the people, the employees, the customers, the suppliers, the community and the country. Nowhere in Bill C-2, or in the work of the department, do I find any indication of effort in this direction. If there had been a move in this direction in 1968 I doubt very much if there would be need for such a bill being debated in this House today. Where is the corporate part of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in this area of educational need? I ask the minister to give this consideration because here is an area that is waiting to be serviced.
I should now like to turn to the aspect of the bill in respect of misleading statements and advertising. The minister in this bill, and in statements to the media, offers strict rules of conduct for private enterprise. He has threatened these sinister people with jail and fines. I agree. People who abuse these freedoms and privileges and the licence they are given, as well as the responsibility they have in the performance of their duties in the best interest of society, deserve to be punished.
But why does the minister apply these rules of his just society-if I may use that term-to only one minority group? What process of logic causes the minister to exclude other aspects of our community from his sanctions? What about political parties and politicians who use misleading statements or misleading advertising, or who are guilty of not having kept promises? Frankly, I would mention stuffed ballot boxes at both ends of the country. Why are there not fines and jail sentences for this group which lacks credibility in statements to the public?
In several speeches in this debate the government has been brought to task for misleading statements and promises, as well as misleading advertising. We had the example of the advertising in respect of the limited coin edition. We also had the example of the Canada Savings Bond being advertised as a safe vehicle. Surely this is misleading advertising.
The 1972-1973 report of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on page 11 exaggerates by 100,000 the caseload involved. Is this misleading or is it an honest
Combines Investigation Act
mistake? Then we have the purchasing power of annuities and pensions, with continuing two digit inflation. Is this honest? I do not know of an easier way to steal.
Why are union monopolies, which have such a tremendous impact on competition and consumer prices, exempt under this legislation? Why are the "sweetheart" deals that we hear about not subject to the same sanctions in the minister's just society? Is the Inspector General of Banks to be kept on a continuing diet of budgetary want like the Auditor General, or are the banks to be denied their share in this just society the minister speaks about? Why does the minister pick on one small minority group? Does this bill interrelate properly with provincial legislation, or will it merely create a new set of problems.
We know what happened in respect of the marketing boards of this country. Does this bill co-ordinate and interrelate properly with other legislation which will be presented to us in this parliament by the same minister? Are we to be allowed any insight into this? What size of corporation does the minister suggest will be subject to regulation by the commission?
The Restrictive Trade Practices Commission is given extremely wide powers over the distribution process in Canada. It will have power to regulate business under civil law, with criminal powers to back it up. It can make its own rules of proceedings. Here we have more arbitrary government, and more rule by regulation. Surely such a commission should be responsible to parliament through the minister, or will we in the future have to put up with another minister who does not have the power to answer because the commission or board is outside his jurisdiction? Where are the members of the commission to come from, Mr. Speaker? Will they be political appointees, or will they be men of experience and knowledge, with ability to regulate wisely without influence or favour. Am I being too idealistic in expecting that? How many members will be on the commission? I ask the minister to think again about some of the questions which I raise as a result of my reading and homework in respect of Bill C-2. It will eliminate some of the immoral conduct of the marketplace, and this is good. I sanction that aspect of the bill. It should be widened to include political activities, government activities and union activities.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Heil Hitler.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Bill C-2, in the form in which it is presented, will not stop inflation; it will not stop rising prices; it will not increase competition; it will not hurt or impede the big guy; it will not improve the decision making base of Canada. I cannot see how the purpose will be achieved. I cannot see how the bill in its present form will provide a prime stimulus to the achievement of maximum production, distribution and employment in either the private or the public sector of the country. As it is presented to me, it would appear to be misleading advertising.
In closing may I say that if it is the wish of the House that this bill go to committee, instead of back to the drafting table where it belongs, where there are available the resources and the staff that the minister has at his

October 28, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
disposal, then we have a lot of work ahead of us. Will we be given the time and the resources in committee to do the right job for our constituents, our country and this thirtieth parliament? The workload imposed on the members of this parliament in the less than 30 days that we have been sitting is almost unbelievable to me, a man off the street; it is almost insulting to intelligent people. In my opinion the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) should be moved over to the ministry in charge of railroads.
I will close with these remarks; legislation based on a broad, consistent philosophy should not arrive in pieces; it should be co-ordinated, as the minister in charge of the formation of this department said on October 13th, 1967.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on this bill which has been called the competition bill, but which in effect does not deal with the problems of competition which are outside its scope. Nevertheless, I think this is a good opportunity to take part in a debate on the effects of competition on our economy and national life.
I agree with the aim of the bill, but it seems to me that there is serious doubt as to whether it will accomplish what it sets out to do. Also, I believe that perhaps its basic tenets should be questioned. We should ascertain at what level competition should exist, and in what manner.
We have entered into an era of consumer concern and consumer interest because of the modern philosophy that anyone who performs a service or manufactures an article is essentially considered to perform a poor service, or to do poor workmanship, unless the government is there to oversee it. The consumer, on the other hand, according to the current mode of thinking, must always have perfect service and perfect articles. We recognize that there are people in our society who think that the service that they receive is always poor, and the articles they purchase always defective. We recognize that such people are present in our society, and to provide a system of competition tailored to their needs would be almost impossible.
This attitude has been made worse by our present method of job creation. Many people are not producers either in the manufacturing or in the service areas, and often they have little concept of what is involved in providing a service or manufacturing an article. Similarly, as a result of automation the narrow scope of many jobs gives little opportunity to an individual to understand the complexity of many services, and the complexity of the manufacture of many products.
I believe that the attitude that service should be always perfect and manufactured articles flawless has been aggravated by the great difficulty of getting top rate people to fill executive positions. A classic example can be found in our hospitals where it is increasingly difficult to find well trained people to accept the top positions. There are many people in the lower categories of employment in hospitals who could take on more complicated executive posts, and yet they are content to work at lower levels because their take home pay is almost the same and they do not have to shoulder the heavier responsibilities.
I make these observations because I think they have a fundamental bearing on competition within our economy.

The rise of consumerism is very real, and much greater attention is being paid to it than in the past. At the same time consumers have been demanding a higher and higher level of service and quality of goods. Also at the same time many factors in our economy work against the provision of a high level of service. Some people would suggest that this is due to the profit motive, but I suggest that many other factors are working against providing the high level of service required in our society.
What about the aim of the bill before us, and what are some of the things it may do? So far as industrial strategy is concerned, this legislation grew out of the interim report on competition policy issued by the Economic Council of Canada in 1969. That was five years ago. No studies have been undertaken by the government, or by any other agency, on what the consequences have been since that time of a strict regulation of domestic competition on Canada's competitive position in the world markets. Since I came here six years ago it has always been the view of the government that we should have a Canadian industrial strategy, but it has never been clear what this should be, Mr. Speaker. Invariably it was considered to mean a reduction in the export of raw materials and an increase in the export of manufactured goods.
It has been known for a long time that in our foreign trade we have had a deficit in manufactured goods, and there are no signs of improvement. In 1972 we had a deficit of $1,505 million in fabricated and end products. In 1973 the deficit was $2,207 million, and in 1974 it could well go to $4 billion. If it were not for the strong position of our raw materials surplus we would be very badly off insofar as foreign trade is concerned.
This bill could have a profound effect on the industrial economy of the country. For instance, one of the great earners of foreign exchange for Canada has been prairie grain. In the six years that I have been here the government has made the productivity of that part of the country more difficult to achieve. Indeed, after the settlement of the west coast grain strike which has contributed to inflation, and the settlement of the maritime strike on the great lakes, farmers have been discouraged from producing more grain. This is partly due to the government's past actions in not ensuring the smooth flow of grain and in allowing a stoppage in grain handling by a small group of people.
This bill does not do anything about Crown corporations, or about the three levels of government that are often responsible for preventing competition. It is those three levels of government that have often been the culprits in preventing competition and, as a result, preventing services from being provided. I will outline how the government of Canada and its offshoot, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and the Manitoba government and its offshoot, the Manitoba telephone system, have prevented my riding from receiving a second television channel, and this in the name of good government, although in reality it was interference in the broadcasting business.
For the number of years most of the riding that I represent has had only one TV channel from Yorkton,
October 28, 1974	COMMONS DEBATES	________819
Saskatchewan, which was classified as a CBC Affiliate. Numerous efforts were made to try to get a second network, CTV, into the area. After long and extensive hearings, finally the CRTC approved the application of Mof-fatt Communications Ltd., to provide service for a second channel.
In the meantime CBC had bought the antenna situated on Baldy Mountain in the Duck Mountain Provincial Park. That was sold to it by the private station in Yorkton, the Skinner interest. The Baldy Mountain tower is the only spot that will cover the area with a proper TV signal. Moffatt Communications applied for permission to situate their tower on this Baldy Mountain spot, but were refused permission by the Manitoba government.
In negotiations the Canadian Broadcasting Company has demanded $15,000 to strengthen the present tower for the CTV antenna, plus $10,000 a year for rental. Privately, this could be made available through another broadcasting company for $10,000, and rental of $5,000 per year, just half of what the CBC is charging, but they are prevented from using this by the actions of the Manitoba government.
Now the federal government enters into it. Another park comes between the tower and the Brandon station. It is Riding Mountain National Park which is run very poorly. It would have been necessary to instal a microwave tower but this was vetoed by the federal government on the grounds that it would detract from the wilderness aspect of the park.
As well, the Manitoba government and Communications Canada have almost made it a policy that there will be no private microwave communications set up, at least in the province of Manitoba. The alternate way to carry the signal is through the Manitoba Telephone System but, here again, the prices quoted for carrying the signal have been high, and considered by the private company to be exorbitant. That is why Moffatt Communications have wanted to have their own private microwave system. Whether or not the Manitoba Telephone System, which is very much the arm of the Manitoba government, has made a fair quotation, I do not know. But the fact is that the Manitoba Telephone System is in a monopoly position, and there in not even an independent board to examine whether or not its quotation is reasonable.
I cannot see that this bill will be useful in preventing this kind of extortion. The federal government, the provincial government, the CBC which is a Crown corporation, and the Manitoba Telephone System are combining to prevent a second television channel. Will this bill prevent such a thing? The answer seems to be absolutely not. In this case it is not the huge private corporations that are preventing competition; it is our own two governments, our own public corporations.
I should now like to turn to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, which is an integral part of this bill. The aim of this commission will be to judge whether or not certain business practices are within the realm of fair competition or are restrictive. The government contends that it will be in the interests of small business. The commission itself is seemingly going to interpret the situations that come before it on a legal basis rather than a commercial basis.
Combines Investigation Act
Now, Mr. Speaker, what may seem like a legal discriminatory practice in the commercial world becomes not so clear in the legal world. Many small businesses are able to carry on because they have exclusive agencies in their area. But, if a supplier must sell to all people merchandising in that area, such as small chain stores, the small businessman is soon put at a disadvantage. Much merchandise in our society is not sold on a strictly price basis. Most small retail establishments are viable, not because they sell cheaper than large chain stores but because of the personality of their owner, or their manager, or their clerks, and because they have certain exclusive lines.
To do away completely with exclusive selling rights, at least in retailing, would probably do much more harm than good. I can give you an example that actually happened in my area. An individual retailing a certain brand of paint found that his competitor, a fairly large retail store, was able to retail the paint at less than his actual wholesale cost. He had no alternative but to cease carrying on his business.
There are many examples of where a small business would be put at a very decided disadvantage if this clause were completely carried out. There is no doubt that, on a strictly price basis, large chain stores have enormous advantages inherent in their structure over the small private business.
Then again I notice that when there are violations of various government regulations by business, it is invariably the small businessman who gets penalized. He has not the expertise or the legal help available that large corporations have. Furthermore, a conviction against him is much more damaging to him as his clientele know him, than it is to a countrywide retailing organization.
Government commissions that are expected to show some results for their efforts, have a tendency to clobber the easiest available victim. After all, most of these commissions have to show some evidence of earning their keep, and the small individual is the easiest to intimidate.
Again, many of the government's tests for a basis of measurement, are open to serious question. One I have heard of is that meat inspectors take only one gram of meat to test for fatty content. Mr. Speaker, this is far too small a sampling to arrive at any real assessment of the fat and lean content of the meat.
I think everyone is in favour of increasing competition, but the methods whereby we assess and lay down the guidelines are extremely important not just to competition but to the whole pattern of industrial life in this country. Under this bill the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission seems to be adopting a decidedly legal viewpoint. But the legal view of what industry and commerce should be doing as regards competition is vastly different from the practical aspects of business. The effect of this commission can be nationwide, and can shape the commercial activity of the country for decades to come.
Contrary to the stated aim the commission will be biased against the small individual businessman as opposed to the large corporations, and since the whole thrust of government is overwhelmingly against small business it makes one wonder if, for all its good intentions, the net effect will be a further curtailment and harass-

October 28, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
ment of small business life. I hope that in committee we will get a few more of the answers, Mr. Speaker. I think it is unfortunate that the bill, which had extensive hearings in committee last time, was not reintroduced with the amendments that the minister has stated will be brought forward.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this bill, but since the hon. members from the opposition are so persistent, I deemed it proper to intervene and invite them to put an end to this discussion so that this bill may be referred to the committee. We are still at the second reading stage of a legislation dealing with combines investigation for the benefit of the consumers.
The main amendments, as stated by the minister, will especially deal with definitions, investigators' powers and infractions. This bill, the content of which is similar to that of bill C-227 tabled in the House on November 5, 1973, and to that of bill C-7 which was tabled on February 28, 1974 and died on the order paper because of the general election has had no luck at all, Mr. Speaker.
I think the opposition has kept very well in mind the recommendations of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in June 1971, while he insisted upon the fact this bill aimed, and I quote: to promote discussion rather than enforcement-
For once the Minister was listened to. However, after having heard many opposition speakers, I am afraid that such discussion may drag on probably because of a lack of precision from the Minister regarding the proposed amendments.
I understand that the minister wants to put more bite into the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission which has certainly failed to do the job expected from it, but at the same time extremes must be avoided.
The first purpose of this bill is to specify certain prohibitions dealing with trade practices which are detrimental to the Canadian consumers, prohibitions creating offences, and to bring in desirable amendments to existing prohibitions.
On reading this bill clause by clause, we find that it deals with everything to give more scope to the definitions and to give the investigators more work to do; there will be more of them, and thus more summonses and steeper fines.
I sometimes wonder whether that will protect the small businessmen, including farmers, while offering the consumer one last hope. I doubt it, Mr. Speaker, for it is proved by experience that the big multi-national companies like the huge cartels, in production as well as in marketing, will always find a way to pay the accountants, economists and lawyers needed to evade the law or to avail themselves of some protection of which the people will be unaware.
In his statement, the minister listed the topics dealt with in the bill such as, for instance, advertising. He wants to be stricter and suggests that the committee 
should also be more severe with regard to advertising. Mr. Speaker, I agree with him on that point, and wonder why the bill was not introduced before the election: it would certainly have created a furore during the campaign.
As for "misleading advertising", I do not have to give many examples. A little while ago, we talked about bad advertising for children. I think that the Crown Corporation and private networks, like all news media, should come under the provisions of this legislation and cease misleading the Canadian people. I am confident that the members of the committee will be patient enough to listen and to implement the advice of those who will appear before them.
Then, the hon. Minister, speaking about "dual pricing", said and I quote:
Then any sale at a price other than the lower of two or several prices is prohibited in the case of double ticketed product.
In my opinion, if we dug deeper, we could get to the famous legislation on fraudulent bankruptcies. I have noticed it several times, because I have been in business for forty years and I know that the company or the fellow who goes bankrupt fraudulently comes out much richer than before.
After having establish two companies, a purchase company and a "resale" company, thus being able to sell at a price lower than the billing, causing prejudice to all other dealers and even threatening to make some honest dealers go bankrupt, the bankrupt will not be prepared, after a couple of weeks, to start a new business. That is sheer honesty. A section of the fraudulent bankruptcies legislation deals with that situation.
As far as "pyramid selling" is concerned, we agree that legislation should be more rigid. You can be assured of our support on this.
A little further, the bill deals with the "refusal to sell". On that matter, we must be very careful. I shall give a few examples, particularly that of a farmer who, almost every fall, will sell 2,000 to 3,000 bags of potatoes to a big supplier at $2 a bag and the remainder will be sold out to the retailer at $2.50 a bag.
If this bill were implemented, the farmer would be in serious trouble, because he sells to small dealers at $2.50 a bag potatoes which he sold for $2 to the big supplier. The committee will certainly have representations to make on this matter.
I think "gift selling" could be added to "tied selling". That is the big scheme today. Big companies try to sell second-quality goods by offering a gift of little value. The customer is mainly attracted by the gift, and she will buy the merchandise to get it. In my opinion, this clause of the bill will provide some protection to the consumer.
In our regions, and I assume that the same goes for all others, there is a "market restriction", that is territorial limitation in order to avoid competition from outside. I think that if this bill is accepted, it will outwit many companies that want to control each and every territory and maintain prices in all sectors.
As for proceedings for damages and losses resulting from conduct contrary to the legislation I wonder-I keep asking myself the same question-whether it is fair for
October 28, 1974

the small businessman, distributor or producer who will be affected by this clause. I should like the clause to be broad enough to cover the big tradesmen.
Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of submitting the private enterprise to a healthy competition, since it was honest competition that normalized consumer prices in the past. To achieve this, we need laws. I say once again here tonight that lack of competition is as detrimental in production as it is in marketing.
Today we live in an era of large mergers, national and international cartels, absolute controls over marketing and, we must admit, over production.
Producers, I would say thousands of them, paid with the life of their business for the elimination of this competition under the false pretext of profitability.
If the government is really serious, it will have to come to grips with the most dictatorial of all since it is the cause of stagnation. Because of that, the legislation we pretend to improve today achieve nothing. I am referring to the monopoly of banks. I think that is the first that eliminated any competition among banks. It will be the first to reestablish order so that we finally control the discounts of the Bank of Canada and the freeze, if necessary.
Only with those basic controls shall he begin to work in the interest of consumers so that they no longer pay two, three or even five times the price of goods and services necessary for their survival.
I hope that the bill will be sent to the Standing Committee to give the public a chance to be heard, especially by the government.
The government was accused of not having detailed its amendments enough. Members of the committee should seize the opportunity to introduce amendments and invite regional bodies to appear before the committee.
I hope that this time, Bill C-2 will not "die" in committee but will be reported back to the House for third reading.


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on his new portfolio. I wish him well in what is going to be a very difficult and, I am sure, exciting area of work.
I am sure all members of parliament, certainly those on this side, agree that the elements of this bill which have to do with consumer legislation need to be passed, and passed rapidly. I do not think anyone opposes legislation to restrict pyramid selling, subliminal advertising, misleading advertising and so forth. Such actions should have been prohibited long ago. The sooner they are dealt with, the better off we will be.
The fundamental thrust of this bill, especially certain parts of the legislation, are of great significance. In fact, I feel this legislation is as important to the ongoing economic development of the country as the budget which will be presented quite soon.
Not surprisingly we have had legislation to deal with competition for a long time. In fact we have had anti-combines legislation for almost 100 years, the first being intro-
Combines Investigation Act
duced by the Conservative party, and so it is not unusual that we would support this type of bill. But we want it to be a bill responsive to the fundamental needs of the notion.
In the British tradition as a nation we have taken the position that the way in which the consumer is best protected is by the operation of truly competitive markets. Anyone who has followed the development of classical economic policy knows very well that it is difficult to dispute the fact that when you have competitive markets you have the optimum allocation of resources, and the greatest production possible in the economy. Indeed, for many years it also was argued that a competitive economy automatically assured levels of full employment.
In addition, and again in the British tradition, it was believed that with many small firms operating there was the maximum amount of political freedom. It is not a matter of accident that the great British libertarians such as Acton and John Stuart Mill believed in competitive markets.
Many of the arguments advanced for competition bills and competition legislation have not been economic. And it is not a coincidence that countries such as Germany and others on the European continent, which have never been interested in maintaining competitive markets, have had great difficulty in developing democratic processes such as we have in this country.
Underlying this legislation is therefore not only the whole question of effective markets but also the question of the concentration of power and, indeed, associated with that, the question of true economic freedom.
There was no challenge to the proposition that there was need for strong competition legislation until the 1930's when Lord Keynes introduced his general theory, which demonstrated that there was no automated guarantee that competitive markets alone assured full employment. As a consequence of the depression, emphasis on the goals of full employment and price stability have become so great that interest in competition legislation has dropped to a very considerable extent.
In fact since 1946 we have neglected competition policy to a very dangerous degree. Indeed, the adoption of a Keynesian philosophy, that we could get full employment and price stability by broad macro-economic policies led many to believe that competition policy really did not matter. Since 1946 we in this country have had no effective anti-competition policy at all.
Perhaps it was only by chance that the rise in interest in monetary and fiscal policy as the tools for attaining full employment and price stability came along at exactly the same time as great changes in technology, a large increase in transport facilities, great increases in communication systems, the possibility of serving larger markets, economies of scale, the development of multi-national firms, the development of agro-business and the change from the isolated local union to the great national unions, but the results of these changes also led to a decline in interest in competition policy.
In fact over the last 30 years the power and size of certain sectors of our economy have become so large it is really a fundamental question of whether traditional anti-

October 28, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
combines policy makes any sense. I am sure everyone knows that some economists, particularly Professor Galbraith of Harvard, have taken the position that anti-combines policy is ineffective in many areas and that it is a waste of time to try and put it into effect. It is argued by such people that certain sectors of our society are so large they are not responsive to what is happening in the economy, but make the economy operate for their benefit. If this is true-and markets are not competitive and cannot be made competitive-will traditional economic policies designed to bring about price and employment stability, work?
Why is it, one has to ask, we have not been able to achieve full employment and price stability at the same time in recent years? Why is it that broad policies do not work in the way they are expected to work? Is it because of the structure of our markets? If so, is there any chance that anti-combines policy will be able to assure a structure that will permit broad policies to work more effectively? Perhaps more important, have we reached a stage at which we may have lost many individual freedoms which are associated with the competitive market structure? Again, it has been argued strongly that large concentrations of power do not really make much difference because they countervail each other. This is the Galbraith thesis-there is no point in trying to break up large economic units because they constitute an effective brake against each other. However, in an article by Richard Goodwin recently on the dilemma of the United States economy, the point was made that these forces are apparently no longer countervailing. It does not make sense in this day and age, according to this author, to argue that large business conglomerations are countervailed by large unions and big government when, in fact, they all work together.
All of us hear the argument advanced that things are happening to society and to people that nobody wants to happen, even those who bring these things about, because the economy and the bureaucracy are so large and complex.
Therefore, in assessing competition legislation we have to consider these things: first, has the structure of our economy changed so much as a result of the economics of scale that the economic policies we put into effect in order to cope with inflation or bring about full employment simply will not now work? The evidence indicates that this may be the case. The question then arises: why don't they? The answer may be that these measures cannot work because there are concentrations of economic and political power. If this is so, we must seek, when looking at this legislation, to try to reverse the tendencies which are now in effect, or at least to examine the implications of these changes.
In the second place, can we in fact maintain individual freedom and liberty amid such concentrations of power? If not, how do we deal with competitive market structures? Where this legislation is terribly lacking is that it does not recognize all large power segments in our society. The question to be considered is not the simplistic question of whether or not we need more competition. That is not the serious issue. The serious issue is whether or not, after two decades of no really effective anti-trust laws, does it make

any sense to talk about this sort of legislation at all, and, if not, what are the alternative ways of protecting the consumer?
We know that what we are getting in terms of economic performance is very strange. We are astonished when interest rates rise and inflation does not slow down. The reason must be that the structure of the economy is changing dramatically, and the old techniques are no longer working.
In another sense, what does this legislation mean in terms of the retention of freedom in the economy as a whole? The essence of the competitive system is to bring a high degree of individual freedom, initiative and opportunity into economic performance. If we allow the concentration of power which has gone on for so long to continue, shall we be able to retain those freedoms which are so important to us?
Associated with all this is the fact that we are moving away from the dominance of the rule of law to the rule of men. In this legislation, just as in the Foreign Investment Review Act, a tribunal is being appointed with no clear or definite indication of what the tribunal is to do. Democracy cannot survive when the rule of men replaces the rule of law.
We have taken away from parliament in the past few years the function of being the trustee of the people's money. It is impossible for members of parliament to review the estimates in any effective fashion. It may be that sheer growth has done this. However, this does not remove from us the responsibility for looking carefully at the serious issues which are before the country and I suggest to the minister that the manner in which the legislation has been considered up to this stage makes it important that we go back to the committee, call witnesses and examine the fundamental issues involved. Today we are not really in a parliament which is the same as that of the last few years.
No observer of the economic forces which have been unleashed in the world today can be sanguine about the way in which the economic situation is developing. What will really destroy the system of democracy is a continued pretence that things have not changed. There is an unreadiness to face economic realities.
The reality of the Canadian economy is that we have developed large segments in which competition is not present. We have never acknowledged this in realistic fashion; we have always found reasons to exempt certain sections from the play of market forces. The net result is that policies which once worked, and which we hope will work, will not work any more.
Consequently I hope the minister who is responsible for this legislation will in fact agree that, when we go back to the committee, we should take a look at the legislation again in a broader sense, and that it be studied to see whether there are sectors in the economy that are fundamentally non-competitive that must be brought in to the bill, but which are not now in the bill simply because of the way our society and economy are organized. The problems for our economic system and our democratic government are indeed very serious.
October 28, 1974

The belief is growing on the part of more and more people in this country that governments are not able to deal with the problems which most people face. There is evidence to suggest that these people may be right. We have evidence over the last five years that would indicate that perhaps we cannot obtain relatively stable prices.
People are beginning to really believe that we cannot have stable prices. We have forgotten the proposition that people have the hope of owning their own homes, valued at about two and half times their annual income. Perhaps we do not believe that is possible any longer. We have forgotten the proposition that we can solve some of these national energy problems, and people are beginning to believe that governments cannot govern.
People are constantly being reinforced in the feeling that governments refuse to look at the reality of many issues. It seems to me that the real question is whether the government will have the courage and the conviction to look at the structure of the Canadian economy and assess whether the 19th century competition approach is valid, or whether the Canadian economy has changed to the degree that our learned contemporary fiscal and monetary policies will not now work. The government must decide whether our current policies will work or whether they are counterproductive.
Until these questions are answered, the bill in its present form is not ready to become law.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I am always a little hesitant when I follow the learned hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), particularly on a subject covering an area that has been grey for quite sometime, but an area that we are now trying to bring into sharp contrast. I should, in any event, like to add my congratulations to those already expressed to the minister in his new portfolio. I wish him well.
As has been pointed out, there are a number of good points in this legislation such as those in respect of referral and pyramid selling. Sometimes I feel that those areas have been looked after under provincial legislation. I wonder sometimes if we are not duplicating already existing legislation for the purpose of putting window dressing on a bill that is very difficult to sell to the people.
My concerns this evening are not in that very wide and general concept covered by the hon. member for Don Valley. My concerns this evening are in respect of that segment of industry with which I am reasonably familiar, namely, the construction industry.
The construction industry lives and thrives on competition. All construction type projects are subject to competitive bid, so that competition is not entirely new to the construction industry. Yet in the past we have found that some contractors run afoul of the combines legislation. I suppose it is fair to ask why they run afoul of this law.
If anyone who has been involved with a construction industry asks himself why this could happen he will immediately realize that pricing is tough in this industry and, when things are difficult, you cut back, and cut back again. This is the general situation in this segment of industry. People often have difficulty meeting overheads, and on occasion some contractors get together in order to avoid bankruptcy. In this way prices gradually work back
Combines Investigation Act
up to the point where contractors can begin to survive again. It is in this way that these people can run afoul of combines legislation.
I see new dangers inherrent in this new legislation that I have not seen previously. There is a whole range of fees now being charged by realtors, engineers, architects and, while I normally do not have much sympathy for them, even lawyers. If these people happen to charge a fee which is exactly the same as the fee charged by a competitor I see the possibility of them running afoul of this legislation. Once again these people operate in an area that is generally considered to be covered by provincial legislation. 1 question the need of driving a tack with a sledgehammer, as we perhaps seem to be doing in this area.
We must also consider the small businessman who runs, for example, a little electric sub-contracting company, or perhaps a plumber, a forming company, or an erecting company, people who operate in that whole gambit of bits and pieces that make up the construction industry. I wonder how any of those individuals would feel one morning to wake up facing a lawsuit? Perhaps such an action would require a decision by the supreme court. When one considers the amount of cost involved he will immediately realize that such a thing could bankrupt the small businessman.
The lawsuit I have in mind is one that might arise from something the small businessman had been doing in the past, but because of the passage of this new legislation he could be in difficulty. I had in mind the situation that could arise if a supplier wanted to give a prime contractor a lower price than the price he would normally sell his product to the industry. Experience has shown us that combines legislation tends to go against the small contractor.
The bigger contractors usually have sufficient staff to keep them out of trouble. In most cases they have sufficient finances to keep them in business during a lengthy court action. Small contractors receive many questionnaires from people like Statistics Canada. They are often forced to hire accountants or auditors to look after that type of thing. They receive all kinds of requests from an ever-increasing bureaucracy, all of which makes it more difficult to stay in business. This situation tends to get even worse when the companies become a little bigger. Let me give you one example of what I have in mind.
We have cement being delivered in southern Ontario for exactly the same price from three or four different companies manufacturing in different parts of Ontario. It is transported by two or three different means, over small or large areas, with seemingly no real competitive aspect. Yet because these are particularly large companies they seem to get away with it. The price per barrel, as it was formerly, although it is now changed, was identical. In addition these cement companies try to- tell us they are being competitive but at the same time they will not let the customer come to their plants and pick up the product. If a purchaser should have the equipment and wish to pick up the product he is not allowed to do so. He must purchase the product on their terms, and those terms are always alike.

October 28, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
Then we have the matter of shopping centres. Often builders and developers are involved in these shopping centres. In respect of this legislation I see a real problem, and it seems to me that shopping centres could be completely outlawed. The essence of a shopping centre is to prohibit another class of merchandise of exactly the same nature being sold on the premises. As I understand this legislation, that would not be allowed. There would not appear to be any competitive edge to the shopping centre.
I do not really think shopping centres are the big bogey man people once thought they would become. In my town there are three shopping centres, and the downtown area is thriving. I think they have proven to be an incentive. In other places in Ontario, such as Peterborough, there are huge shopping centres which have not hurt the downtown shopping area. However, I believe this legislation would prohibit shopping centres from doing what traditionally they have done.
As I see it, one of the most critical points in respect of this legislation is that it is the small businessman who will be hit. There is protection enough for the large businessman. Recently I ran into a situation which is indicative of what I have in mind.
In my riding there is a sheetmetal fabricator who produces a product in galvanized metal, which could be sold anywhere in southern Ontario. This company is unionized and pays union rates, which are less in this area than in metropolitan areas. Because this is a fairly effective and efficient operation the products of this company could be sold in Toronto, but the unions in Toronto to date have kept this company from doing business in Toronto. I see nothing in this legislation that would be of assistance in this case.
The union in Toronto is strong enough that it has been able to dictate to the manufacturers that none of this product is to be allowed into the metropolitan Toronto area, simply because the union rates paid by that company are lower than those paid in Toronto. This is an example of discrimination which should not be allowed. I have been unable to find anything in this legislation which would help that company.
Many things are covered by this legislation. There is the matter of the service industries. There are other radical changes being proposed. This legislation has been around now for two or three parliaments, under the direction of a couple of different ministers. I do not believe it would be harmful if we proceeded reasonably slowly.
I know there is a desire to get this bill before the standing committee, and I hope that in committee the minister will be receptive to a number of amendments and changes that will be proposed by his colleagues, on both sides of this House, who have business experience. Also I hope the bill, when brought back from the committee, will be changed quite drastically from its present form.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on a bill which is complicated and which will have far-reaching effects. The minister has indicated it is his intention to bring forward amendments when the bill goes to the committee.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Get that in writing.


Douglas Charles Neil: That is an excellent idea. This bill means more and more government involvement in the daily affairs of the businessman, yet the minister has called for its rapid passage. It covers three major areas. First it covers the consumer aspects such as misleading advertising, undesirable trading practices and undesirable retail practices. It covers certain regulatory aspects with regard to the restrictive Trade Practices Commission. The balance of the bill, of course, has to do with amateur and professional sports, and amendments to the Bank Act.
With regard to the sections of the bill dealing with the consumer I do not believe there is any real argument by members of the House. I think all members, particularly those who have practised law, will welcome the legislation dealing specifically with referral selling, pyramid selling, switch selling, and double ticketing, to mention a few matters. I have always been one who believed in the old Latin phrase used in English law, caveat emptor-let the buyer beware. This has been a rule I have always followed. Perhaps I have followed it because a number of years ago, when I first started work and was earning $30 a month, a very shrewd encyclopedia salesman visited me and sold me a set of encyclopedia. Since I was earning only $30 per month it took me some considerable time to pay for the books. Therefore I soon learned that one must be aware of salesmen and slick traders.
But after practising law for some 20 years I realize that many intelligent people never had an experience similar to mine, and were therefore taken in on occasion by slick salesmen who were involved in referral selling, in my area particularly in the field of roofing and siding for houses. Having met some of these slick salesmen, I can see how people were taken in by them. I believe that people must be protected from this sort of thing.
Regarding the regulatory aspects of the bill, the minister has indicated that this legislation will be used to regulate the larger corporations. But it does not specify what is a large corporation or a small business. Surely the bill could be amended to set forth in detail the definition of a large corporation and a small corporation, either on the basis of assets or on the basis of the volume of business.
Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They are our largest employers. Yet we find more and more small businesses closing their doors every day. What is the reason for that? Basically the reason is increased government regulation, increased government controls. I spoke to several small businessmen in my constituency recently, very successful businessmen who are now due for retirement, and who would like to sell their businesses to some younger persons. However, they find that there are no young people interested, despite the fact that these are exceptionally good businesses.
When you speak to young people about taking over a business, what do they say? They say: "We do not want to get involved. We have no problem with borrowing money; there are such government sources as IDB, and so on, but we do not want to be shackled by government regulations and rules". What will happen to these small businesses? The people to whom I have spoken, in two cases of which I know, have tried to sell for some three years. Now they
October 28, 1974

have reached the stage where it is their intention to gradually liquidate their stock, sell their property, and retire. This, to a relatively small community, means a loss of jobs, with the resultant loss to our economy.
Personally I have no respect for the practices of the larger corporations which, because of their size, are able to protect themselves from competition. But I do have respect for the small businessman who operates best in a competitive market.
I was interested in reading about the competition policy from the 1969 report of the Economic Council of Canada. I would like to quote from it. That report states in part:
The institution and maintenance of a competition policy such as presently exists in Canada may be taken to reflect a belief that over a greater part of the economy, competitive market forces are potentially capable of allocating resources better and more cheaply with a less cumbersome administrative overhead than any alternative arrangement, such as wholesale public ownership and control, detailed government regulation of enterprise, or self-regulation by large industrial units within a corporate state. The function of competition policy is not to bring about a textbook regime of "perfect" competition in all the various markets making up the system, but rather to encourage the liberation of the system's maximum competitive potential, imperfect though this may be.
The resulting competition is valued not for itself, but for what it can accomplish, in putting resources to work efficiently and effectively. Thus, the market does the job and the government's main responsibility, so far as efficiency in resource allocation is concerned, is to see that the market is free to do the best job of which it is capable. Competition is relied upon as the prime mechanism of social control... ; competition itself should not be the objective, but rather the most important single means by which efficiency is achieved.
We must not lose sight of the principles set forth in that statement. I believe that to rush through this bill on the understanding that it will be amended in committee is wrong. It seems to me that the bill should be withdrawn now and additional amendments brought in, so that the bill will fall within the principles outlined in the report of the Economic Council.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Before I recognize the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) may I remind the House that the minister's speech will close the debate on this stage of the bill. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I listened with much attention and interest to the remarks from many hon. members. I must say that their comments will surely help me to improve this bill along with the members of the parliamentary committee that will examine this bill, to improve this extremely important legislation which many Canadians have been expecting for such a long time.
I believe that in closing this debate, it is important for me to ensure the hon. members of my intention to move amendments to the legislation, amendments which are for the most part the result of briefs and requests presented by Canadian agencies when this bill was studied by the last Parliament.
Combines Investigation Act
I should like nevertheless to point out certain remarks made during the second reading debate and especially a question put by the hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), namely whether that legislation was really an improvement on the present one. I do not believe this House would question the real desire for progress, the unshaken wish to serve people in a better way, on the part of the government as well as of the Economic Council of Canada, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Combines Investigation Branch and the numerous experts who were consulted throughout the very difficult revision of our competition policy, which in fact began in 1966.
That the results are on a level with the efforts, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it will be generally agreed, as it was besides by a good number of members on both sides of the House, who spoke during this debate. They recognized the merits as well as the urgency of such a legislation.
But can one really refuse to recognize that we are greatly improving the present legislation by extending its implementation to services?
I believe it really should be said that Canada is almost the only country with a competition policy that does not apply to services. Among OECD countries, it seems that Ireland and Canada are the only countries that do not have any competition policy for services.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this House will agree that it is more than time that our country lose this unenviable status. The great number of Canadian consumers who have complained to my department about restrictive practices in the field of services are wondering why this extension to the Act was not passed long ago.
Mr. Speaker, I notice that my time is getting short, and I would have liked to cover several issues raised by the hon. members but I will not have time to do so tonight. I would however like to say one thing, that not so long ago the Canadian public was brutally reminded that no legislation prevented the application in Canada of judgments, legislation or directives from foreign countries which are not in the interest of the Canadian public.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that this situation should be rectified urgently. This is precisely the purpose of Bill C-2, which will give the Commission the power to issue orders appropriate to each case of this type.
I believe that one of the issues raised concerns the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada, and I would like to recall the remarks of the hon. member for York-Simcoe who stated in this House that there should be another report from the Economic Council of Canada. However, on page 2 of the third report of the Economic Council of Canada, it is said:
At first, we had considered a fourth report which would have summarized all the work done under these terms of reference, but we now believe that such a report would be redundant.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this quotation from the third report is a sufficient reply to those who have blamed us for using a temporary report as a basis to review our competition policy.

October 28, 1974
Combines Investigation Act
Finally, I think that the point raised about the unions, to the effect that the government seems to be getting blamed for excluding them from this legislation, deserves clarification. In fact, the unions are excluded except for matters pertaining to collective bargaining. Such a situation was unacceptable. That is why, basically, all union activities recognized by this act were not subject to the first Canadian act of 1889 on competition, and this exclusion still stands.
Nowadays, both at the provincial and federal levels, there is a whole series of very specialized legislation on labour. There were reforms to be brought about and it is at the labour level that action must be taken. However, Bill C-2 clarifies several aspects of collective bargaining exclusions. I would like to point out, in particular, the clause of the bill specifying that the exclusions apply to management as well as to labour.	*
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that all the amendments in this bill concern the interests of the Canadian consumer maybe in a different way but always with equal importance. I am convinced that these interests are as badly served by restrictive schemes, resale price fixing and refusal to sell as they are by misleading advertising or pyramid selling. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I rather presented one bill only instead of including consumer protection legislation in a separate bill. I hope therefore that this bill will be examined with the warranted thoroughness by the members of the parliamentary committee and that we may report for third reading a bill really worthy of Canadians and of the competition policy in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would be good enough to revert to presenting reports from Standing and Special Committees and also revert to motions. If it is agreed, I will present the first and second reports of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, and if there is unanimous consent I would move acceptance of the first report tonight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Hon. members have heard the request of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). Is there unanimous consent?


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: There is not unanimous consent, therefore we cannot do as the hon. member requests.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, on October 17 I raised a question with respect to air service into western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan. I bring up the subject again tonight because of the confusion and mess in transportation policy that was referred to by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) in his celebrated statement last spring.
I will review the history of this service briefly. In the 1960s Air Canada inaugurated a service between Calgary and Saskatchewan and western Manitoba communities, on a daily basis, as part of a new regional air transport policy.
New runways were built at considerable cost in order to accommodate this service. Two years ago a brand new air terminal was opened at the Brandon airport to 'serve western Manitoba. It was considered an important breakthrough in air transport policy and the then Minister of Transport now the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), came out to open the terminal.
Last January all air service into the western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan region was cancelled. That indeed indicates there is confusion if not a mess in air transport policy in this part of Canada. This development is in the face of expenditures of multimillions of dollars to build new airports to serve Montreal and Toronto.
Let me refer also to the STOL program costing either $125 million or $25 million depending on who is making the estimate to serve Ottawa and Montreal, the announcement that the government is to support a third-level carrier service, and also to the demonstrated fact that no program of regional economic development can make any progress unless adequate air service connects eastern Canada with western Canada.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to Winnipeg on May 23 and made some interesting comments. That is why I am making my appeal this evening. He said:
The general principles are that the policy of this government, as you know, is to work for all of Canada. We do this in different ways, but one of the most important ways of doing it is to make sure that every region of Canada shares in the growth of this country and that prosperity is accessible to all-
His statement continued to this effect:
... we have asked Air Canada to work with each provincial government to determine what action is necessary to put in place in each province a third-level air carrier system that will provide high quality local air service, promote industry, reduce isolation and provide jobs. Air Canada will then cooperate with the existing carriers in each province to put in place this service. Air Canada will, if necessary, either directly or through a subsidiary, provide that service. In other
October 28, 1974

instances, however, it will work with the existing carriers, supporting them financially by providing management back-up, by providing technical and maintenance know-how, and of course through the vast purchasing power of Air Canada.
Let me add that there is not much evidence of this in western Canada. Finally, may I quote from another part of the Prime Minister's statement. He said:
In another area of air service, air policy, industrial development and job creation, I would like to announce the following: approval in principle has been given by the government for the provision of air services linking Winnipeg, Brandon, Dauphin, Yorkton and Saskatoon as a test of possible new third-level air policies, the ones I talked about earlier. This will be air services linking these western cities.
I am sorry the Minister of Transport is not here. When he replied to my question originally he said that the government has purchased two Saunders aircraft which are to provide this service, but did not say who will operate the service. Will TransAir, the designated regional carrier, be responsible for providing this service? It will require a subsidy, as any other air service in Canada does, if we are to judge from the experience of Air Canada. If that is so, what will be the nature of the subsidy? Will it be similar to that provided for the demonstration STOL project now operating between Ottawa and Montreal? Finally, Madam Speaker, will it be supplemented by a first-class jet connection with eastern Canada?
TransAir, the designated regional carrier, now provides jet service to Dryden, Kenora, Thunder Bay and Toronto but, for inexplicable reasons, does not continue it to Brandon, Yorkton, Dauphin, Regina or Saskatoon. TransAir has had an application for almost six months before the Transport Committee, which seems to be in a state of suspended animation. The carrier has offered to provide this service without subsidy. It would provide direct, daily service to Toronto and the eastern market both ways; that is, by flying east and west, and would do this, as I say, without subsidy. In short, it would provide the kind of service which is absolutely essential for economic development programs on the Prairies. It would also supplement third-level carrier service. This would be a collector service which would make the pure jet service offered by TransAir economically viable. I trust that whoever replies this evening will answer these specific questions.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Madam Speaker, I am afraid I cannot answer all the questions raised by the honourable member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). I do not have the information available, but I assure him that I will check with regard to most, if not all, of the questions he raised. I am just as interested as the hon. member in the extension of air service to western Canada.
In his May 23 speech, to which the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) referred, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated that the federal government would make available $1.5 million for the purchase of two aircraft, plus spares, for a provincial demonstration project. The aircraft, of course, are to be ST-27 turbo prop manufactured, as the hon. member well knows, by the Saunders Aircraft Company in Gimli, Manitoba.
The federal government is awaiting a formal reply from the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan on whether they will embark on this demonstration project. I believe
Adjournment Debate
it is fair to say that negotiations are going well. Every indication is they will indeed go on with this, but as yet there has been no formal reply from them. Therefore the question as to when the demonstration services will start can be best answered by the provincial governments.
In the House the other day the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) announced that he had completed arrangements to purchase the two aircraft. The machinery has been set in motion for that.
The Prime Minister also stated that the Minister of Transport and Air Canada would put together a team of officials to work with the provinces. That is being done. A great deal of work has gone into it. Federal officials have assisted in every way with this demonstration project.
I can assure the hon. member I am also looking forward to the success of this particular service which is being inaugurated. Surveys have been conducted of the terminal and the other facilities. Information has been provided to the provinces to allow them to draw up a schedule for implementation of the demonstration project. The hon. member asked who will be operating the service. I do not know the answer to that.
With regard to the second part of the hon. member's question, the application by TransAir to bring jet service to Brandon and that region is, as the hon. member said, now before the air transport committee. I did not realize it had been there that long. The decision to grant a licence to TransAir rests entirely with the transport committee and not with the Department of Transport. We, of course, cannot interfere with the CTC while it is considering an application for a licence. I am hopeful that consideration will again be given to that request.


SOCIAL SECURITY-MEASURES TO PROTECT PENSIONERS IN PRIVATE PLANS-DISCUSSIONS WITH CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, on Thursday, October 10, as recorded in Hansard at page 281, I put this question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner):
Is the government giving consideration to the introduction this session of legislation regarding private pension plans, to provide greater protection for pensioners under those plans and to require such plans to comply with modern-day standards including the escalation of the pensions of those already retired?
In his answer the Minister of Finance suggested that my inquiry related to future legislation and that it had budgetary aspects which prevented him from replying fully to my question. I then posed a supplementary question in these terms:
In view of assurances the minister has given in former sessions, would he make a beginning on this subject by having further discussions with the chartered banks about their inadequate pension plans?
The minister's reply was to the effect that he had had discussions with the banks on previous occasions, but he thanked me for reminding him about the matter.
Your Honour, although I feel I should say Your Grace, my question is really a double barrelled one. In fact, there may be a third angle to it. However, it is an important issue, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen) is at least in a position to

October 28, 1974
Adjournment Debate
give me the assurance that the matters covered by my question are under active consideration.
I certainly do not want to exaggerate or to contribute to any sense of panic, but it is a fact that some pension plans have failed in recent months; it is a fact that there are a number of private pension plans which are in trouble, and the members of those plans are not sure they will get the pensions they were expecting. This is a situation which could get worse, and it seems to me that before it does it should be studied very thoroughly and the government should exercise its responsibility, bearing in mind the fact that the Department of Finance is in charge of legislation such as the Pension Benefits Standards Act. That is one aspect of the question-the need to protect the members of private pension plans, and I urge that this matter be given serious consideration.
Another aspect has to do with the question of the escalation of pensions. Thanks to efforts on the floor of this House this is now a fairly general practice in the public sector. But when private pension plans escalate pensions minus the escalation which takes place under our old age security legislation, those pensioners who are under private plans obtain no increase to enable them to keep up with the rising cost of living. Escalation is only effective if it applies to all of one's pension income. I hope the government will give consideration to legislation which will make this the rule for all pension plans.
These are the two important aspects of my question, but there was my subsidiary question about chartered banks and their pension plans. These come directly under the responsibility of the federal government in more ways than one. Some of the chartered banks are already offending their retired employees by subtracting from the escalation in their pensions the escalation which takes place under the Old Age Security Act. I could develop this point further if I had time in which to do so.
Many retired bank employees, some of whom were managers and who understandably do not not wish their names to be disclosed, are annoyed by the way the banks are treating them, and I hope the Minister of Finance will continue his conversations with the banks and talk to them in a way which will persuade them that they ought to play the game. The plain fact is that not only should all public pensions be escalated and made such that people can live on them, but this should also be true of all private pension plans, and I call on the government to see that this is done.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question may I say I believe he will appreciate that there are a number of social, financial and jurisdictional considerations related to regulatory legislation of this kind.
It is necessary to bear in mind that the majority of the pension plans in Canada are subject to provincial jurisdiction. Up to the present four provinces have instituted pension benefits standards legislation. This legislation deals primarily with two aspects of pension plans, namely, plan solvency and benefit portability. The federal govern-

ment has already enacted similar legislation which applies to pension plans in areas of employment subject to the jurisdiction of parliament.
The only way in which the federal government could try to require and enforce the escalation of pension benefits in all plans would be indirectly through the Income Tax Act, where the normal penalty for non-compliance with such a requirement would be the probable deregistration of the plan, thereby making both employer and employee contributions to the plan ineligible for deduction from the income of the taxpayer. This could result in the employees being less well protected for their old age than they are at present.
It should be noted that neither of the forms of the legislation I have mentioned requires that an employer provide a pension plan. Nor does it prevent the termination of a plan. Some employers may be finding difficulty trying to fund their pension plans without provision for pension legislation. To impose compulsory escalation might well lead some employers to terminate the plans they have at present. In these circumstances hon. members will appreciate that requests such as those made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) must be considered with great caution.


TRANSPORT-REPORT ON PLANE CRASH NEAR FROBISHER BAY-REASON FOR DELAY
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I should like to congratulate the parliamentary secretary on his elevation to an important position in the ministry. My concern tonight arises from questions asked not only by myself but by others, Your Grace-and I refer to you in that manner because you do honour us-about a most unfortunate accident at Frobisher Bay last February. I welcome this opportunity because in response to questions the minister at one point said, and I refer to Hansard of October 4 at page 118:
No, Mr. Speaker, the truth cannot be changed, but sometimes it takes time to reveal the truth.
In the interest of accident investigation and transport safety generally in Canada, embracing all modes of transportation falling within the jurisdiction of the federal authority, I asked why there was not an investigation and report available from the coroner's inquest into that tragedy. Once again, I draw the attention of the minister to the urgency of separating the regulatory body from the responsibility of investigating all accidents involving any form of transportation falling within our jurisdiction.
I have a report in my hand of an aircraft accident to a Sabreliner CF-BRL on February 27, 1974, at Frobisher Bay, Northwest Territories. This report was made available to members on October 25, some eight months after the accident. I suggest that no competent investigative authority in North America or Europe would take more than three months to handle it. I cannot understand why this has taken so long.
Let me refer to one thing in this report to lend some emphasis to the point I make for the establishment of an independent commission of investigation in these matters. On the first page of the report under the paragraph head-
October 28, 1974

ing "Description of Occurrence" we find in the last paragraph:
The Frobisher main, high power non-direction beacon ... went off the air at 00:10 and was restored to service at 00:59.
All the times referred to are Greenwich mean time for the purpose of the investigation. Anyone reading this report will eventually reach page 7, and will find again in the last paragraph under the paragraph heading "Aids to Navigation" the following:
The operator coming on shift at 00:01 performed his routine station equipment check which included verifying the operation of the FY beacon. On the audio test the beacon went "in the red", a visual indication of a transmitter outage. The operator attempted to reset the transmitter-
The report indicates that the operator did those things that should be done under these circumstances.
I suggest that here we have a contradiction. This report will be read by everyone who flies the Atlantic in light aircraft or, indeed, in any type of aircraft. The purpose of these reports is to make corrections and see that mistakes do not recur to give concern to others using our system.
Here we have a discrepancy. There is nothing in the report to indicate how long the transmitter was inoperable prior to 00:01 hours on the date in question. It could very well have been out for a period even before that. My point is that if we are to foster and encourage confidence in our federal transport system on the part of those who use it, not only Canadians, but all users of our air space, then what we say must be accurate, must be complete and must be impartial.
I have no question about the impartiality of the investigator in this particular instance, but I suggest the publicity surrounding the coroner's inquest, and the division which will arise as a result of this report are such as to give rise to a belief that possibly a conflict of interest could take place in the investigation of transportation accidents in Canada.
I am here to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary as forcefully as possible my concern, and the concern of all users of our transportation services in Canada, that what we do not only must be right but that it must seem to be right. Where there is a conflict of interest we must remove it. In this case we cannot remove it until we remove some of the conflicts in respect of responsibility for investigations.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary to tell us why this report was not available to the coroner's inquest. I would also ask him when we might expect to have a bill introduced in respect of the division of the regulatory body. I have been asking for such a bill through four parliaments. If we had word from him about this I am sure the users of aids to navigation in air would have the type of confidence in our system which I know it merits.
Adjournment Debate


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax-Dartmouth East (Mr. Forrestall) has made, I believe, an excellent case for the division of the regulatory and investigative aspects of accidents of this kind. Perhaps I should review for him some of the pertinent dates in this regard relative to the report into the Sabreliner crash at Frobisher.
I am advised that the report was originally scheduled for completion sometime in mid-July, or a bit later. For reasons involving technical detail and checking into some of the material that was there, it was realized that it would take perhaps until mid-October before the results of the investigation could be completed. I am advised that on July 15 MOT officials met with the Crown Attorney and pointed out that it would be this late before the report would be available, and asked the coroner to delay the inquest until that time, or at least not look for the report until that time. However, as the hon. member is aware, the inquest was started on September 30 and the report was not available until October 9.
I think it is in respect of this aspect that some sort of an accusation was made, although it was not really an accusation, against the investigators. MOT officials were asked to comment on the report and they chose not to comment on it. They were very helpful in furnishing the facts at the coroner's inquest. I think this is what brought about the situation.
As the hon. member said, it was another situation in which some people might have felt there was a conflict of interest. I am satisfied there was not. The hon. member said he felt the same way. However, it points to the need to bring in legislation to separate the two functions because we have a good reputation, nationally and internationally, in investigations of this kind.
It has been the duty and the responsibility of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to carry out investigations, and I do not believe that there is any question that that has been done. But certainly if legislation can be introduced to make it even more true, that is what the government intends to do. I cannot tell the hon. member exactly when that legislation will be forthcoming, but I do believe it to be later on in this session, and I am sure the hon. member will have comments to make in the debate when it comes. I am sure he also appreciates some of the problems associated with the slight delay in tabling the report.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, again, but the time allotted to him has expired. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.
831

Tuesday, October 29, 1974